Stace

This debate is between Sauwan and niftydrifty. The topic is Resolved: Islam is a major contributing factor of human brutality around the world. The participants are submitting their opening statements to me for approval and to avoid influencing each other. Once I have received both statements, they will be posted here.

__________________
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.

~Benjamin Franklin

Sauwan

I'd like to thank both the moderators and my opponent in advance for making this debate possible.

Introduction

Determining whether Islam is a major contributor to brutality and violence in the world poses a rather significant challenge. There is no empirical evidence that can be presented that would concretely prove the violence that arises due to Islam. Rather, we are relegated to less desirable forms of proof such as anecdote and subjective interpretations of their holy text.

Addressing some arguments

It is important to note that the Muslim population is gigantic. The fact that there indisputably are large numbers of peaceful Muslims does not negate the fact that Islam spurs violence. Much like any religion, adherents vary in their level of devotion. It will be difficult to correlate peacefulness with devotion or vice versa, largely due to the fact that the actively violent Muslims may or may not be supported by more passively violent Muslims.

Claims from Muslims

Jihad

Many people are familiar with the term Jihad. This is specifically known as a religious or “holy” war against non-Muslims.

Quote:
“You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God’s rule is established governing all people and nations,” said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq.
Link

This concept of Jihad is perhaps, the best prima facie evidence that Islamic nature is violent. A religion which supports or promotes violence - for whatever reason - is of course of violent nature.

Suicide Bombing

Suicide bombing is an interesting term as it is largely a creation of the west as a form of propaganda. The Koran forbids the act of suicide. However, “suicide” bombing is not viewed as suicide.

Quote:
Islamic eschatology extols the one who puts his life on the line for a greater cause. It raises him in the sight of God - the ultimate goal for all believers. To those who fall in battle it grants the highest station in paradise.

…

In the Muslim world, then, we celebrate what we call the martyr-bombers. To us they are heroes defending the things we hold sacred. Polls in the Middle East show 75% of people in favour of martyr-bombings.

They also carry the weight of religious authority. The world's most quoted independent Islamic jurist, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, calls the bombs "commendable" and "among the greatest form of holy struggle against oppression".
Emphasis mine. Link.

The fact that 75% of people in the middle east viewed suicide bombings as a favorable act in 2001 is strongly supported by the now daily acts which are ever present in the media. Of course, most people are familiar with the concept that this “highest station” is one which rewards the bomber with 72 virgins once in heaven. When Muslims commit themselves to suicide bombing it is largely because they feel their religion supports their action and they will be rewarded with endless bliss in heaven. This is supported by testimony by people who have attempted the act and have failed.

Her motivations for her actions were clearly of a religious conviction and it’s clear that the Islamic faith has had an overwhelming and undesirable influence of violence. The violence continues on a daily basis.
TheReligionofPeace.com - Islam: Making a True Difference in the World

Religious text

The main religious text for the Islamic faith is the Koran. Within its covers there are plenty of examples where violence is not only accepted, but is laid out. This is more indication that Islam is, by nature, violent.
Link

Here is a site which contains a multitude of quotes within the Koran which promote violence.

Conclusion

There clearly is a divide within the Muslim community on the nature of violence and its relation to Islam. However, once we couple evidence that is presented which indicates people commit violent acts in the name of Islam and the evidence within the Koran that indicates it supports violence, the logical conclusion is to say that Islam is a major contributor to violent acts in the world today.

__________________
Sensible Libertarian

It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.
-John Maynard Keynes

niftydrifty

Islam is not a major contributing factor of human brutality (or terrorism) around the world.

The current wave of Islamic Fundamentalist Violence, which began in the last century, is not fueled by Islam. If it were, then most Muslims would be terrorists or would practice violence. Most Muslims do not.

The religion itself is not violent. Yet unfortunately, a deluded interpretation of it is. The headlines generated by acts inspired by these writings appear constantly. Events in the lives of 99.9995% of Muslims whom are not busy killing infidels, generally do not show up in our news media.

Many will point to the Qur’an and claim that the book itself condones violence. But those quotes are all in favor of self-defense only.

Anyone can take quotes such as these out of context, in order to promote violence. For example: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man's enemies will be the members of his own household." ~Matthew 10:34

Also: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." ~Luke 19:27.

This is what the extremists have done with the Qur’an. This is also what Islamophobes do with the Qur’an. It is disingenuous. It is not honest.

Brief aside: anyone claiming to know the "truth" about Islam, and that also believe Islam has a vicious God and that Christians do not, should try taking this quiz.

According to a website which blames all of Islam for Islamofascism, there have been 7,906 “deadly acts of terror” since the 9/11 attacks, as of today. Assuming this to be true, this works out to be about one act of terror for every 202,378 Muslims. Population source.

Can you imagine blaming, say, the entire city of Reno, Nevada (population 203,000) because one small group of people there carried out a terrorist attack, and they said that gambling made them do it? Close down the gambling machines!

Incidentally, 1-in-200,000 are about the same odds that a 1-kilometer-diameter asteroid will hit Earth in a given year. Or that someone will win a million in the Tennessee State Lottery. Or that someone will die from taking oral contraceptives. Or that a school age child will die from a firearm accident.

So, why do we not make conclusions such as "kids going to school will probably be killed by firearms?" It is because we are not ignorant about that. We are ignorant about Islam.

Currently, greater threat concerns than Islamist terror to US citizens are: snake bites, bee stings, earthquakes, lightning strikes, electrocution, heart disease, cancer, stroke, tornados, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, suicide, fire or smoke, dog attacks, and falling down. Source.

The following links contain statements suggesting that a small percentage of Muslims are extreme enough to resort to violence:

"6-7 percent of them are prepared to use force to defend Islam."

"The "radical" group represents about 7% of the total population across the 10 countries included in the study..."

"The militant Muslim groups cannot represent even 1 percent of Muslims in the United States (that would be 50,000) or the world (that would be 15 million). If that were true, we would be overrun with wild-eyed fanatics. Islamists who resort to violence add up to less than one tenth of 1 percent."

"Hisham Kabbani, head of Islamic Supreme Council of America: 5 to 10 percent of American Muslims are extremists."

"At one extreme of Muslim society "are the hate-America Islamist fundamentalists, who are the most militant and totalitarian. The magnitude and influence of this group varies enormously. For example, in Indonesia this group has doubled, tripled, or quadrupled over the last few years. I would estimate that this group averages about 10% of all Muslims, with enormous variation from one Muslim country to another and particular strength in Arab nations."

Here is a (by no means exhaustive) sample of Muslim responses to 9/11 and terrorism:

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks
How American Muslims Really Responded to September 11 (by Riad Z. Abdelkarim & Jason Erb) - Media Monitors Network
Statements Against Terror
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/200...=733_0_39_60_C
Informed Comment

All of this data suggests to me that the whole cannot be blamed for the misguided actions of a few.

If we endeavor to make accurate statements about our world, we would rather say that a tiny, misguided minority of Muslims follow a radical belief, based upon lies, that terror is justified within the holy Qur’an. These radical beliefs, not Islam, are a contributing factor of human brutality around the world.

After all, human history is full of examples of movements which have sought to justify brutality with religion. “ Gott Mit Uns.” Are these extremist movements one and the same as the religions they use and exploit? Of course not.

Islam denounces terrorism.com

__________________
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol

Sauwan

My opponent has made it clear that he wishes to argue that the numbers of extremist Muslims are tiny in comparison to the Muslims who would not themselves resort to violence. The problem with this line of thought is that it does not reflect accurately the number of Muslims who support or are apathetic about these extremists.

As I presented in my opening statement, in 2001, polls conducted noted that 75% of people in the Middle East supported "Martyr bombing". We must be careful of associating anyone in the Middle East with Islam. A majority of the population in the Middle east is Muslim. It is safe to assume that a large percentage of this 75% is Islamic in faith. However, we can also safely assume that of this 75% of people who supported these bombings, the percentages would drop drastically if we were to ask them if they themselves would be willing to be the Martyr.

It then becomes clear that just because a small percentage of people are the extremist Muslim population willing to carry out such despicable acts, there is still a much larger percentage of people who still support it.

Conversely, if we look at cases such as the Westbro Baptist fundamentalists who protested at soldiers funerals we see what true extremists look like. These are people who base their actions (either directly or indirectly) on their religion. However, a vast majority of the Christians in the country abhor these actions.

It is very unclear from the evidence presented that even a majority of the Muslim population regards the extremist actions as utterly unacceptable and eschew them. Rather, it seems, they tolerate or even support such actions largely because their religion supports it. The fact that they are themselves unwilling to commit such deeds does not detract from their alliance with them.

As for the links provided of American Muslims which condemn the 9-11 attacks, it seems clear that in any organization there will be extremists on both sides. For every soldier of violence there will be someone else who speaks out against it. This becomes especially apparent when said Muslims are residents in America and understand the reprocussions that they will feel largely because of their appearance and religion. Of course, their location does not make them any less Muslim and their oppinion is just as important as a Muslim from the Middle east.

niftydrifty

I believe it does. Islam is what Muslims “do.” Most Muslims do not do violence. Most Muslims do not support violence. This statement by my debate opponent ignores the important distinction between Islam and Islamism. Islamism is a movement which uses anti-American or anti-Western sentiment coupled with justification from the Qur’an taken out of context, in order to convince Muslims to use terror against political “enemies” of "Islam." Islamism is not the same as Islam. Islamism spurs violence. Islam does not.

My debate opponent misrepresents the concept of Jihad. Please note that my debate opponent quotes the Islamists words regarding Jihad, not words from the Qur’an.

I believe it is worth noting here that war is never justified in Christianity, but it is sometimes justified in Islam. Christians may argue that war can be justified sometimes, but they must go outside of their faith to do it. What about self-defense? The Qur’an has words about that, while Christ did not. Unfortunately, these words have been twisted to justify Islamist terror.

My debate opponent has used the words of a terrorist to describe Jihad, not the words of the Qur’an or of most Muslims.

“Jihad has been interpreted by Muslims in different ways. The Muslim sect of the Kharijites has elevated Jihad to one of the Five Pillars of Islam -- making it Six Pillars. This kind of belief is seen in the extremist Muslim groups we call terrorists. They use the concept of Jihad as a justification for killing anyone who isn't a Muslim. However, most Muslims disagree with this extremist position of some Muslims and advocate peace.”

Please note how my debate opponent takes an article that states “Polls in the Middle East show 75%” … and goes on to say, “The fact that 75% of people in the middle east viewed suicide bombings as a favorable act in 2001…” My debate opponent has made an assumption when he makes this statement. Polls taken in the Middle East may not be representative of all people in the Middle East. What if the polls were taken in a single country? Or a single city? We don’t know because the author hasn’t told us.

The quote my debate opponent uses is merely a line from an article. And you can say anything with statistics. Polls, where? When? Polls, of what? I’d like to see more about these polls. Where did they come from? What was the methodology used?

“Polls in the Middle East” … sounds selective. The author does not tell us which polls, and this clearly for a reason. The methodology of the polls are not disclosed. Nor are the poll questions. Nor the regions of the Middle East where the polls were taken. Nor how the 75% number was arrived at.

I’d like to know that the author didn’t just make up this number. Or that the author didn’t just look at dozens of polls and pick the two with the most awful looking results.

I wished to see more substantial evidence than this. So I went looking for something more specific and more recent. I found nothing resembling the conclusions my debate opponent posted in any poll, where details about the polling methodology were actually disclosed. After looking for two days, I found nothing resembling anything my debate opponent posted. It seems any poll which discloses details tells a different story. Here is what I found:

This article from 2005 says that support for bin Laden and Islamic militant violence has declined in Muslim countries.

This article says “Iranians Overwhelmingly Reject Bin Laden. Iranians reject attacks on civilians more overwhelmingly than do Americans.”

This article reports that “a new survey shows that support for terrorism and suicide bombings has declined in several Muslim countries. The survey, conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project -- part of the Washington-based Pew Research Center -- also shows that many people in Muslim countries share Western concern over Islamic extremism.”

This article from 2005 says that Muslims have more faith in U.S.-led efforts against global terrorism, than US citizens do in President Bush to do his job.

This article from 2006 says that most Muslims reject terrorism.

niftydrifty

This article from June 2006 says that there have been substantial declines in Jordan, Pakistan and Indonesia, in the percentages of Muslims saying suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets can be justified to defend Islam against its enemies.

This 64-page pdf document thoroughly examines how westerners and Muslims view each other. The support for suicide bombing is on page 6, and nowhere is it any where near 75%. And only in Jordan was it above 50%. Please note how the question was phrased so as to garner the highest negative result possible: “[Can] violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam can be justified?”

Even when asked if violence against civilians is justified in circumstances of self-defense, most Muslims say no, according to this Pew poll.

If it sickens you that anyone would support civilian killings at all, then please consider the opinions of US citizens. Consider the responses to the following question: “When you hear about the deaths of civilians in Iraq, do you personally tend to feel upset, or more that their deaths are unfortunate but part of what war is all about?”

• Feel upset, 60 percent
• What war is all about, 38 percent
• Not sure, 2 percent

According to this poll, 38% of US Citizens said that killing civilians is part of what war is all about!


And according to this poll, 17% said that there has been an acceptable number of Iraqi civilian casualties in Iraq.

This story reports that “Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.”

My debate opponent omits the very key point that there are conditions within the Qur’an where violence is accepted or “laid out.”

Deuteronomy says, "You shall destroy all the peoples ... showing them no pity." And how many Christians or Jews do just that? With the support of a deluded Christian Terrorist movement, they might start to, but this movement would not be one and the same as Christ's actual message.

I can’t find anything making Islam more violent than anything else, other than the author of an opinion piece’s word that it is. I can’t find any evidence that there is that much more support for terrorism amongst Muslim populations than say, amongst everyday average citizens of the good ol’ US-of-A.

Sauwan

First, I would like to apologize for the delay. I have been busier than expected.

This tactic of comparing the Islamic faithful to the rest of the worlds population is a logically flawed tact of argumentation. By appealing to the idea that the rest of the world may be just as violent as those of Islamic faith, Niftydrifty is seemingly trying to distract the debate from the topic at hand. This debate is not about the Christians around the world; much bloodshed this world has seen has been done in the name of Christianity. This, however, does not detract from the fact that Islam now is a violent faith. It is merely being used to distract from the topic at hand.

The Pew poll numbers presented differ from the 75% from the aforementioned article, but do not contradict them. It is interesting that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Syria were all left off of the polls presentation. Whether this was done intentionally or not is not for me to judge. However, they do constitute a huge proportion of the Middle East.

Also, it seems relatively safe to assume that due to the nature of the 5 years separating the polls, the number of people that accept those kinds of actions will drop markedly. After these years of hearing and watching the tangible effects, the shear fact that virtually every country still has percentages in the double figures speaks volumes. Let's assume that 10% of all Muslims in the world think that violence is often justified in order to defend Islam and that the total Muslim population is 1.5 billion. That would mean there are 150 million Muslims in the world that would support violent actions in the name of Islam. To put that in perspective, that's over half of the current population of the United States.

This causes a rather significant problem. While many of the Muslims in the world are peaceful, they don’t do anything to fight back against the extremists. There have not been large scale crackdowns on terrorist organizations. While many peaceful Muslims speak out against the violent once, it does not seem they have been willing to make serious actions that would help curb the violence.

This is just further amplified by the concept of Jihad. A religion that promotes violence – for whatever reason – is violent. Rather, it should be preaching forgiveness and compassion to minimize the bloodshed rather than encouraging violent retribution.



-------



Quotes like:


Have a very powerful effect on their followers:


Source (emphasis mine)


I won't claim that, specifically, that Koran passage and that attack are necessarily intertwined. However, it is clear that many of these violent actions are done with the belief that it is the righteous path, and those whom they commit the violence upon are transgressors of their faith.

“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” – Blaise Pascal

niftydrifty

Readers, please note my debate opponent’s tendency to focus mostly on only one portion of my argument. This time, he says:

Sauwan speaks about only a portion of what I said. Sauwan also ignores the important distinction I have made between Islam and Islamism. He doesn’t address it at all. I spoke about the world’s Muslim population. I addressed the kinds of beliefs that Islamists have and how they differ from those of mainstream (true) Muslims. I spoke about how rationalization of violence using quotes from the Qur’an takes those quotes out of context. I mentioned Sayyid Qutb’s very influential, yet false, interpretation of the Qur’an. I said that many mainstream true Muslims have denounced terrorism.

And yes, I also argued that violent Muslims make up a miniscule percentage of the world’s Muslims, and that the Muslims in favor of civilian attacks percentage-wise is really not that much different than the percentage of US citizens in favor of civilian attacks. This was merely one part of my argument, in order to make a point. It wasn’t my entire argument.

Sauwan neglects to mention that previous to making that point, I pointed out that there is no evidence to support the line from the op/ed that he makes a great deal out of. I spent days scouring the internet for mention of polls, with any degree of detail spelled out. I posted everything I found. If Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Syria were all left out of any of my polls, this is merely because I posted what I found. If Sauwan can find any polls from these countries, I invite him to post them here. (But if/when he does, keep in mind that those five countries contain 11% of the world’s Muslims). Source (Muslim Population)

Sauwan is making another assumption here. I have presented numerous polls with data and details. Sauwan has only posted an opinion article where the writer tells us one thing: “Polls in the Middle East show 75% of people in favour of martyr-bombings.” My questions concerning these alleged “polls” were not rhetorical. There is no evidence that I can find anywhere which supports the line from Faisal Bodi’s article. I invite Sauwan to please post it, if any exists.

Just going through the polls as I posted them, I represented studies of Muslim opinion from:

• “Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon and 11 other states.”
• Iran
• “Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Jordan, and Lebanon”
• Indonesia
• “… countries ranging from North Africa, to the Middle East, to Southeast Asia.”
• “13 nations” … including “Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan”

Does anyone find it curious that I am defending the details of many pieces of evidence I have posted concerning worldwide opinion, when my debate opponent has posted only one thing that a journalist has written in an opinion piece, which amounts to essentially no supporting evidence for his 75% number?

Sauwan says that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Syria constitute a huge proportion of the Middle East. Of couse they do. 11% is nothing to sneeze at. But the Pew Poll data that I posted is something. I invite my debate opponent to post something better, anything that supports his point of view other than opinion pieces with no details.

The Muslim populations of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Syria, as of 2006 were about 169 million. That’s about 11% of the world’s Muslims. Iran has the biggest Muslim population of any of these countries that the Pew Poll left out. But I did post an article that mentioned a poll taken in Iran. Countries containing more Muslims than Iran are: Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Turkey, and Bangladesh.

The countries included in the Pew Poll represent about 52% of the worldwide Muslim population. Source (Muslim Population)

This is by no means a perfect sample, but certainly more perfect than a single line from an op/ed piece. Are most Muslims sympathetic toward suicide bombers? 75% are, if you feel safe accepting Faisal Bodi’s word. Much less than 75% are if you prefer to base your conclusions upon evidence.

My debate opponent earlier misrepresented the concept of Jihad. Now he misrepresents it again, saying, “a religion that promotes violence – for whatever reason – is violent.” But the religion doesn't actually promote violence.

Sauwan quotes the Qur’an out of context (and in English) and then mentions an act of violence. This is a perfect example of how Islamists are not true Muslims, because they misunderstand the sacred texts just as Sauwan has demonstrated.

These verses from the Qur’an are not instructions for all Muslims for current or future times. They are historical writings and are only referring to the people living in the time of Muhammad. Note how the quote says, “Prophet…” This is referring to only one person, living 14 centuries ago. That person is not alive today. The quote from the later verse says “believers …” These are people being spoken to within the book, not anyone alive today. Muslim scholars agree with this interpretation. Militant Islamist Terrorists agree with the interpretation being presented by Sauwan. Islam is not radical Islamism. They are not one and the same, no matter how Sauwan would have you believe it.

I have a better idea. Let’s assume nothing, and go with what we know. What we know for certain is that most Muslims don’t support terrorism. What we also know for certain is that the beliefs of Islam itself differ from those beliefs belonging to radical splinter movements which practice terrorism and condone violence.

niftydrifty

Thanks, Stace and Sauwan for the opportunity to debate this topic. I look forward to the discussion this thread might inspire.