Islam is a religion of terror

Premise I: Prescriptive and Descriptive Text. This appears to be my opponent’s subjective interpretation, and is no way an argument in itself. Premise II: Definition of Terror My opponent has used a very particular definition of the word “terror”, of which I am not accepting by itself. The reason being is that terror can also mean many things [1]: ter·ror noun 1. intense, sharp, overmastering fear: to be frantic with terror. 2. an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror: to be a terror to evildoers. 3. any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign of Terror in France. 4. violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... As to why these definitions matter, take my opponent’s argument here: “Terror is not the same as going to war.” If you take the definitions I have provided, it is conceivable that war could bring about terror; in fact, I ask you think about a war which did not involve: intense fear, intense anxiety, frightful violence or bloodshed, etc. Thus, it can be concluded that war and fighting do indeed bring about terror, and since war and fighting are essentially commanded in the quran, Islam is a religion of terror. I ask you, as a reader, to keep these alternative definitions in mind whilst reading my responses. For you, I will even point out where my opponent’s arguments are incompatible with these definitions. Rebuttal I: Islamic Text. My quote: - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...” “In this passage, fighting is referencing self defense, likely on a national scale.” This is a common, incorrect excuse for the obvious violence commanded in the quran, and I will clarify in every instance. The historical context involves Muhammad and his followers recently relocating in Medina, and they were certainly not under attack. In fact, the Muslims were the aggressors, as later shown by the driving of Meccans out of their city, known as the ‘conquest of Mecca’ [2]. Clearly, invading a city with an army, and fighting for land, isn’t done in self-defence. “The passage says to fight” Does fighting not bring about terror of some kind? Remember, keep in mind all definitions of terror. “Al-Fitnah does not mean Disbelief, it means to Try the Lord, or test him, and is used to reference a grave transgression against the lord (3).” The word is dependent on context, and can certainly mean ‘disbelief’. This is explained here [10] (the word disbelief is shown in the 4th example). Again, my opponent uses definitions far too narrowly. My quote: "And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression." Firstly, please remember the definitions of ‘terror’. Secondly, fighting causes terror, as I’ve already argued; the quran certainly calls for fighting. Lastly, we have another instance of this cry for “self-defence”. Again, consider that the Muslims went on to invade Mecca and capture it; the historical context flatly contradicts. My quote: - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." Quran (3:56) “This isn't referencing man-made terror, it's referencing God's wrath. This does not imply that the religion endorses it's own people to commit terror.” Is Allah not part of the Islamic faith? Is any terror he brings not part of Islam? Here, my opponent essentially concedes that Allah does bring terror, hence, it follows that Islam is a religion of terror. My quote: - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". Quran (3:151) My opponent’s criticisms here are artistic interpretation, backed by nothing other than my opponent’s thoughts. My opponent has also failed to properly address the majority of ayahs I have provided. Blanket statements, that do not address the specifics of my ayahs, should not be taken as arguments. Please, as a reader take note of this. These include the: 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th of the ayahs I provided. These ayahs command violence of all kinds, and thus will result in terror. In this regard, extend my argument. Rebuttal II: Allah and Women “Just because Muslims commit terror doesn't mean Islam promotes terror.” This is a serious straw-man. I did not argue that because Muslims are violent, Islam is. I argued that because Allah allows such violence in his name, which he does not stop, that he must want Islam to be a religion of violence. Extend my argument. My uncontested, 3rd argument “Pro's statement about women is also irreverent. It has nothing to do with terror, or at least not the terror seen in terrorism” Wrong! It only seems to have nothing to do with terror because of the unfairly narrow definition my opponent provided. If you are to look at the other definitions I provided, most of them are clearly consistent with the concept of terror. “The Quran also gives women rights to chose whom they marry, and to divorce. Sharia Law is cultural, and has no grounds in the Quran.” My opponent has conveniently dropped the quote from the quran I gave, which instructs men to hit women. Again, my opponent’s argument here has nothing to do with what I argued (women becoming terrified in being hit), so my argument is to be extended. Argument I: Islamic Texts. My opponent gives examples of where the Islamic texts command peace and love. That’s fine, but that doesn’t mean it can't promote terror, as this would be a false dichotomy. I’ve addressed the self-defence issue where my opponent has brought it up. You should take note of: “...and who have not driven you out from your homes”, as this implies violence and terror is permitted when invading other lands, which is not self-defence (as I explained in the conquest of Mecca section). Besides, fighting still brings about terror, yet fighting is commanded in the quran. Warfare brings about terror, justified or not. Again, remember the definitions of terror that I gave. Argument II: Religion v Culture. My opponent tries to argue that only a few Muslims, commit/want terrorist attacks. What about the ones that do want terrorist attacks? Are they not terrifying? Will their interpretations of Islam not bring about terror, if they were enacted? “One error in Pro's assessment of Islam is in not considering culture and religion.” Culture and religion are not mutually exclusive; you can have both culture and religion at the same time. It is also possible that your religion is reflected in your culture, as is the case in not just in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. So, if your religion is reflected in your culture, and that culture is one of terror, then it follows that your religion is one of terror. My opponent cites all these statistics that indicate non-terrorism (which is different from terror), yet this does not mean that Islam is not influencing terror. Take these for example [3]: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans. Egypt’s population is ~95% Muslim [4][5]. 41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans. Pakistan is, unsurprisingly, is a country under Islamic governance (not quite 50%, as my opponent argued, but this is obviously an alarming statistic). 83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose). Palestine is, again, a country with mostly Muslims. Are you starting to see the common denominator? No? Here’s more [6]: 49% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hamas (48% negative) 49% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hamas (25% negative) 39% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hamas (33% negative) (Indonesia is ~87% Muslim [7]) More? [8] 59% of Indonesians support Osama bin Laden in 2003 41% of Indonesians support Osama bin Laden in 2007 When will there be suspicions raised? [9] 31% of Turks (Turkey was 99% Muslims [12]) support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq. There’s more [11] One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children. There’s plenty more that I haven’t listed, too… Could Islam be influencing these opinions? Is it really a coincidence that all these countries with unfavourable views on terrorism, are mostly Islamic? Sure, some statistics show positive opinions from Muslims, but what exactly is inspiring these other people to have these terroristic opinions? If it’s Islam, aren’t these interpretations of Islam dangerous? Isn’t Islam inspiring terror? Sure, as my opponent’s statistics suggest, not all these Muslims are calling for every form of terror. But these things I’ve listed are related to terror, are they not? References/Sources [2] F.R. Shaikh: The Chronology of the Prophetic Events, Ta Ha Publishers Ltd., London,2001 p 72 [3] http://www.worldpublicopinion.org... [4] "Egypt from "The World Factbook"". American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). September 4, 2008. [5] "Egypt from "U.S. Department of State/Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs"". United States Department of State. September 30, 2008. [6] http://www.pewglobal.org... [7] "Penduduk Menurut Wilayah dan Agama yang Dianut" [Population by Region and Religion]. Sensus Penduduk 2010. Jakarta, Indonesia: Badan Pusat Statistik. 15 May 2010. [8] http://www.forbes.com... [9] http://www.people-press.org... [10] http://islamqa.info... [11] http://www.ynetnews.com... [12] https://www.cia.gov...