Islam is Not a Violent Religion

Thanks again to PRO for this debate. PRO states, "In addition, you do not consider the majority of people. Over 1.6 billion people follow Islam, and only a small percentage are radicals. Your argument, as you stated 'even though there are a fairly sizable amount of peaceful Muslims, this says nothing at all about Islam about as a faith,' assumes that most Muslims are radicals or want violence."This is a complete strawman of my argument, demonstrating that PRO did not understand in the slightest what I was saying. My argument was that Islam is much removed from its followers. Islam, as a faith - which is what we are debating today, because Islam is a FAITH, not a pool of followers, whom we would call MUSLIMS - is violent, though this need not mean that all MUSLIMS, even casually, are violent. It is possible for a doctrine to be violent, and people who loosely adhere to said doctrine to be perfectly peaceful because they're ignoring several key doctrines of the Quran, but the Quran nevertheless states exactly what I put forward last round--actively encouraging gratututious violence and suffering of non-believers and even of peaceful Muslims. PRO provides absolutley no solutions or answers to the many quotes I provided where the Quran actively encourages violence, and only attempts to mitigate them, though poorly, so you're already voting CON.PRO states, "You also state "fairly sizable amount", yet I wonder where you received the information, because my research has allowed me to find that 1.6 billion people follow Islam, meaning a vast majority are not radicals or violent."First, you will note that PRO keeps harping on these meaningless distinctions, though whether it's "fairly sizeable" or even "most" would not affirm this resolution by virtue of the distinction between the doctrine itself and adherents to said doctrine. Second, PRO claims that because they are 1.6 billion Muslims, the "vast majority" must not be radicals, but that's a non sequitur - and he provides no logical or empirical backing for it. A poll by Pew, for example, surveying 11 Muslim countries found that there was in fact support in the double digits for Islamic terrorist groups, and a third of total respondents expressing support for Hamas, while an incredible one fourth "do not have an opinion on terrorists" - or, in other words, were unwilling to condemn Islamic terrorism (1)(2).PRO goes on to offer several quotes from the Quran, and claims that this in some way vindicates Islam - but it does not, especially when there are a multitude of verses not only encouraging violence, condemning peaceful Muslims and non-believers, and urging Muslims *not* to help non-believers. All these quotes that PRO provides do is suggest the Quran appears to be sending, in some areas, mixed messages - though even when we examine them in further context, we find this to not be the case. For instance, Quran (20:8) urges Muslims to "deal kindly and justly with [nonbelievers], but there is plenty of other backing from the Quran claiming that it is *just* to kill nonbelievers and to behead them. Context is completely critical. The first quote he offers, Quran (6:107), can be mitigated by the following: Quran (3:56) - "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."This verse not only claims that nonbelievers will be punished, but that they will not have anyone to help them. This next verse offers a similar message: Quran 4:89- "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."This line from the Quran says not only that you shouldn't be friends from non-believers, but that you should seize and slay them wherever you find them. All PRO's line says is that you are "not their guardian" and shouldn't force religion on them. So, instead of forcing religion on these people, you're told to reject them, to behead them, to slay them - which is, I'm afraid, extremely violent. He then offers a line from the so-called Islamic prophet, saaw (3). First, you will note that this line *does not* come from the Quran, but from a human who claimed to be a prophet, and one who was, obviously, an incentive to convince people to follow Islam - even if they were to, as he is actually suggesting they do, completely ignore the doctrines of their faith, though that in no way *changes* the doctrines of Islam, which maintain their inherently violent roots. Moreover, this line refers to a "Non-Muslim who had become our aly." How do you determine whether said person is an aly? What if that person is an atheist, whom the Quran says you ought to kill? There's a great deal of ambiguity even in this line, which is why you should disregard it.PRO then claims that I failed to address other forms of religious extremism or extremist groups. The reason for that is simple: they are completely and utterly irrelevant to our resolution, which concerns whether *Islam* is violent, not whether it is violent relative to other religions, which it most certainly is. Every line PRO provides from the Bible is completely and utterly non-topical, because if it Christianity were as violent a religion as Islam - and it is indeed, if you look at the Old Testament - a very violent religion, but that in no way even mitigates or bears on whether Islam is violent, so discard these irrelevant remarks. His argument on media bias is utterly irrelevent, as well: where have I cited the media? Did I not show him direct quotes *from the Quran* actively advocating for and endorsing violence? PRO's post-hoc rationalization of Islam, with no backing sans his emotional attachment to Islam, cannot come close to even address the horros embedded in the Quran and committed by extremist groups, like ISIS, in their name. Even *if* some other form of religious extremism could measure up - and it can't - then that would not undermine in the slightest the horrors of Islam.PRO goes on, once again, to strawman my argument, so allow me to be very clear: (1) Never once did I say that *every* Muslim is violent - I said *directly* than many will not adhere to every verse in the Quran, though this harkens back to my distinction between Muslims and Islam, the latter of which we're debating. Never once did I say, nor must I argue, that all Muslims are the same or that they are "terror loving," though some are.(2) My arguments haven't the slightest thing to say about how the 1.6 billion Muslims are acting - it doesn't concern this resolution in the slightest because we're debating doctrine, not the actions of followers. (3) My argument does not hinge on the existence of extremist groups such as ISIS. Even if ISIS did not exist, my arguments would stand because the doctrine of Islam, shown in the Quran, is inherently violent, so PRO's argument on "media bias" is utterly ludicrous.ConclusionPRO does nothing more than strawman my argument and change the goalposts to talking about Muslims and other religious groups, in lieu of the doctrines of Islam, which is what we wre debating. Moreover, he does nothing at all to engage the verses from the Quran I provided which actively encourage violence, stating only that many Muslims don't follow them - which, again, has no bearings on whether those verses, or the doctrine of Islam itself, is violent. The resolution is, once again, 100% negated.Sources (1) http://www.clarionproject.org...;(2) http://www.pewglobal.org...;(3) http://www.ascertainthetruth.com...;