Resolved: Islam is not a religion of terrorism

Thank you. It has been a pleasure to have this debate with you.Have Con refuted my arguments?Absolutely not. Con has not answered even one of my arguments. Con however claims that he has refuted them "with Rousseau's philosophy of the 'general will' and the statistics posted in round 2 about Islamic countries and their support for terrorist organizations." In regards to Rousseau's philosophy of the "general will", this is just a philosophical view which has little to do with my arguments. You can read more about this philosophical view and see by yourself that it doesn't in any way refute my arguments on this site.[1] And in regards to the statistics posted in round 2 by Con about Islamic countries and their support for terrorist organizations, this has also very little to do with my arguments and doesn't in any way disprove them. And again, just because some Muslim countries support some terrorist organizations, that doesn't mean or prove that Islam itself is a religion of terrorism or that Islam itself supports these terrorist organizations.Con's claim that he has refuted all of my arguments with Rousseau's philosophy of the general will and the statistics posted in round 2 about Islamic countries and their support for terrorist organizations, is just beyond laughable. This is really just an excuse for not answering my arguments. Extend all my arguments again.Correcting some of Con's verses from the QuranCon gave some verses from the Quran. Because of the character limit, I'm not able to answer all the verses which Con gave. However, let's look at some of them:7:4This verse is only talking about those places which God destroyed because they disobeyed Him even after being warned many times. And it doesn't say that our terror came unto them. This is an very big misinterpreting of this verse made by Con. 8:57 Another verse which have been completely misinterpreted by Con. This is what this verse really says: "So if you, [O Muhammad], gain dominance over them in war, disperse by [means of] them those behind them that perhaps they will be reminded." Is this terrorism? I don't see how.33:26This verse is talking about a Jewish tribe which purposefully broke an agreement between them and prophet Muhammad, and even attacked the Muslims.[2] Some of the Jews in this tribe even instigated the pagan Qureshis into waging a war against Prophet Muhammad.[2] For the safety of the Muslims, prophet Muhammad fought and killed them. In summary, all this was this Jewish tribe's fault and prophet Muhammad had no other choice.Regarding what Roylatham saidCon said: "Roys's saying does not support your case. He is saying that in this debate the Qur'an is irrelevant, that the people and their actions make what the religion is (good or bad)."What Con quoted Roylatham really saying in his third round is that we must define the religion by what it's followers actually believe. So yes, this proves my case because most Muslims don't believe that Islam is a religion of terrorism. Moreover, I strongly disagree that the Quran is irrelevant. This debate is about if Islam is a religion of terrorism. Thus, the Quran (which is the highest authority in Islam) is quite relevant. Supporting TerrorismCon's claim that over 58% of the worlds Muslims supports Hamas and Hezbollah is a lie and cannot be found anywhere on that site which Con referenced this claim to (read that site yourself). And even if it was true that over 58% of the worlds Muslims supports Hamas and Hezbollah (and it's not), that would still not mean or prove that Islam itself supports them or is a religion of terrorism. Con also said: "How could they be peaceful when they support violence, death for apostasy, or an Islamic State under Sharia?"In regards to Islam allowing apostasy, Con have failed to show us why that would make Islam a religion of terrorism. In regards to supporting an Islamic state under Sharia, Con have failed to show us why that would make Islam a religion of terrorism. In regards to supporting violence, who is doing that?The Muhammad cartoon thingCon's claim that the majority supports these actions (i.e., The actions of those Muslims who began to kill and destroy things because of the Muhammad cartoon thing) is a claim without any evidences or sources whatsoever to back it up with. Con is simply just claiming that the majority supports these actions. This argument fails.Using coercion to gain followersCon continues to claim that Muslims can use coercion to gain followers. This claim however has no support in the Quran or in the sayings of prophet Muhammad. In fact, the Quran explicitly says that there shall be no coercion in matters of faith (2: 256). This fact alone completely refutes Con's false claim. Moreover, Muslims have been instructed to gain followers into Islam in the most respectful and kind manner: "Call thou (all mankind) unto thy Sustainer’s path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the most kindly manner." (16:125) Using coercion to gain followers is strictly prohibited.Con's fallacy in judging Islam according to some of its followersCon's arguments are almost only from what some Muslims have done. This however doesn't prove that Islam itself is a religion of terrorism. This debate is about if Islam (the religion) is a religion of terrorism. Thus, giving some examples of some "Muslim terrorists" is a failure. And again, by doing this Con also completely ignores all the good things which many Muslims have done throughout history. I could also, if I wanted to play Con's game, give several examples of good things which Muslims have done throughout history and which goes against the idea of terrorism. However, this debate is not about what the followers of Islam does, but about Islam itself. And as I have shown in my argument round, Islam itself is completely against these "Muslim terrorists" and their terrorist acts. It should also be noted all these examples of "Muslim terrorists" which Con have given, are Muslims of a very small minority. In fact, just 6% of all Muslims are terrorists.[3] We must also ask if Muslims support terrorism? The answer is a clear no. Most Muslims don't agree with these "Muslim terrorists" and their terrorist acts. You can find several Muslim scholars speaking against terrorism on this site.[4] In fact, 20,000 Muslim scholars have declared terrorism as un-Islamic.[5] Also, Terror Free Tomorrow found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.[6] These are the real statistics, not like those biased statistics which Con have given and which are given us only the one side of the real truth.Moreover, Con have failed to 1) Prove that Islam itself allows or supports these terrorist acts done by these Muslims, and 2) Prove that the motives of these "Muslim terrorists" is in fact Islam itself, and not something else like politics or because their country was attacked and they therefore wanted to take revenge (In fact, two thirds of "Muslim suicide bombers" have been from countries where US forces have or are still maintaining military forces.[7]). Thus, Con's arguments are invalid. And as for those terrorists who base their actions on Islam - those people misappropriate Islam, as terrorist anti-abortionists, white supremacists, and certain militia groups misappropriate Christianity.ConclusionCon's arguments have clearly been refuted and shown to be unsuccessful in proving that Islam is a religion of terrorism. My arguments on the other hand - which clearly shows from the foundations of Islam and from what Islam itself is derived from (i.e., The Quran and the sayings of prophet Muhammad) that Islam is not a religion of terrorism - stands completely unrefuted and unresponded. The resolution has been affirmed. Vote Pro.Sources: http://www.debate.org...