Islam is an evil religion

No offence taken, but I think the "This religion is EVIL" is probably a little strong of a resolution to not be offensive to somebody. Also, i will apologize in advance for the length of this argument. My arguments tend to go long, and i would implore anyone who is judging this round to PLEASE read my entire arguments before voting. thank you. I will begin by defending my case, then moving to the remaining pro arguments. RA: This was not disputed, therefore, if I can prove that the pro does not show immorality, you CANNOT vote pro. Framework: This was also not disputed, therefore, when judging the morality of this round, both sides will be looking to the framework of utilitarianism. Case: My arguments about the positive morality of the 5 pillars and the examples from the bible of how many "prophets" and such act contrarily to today's morality were not disputed. This means that you, as judges MUST accept that the 5 pillars increase happiness and therefore are moral. You also must accept that my opponent would not decry his own religion as immoral, and yet, many people in the bible to morally reprehensible things. Because of this, you cannot judge morality by the acts of the "prophets" whose stories are told in the holy books. Basically, my entire case was left untouched and flows con. Onto the Pro: First, I would like you, as judged to group all of his arguments and apply the following: 1. )you cannot look only to laws, but to actions. This may, at first seem contradictory to my previous point, but what I am saying, is that we must look to the practitioners to tell what part of their "law" is still upheld. The pillars, for example, are still a major part, but, if you actually look at the world, it is clear that these extremist parts are very clearly NOT. Every religion has these parts, look to Christianity. We have many "laws" set out in Leviticus that even the Catholics no longer follow. For example: Leviticus 11: 1-46 (It's like a page and a half long, so I will summarize. I know my opponent is a Christian, so it is likely he has a bible at home. Furthermore, I guarantee there are copies online) Don't eat animals with divided hooves. Don't eat animals that chew the cud. Do not touch these animals or you will be unclean. Don't eat Eagles, owls, hawks, falcons, buzzards, vultures, crows, ostriches, seagulls, storks, herons, pelicans, cormorants, hoopoes, or bats. Don't eat winged insects. Moles rats and lizards are also unclean. Anything they (any of the listed animals) touch is unclean. Anything that water which has been in contact with these animals touches is also unclean. (if a bug falls in your water, and then you pour it on food while cooking, you're unclean) Don't eat carrion. Don't eat "small animals that move of the ground, whether they crawl, or walk on four legs, or have many legs. " Leviticus 15: 16 When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body, and he remains unclear until evening. If these examples aren't enough, here's a much more extreme one: Leviticus 24:10-16 (again, summarizing, look it up if you don't believe me) A man named Shelomith, was half Egyptian half Israeli. He got in an argument with an Israelite, and, during the argument cursed the name of the lord. They imprisoned him, and asked Moses what to do. He asked god and, god said to Moses: the the man out of the camp, have the people who saw it testify, then, stone him to death. Yes. .. you STONE THE UNBELEIVERS! The reason I am bringing all of these passages up, is because like Christianity, Islam has "laws" that they no longer see as applicable to modern times, and therefore no longer practice them. ( for Christians, Leviticus, for Muslims, the OMG JIHAD THE UNBELEIVERS! Laws. ) Also, if you look to the Old Testament, you will see hundreds of other laws and admissions that we now look on as immoral. Because of this, we MUST look to how the current practitioners practice their religion to judge it's morality. Look to all the Muslims in the world, yes there are the few radicals who try to use these parts, but Christianity has these as well. The majority of Islam does not want to launch jihads against the unbelievers, and kill us in our sleep etc. In fact, I have a few Muslim friends, who are practicing Muslims, and yet, I talk to them, they respect women, and they don't go around killing everybody. However, they DO follow the 5 pillars. Because the 5 pillars are still seen as laws, my case still stands, while, as you can very clearly see, the pro case falls, simply because these "laws" are no longer looked to. On the final Pro point: 1. According to the Bible, God is loving 2. According to the Bible, instead of trying to convert the world, he destroyed it in a massive flood. Also, according to the bible, He ordered the murder of someone who BELIEVED IN HIM, but, when angered used his name in vain. 3. Am I the only one who notices a slight problem here? (Heh. .. =P ) The Qu'ran Is like the bible, there were parts written at different times. Because of this, like the bible, you can end up with different interpretations of what God/Allah wants. (god demands that we stone people who use his name in vain apparently. .. .) It is likely, that most Muslims now believe that like the Christian god, he wants them converted, not dead. And, those who do not convert, will be punished in the afterlife. My opponent would have us look only to religious texts to find out the morality of a religion. We must NOT do this because many parts of these religious texts are no longer seen as laws, and are not acted upon. We must, instead, look to how most modern Muslims act and see which "laws" they still see as requirements. As I stated before, the 5 pillars are still seen as requirements, while, the laws against women, and unbelievers are empirically NOT. Because of this, the pro case falls, while the con is still strong. I have proven how the Muslim faith promotes happiness and decreases pain, while my opponent has yet to say the word "happiness" or "pain" IN order to affirm (vote pro) the pro MUST show how Islam violates the framework of utilitarianism. I have shown that it does not.