Islam is a religion of violence

Con is not able to justify the denial of the meaning of Islam I mentioned, which is "Submission to God", "Peace". (a) In previous round I clearly stated the definition of "Islam" mentioned in the source given by the Con. Which to her is of least importance to mention along with other definitions, the original Arabic meaning of an Arabic term. What kind of logic is that? (b) Con stated "The purpose of providing definitions is to inform to the viewer of the debate what exactly it is you're discussing.". Here I agree with Con, so my intention to use the word "flaw" was to point out the flaw in not describing the complete original Arabic meaning of the word "Islam". That is why I stated "Islam dates back to the age of Adam and its message has been conveyed to man by God's prophets and messengers, including Abrahim, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad." in order to make the viewers familiar with concept of Islam. (c) Con stated "Additionally, just because the Arabic origins of the word Islam derive from words translating as submission, peace and to surrender; it does not mean that these are things entailed within the religion of Islam or practiced throughout its history.". As you can make out from point (b) mentioned above. Con is contradicting her own statemnets. Firstly she is giving importance to the definitions and then when original Arabic root definitions do not favor her, she denies by stating "They are just mere translations.". Whereas the Debate is whether "Islam is a religion of violence" or not. Con stated "it does not mean that these are things entailed within the religion of Islam or practiced throughout its history.". Whether Islam is practiced by Muslims or not is a question which has no relevance in contrast with the topic. Con failed again to justify her statement. My statement "People quote various verses of The Holy Quran which are parts of a whole statement. Taking these verses out of context they manipulate the translation which then makes a complete different sense." is sufficient as an opening argument. Whereas it was Con who failed to bring up enough evidence in round 2 to produce a logical counter-argument. Instead Con moved further with her debate quoting verses repeatedly which were out of context and gave her own interpretations on them. Con stated "As for your points about the "poeticism" of Islam; they are largely irrelevant to the debate" if viewers are familiar with my argument, they will know my opening argument itself is based on the context of The Holy Quran. If one is familiar with the concept of poetry he/she will understand that it's not that simple to understand the meaning of different lines of poetry by quoting them out of the context. For example "Fire and Ice" by Robert Frost. In this poem Robert Frost describes the end of the world scientifically and emotionally, associating passionate "desire" with "fire" and "hatred" with "ice". If I simply quote these lines "From what I've tasted of desire, I hold with those who favor fire." without understanding the context in which it's said all I can tell from what it makes sense is that Frost is saying he knows the taste of "desire" and from which he can tell that the whole world will prefer "fire". I guess somehow even that is violent isn't it? But he is actually trying to show and somewhat warn humans of their own nature. Poetry Source(http://www.poemhunter.com...) Now keeping this concept in mind one cannot simply deny the fact that Quran is poetic. "The provided verses are neither poetic or aphoristic, rather they are explictly violent" Con fails to provide any evidence on her statement. "The language of the Quran has been described as "rhymed prose" as it partakes of both poetry and prose, however, this description runs the risk of compromising the rhythmic quality of Quranic language, which is certainly more poetic in some parts and more prose-like in others." Confirmation Source(http://en.wikipedia.org...) Other Source Confirming Quran is Poetic(http://www.theinimitablequran.com...) These sources give clear evidences that Quran is poetic and not aphoristic merely leaving the fluke accusation of being "violent". Hence proving accusations of violence on Islam and it's scripture The Holy Quran merely a misunderstanding, based on the evidences(Quran's Verses) that Con has provided. Con is asking for Official historical evidences. Con disagrees with statement "The context of this verse was when Muslims were to fight their enemies for their very existence". "In April 626 Muhammad raised a force of 300 men and 10 horses to meet the Quraysh army of 1,000 at Badr for the second time. Although no fighting occurred, the coastal tribes were impressed with Muslim power. Muhammad also tried, with limited success, to break up many alliances against the Muslim expansion. Nevertheless, he was unable to prevent the Meccan one" Source(http://en.wikipedia.org...) This source clearly mentions of Muslims being underdogs. They were struggling for their survival. "The largely outnumbered defenders of Medina, mainly Muslims led by Islamic prophet Muhammad, dug a trench, which together with Medina's natural fortifications, rendered the confederate cavalry (consisting of horses and camels) useless, locking the two sides in a stalemate. Hoping to make several attacks at once, the confederates persuaded the Medina-allied Banu Qurayza to attack the city from the south. However, Muhammad's diplomacy derailed the negotiations, and broke up the confederacy against him. The well-organized defenders, the sinking of confederate morale, and poor weather conditions caused the siege to end in a fiasco. I plead viewers to read the article. Source(http://en.wikipedia.org...) This source confirms that muslims were outnumbered while they were NOT attacking BUT were defending Medina. While jewish tribe Banu-Qurayza violated the treaty, to live and practice their religion peacefully under Islamic rule they were asked to fight to defend Medina. "In 627, when the Quraysh and their allies besieged the city in the Battle of the Trench, the Qurayza violated a treaty with the Islamic prophet Muhammad by allying with the attacking tribes , aiming to attack Muslims from behind while the other attackers attack from the front . Subsequently, the tribe was charged with treason and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad. The Banu Qurayza were forced to surrender and the men were beheaded, while all the women and children were taken captive and enslaved" I plead viewers to read article for more information. Source: (http://en.wikipedia.org...) This source confirms that Qurayza violated the treaty with Islamic Prophet Muhammad by allying with attacking tribes while they should have defended it. Read this part carefully "Aiming to attack Muslims from behind while other attackers attack from the front". These source proves that Con's accusations such as "(1.) Muhammed and his followers were not being attacked (in this context) causing them to fight for their very existence." "(2.) The fight launched upon the inhabitants of Mecca was offensive warefare, neither Muhhamed or his followers were under any attack from their Meccan adversaries." "(3.) The aim of Muhhamed was to eliminate the Meccan residence. enforce Islam, and gain control over the city of Mecca. In fact, the Qu'ran itself and other sources of Islamic scripture and evidence confirm this.[......]." ..are merely fluke without any official sources or evidences supporting Con's arguments. Simmilarly Con's rest of the arguments and accusations are fluke without any proper evidences. Con states "As you have specified in your resolution that this debate is about Islam, your comments about the Hadith not being relevant are misplaced. If your title stated: The Q'uran is violent or (if you're taking pro); The Qu'ran is not violent, then your point would be verified. But, as you state: Islam, you are inviting reference on the entire religion of Islam. As pro you cannot simply select which aspects of Islam you want to be included and not.". Theories of Islam are from Quran, it's the word of Allah and Law of Islam. ONLY through Quran Islam was revealed to Muslims. If that is the case, then Con is contradicting her complete argument and her debate itself because Con's whole argument in round 2 is based on "Violent" verses of Quran. And again in round 3 she stated "The provided verses are neither poetic or aphoristic, rather they are explictly violent". Con is playing by double standards here. As far as my resolution is concerned and aspects of Islam are considered? Then according to Islam and my argument, Bible and Torah are also Islamic scriptures, they are verses of God. Are they "Violent" too? "the Tawrat (Torah) given to Musa (Moses), the Zabur (Psalms) given to Daud (David) and the Injil (Gospel) given to Isa (Jesus). Together, the Qur'an, these books and the now-unknown Suhuf Ibrahim ("Scrolls of Abraham") constitute Islam's scripture." Source(http://en.wikipedia.org...) So considering your statemnet should I bring up these topics too? As I pleaded Con earlier to stick to the Topic. She contradicted her statements and tried to change the topic. My reason to stick to the verses of Quran is because Quran is Word of God, it's the Law of Islam. So whether muslims practice it or what Hadiths has to comment on it is irrelevant. Sunnih World follows Hadiths strongly, what about Shias, what about Ahle Quran? Ahle Quran or Quranism or Quran alone Islam is an Islamic view that holds the Qur'an to be the only authentic source of Islamic faith. Source(http://en.wikipedia.org...). These things you cannot simply discuss with such ease and knowledge, one needs to understand all the aspects of differents sections. So I'll say again, Con is going off the top.