Islam is Not a Violent Religion

You state that this argument is over because of backing from the Quran, yet my argument also uses backing from the Quran and can prove otherwise. 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. 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. You used the Quran, so I thought it would be most appropriate to use it here as well. Your argument states that mine is 100% negated through the use of Quran-backing, but that statement is completely false, as shown below Quran (6:107) - " Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you (of your own choice) a guardian over them" This verse describes how faith should not be forced, yet rather should be chosen. Quran (60:8) - "Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just." The people of Islam must act with passion and kindness. "Allah loveth those who are just" - preaching the peace and kindness. This sounds rather peaceful and non-violent. And one of the most compelling arguments "Anyone who kills a Non-Muslim who had become our ally will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." This comes from teachings of the Prophet on how to treat non-Muslims. This sounds rather fair - killing a non-muslim will lead to suffering and those who commit those crimes will never reach solace or paradise. In addition, your argument fails to address other religious forms of extremism or evidence of such in other Holy Books. From the Bible: Deuteronomy (20:11) - "When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it..." This preaches violence and slavery does it not? If a city or external forces offer you peace, then you shall force them into labor and they must serve you. Perhaps it is not as direct, but it contains the same connotation - that you should force some one else's hand. If they try to oppose you, then you should "besiege" them. We could see this as "destroy" or "kill" them. Yet the main reason why this is not openly regarded as evidence of preaching violence is that the media does not focus on this nearly as much. In addition, you have not at all addressed other religious extremist groups. I do not deny that radical groups, such as ISIS, are terrible forces, yet your argument seems to narrow-minded by stating that mine is 100% negated when in fact I have just proved otherwise. Here is another extremist example you fail to consider: Hindu-based terror acts. Hindus have over the last several years committed hate crimes against thousands of innocent Muslims. In the average anti-muslim riot in India, three Muslims are killed for every Hindu killed. These violent uprisings are yet never covered by the media. Your argument has been completely shaped by media bias and this is the proof. Your argument is not very compelling and is, must I say, slightly haughty. It is made on the assumption that EVERY Islamic follower will go only to the more violent phrases and enforce them. I concede that some of them do (the radicals), yet your argument makes the immediate and false assumption that every one of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world is following the Quran in a very anti-peaceful and terror-loving way. It also makes the false assumption that all Muslims are the same and all are radicals, and this is completely false and untrue. You state that my argument has been 100% negated, yet I have just proven otherwise. I could go on, but I have already proven my point - every religion has its radicals, but the media focus often shapes how we perceive and analyze those religions. One has a higher rate of radicalism, so it seems to those, such as yourself according to your argument, that the whole religion is a dangerous and violent one. I would like to repeat one number - 1.6 billion. If Islam was as violent as you stated it was, then why aren't hundreds of millions more Muslims taking to groups such as ISIS? Your argument seems to make the point that we are in grave danger of Muslims becoming like ISIS radicals, yet they have barely managed to scrape up 31,500 members since 1999. Your argument even states "In fact, even though there are a fairly sizable amount of peaceful Muslims, this says nothing at all about Islam about as a faith." This does not make sense. Faiths are defined by ALL people who practice them, not just the radical ones. Your argument is invalid because of its extreme assumptions and lack of consideration of other parts of the Quran and other acts of religious violence.