Resolved: Islam is not a religion of terrorism

My opponent brings up very good questions to ponder with the question of Islam. I must protest his assertion that I did not answer his arguments and thus he may extend them all. He simply cannot, because I answered it with Rousseau's philosophy of the 'general will' and the statistics posted in round 2 about Islamic countries and their support for terrorist organizations. Thus, he did not address any of MY points, and furthermore I would also like to point out that he has failed in naming one Islamic Country with a higher third party organization's rating than that of either Canada or the US. I think that alone is a signal of a won debate. However I shall expand and close the argument so as to prevent further confusion. The theory of the general will was used to counter my opponents apologist mentalities for Islam. He asserts that you cannot say Islam -as a whole- is terrible just because Muslims do terrible things due to various verses in the Qur'an. I asserted two things within my argument: 1) The Qur'an is too ambiguous, contradicting, vague, or general to assert that the Qur'an is point blanch in being peaceful. For example: "How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon,ï¿½Our terror came unto them." Qur'anï¿½7:4 "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as toï¿½strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember." Qur'anï¿½8:57 Or even "And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds andï¿½cast terror into their hearts.ï¿½Some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners." Qur'anï¿½33:26 "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who reject Me. So strike off their heads and cut off their fingers. All who oppose Me and My Prophet shall be punished severely." Ishaq:322 2)my last point was simple; lets say -hypothetically- that we have 50 feminists within a room. Upon a vote 49 wish to see men as subordinates, whereas only 1 wants to see men as equals. The general will would dictate that the above example seeks to make men lesser than women regardless of what 1 woman has voted regardless of the feminist manifesto. Same thing with Islam, over 58% of the worlds Muslims (Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, et cetera) support Hamas and Hezbollah, two terrorist organizations.[1] How could they be peaceful when they support violence, death for apostasy, or an Islamic State under Sharia? Which is more likely, that Islam is peaceful as my opponent has tried to defend, and is thus a minority who does not support terrorism and the majority of Muslims are wrong, OR that my opponent is an apologist, a minority in comparison to the world of Muslims in which says terrorism is wrong? I think you will find the latter is more likely as I have shown than the former. So at this point this leave my opponent in an awkward place, does he continue to take verses from the Qur'an and hadth? OR does he use statistics and real world examples. Well, real world examples favour me and my position not his, thus he must stress how every Muslim does not follow the Qur'an as it is suppose to and that is the fault of people not Islam, something I have clearly disproved thus making his point null and void. Pro asks the question in regards to the cartoon controversy if Hinduism pulled the same thing (say 100 or 200 of them) would they be justified? Well of those numbers how many would partake in the burning, death, and destruction for agent b's actions? If the vast majority -then yes Hinduism would NOT be peaceful as noted above- if only 200 out of millions then NO the general will drowns out those contrariates. However, if you are trying to make a point about Islam, I say again that because the majority supports these actions, and have overwhelming support of Islam in politics, then yes Islam is a religion of terrorism. They use coercion to suppress the images of the Prophet Muhammad to censor freedom of speech. On Al-Qaeda, the answer is very simple: Islam is anti-semetic. When Al-Qaeda attacked the US, Islam would have supported someone if they went after Israel. In fact this is in teachings with Muhammad, as in January 624 he no longer faced Israel to pray, he faced Mecca due to an on-going conflict with the Jews (as they didn't wish to see him as a Prophet, SO he killed or banished them!)[2] This was worship by coercion and was thus a Terrorist act. Muhammad wanted centralized power by Uniting the Arab Peninsula. The hatred for the Jews continues even to this day! Furthermore, see above for rest as I have already explained this with the 'general will' argument. 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). Again, due to their support of terrorism this is not the case of being good. Lastly, whom wants to be known as a terrorist? Sure if you ask Bin-Laden he was doing 'Gods Will', yet his goal of coercion for political aims (as agreed upon in first rounds) makes him a terrorist. It's just all a matter of perception because he wanted to see the fall of the US. The Dhimmi is from the root word of Guilt or blame. Otherwise there would NOT be two words for which it comes from. Furthermore, NO MINORITY has EVER flourished under an Islamic Regime. Saddam Hussein killed the Kurds. In Iran, it's women being oppressed. Afghanistan was much worse: suppression of women and Sunni Muslims. Name me ONE Islamic state with a minority that has increased population and top 20 quality of life rating. You simply won't be able too, as again no minority has ever done well within an Islamic Regime. My opponent also states that no coercion may be used to gain followers, this is not the case (see quote 2 for Muhammad using coercion upon Jews), and in 627:ï¿½Meccan leader Abu Sufyan (c. 567 - c. 655) laid siege to Muhammad's forces in Medina during the battle of the Trench. Even with 10,000 men he was unsuccessful for the 15 days he was there. Muhammad suspected the Banu Quraiza Jews of helping the Meccans and had all the men killed.[3] Furthermore: "O prophet! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them. Their abode is hell, and an evil destination it is".Qur'anï¿½9:73 "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust".Qur'anï¿½5:51 "And fight them until there's no fitnah (polytheism) and religion is wholly for Allah".Qur'anï¿½8:39 "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies".Qur'an 8:60 In conclusion yes my opponent is incorrect. Muhammad was anti-Semitic, even slaughtering Jews. (Mecca argument above.) He would even slaughter men whom wrote poems about him.[4] Under Sharia (meaning law in Islamic territories) as my opponent has admitted apostasy is met with death. This is handed out by the Judicial government within these Islamic territories, and is thus a religion of terrorism.Today Islam rules through coercion, threats, and causes suppression of freedom of speech. This is political goals through coercion as I have showed, and also showed the Qur'an and Hadth are too ambiguous to justify Islam not being about terrorism. Thus it is the general will of Muslims we observe to get these conclusions, and as my statistics shshow the general will supports two terrorist organizations. If that is not terrorism I have no clue what is. Thank you and vote CON :) Sources: [1] http://www.pewglobal.org... [2] http://www.thelatinlibrary.com... [3] http://www.thelatinlibrary.com... [4] http://wikiislam.net...