Islam is a Religion of Peace as Preached and Practiced.

The absurdity of my opponent ensues. After dancing around the topic, he finally tries an attempt to actually debate the topic. After failing miserably, he goes right back to where he started. Even more strawman arguments. Once again, and I believe this is the forth time now, he has jumped right off topic. Why? Because he has absolutly no sound logic for the topic. So he insists on sidetracking the debate with talks not relating to the topic. This is clearly the act of desperation. Once again, this is now the 4th time, I stated for my opponent to provide any law from the qur'an or sunnah which shows that it does not establish peace when followed. And he has deliberately avoided it everytime as if we somehow won't notice his ducking and dodging. Now let's see if he has referred to the qur'an and sunnah and provided a law which does not allow peace in his last rebuttle. He first says: "Apparently my opponent is incapable of comprehending the phrase "as preached AND PRACTICED." First off, that is not a coherent sentence to begin with. Yet you have the nerve to suggest that I'm incapable of comprehending. Let's look at the sentence. "Islam is not a religion of peace as practiced and preached". O.K. You're missing a part. AS PRACTICED AND PREACHED BY WHO?! Are you suggesting that all muslims are violent? That all muslims kill and stone people? You don't even say. I've already stated that islam does teach violence and we all know that there are people who do unjust things in the name of islam, so to even want to debate such a topic is absurd. Then my opponent goes on to say: "Actually, the debate begins with several examples from the Qur'an. And the rest of the examples are from Islamic law, which is what my opponent asked for (Remember "a religion who's LAWS establish peace when followed" ??). The fact that none are drawn from the Sunnah is irrelevant. Islamic law is not based solely on the Sunnah. Sharia law is based on the Qur'an, the Sunnah, hadiths, religious scholars, analogy, and reason (though loosely on the last one)." Yes, my opponent has quoted from the qur'an. But you did so to debate off-topic. You quoted the qur'an to show violence in islam. But doing so again was just a duck and dodge move on your part, for I agreed already in my opening statement that islam teaches violence. The fact that you insisted to debate something we agree with just shows how silly your way of thinking is. If we agree, there's nothing to debate. Yet when asked to show verses that don't establish peace and why, my opponent is off and running. He provides nothing. Nothing for the 4th time. The debate was over long ago, for my opponent refuses to provide the evidence. As for trying to run now and suggest that the topic was never about whether islam establishes peace when followed, let me remind the readers of his exact words: "First, even contextualized, the violent nature of Islam goes beyond simply "an eye for an eye." Second, the notion that that has in practice produced a peaceful climate of international relations (or intertribal at the time) is laughable, and obviously false in light of the expansion of the Islamic Empire in the 600's." Above, my opponent clearly states that the notion that the violent nature in islam produced a peaceful climate is laughable, suggesting that the violence in islam did not produce a peaceful climate. Yet for the past rebuttles, he's been lying to us all as if the topic of whether the laws of islam produces peace or not was never the topic. As I said before, he's ducking and dodging. He then says: "The interesting thing about this is that my opponent keeps referring to the "laws of Islam." Had HE undertaken a study of Islam, he would know that the hadiths are a fundamental part of Islamic jurisprudence. I encourage him to consult "al-Nukat ala Kitab ibn al-Salah" which has been referred to as "After the Qur'an itself, the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad form the most important foundation of Islamic thought" (http://kitaabun.com......). Further, the hadith is a specific subset of the Sunnah. The Sunnah refers to the words, actions, and way of life of Muhammad. The hadiths are collections of just his words and actions (http://www.al-islami.com......). The sheer ignorance of my opponent. An atheist trying to tell a muslim about his own religion. I could speak arabic words and phrases and islamic references you wouldn't be able to pronounce. But that's getting off the subject. Here, my opponent makes the claim that islamic law comes from hadiths. Of course they do. But they come from the hadiths which are sunnah. Not just any hadith. The kitab in which you refer to is not the sunnah. And if you suggest otherwise, you should be able prove so. But you can't. Saying that something was referred to as a divine book or a book of law by muslims or even muslims who consider themselves scolars is not proof. For every muslim agrees that the sunnah of the prophet is the best example and at no time did the prophet say to follow anything that is not the sunnah. As an atheist, you suggest that Muhammad invented the qur'an and islam. This means that islam derives from Muhammad and the qur'an. So did Muhammad refer to the Kitab in your example as a book of guidance? No. Thus for you or any muslim for that manner to suggest that islamic law should be derived from there are clearly in the wrong. He then says: "He judged the Jews according to their law? Perhaps you missed this part: "V3;B49;#860 - "A bedouin came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to ALLAH'S LAWS."" My opponent's ignorance is amusing. Just because one is a bedouin does not mean that they are not a jew. Bedouin does not mean non-jew. Secondly, the hadith you quoted clearly states that the bedouin asked to be judged by Allah's law. So you've just actually helped to demonstrate an example of how respected and admirable Muhammad is, for the man asked to be punished, I repeat, asked to be punished, I repeat again, ASKED to be punished by a judgement according to Allah. This shows the loving and respectable person of Muhammad and the beauty of islam, for the person ASKED to be judged by Allah. No force or coercion. Finally, my opponent closes his argument. But how does he do it? Not with text from the qur'an or sunnah, but more off-topic quotes. You see, it is clear that my opponent has no evidence that islam does not lead to peace when practiced. Thus his own ducking and dodging of the topic and his own words are clear evidence to the simple fact. And that is islam is a religion which brings peace when practiced.