Islam Is Not Only a Peaceful Religion, but a Reasonable Religion

It is most certainly not akin to asking a politician whether to vote for him or not when I say that you should use quran. com. Please do not commit to the false analogy rhetorical fallacy clearly at play here. I say to Con again, under the criterion of research in the scientific and empirical fields, particularly those of anthropology concerning other cultures and religions, it is most often offensive to take the word of someone who is not a part of that culture or religion. One often doesn't even get acknowledged at the first sign of source-contamination. The problem Con has with the source is simply this, and I can vow to it that this is the issue--Con simply does not trust this site and its many founders and its numerous sources, claiming that some or all Muslims who constructed the site are somehow in an elaborate scheme to protect themselves from scrutiny. I thank Con, however, for agreeing to use the site, but I would like to note that for many of the Qur'anic verses he failed to even give the chapter number or name. The only reason I wanted Con to use this website was because it was reputable, and because if he used a misleading/biased source for the text I would have to waste time and/or a round explaining why it was disputable. REBUTTALIt can be considered offensive for me to use Con's own sources against him, but offense is not my intent. I appreciate Con's professional method of learning some of the history behind Islam. But many of his sources either contradict what he claimed the sources said, or they actually turn right around and assist me in my point. A. Upon the matter of Al-Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL, I find it is rather trivial. I will quote what Con had to say about this matter, which made up a good chunk of his opening statement:"Now, of course, I could discuss the rampant violence and cruel acts of Islamic-extremist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, or the terrorists sponsored by almost every Muslim nation who otherwise pretend to oppose them [. . . ] Is it just that all these groups are coming together, happening to practice the same religion? (What a coincidence) Or is there something more inherent" (Ameliamk1). The answer is simple. According to the FBI government website [1], the number of murders in the United States in 2012 was 14,661 murders, and that is NOT including accidents or negligence. That is intentional homicide by the people of America killing other people of America. This is an unbelievably vast magnitude away from the number of deaths due to Islamic terrorist organizations, not only in the East but worldwide, all of them (every last terrorist organization) combined. All of their actions combined worldwide, declaring themselves "Islamic" terrorist organizations, do not amount to the amount of American-American murders that occur. This is also not accounting for all the innocent bystander lives lost in the East when we waged wars on other soils. This is not to say that "Islamic" terrorist organizations aren't bad, because they certainly are and must be done away with. However, if the topic of terrorism is being so openly discussed, I point out you did not mention all of them. The Black Hand for example in Europe which instigated World War I, the dozens of millions of lives lost under Stalin in the Soviet Union, the famine of North Korea--so is religion to be blamed for all of them? Islam has nothing to do with the terrorist organizations; terrorist organizations want power and they use Islam as justification to get everyday citizens to agree with them. I'd rather not waste 5000 characters explaining the political turmoil in the East, as well as its history. Con has never been so wrong to say that Islamic countries are always ridden with war and violence. The country with the most Muslims is Indonesia, I laugh because we've never had any reason to attack them and they've never had any reason to attack us. So with the greatest population of Muslims in Indonesia, when have you last heard an "Operation Shock-And-Awe" in Indonesia due to terrorism? That's right. Never. I'll say it again, never. B. As to Con's claims about the history of Muhammad, this is where Con's sources turn on him. First of all, Con cited a Wikipedia page regarding the Caravan Raids first. He mentioned 11-ish raids, and he said they were "brutal and often bloody. " See, the source he cited itself explicitly mentions that nine of the eleven raids did not even see a single fight. On one of the raids where only one person was killed by a single arrow, Muhammad was furious because he did not order the attack, for the attack was carried out on the Sacred Month by one of his subordinates. Also, Muhammad refused to take the loot for that raid and did not share in the wealth. As for the final raid when again one of his subordinates attacked a caravan and killed the people. Once again, Muhammad disapproved of this through an admonishment from one of God's disapproving revelations. First and foremost, once again this source Con cited claims that Muhammad had many threats against his life, and Muslims in Makka were being persecuted and denounced. These raids, along with the intention of penitence, were a means of retaliating against the Quraish. C. Another source Con cited, the PBS source, actually defines what jihad really is under the terms of the Prophet himself. Jihad, reported to have been described by the Prophet as the little jihad, is the jihad against those unbelievers that cause ruin among Islamic nations. The greater Jihad is the striving to better oneself and become a better Muslim, and to do right rather than wrong--this is the primary definition of Jihad in Islam. This source also explicitly states exactly what I had said about terrorist organizations quoting indirect passage from the Qur'an to build power. Con's sources are much appreciated. D. As to the sixth source on Con's list, claiming Muhammad ordered the killing of dozens of poets and writers, the writer of that article is founding author James Marlandson of a website called "Answering-Islam. org," a website that was founded by Christian missionaries to convert Muslims in the East. I've read much of that website and recognize it immediately--it is filled with made-up facts. E. Con's other source from speigel. de also works against him: the Iranian man who was executed called the Quran "the Satanic Verses," writing treacherous things about Muslims, and ensured it got published in multiple languages too, while others intentionally drew offensive cartoons about Muhammad and published them. Here, it is not Islam that is inciting violence, but people who hate Islam that are inciting violence. F. The Jews Con claims Muhammad slaughtered actually violated a peace treaty with Muhammad and sided with the Quraish tribe that attacked Muhammad and his followers, also from Con's sources. G. Regarding the verses of the Qur'an cited by Con, he uses almost solely the verses regarding Hell and its punishment, claiming that such a religion "inspire[s] hate and almost inevitably violence" (Ameliamk1). This is to say that if a parent punishes a child for doing something wrong, then the sibling of the child that is punished will become violent. This analogy holds true due to the status of punishment and reward allotted to both a parent and God, and the children are very analogous to humans. H. My ending verse for this rebuttal is a peaceful statement in the Qur'an I would like Con to focus on: "[W]hoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely" (Qur'an, 5:32). This statement is a real, and true, testament to the mercy and peace of Islam. [1] . http://www.fbi.gov...