Islam is inherently a religion of peace

Thanks Con. Preface: Structure of the debate: - As Con pointed out, the structure of the debate is as follows: > R1: Acceptance. > R2: Arguments. > R3 to R5: Rebuttals. - Apparently, Con is falsely accusing me of violating the debate structure, here: > My R1: acceptance, no arguments & no rebuttals. > My R2: arguments, no rebuttals. > My R3: the current one, which will indeed consist of rebuttals. - On the other hand, Con has clearly violated his own debate structure rules: > Con’s R3: no rebuttals! Rules of the debate: - As for the rules I laid out in my opening round, they are standard to any debate & valid by default: 1. Good Grammar. 2. Decent Conduct, which means no disrespect & no forfeiture. 2. Sound Arguments, which means no logical fallacies, particularly the more common: bare assertions & shotgun argumentation. 3. Reliable Sources, which means no unreliable (inauthentic or non-authoritative) sources. - Thus, unless Con is planning to forfeit, be disrespectful, resort to logical fallacies & use unreliable sources, then he should be fine. & if he decides to do any of that, he should be penalised by the voters, regardless if I had emphasised these rules in my R1 or not. => Finally, the only one here who violated virtually all rules, those laid out by Con & those by default, is Con himself. He violated the structure of the debate, practically forfeited his R3, resorted to logical fallacies (most of his case is a series of bare assertions, & in shotgun argumentation) & he used virtually no sources, let alone reliable ones. Whereas I, Pro, violated zero rules. Case: - In this section I will attempt to refute Con’s arguments, as priorly declared, in parts, as a continuation of my previous round. - Although Con’s case is largely -false- bare assertions, it is nonetheless expressed in the following format: I. Analysis of the Prophet’s alleged ‘brutality’, ‘violence’. . . II. Analysis of some the Prophet’s seemingly violent commands relating to war & towards non-Muslims. III. Analysis of the some of the rules concerning Muslims, apostates & women particularly, which, according to him, are not peaceful! - Thus, following the pattern of argumentation Con used, my rebuttal shall deal with its elements in either to both of the following manners: 1. Show that Con’s claims are contradicted, thus requiring proof for their validity. 2. Show that Con’s claims are misrepresented or misinterpreted. Rebuttals: - My rebuttal to Con’s case (I. II. & III.) will thus proceed as expected: Part II: the Teachings of Islam. Part III: the Example of the Prophet. Part IV: non-Muslims in Islam. Part V: Just War in Islam. - As stated before, this configuration serves the purpose of keeping things organised. Before we continue, there are two important points that should be noted: i. Con has not mentioned any reliable sources for his long bold claims: - What this entails is that Con’s case should be considered a series of bare assertions (for the most part), thus not fulfilling the BOP required. ii. Con reserved to himself the authority to interpret the Qur’an & the Hadith: - The problem with this approach is that it could be easily dismissed for the following reasons: 1. The Qur’an is in Classical Arabic, a supremely sophisticated one at that, & Con evidently does not know it. Making up judgements on a mere translation of the Qur’an can’t possibly serve as evidence for or against the original version. 2. The Qur’an’s verses are related to the context in which they are situated, ignoring the context will surely distort the meaning. Take for example this text: “Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union” [13] taken out of context from the US Constitution. Surely, if not well contextualised & well understood, the quote will sound to someone unfamiliar like it is promoting violence. 3. The verses of the Qur’an are also related to the context of circumstances in which they were revealed, discarding these circumstances will too prove detrimental to the intended meaning. Consider for instance this passage of the French Constitution: “L’anarchie est un passage effrayant, mais necessaire, et c’est le seul moment où l’on peut arriver à un nouvel ordre des choses.” (“Anarchy is a frightening but necessary passage, and the only moment when one can establish a new order of things”) [14]. Not understanding the circumstantial context in which such passages surged is a serious impairment to the Constitution that contains them as whole, in this example, the consequences could be devastating. 4. The authority of explaning the Qur’an is primarily given to the Prophet, “We have sent down unto you (O Muhammad) the Message [the Qur’an]; that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them” (16:44) [*]. Thus, one ought to be well grounded in the Prophetic Tradition to properly understand the Qur’an. 5. The Qur’an (or Hadith) is a comprehensive text. Thus, approaching it necessitate having a well grounded general understanding of all its verses. The same goes for any constitution, cutting passages out without accounting for the general spirit & message of the original text can easily lead to misunderstandings. Part II: the Teachings of Islam. Claim-1: ?! A. ? B. “a man’s testimony is twice a woman’s” ; or, A man’s proportion (of inheritance) is twice that of a woman ; or, there is an “overtly sexual verse from the Quran”. C. Therefore, Islam does not promote Peace. - Regardless if the premise of Con’s argument here is true or not, an important piece is still missing: (A); that is, how is testimony (or inheritance, or sex) relevant to wether Islam promotes peace or not? Which Con ignored, which makes his argument invalid. Claim-2: Women are oppressed in Islam: - Con did not in fact directly make any such claim, however he attempted, unsuccessfully, to push us to arrive at such conclusion! Nevertheless, I shall refute the claim just to put the matter to rest. - As established in the previous round, Islam postulates that all members of mankind, male or female, are: 1. Equal in birth. 2. Equal in humanity. 3. Essentially dignified. > & also: 4. Equal in religious obligation & reward: * “The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger.” (9:71) [*]. * “Indeed, the Muslim men and Muslim women, the believing men and believing women, the obedient men and obedient women, the truthful men and truthful women, the patient men and patient women, the humble men and humble women, the charitable men and charitable women, the fasting men and fasting women, the men who guard their private parts and the women who do so, and the men who remember Allah often and the women who do so - for them Allah has prepared forgiveness and a great reward.” (33:35) [*]. 5. Equitable, though not equal, in Gender: * “Verily, Women are but the equivalent of Men. Those honourable among men will honour them, and those ignoble among men will dishonour them” the Prophet [15], also articulated into: “Women are twin halves of men” or “Women are the counter-part of Men” [16]. * “And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable” (2:228) [*]. * “And the male is not like the female” (3:36) [*]. => Therefore, we can deduce that Islam fundamentally promotes equality, dignity & equity among genders, thus fosters an essential state free from gender oppression, thus Peace among genders. If Con thinks otherwise, he must establish the opposite through proper reasoning & proper proofs. >> To be continued >> Sources: [*] http://quran.com... [13] http://goo.gl... [14] http://goo.gl... p. 198 [15] http://goo.gl... [16] http://goo.gl...