Islam is not a religion of peace

Preface: - It should be noted that, although Pro has the burden of proof, he ignored the bulk of my case against his resolution & provided no sources for most of his claims. Unless Pro succeeds in fulfilling both these conditions, his burden of proof may not be met. Rebuttals: “Islam is a monotheistic religion, with Allah being the sole deity. Surely this requires the destruction and purging of all other Gods” - One: Pro is contradicting himself here! Allah being the sole deity & there being other gods is a contradiction. Two: as established in R2 (IV. 1.) , Allah (God) pre-ordained the existence of different religions, thus contradicting the supposition that He also commanded their destruction. 3:32 "Allah loveth not the disbelievers.” - No, He does not, as manifest by the fact that ingrate disbelievers (kafireen) are promised Hell Fire. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the current discussion, for it only involves this life, not the afterlife. 8:39 "Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.” - Pro seems to be confirming my resolution here. Fighting to alleviate persecution is literally fighting for a state of freedom from injustice or oppression, thus fighting for Peace. 28:86 "Never be a helper to the disbelievers.” - Yes, in their disbelief & polytheism [10], as is also clear from the context of the verse, explained just right after the statement: * “… And never let them avert you from the verses of Allah after they have been revealed to you. And invite [people] to your Lord. And never be of those who associate others with Allah.” (28:87) => Muslims can’t be expected to advocate for disbelief or help in empowering it! That would be theologically incoherent. - As for ordinary assistance, that has already been established in R2 (IV. 4.), which Pro has yet to disprove. “How can Islam be a religion of peace, if it seeks to purge the World of all other faiths?” - It doesn’t! That would be against the decree of the Qur’an in the pre-ordained difference of religion. - As for Pro’s examples. Well, Muslims happen to be human beings, thus prone to the entire spectrum of human behaviour, including occasionally becoming criminals & fanatics. Pro fails to prove how Islam allegedly advocates for the purge of other religions. “the use of capital punishment in many countries where the political system is closely linked to Islam.” - Pro’s statement here is very ambiguous, as we can’t see how this is related to the resolution. How is Islam being a religion which allegedly doesn’t promote Peace related to capital punishment in political systems closely linked to Islam?! Pro has yet to make any argument that needs refutation. Until he does, I shall ignore this. “In Muslim countries, homosexual people are persecuted on a routine basis.” - Bare assertion, straw-man, & no arguments. “in Saudi Arabia, they are classed as terrorists if they drive cars.” - Bare assertion, straw-man, & no arguments. “In Iran, in 2004, Atefeh Sahaaleh was executed for “infidelity”…” - Straw-man. Not that this has anything to do with the current resolution, but it’s clear that it’s a case of miscarriage of justice by a vengeful rogue judge. Cases of wrongful execution are not that uncommon in the US either [11]. “It seems to me as if women are second-class citizens in Islam.” - Bare assertion, already disproven in R2 (II. 4. \ III. 2.), which Pro has yet to refute. Pro’s emotions & personal impressions about the subject hold no weight in the soundness of any his arguments. “Seeing as I have now been declared totally void of any understanding of the Q'uran whatsoever because Con assumes that I can't speak Arabic,” - I am not in any better situation that Pro. The interpretations I provided for mentioned verses aren’t mine, they are taken from authentic & authoritative sources, mainly the 30-volumes Exegesis of the Qur’an: at-Tahrir wat-Tanwir, complied by the great scholar Ibn ‘Ashur, considered one of the Mujadidin of the Maliki school. “I will not mention any verses in the Q'uran from now on!” - The issue is not in mentioning such verses, it’s in whimsically interpreting them without proper qualification. “ "Except by piety” This implies that those who are non pious are inferior to people who are pious. This quote then, does not teach that Mankind is equal. It teaches that those who are not Muslims are inferior to those who are. “ - Straw-man! Superiority in “Piety” evidently refers to benefits in the afterlife, not this life, which is the only relevant part to the resolution. Islam does indeed teach Equality in Humanity, not in everything, for that would be totally senseless. Humans aren’t really equal in everything, people differ in wealth, in status, in age, in knowledge… - Being inferior in Piety does not entail being inferior in Humanity. * “a bier passed before the Prophet (pbuh) and he stood up. He was told that the dead man was a Jew. Upon this he remarked: “Was he not a human being or did he not have a soul?!” “ [12]. => Being an unbeliever does not diminish one’s humanity or one’s dignity. “First of all, it does not explicitly say that women are equal to men.” - Indeed. The Qur’an is pretty clear about that: * “And the male is not like the female.” (3:36) => That doesn’t say that males are inherently superior to females, or that females are inherently superior to males! Men aren’t really equal to Women, in any strict sense, for that would entail a contradiction. “It states that "Women shall have rights SIMILAR to men", implying that they do not have the same rights. It does not say that their rights are exactly the same.” - Indeed. Islam decrees equality between genders, in the sense of Equity (justice & fairness) of genders, NOT strict equality. Men & Women are, by definition, unequal in gender. Treating two unequal entities the same is necessarily unjust to at least one of both. Thus, the type of equality Pro seeks is necessarily unjust, which as established is not what Islam teaches, for it seeks a state of freedom from Injustice. “There is clear ambiguity here.” - There really isn’t. It is what it is. “”the first part of the verse and the context of the word in the verse clearly suggests that the second definition is more accurate … pertaining to the system of equity, as distinguished from the common law.” - WHAT!!! Is Pro suggesting that “equitable” in the verse refers to Equity Law as per the English common law?!!! That’s like saying, “women” in the verse refers to the English women’s magazine titled: “Women”! No conceivable relation whatsoever. “Yes, it says "Let him disbelieve" but that does not prove to me that Islam does promote freedom of religion” - Pro is, again, contradicting himself. Permission to chose disbelief IS, by definition, freedom of religion. Besides, Pro chose to ignore the dozen other verses mentioned to that effect, which he has yet to disprove. “It does not describe the consequences of disbelieving. If someone does disbelieve, what will happen to him/her” - It does indeed, just in the afterlife, not this life, which is irrelevant to the current resolution. The verse reads: * “And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." Indeed, We have prepared for the wrongdoers a fire whose walls will surround them.” (18:29) “it leaves the consequences of disbelieving open to interpretation.” - No, it clearly doesn’t; especially, since there is an abundance of verses that enjoin over & over freedom of religion, which Pro chose to ignore entirely. That's why it's a good idea to have proper qualification before attempting to interpret such important texts. Sources: [10] http://goo.gl... [11] http://goo.gl... [12] http://goo.gl...