That Islam is perfect...

As salaamu alaikum We now approach the end of our debate. Let us now analyze the rebuttle of my opponent and see if he has demonstrated that islam is not perfect in establishing peace when it is followed. He says: "My opponent is a Muslim. He will not go to an eternal pit of fire when he dies. However, according to the Qu'ran I will because I do not believe that Allah exists." Thus my opponent insinuates that because a disbeliever will go to hell for disbelieving, then islam is not perfect in establishing peace. Such a statement is very flawed. First and foremost, a disbeliever does not go to hell for simply disbelieving. Those who reject islam are prescribed hell. In other words, if you were exposed to the truth of islam and rejected it, then the hell fire is prescribed. But if you were never exposed to the truth of islam and disbelieve because of it, then the hell fire is not prescribed. In the hadith of Sahih Muslim, Book 37 number 6662, we read that a man killed 99 people. He wished for a learned man to show him a way to salvation for his actions. He asked a Monk how to get salvation and the man told him that it would not be granted to him. So the man killed the monk. His death toll is now 100. He then finds a scholar and asks how can he get salvation after killing 100 people. The scholar says to go to such and such land of peity. There he will find a people devoted to worship and prayer. So he takes the journey, but halfway there, death overtakes him. So the angels disputed as to where the man should go in the afterlife. The angels of mercy said that he has come to Allah in remorse, favoring he should get paradise. The angels of punishment say the man did no good, favoring hell as his dwelling. So an angel in the form of a person came to decide the matter. The angel stated to measure the distance between the land which he left to the place of his death and compare the distance to the distance between the land of peity to which he was going and the place of his death. Whichever land he was closest to will determine his judgment. The man was closer to land of peity, so the man was granted paradise. Al hamdu lilah. What a beauty. Here we have a disbeliver who did no good but was still granted paradise because in the last minute of his life, he was a disbeliever, but was still seeking the truth and not rejecting it. In short, this is not only proof that all disbelievers go to hell simply because they disbelieve, but it demonstrates the most gracious and merciful attitude of Allah, for a person who was a massive murderer all his life was still granted paradise. Another example of the true beauty of islam. Moving on. As demonstrated, disbelievers are not punished simply because they disbelieve, but because they know the truth and reject it. As such, the disbeliever is being punished for wrong doing. For if one knows that islam is true, then they know that Allah is the creator and originator. That every good that is in their life is due to Allah. This would mean that Allah should be appreciated and respected. So to know that Allah is responsible for the good that comes to you, yet you reject showing love and appreciation to Allah, then it is very much a reasonable decision from Allah to not reward such disgraceful behavior in the afterlife. Do you reward a person who does not appreciate you? No. Is refusing to reward bad behavior an imperfect way of establishing peace? Of course not. In order to establish peace, you must discoursage bad behavior. And since the punishment from Allah is based on wrong and bad behavior, then the punishment of the hell fire to disbelievers IS a perfect way to establish peace, for it is a punishment to discourage wrongful and bad behavior. In short, my opponent's example is flawed, as clearly demonstrated. He then says: "Just ask yourself: What is a better way to bring about peace, violence or non-violence? CLEARLY, it is non-violence. So if there is a better way of bringing about peace than violence(ie. fighting) how can it be the 'perfect way of establishing peace'... The same could also clearly said for maintaining peace." Again, my opponent insists on ignoring the fact that violence is the perfect way to establish peace in a case of self-defense. My opponent still insist on the absurd logic that if someone persists on attacking you, that violence is not the perfect defense. According to his logic, when someone is in the midst of punching and slapping you around, it is best that you try to have a discussion with the person in the middle of your beatdown. This is clearly not the perfect solution. Talking to someone while they're punching you in the face not only does not prevent the attack and restore peace, but it leaves you battered and bruised. Cleary, my opponents method is not the perfect solution. Ask any person who's been raped or robbed that when they were under attack, they actually prevented it by talking. Of course not. They had to use violence to defend from the attack. My opponents logic not only does not prevent the attack and restore peace, but it leaves the person who was attacked battered and beaten. Clearly, my opponent's logic is flawed, and any reasonable person can see that. He then says: "Misinterpret: "to interpret, explain, or understand incorrectly." If something is subject to such gross misinterpretation as the Qu'ran, it is not perfect. I've stressed this point enough". This is a strawman of my opponent. The debate is whether islam is perfect in establishing peace, not whether it is perfect in preventing interpretation. In conclusion: My opponent has failed to show a law from the qur'an which is not perfect in establishing peace. The violence mentioned in the qur'an is very much justified and is perfect in establishing peace, because the violence refers to self-defense. And to use violence to defend against a violent attack is far more perfect to establish peace than to have a discussion in the middle of getting whipped as my opponent says. Those of us who are reasonable can clearly see that. His take on interpretation is a strawman, for the topic is whether islam is perfect in establishing peace, not whether it is perfect in preventing different interpretation. The qur'an itself says that it is susceptible to different interpretation. (surah 3:7). So do not let his strawman affect your decision. It was never the subject. As for his comment that the qur'an does not look kindly to non-muslims, the hadith of Sahih muslim, book 37, number 6662 debunks such a claim as well as the fact that my opponent showed no example of non-muslims being treated unkindly in an injust manner and every example in which he presented to show otherwise was clearly refuted and debunked. Thus my opponent has failed in his attempt. Islam is in fact perfect in establishing peace as I have clearly demonstrated. As Salaamu Alaikum