Islam provides a framework for world peace.

My opponent has not provided direct rebuttal to any of my arguments as he holds no ill will towards Muslims and does not associates terrorism with Islam. I respect this. However, I hope he realizes that, the only left to debate are is his own arguments. 1: Any religion perports that there book is the word of God "This leads a problem..." But what if the book teaches peace and justice! If people consider such a book to be the word of God, wouldn't that lead to world peace? 2. Religious books are read by human beings. "We are not God, we cannot know..." Of course, books are books and can be misinterpreted. And I agree they have led to wars and conflicts. But in such cases, the flaw lies with the followers and not the religion. A good example of such a flaw is there in the terrorist logic, which I will discuss as promised. I would like to assert - it is difficult to make a genuine mistake in interpreting these books at a scale where one can justify evil deeds, as long as the person is sincere in his efforts. What is more usual is that few people deliberately distort and misinterpret books to justify their selfish ends. Quran warns such people with a very heavy punishment. 3. "You spend a great deal of time talking about Islam's respect of those with religious convictions other than Islams, but what about people of no faith?..." I will treat it more as a query rather than an argument. For Islam, atheists and agonistics are just another faith. They are always welcome to accept Islam. If they do not want to do that, they can still exist peacefully as long as they agree to abide by same restrictions that apply to people of all religions (including Muslims). --- I was amazed by the pessimism of the con's concluding observations! He believes that, "There will never be world peace". Unfortunately, there is no law which says that cynics cannot be correct. That brings us to the flaw in terrorist argument that I had promised to cover later. Normally, I should have dropped it, as my opponent does not associate Islam with terrorism. Surprisingly, it is now relevant in a way I had never imagined. I had stated the usual terrorist justification for there acts. (a) They are killing your women and children - so your duty is to kill there women and children. Only when they feel the pain, they will understand what they are doing. (b) If you do your duty, you will be rewarded by God (and go to heaven). The flaw lies in the first argument, which is perfectly secular. The logic is correct as per most atheist moral standard. The flaw is apparent only when the statement is examined in light of Islam. Muslims do not have any culture or nationality in common. The only common link is that we all believe in Islam. Muslims cease to exist as a community, the moment they abandon Islam. Islam forbids killing innocent people and that is why killing innocent people is wrong. All revenge must be directed against people directly responsible for those deeds or the corresponding military. Thus terrorism is wrong - only because of Islam. And that provides us a great insight. Human beings would indeed descend into great disharmony and oppression on its own. Only the presence of religion can prevent that.