Resolved: Islam is not a religion of terrorism

Before I continue to debate I shall note a few points a good friend of mine RoyLatham has pointed out to me: "The question here is whether a religion is defined but what it's followers actually believe, or rather what they ought to believe to be in accord with scripture. .. .All scripture has ambiguity, and clearly Muslims have different interpretations. We must therefore define the religion by what people believe it is. " I would also like to note a few issues with my opponents arguments to the audience; as he is arguing that he shall focus upon the sayings of Muhammad and the Qur'an versus it's followers and their bad actions, this makes my point even more stronger. Allow me to explain: Jean Jaques Rousseau clearly states in the book "The Social Contract and Discourses" Quote: "Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole. .. this act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains voters, and receiving from this act its unity, it's common identity, its life, and its will. "-Pg 13. In other words the people make the association as to what is mutually agreeable. SO the previous statistics used in my argument are more than valid in showing how Islam as a whole supports terrorism it's self (Hamas and Hezbollah . .. but much to the credit of them for some reason dislike Al-Qaeda) and when people like my opponent present a contrariety, they are drowned out by the general will of the masses (or the tyranny of the majority as Rousseau has been criticized). Thus my opponent in a philosophical, political, and historical view -which I will address later in this argument- has failed to defend against my arguments thus far. Now for the historical view: The Hadith (or the sayings of the Prophet) are in complete contradiction with that of his historical actions. Pro claims: A believer continues to guard his Faith (and thus hopes for Allah's Mercy) so long as he does not shed blood unjustly". (Al-Bukhari) . However despite Muhammad saying this, Muhammad himself has lead over 65 conquering campaigns, 27 of which he lead personally. [1] What is also peculiar is why Christianity and Judaism is mentioned within the Quran, yet nothing is mentioned in the Bible and the Torah. Very simple answer: one source we have upon the persecution of Christians and Jews is the Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati of 634 in which states why they thought Muhammad was a false prophet: "deceiving for do prophets come with sword and chariot? , [. .. ] you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed. " [2] I would also like to add that is is a primary source by eye witness accounts. In other words, this is one of the most valuable accounts we have of that time period by a person who experienced it. Thus it should not go un-mentioned. Although I feel I may have already provided enough to make my case to counter all points my opponent has made -either directly or indirectly as I have shown with statistics and historical accounts- I should also mention three things: 1) The interpretations of Muslim scholars to further my case, 2) The Qur'an wants people to join Islam, so in their eyes the 'innocent' is specified to Shiia Muslims and no one else, furthermore, because of this the Qur'an is a biased source to gain followers and thus loses validity, and 3) that this is a debate about terrorism, SO it does NOT require 'bloodshed', coercion is the threat of the use of force, something Muhammad was excellent in doing (threatening to take a life, hostage taking, murder, rape, and any form of physical abuse are all forms of terrorism to force the other party to negotiate). 1) One of the most noted scholars by the name of Yusuf al-Qaradawi has stated anti-Semitic remarks, including support to Adolf Hitler[3] and support for the beating of wives[4]. To quote a few of this mans remarks: "Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption. .. The last punishment was carried out by [Adolf] Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. .. Allah Willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers. " Thus proving that for those of whom are not Muslim, you are not innocent in the Hadith and the Qur'an according to this mans interpretations. 2) "And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. " Qur'anï¿½9:3 To further this point I shall add that quote: "The most protected and respected of all non-Muslims are theï¿½dhimma, the "people of the book. "ï¿½ Specifically , these would be Jews and Christians who agree to Islamic rule and pay theï¿½jizyaï¿½(tribute to Muslims). ï¿½ Yet, the word "dhimmi" is derived from an Arabic root that means "guilt" or "blame. "ï¿½ [". .. the dhimmi parent and sister words mean both 'to blame' as well as safeguards that can be extended to protect the blameworthy"ï¿½Amitav Ghosh, "In an Antique Land"]. "So, if even theï¿½dhimmaï¿½have a measure of guilt attached to their status (by virtue of having rejected Allah's full truth), how can non-Muslims who oppose Islamic rule or refuse to pay thejizyaï¿½be considered "innocent? "[5] 3) And finally, because of the above verses (point 2 in particular) the mentioning of repent means incentives and turning away represents a 'grievous penalty' which is unspecified, my opponent presents an issue: who is innocent? It is too general to know and due to various Islamic states (Iran or Saddams Iraq anyone? ) we know that Sunni and Kruds are highly discriminated against. You are justified to use coercion to spread the faith in Islam, because the Qur'an proclaims it is the only true religion. Thus to a Muslim, the coercion to force someone into Islam is justifiable. So people in the US, minorities, Kurds, and yes even Sunni Muslims are justified to be coerced into believing Islam. This proves several things in summary: -Statistically Islam is violent in the Middle East, as the majority believes apostasy should be death, support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and the Qur'an believes a justified or innocent person is a Muslim only. The rest are subjected to discrimination. -The Qur'an is biased -Even scholars agree that Jews should be discriminated against, it spreads hatred with it, and coercion to gain followers. -The 'general will' of the people drown out the contrariate, this making the actions of 'bad muslims' (as proven is a majority) a representation of Islam valid. -The prophet Muhammad even contradicted himself with actions and so-called 'Revelations from God' in the Qur'an -Muhammad was violent, and unjustly so to spread the faith, thus making it terrorism. (He united the Arabian Pennensula under his Rule then Abu after him through military campagins and assassinations) Thought Experiment: Name me ONE Islamic state with a higher quality of life ranking by a third party organization (i. e freedom index for example) than that of the US or Canada. You won't find one because Islam is based off of coercion. The resolution is denied, thus I turn it over to my opponent! Good luck! Source: [1] . http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] Ibid [5] . http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...