Large-Scale Islamic Belief is Harmful to Society

I would like to extend my thanks to my opponent for allowing me the privilege of debating with him/her this topic, which I think is a very pivotal issue in the 21st Century. 1. Quranic Verses and Domestic Abuse in the Middle East Within the Quran, there are many verses that deal with the subject of violence. While I won't reference the most disputed ones here, I would like to reference a particular verse: 4:34, which says: "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand." [1] Take note to words near the end of the verse specifically: "...strike them." This entails that if a woman disobeys her husband, he has the right to hit her after the third offense. There have been many defenses of this, such as by Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America, who said: "While it is important that a wife recognizes the authority of her husband as the head of the household, the husband should also use his authority with respect and kindness towards his wife. If there arises any disagreement or dispute between them, then it should be resolved in a peaceful manner. Spouses should seek the counsel of their elders and other respectable family members and friends to patch up the rift and solve the differences. However, in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife, but this is only applicable in extreme cases and it should be resorted to if one is sure it would improve the situation. However, if there is a fear that it might worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then he should avoid it completely. " The problem with this is the words "...one is sure it would improve the situation." This states that a man can hit a woman if he is sure it would improve the situation. This can be interpreted in many ways, which may be cause for some of the high levels of domestic abuse in Middle Eastern Countries. One example is can be seen in Afghanistan, a country whose citizens are almost 99% Muslim [3]. The United Nations Development Fund for Women reported that almost 90% of woman in Afghanistan suffered from domestic abuse, an extremely high rate compared with countries such as the United States or the UK. Another example, Iran, an Islamic Theocracy, has 66% of woman in marriage being abuse at least once in their lifetime [4]. Iraq, an another Islamic majority, boasts almost 73% of women facing abuse [5]. I could go on and on, but I think you see the point: places where the Islamic majority is present, places where almost the entire population is Muslim, report extremely high levels of domestic abuse against women. 2. Tax Amongst Non-Muslim citizens During the conquering of the Christian lands during the reign of the Ottoman Empire, Jewish and Christian citizens were required to pay the Jizya tax, which gave them the right to retain their religious beliefs under the Ottoman Empire. Within "The Oxford History of Christianity", Jeremy Johns, a lecturer in Islamic Archaeology at Oxford University, states: "... although Christians were urged to convert to Islam, and suffered varying fiscal and social penalties for not doing so, there was no general attempt to force Christians to convert: on the contrary, the Islamic socio-religious system was designed to accommodate subject communities of Christians." [6] At first glance, this would be seen as something to praise, as Christians and Jews were given protection under their Muslim superiors. However, the fact of the matter is: the two groups were the victims of a form of passive-aggression. They were not forced to convert; they were instead forced to pay for believing in something other than the theocracy's religion, which can be seen as a form of humiliation. There is no documented case of the Catholic Church (during that time) imposing taxes on those of a different faith. 3. Modern-Day Unrest Within the Middle East, conflict has been very prevalent, with one the main forces now being ISIS. While the debate on whether or not ISIS is Islamic continues amongst scholars, the fact that it is considered possibly "Islamic" versus "Christian" or any other religion is a very interesting to note, because as it stands, there is no known threat from a major religious state, other than those under the banner of Islam. If Islam was the so-called "Religion of Peace" as it's advocates call it, why aren't there an equal amount of Christian extremists or Hindu extremists committing war in the world today, and the majority of current world conflicts are located where Islam is almost universal amongst it's people? Conclusion: To recap: My argument consists of three parts: 1. Abuse rates are extreme in Islam-majority countries 2. Taxes imposed on Christians and Jews during occupation during the Middle Ages was created as a show of superiority and there is no case of Christians or Jews imposing such restrictions. 3. Current large-scale conflicts mostly center around the Islam-dominant Middle East. I look forward to my opponent's argument (for the sake of reiterating, round 2 is specifically for arguments only, and all rebuttals of arguments should be saved until round 3; I just wanted to make that clear) References: [1] http://quran.com... [2] http://www.onislam.net... [3] http://www.afghanistans.com... [4] http://edition.cnn.com... [5] http://iranian.com... [6] "The Oxford History of Christianity" (Edited by John McManners)