Islamic culture and Islam are immoral

The title has distinguished separately, the terms "Islam" and "Islamic Culture", and thereby must be treated as separate entities. Islam being of course the religion, and therefore the argument "against" on this side would be suggesting that the religion in itself is inherently immoral. Whereas "Islamic Culture" would largely be discussing Muslims and how they act. On this end of the debate, it is crucial to signify that I am not going to argue that there is no immorality in Islamic Culture, as indeed there is immorality in any culture, whether it be a religious culture, a societal culture, a communal culture or a country's culture. Therefore a distinction must be made between "Islam" and "Muslims", where unfortunately, in the world we live in today, the actions of some Muslims, a frighteningly growing amount, Muslims do not wholly reflect Islam. Now, just to kick start my argument, and as you can probably see already, I definitely do not believe that Islam is immoral. In my humble opinion, when the different verses from the Qur'an are quoted on the topic of capital punishment, nobody is entitled to carry these punishments out except for divinely appointed leaders under their Islamic government. If you are unaware, Shi'a Muslims largely believe in 12 divinely appointed leaders after the Prophet, the 12th of which is still alive, and in a hiding or "occultation", and is due to reappear at some point. It is only under such a government that such rules can be truthfully implemented. This is where I believe many countries running Islam as a culture and as a form of law, are going wrong. Verses of the Qur'an are being abused to serve their own political views, the kind of corruption that has led to the formation of "You disagree? You will be hung to death..." May sound ludicrous, but this is what is exactly happening today! Look at the recent execution of Shaykh Nimr by Saudi Arabia! This is not dissimilar to what terrorist groups such as Da'esh are doing today where people are executed, without trial, for merely following different beliefs. Another similarity between this corrupt methodology with that of areas such as Saudi Arabia is that disgustingly, Muslims are even killing other Muslims! This is where the distinction between Muslim and Islam needs to be made, as if these actions of Muslims were the true Islamic methods, we would be able to see this behaviour in the lives of Muhammad (SAW), and his family. I will here use the example of the 1st successor and closest man, also son-in-law to the Prophet, Imam Ali. Once, a man came to Ali to confess his crime of stealing, as this man had a guilty conscience. *Pause* (It is known that stealing in Islam would be punishable by the cutting of the criminal's hand, and what could be more telling than the man confessing himself... Surely this would immediately warrant the punishment being used? ) However, by Islamic principles, Ali did not act on the confession itself, rather he attempted to prove the man innocent and practice penance. By Islamic methods, if even the slightest doubt is cast over the crime, they are not due the punishment. Ali therefore asked questions like "Perhaps you are mistaken and were extremely hungry and it is out of compulsion that you committed the theft." Furthered by questions such as "Perhaps you stole from an unguarded place" (nullifies crime of theft) and asked whether he was forced or under orders. Do you think that Muslims carry out such strict checks in places like Saudi before executions, let alone corporate punishments? I for one certainly don't. My point here is of course, Muslims are not representing the true morals of Islam. In some cases, it is, as mentioned, Muslims being immoral rather than Islam. I touched upon terrorism, but in the current climate, that is the hotly debated topic, and something which really makes me tear up, is the fact that a discussion about my religion today is unfinished without some remarks on this issue. Therefore I will put some points forward regarding this. Islam condemns terrorism. Now I hope, as you appear to have substantial knowledge, can appreciate this fact and that I do not have to go to extensive measures to prove this. However I will, as this is an opening statement, mention a few brief points to that regard. 1) Many use Surah Baqarah Ayah 191 as proof for slaying non believers; "And kill them wherever ye find them". But it is crucial to put this in context; the verse preceeding, 190 states "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you". Here we can prove that 190 must be first adhered to before 191; ie. the latter is a mere act of self defense. This argument can be enhanced, as all the battles the Prophet fought in were in the town in which he was (residing). The Prophet therefore, never instigated the war, but once he'd been attacked, he then of course participated in self defense. Since this is being discussed, let me now bring in the issue of the term "Jihad". Please note here, I am not claiming Islam is a pacifist religion; it quite simply is not! Many-a-time however, I have questioned reporters and Non Muslims what they believe Jihad is, and the common response I receive is "religious war". Whilst strictly this is correct, it is not merely war in the physical sense of the term. In fact Jihad literally translates to the act of struggling. To differing levels therefore, everyone undertakes Jihad in their daily lives. Me choosing to pray over watching a match, or choosing to eat Halal food despite their being other options, are in fact all forms of Jihad, albeit minimal ones. Essentially, scholars have split Jihad into two categories; The Greater Struggle, and The Lesser Struggle. It is in fact the Greater Jihad which is the internal struggle; a struggle to defeat inner human desire, and the lesser Jihad being fighting in the literal sense. Therefore, when media outlets describe Da'esh as "Jihadi", or name terrorists "Jihadi John", it must be really understood that Jihad is not what it is made out to be; this is just people playing tricks through language. Much like how Da'esh are referred to mainly as "Islamic State" rather than their true title; often an attempt to indoctrinate a negative vibe into people's minds, albeit subconsciously. Moreover, studies have shown that as a matter of fact, an overwhelming majority of Muslims do NOT sympathise with such horrid actions. The few who actually do, cite Political reasons over Religious reasons; it is not Islamic terrorism, that is just the excuse to cover other objectives. And if this were the view of Islam, what about the rest of us?! Does that make pretty much the whole Muslim population wrongdoers, because we sure to God are not practicing acts of terror, or even supporting them. I know there are some surveys suggesting otherwise, but I please request you to not used cherry picked information from a minority of people, and rather look at those who are well informed, by which I mean scholars. (Message me personally and I can send links to lectures and statements of condemnations) 2) On Homosexuality. I will keep this short and simple. I disagree with the institution of homosexuality, and you are right, I do believe it to be immoral (as do many Non-Muslims). That being said, I am highly of the opinion, that whilst I disagree with HOMOSEXUALITY, I will never discriminate against people who are homosexuals. I believe, whether or not a way of life is moral or not, people should never be discriminated, especially in cases such as these where today homosexuals are certainly increasing. 3) Women. This is probably where I am most passionate in defending my religion's criticisms. Islam does not see women as INFERIOR to men. There is an important distinction between equality and identical. Men and women, by Islamic definitions, in no way have identical rights and responsibilities, but at the same time are equally viewed in the eyes of Allah; the only distinguishing factor between the people being piety. The Prophet said "There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab, nor for a non-Arab over an Arab. Neither is the white superior over the black, nor is the black superior over the white -- except by piety." The Qur'an says that men and women are "garments" for each other. Extending this metaphor, garments do not merely serve one united purpose; some are to beautify, some to protect, some for comfort, yet they are all as important as each other, despite serving different purposes. "Hijab" means modesty, and does not mean, a literal cloth or covering. It is down to opinions of scholars and from some Ahadith that it is then inferred to have meant for women what it does. But Hijab also applies to men; there are restrictions on clothing for example, likewise on behaviour such as the command to "lower gaze". Hijab is something the religion has prescribed, much like how lying is condemned, prayer is obligated, Hijab is similarly another rule. It is however the freedom of the person to follow it the way they seem fit. Moreover, men, as suggested, have different roles and purposes. The man must ensure food is on the table, and is obligated to have a source of income. This does not mean the wife can also not work and earn a living - that is ludicrous! Sorry for repeating here but again Muslim vs Islam: Yes, Saudi Arabia prevents women from driving, sports, shopping and more, but this is not strictly Islamic. Of course, the Prophet's wife was the wealthiest women in Arabia! For further insight and better explained in more depth I urge you to read my arguments in an earlier debate about women; http://www.debate.org... Finally, we cannot only see the negative aspects (falsely) attributed to Islam. We must also acknowledge the masses of good done under the umbrella of religion and Islam. A religion which is the cause of so much gooness can surely not simultaneously be the drive for Boko Haram, Daesh etc?