Christianity(pro) vs Islam(con).

My opponent in his argument has brought up several good points but unfortunately, with a small amount of critical analysis, these assertions can be easily refuted. My opponent has stated that both the Bible and the Koran should be taken as whole books rather than looking for individual verses of violence. Now this is true and I've never said the Bible is 100% flawless. I am only attempting to prove that Islam is more violent than Christianity, or in optimistic terms, Christianity is more peaceful than Islam. Unfortunately, as I said in my previous argument, when we read the Koran, we get an uneasy feeling of non-peacefulness. The Bible tends to focus on the rewards of living a good life for Jesus, inciting people with the rewards of heaven and being with God. The Koran, however tends to do the exact opposite. In the Koran, we find several verses scaring people into doing good deeds by threatening them with promises of hellfire and eternal suffering. By this comparison we can find that even the Koran is belligerent and prefers to bully people into doing the right thing rather than explain WHY to do the right thing. Another point to consider is that violence is littered throughout the Koran in almost every Sura. (Islamic version of a book) To reiterate, the only violence of the Bible is found in a few select chapters of the Old testament and is completely justified, unlike the rampant rape and pillage of Mohammed's armies. My opponent also stated that Islamic wars were just as defensive as the wars Jews fought to defend Israel. Now unfortunately, the Koran he bases this off of begs to differ by its recollection of events. In order to give my opponent the proper reason for Mohammed's wars, lets go through a brief history of early Islam; Muhammad was born in Mecca to an Arabian pagan family. He grew up as a normal child. Historians argue whether he was a merchant or a bandit but historical evidence points to merchant as his likely occupation. In his 20s, Muhammad married a wealthy widow named Khadija, another Arabian pagan. After their marriage Muhammad began seeing "revelations from god" which were likely hallucinations brought on by heat stroke and dehydration. In these questionable revelations, the Archangel Gabriel revealed the Koran to Muhammad and told him to preach in the city of Mecca where he was born. He began to preach in the Kabba, which was a pagan worship center with the Arabian gods encircling it. City authorities expelled Muhammad from Mecca for teaching a heresy. Muhammad then emigrated to Medina where Islam received a much warmer welcome, There, he preached that fighting for God was the only way to win his favor and gathered an army to CAPTURE MECCA BY FORCE. (thats right, rather than preach and be persecuted, Mohammed took up the sword to advance his own agenda) only 5 years after its advent, Islamic warriors inspired by the "religion of peace" captured Mecca by force and ransacked the city. It is said that Mohammed beheaded up to 800 Jews in a single day. After his conquest had captured what is now Saudi Arabia, the religion of peace stormed across the borders into Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. The verses I stated in the previous argument were in reference to those wars. The simple fact is that no one can consider those wars to be defensive. Mohammed wasn't defending himself from persecution, he was killing innocent Jews Christians and Pagans who were defending THEMSELVES from persecution by Muslims. No matter how my opponent chooses to spin this information, the simple truth is that Mohammed's wars were conquest and not defensive. Christianity, however never took up arms to spread but rather endured lasting persecution, using peace and love to bring people to the religion. The only Christian war that was ever fought was the Crusades, which were retaliatory strikes to Muslim aggression. by these facts, we can soundly put the nail in the coffin for my opponents assertion that Islamic wars were defensive as Jewish ones were. My opponent also mentioned that Muslims are loving and tolerant to Non Muslims. (or Kuffar in Arabic) This is also an utterly false concept as even a quick glimpse into the history and laws of Islamic Caliphates offer a very different view. In the Islamic caliphate, A christian man is 1 half of a Muslim man and a Christian woman is one quarter of a Muslim man. A pagan man is 1/4 of a Muslim male and a pagan woman is 1/8 of a Muslim male. This means that if a Muslim man killed a christian woman, there would have to be 2 christian male witnesses present to convict the man whereas if a christian killed a Muslim, one Muslim testimony is all it would take to send the defendant to the chopping block. Also, under Sharia, non Muslims must pay a tax called the Jizya, which among other things, funds Islamic warriors who conquer and to oppress other people. Essentially, non Muslims are forced into aiding their captors. It is also a well known fact that one must pay the Jizya on his or her knees and look at the ground. They also must beg the tax collector to take their money which is a very degrading and inhumane system. In the verses my opponent mentioned, Mohammed is telling his followers not to kill non Muslims who "we have an alliance with" alliance as in living under the caliphate. This doesnt mean a whole lot as Mohammed is basically saying not to bother killing people theyve already got under their control. My opponent brought up two verses in the New testament that he believes condone violence. one of these verses was the most contravention saying of Jesus Christ "I came not to bring peace but a sword." now on the surface this appears to hint that Jesus came to kill. This is simply not true. Jesus' sword was never a literal one. In fact, when Peter takes up a sword to defend him he says "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword" implying that Jesus wants no armed defense or bodyguards. Jesus' "sword" was a spiritual one that he would use to destroy the power of the devil in mankind and join heaven and earth once more. The other verse was "take those who would not have me as king and slay them before my face" This verse is not an actual quote of Luke but rather part of a apocryphal parable he was telling in which an insane and power hungry king is made good by the power of the Holy spirit. Luke did not say this in reference to his real life enemies but rather towards the kings enemies in the parable. Thus, my opponent has still failed to come up with a violent verse in the New testament. In reference to Solomon's 200 wives, God never approved of it and in fact told Solomon several times that this was not the way to live. Mohammed's wives and concubines, however, were approved of by Allah many times. Also, Solomon was a Jew, so his actions are not a burden on us Christians. Im also glad my opponent brought up Aisha. Aisha was 6 years old when Mohammed married her and 9 when he had sex with her to consummate their marriage. By this fact, Aisha should not be used in any way to defend Islam as she is one of the largest reasons Islam is so heavily criticized and seen as a backwards religion. I hope my opponent takes these arguments to heart