Islam is a Religion of Peace as Preached and Practiced.

With my third collection of evidence in support of the proposition unopposed, it seems my opponent has run himself out of room to actually respond.... but in the spirit of fair debate (and exposing Fatihah for the intellectual fraud he is), I suppose I will respond to his contention that no debate is actually occurring... In his "rebuttal" my opponent argues that we all my evidence is in support of the first part of the resolution's conjunct, and that I have provided no support for the second. Some responses: >> "I again asked for my opponent to show from the qur'an or sunnah which laws does not lead to peace if followed" See the above example of punishing the 8 year old. Sharia law is based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah. It is Sharia law that provides this child's punishment (torture, rather). Then take a look at the video of the woman getting stoned. This too is based in Sharia law. Sharia law is also based on the hadith, which is sometimes considered to be interchangeable with the Sunnah, and is one of the fundamental tools of Islamic jurisprudence. The Qur'an mentions punishments for thieves (5:38), but it was Muhammad himself who laid out the punishment for adultery: V2;B23;#413 - "The Jew brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death)" V3;B34;#421 - "This is my brother and was born on my father's bed from his slave-girl." Allah's Apostle cast a look at the boy and found definite resemblance to 'Utba and then said, "The boy is for you, O 'Abu bin Zam'a. The child goes to the owner of the bed and the adulterer gets nothing but the stones (despair, i.e. to be stoned to death)." And here, perhaps, is the clearest version of how stoning is to take place, with the unwed laborer getting a simple hundred lashes, and the married woman he had sex with (note that the law is not different in cases of rape) getting stoned: V3;B49;#860 - "A bedouin came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." His opponent got up and said, "He is right. Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." The bedouin said, "My son was a laborer working for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that my son should be stoned to death; so, in lieu of that, I paid a ransom of one hundred sheep and a slave girl to save my son. Then I asked the learned scholars who said, "Your son has to be lashed one-hundred lashes and has to be exiled for one year." The Prophet said, "No doubt I will judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to go back to you, and your son will get a hundred lashes and one year exile." He then addressed somebody, "O Unais! go to the wife of this (man) and stone her to death" So, Unais went and stoned her to death." http://www.faithfreedom.org... Furthermore, since Islamic law derives directly from the Qur'an, any imperative statement in the Qur'an has force of law for Muslims (under Sharia law, at any rate). So verses like 2:191 (above), 9:5 (above), and 2:193 (above) are examples of imperatives under Islamic law. These are things that are required by Allah - laws of Islam. Here's another good command found in several places in the Hadith: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (Bukhari, Hakim, Ibn Abi Shaybah, Tabarani). Sounds real peaceful to me. ************************************************* I would like to again make the point that equilibrium at the end of a sword is not "peace." It is coercion, compulsion, and tyranny. My opponent would like to be able to defend the atrocities that are commanded by the heinous collection that is Muslim law by standing by and hoping someone will believe him that there is not an actual debate on the topic... but as anyone can see from actually reading, the only reason there is no debate is because my opponent is either unwilling or unable (or both) to defend against these claims. So far, every claim I have made has gone unopposed. >> "So to insist on a debate to something in which we agree to is ludacris [sic]." Well... no - Ludacris is a rapper. If you are claiming it is ludicrous to debate on something you agree with, then why accept the debate challenge? I submit that if this is actually his position,it is Fatihah, not myself, who came here with no intention of debating. >> "It is rather the intent of my opponent all the while to portray islam in a negative manner" Actually, Islam (and you) seems to be doing a very good job of that without my help. Show me where something I've presented is not accurate and factual. This laughable "rebuttal" only serves to drive my point home. If my opponent had any defense to offer against my claims, he surely would have done so. NEGATED.