Islam Is Not Only a Peaceful Religion, but a Reasonable Religion

I would've brought my own peaceful arguments, but I ran out of characters, and I realize now I should have allotted a greater character limit. But I saw claims so seriously flawed that I could not resist. Let me address the so-called "dead-poet's" society first. Con lists three more sources, when the first source was in no way reliable. The first new source just quotes James M. Arlandson, which was the Christian missionary trying to convert Muslims of the previous round's article Con used. I advise Con to be more careful, because all he's done is repeat last round's source. WikiIslam is in no way affiliated with Wikipedia and is founded by anti-Islamic fanatics. It makes claims about seventy-some virgins, which if you just look up the Qur'anic verses they're citing, you find the Qur'an verse isn't even talking about Paradise at all and doesn't mention seventy-some virgins at all--this is just a quick, immediate problem I've already uncovered. And Con's final eBook which has hardly a single purchase and is by an obscure author, lists the description of the book as "It's All About Islam - Stupid Kafir". One outraged comment in the book's reviews says, "This is a bull**** book. " For heaven's sake, the title of the book is: "Islam: Evil in the Name of God. Muhammad--Murderer, Terrorist, Rapist/Child Molester. " Need I say more? All those sources are not biased--rather they are so racist and unintelligent it's almost a crime. Regarding the punished child analogy--I would've thought Con would fill in the details. So let me revise and waste some characters explaining. Let's say a parent tells two brothers they have to be good boys, but will leave them to do as they please until the day is over (Judgement Day). One child does wrong while another doesn't. When the day is over, the parent punishes the bad boy and rewards the other. By saying a person will become violent for believing in the punishment of others for their sins, is saying that they will become violent when the punishment is actually administered, because they haven't witnessed the gruesome punishment before that time, have they? So are Muslims becoming violent against those punished after the time on Earth has already passed? I don't think so. The promise of punishment for stealing a cookie by the parent doesn't make the good boy lash out on the bad boy for stealing it, it makes no sense to say that this is a logical psychological response. As to the "other people are evil, what's your point" argument, I urge Con to revisit the point of my argument. The point was that just because one group of a religion, like the Westboro Baptist Church for Christianity or the Soviets of atheist Russia, is a vile group by nature, does not even come close to warranting a claim about a whole religion or group. Con just goes on to argue that, in essence, what the jihadists believe is what Muslims everywhere believe, just that the latter 1 billion decide not to act on it. "Islam as a whole encourages and perpetuates the violence practiced by the fringe," he says. Where is the backing of this claim? Nowhere. It disappoints me when we come here as intellectuals, but my opponent chooses to literally make a stirring claim like this one and not even provide evidence. The only response to this is Con's claim that Indonesia is also prone to terrorism, once again Con turns on himself. "Due to its rampant poverty and lack-luster government," is the reason for the fertility of terrorism, Con says. Once again, we cannot draw on just a religion as being the cause of violence. In fact, many of the riots were on governmental buildings, not other races or groups, due to the citizens' unrest about governmental decisions. The slaughtering of "Jews" is also misunderstood by Con. Once again, the attack on the tribe was an act of war, a war which was initiated when the unsuspecting Muslims found the Jewish tribe supporting their enemies, despite a treaty made between them. It was not "the slaughtering of Jews," but rather the killing of enemies that had betrayed the Muslims due to the act of war initiated, period. It has nothing to do with Judaism, as in the Qur'an people of the Torah (and Christians) are appointed mercy and acceptance from the Islamic God. Let's try not to intentionally twist words to make it sound like Islam has something against Jews, because that is just a single ton of pathos, with no logic behind it. As to the killing of authors and "free-thinkers," Con says, "Not only does Pro justify the cold-blooded murder by what the deceased had said in critique of Islam, but then goes on to suggest that it was not the Muslims who were violent on this occasion, but the dead author! " First of all, I do in no way condone or justify the killing of critics of Islam, I welcome all those who question this religion. Once again, this type of tyrannical behavior is not prevalent in societies that are educated and not impoverished. This only happens in those extremist nations that have seen unprecedented historical turmoil, from insurgencies to dictatorships to wars to rogue terrorist organizations. Second of all, intentionally drawing disgusting cartoons about Muhammad to stir anger within Muslims is in Con's eyes liberty. No, even in America this is a crime for which you can be imprisoned because it is indisputably racist. And a book about the Qur'an, called the "Satanic Verses," we can assume is even more offensive with its contents. Still, I did not claim it's okay to kill authors and critics, neither did I say they were violent, and rather condemn their deaths. On top of that, the religion itself encouraged literature and the seeking of knowledge thereof. The first word of the first verse revealed of the first chapter revealed in Islam is "Read! " (Qur'an, 96:1). And the chapter goes on to say that "God taught mankind through the pen that which he knew not. " Why would a God then condemn speaking through literature, when God himself taught man symbolically by the pen? The truth is, God in Islam does not. Many more verses agree. In fact, Muslims had a movement in pursuit of knowledge that resulted in the creation of Algebra, fields of optics and astronomy, and the learning of cultures of other peoples. Knowledge-seeking, reading, and acceptance of opinions in discourse is mandatory to all in Islam, not condemned. I advise Con to check up on his facts. America didn't let women vote either, or slaves have their freedom, so is the religion in the country to be blamed for it? No, Con doesn't understand that free-speech and the like are regulated by governments. Islam itself never prohibits the sharing of information. It matters very much what Jihad means, not its connotations, because it acts as evidence that terrorist organizations have poisoned the word, thereby giving a false sense of Islam, my point exactly. The raids were done as an act of war against Arab tribes persecuting Muslims and threatening Muhammad's life. Con ignores that war is violence on both sides. Con seems to believe that these raids are proof not of a historic war, but of a religion's violence, which is absurd. CONCLUSIONHatred for Islam in recent times is greater than the willingness to truly learn about it. Information is taken by biased/racist sources, hence people against Islam read from people also against Islam. Research against Islam is not done in a scientific manner, but in a manner that just says "your religion is barbaric, and people beside me agree. " No sound evidence is presented from the religion's actual text, but from sources like Wikipedia, missionaries against Islam, and racist books that don't even demonstrate proper grammar. Actual text is taken out of context, so much so that apologists fear to read the sentences before and after a verse. I leave this debate learning more about the people who strive with their lives to defeat a religion that billions follow quietly, unfazed, and calmly peaceful.