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

Already in the comments of this debate are so many outright made-up claims, so much in fact that I worry the level of misinformation among non-Muslims has extended beyond what I am able to cover in four rounds. I thank those of you that wait for the debate to conclude to form your take on the matter.I hereafter address Con. Before I commence my opening arguments, I would like to refute Con's claim that quran.com is a flawed source due to censorship of verses as a result of being a Muslim source. This is a false claim in virtually every respect. In the realm of discourse and anthropological frameworks, it is absolutely unacceptable to make defining claims about a religion or culture without referring to the religion or culture for information about themselves. If I wanted to be taken seriously, I would not under any circumstance go to a Christian website to learn about Islamic virtues and Islamic beliefs. And consequently, neither would I go to an Islamic website to learn about Christian beliefs. Using a Muslim source is not only acceptable in this scenario, but an intellectual necessity. As to Con's claims that the source has changed verses or censored some, there is absolutely no evidence to support this. On top of that, the website lists multiple translation sources from many different individuals or entities. So if Con would like, and he is still bent on the notion that some source is somehow corrupt, he can very well choose one of the many other translators, provided he mentions which one. He'll find, I guarantee, that there is no censorship and that each source is reputable. As mentioned before, the difference in translation comes only in the style of writing, in an associative manner. An example of this is that one translator might use "stone," while another may use "rock." There is no change in the meaning of the text, which is why each source is reputable.Regarding Hadith (sayings of the Prophet of Islam), there is also a link to those on quran.com, compiled by doctors and scholars in the field of Islam. As an active member of the Muslim community, I can testify that this website is used in mosques and communities alike to teach children of the Qur'an and Hadith. Please refer to this website for your arguments based on the Hadiths as well. It is not that the Hadiths are different, but that the way that they are compiled can vary from website to website.R2. OPENING STATEMENTS/ARGUMENTSA. There is not a single recorded text in all of the entire religion of Islam, coming from either the Qur'an or the Hadith, that expresses violent behavior that isn't reasonably justified. Before we refer to texts referring to seventy-some virgins, let me point out that these claims are false and don't exist in the Qur'an. I will take a step out of empirical evidence for a moment and would just like to say this: to an intellectual, whether atheist or Christian or Muslim, it is nigh an insult when witnessing the sheer amount of false information and blatant lies spread about on the web regarding an idea, be it religion or otherwise. I urge Con again, with these limited number of rounds, to crosscheck every source.In support of argument "A," as written above, I will take a number of verses from the Qur'an that may at first seem to be of a violent nature:1. The most popular anti-Islamic sentiment arises from the following verses in the Qur'an: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers" (Quran, 2:191).This verse has been taken entirely out of context, which I will get to in just a moment, but even without context the verse can justify itself. First of all, when it is said, "kill them wherever you overtake them," it is in the context of battle to ensure victory. Again, in this scenario we have two peoples at war. We don't have two peoples arguing over a cup of tea. In war, it is the wisdom of the Qur'an to be fearless and steadfast and to not lay down your arms until the enemy surrenders, and that is what this verse is promulgating. Alongside this, the killing in war as mentioned by this verse, is done only in a manner of self-defense. "Expel them from where they have expelled you," can not be any more clear on this. It didn't say "invade" or "terrorize the peoples of other nations." It takes a lot of picking at straws to classify such a verse as only violent, but not reasonable. To a commander of a platoon in war in America, this is everyday advice during battle--no, this is common knowledge that doesn't even need to be justified in the American military. Somehow, though, people use these same battle tactics in the Qur'an not as logical tactics in war, but as methods of dominion by a violent race of primitives known as the "Muslims." It is downright absurd. As mentioned in the presuppositions, in order for Islam to be peaceful does not mean its followers should be dead horses when battle comes to them.2. Atop this, this verse actually is taken out of context. Have you ever wondered what verses came before and after verse 191 of Chapter 2? Here they are as follows: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors" (Quran, 2:190)."And if they cease [fighting you/surrender], then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful" (Quran, 2:192). "Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors" (Quran, 2:193). The word "fitnah" actually has no direct translation into English, and can have a number of meanings. Here, it means "persecution against Muslims." A virtue of the Qur'an is that oppression amongst humans is a great sin. Oppression does not mean hate Western culture because they have laptops and shiny buildings. Oppression is when there is an unequal, unjust, and dehumanizing power reigning over a given nation in this context. Is there anything violent about that?Con may present any other text within the Qur'an alluding to violence--I have already taken the liberty of reviewing the most controversial one. I can guarantee that it is justified in the name of self-defense, accident, or a mechanism by which to remove tyranny. (Once again, tyranny in the eyes of Islam is oppression, which I've already defined.)B. The fact that the Qur'an makes mention of such necessary violence is a testament to its validity. This one I believe is pretty self-explanatory, but I'll explain it some anyway. Humans have a longing for internal peace, pleasure, and comfort. Why would anyone make up a religion this rigorous? If this religion was made by a human being, don't you think that only the attractive forms of life would appeal to prospective believers? If you want people to believe in something you made up, you want it to sound attractive to those around you. There is nothing relatively attractive in the Qur'an that would have billions of people believing it for no reason. No alcohol, no sex before marriage, mention of war and duties in fighting wars, the giving of wealth, the belief in only one God and banishment of other idols--almost all these things were contrary to what the Quraish tribe around Muhammad was believing. Why make up a religion that is literally going to make you public-enemy number one?The way Allah is completely unafraid to speak to our human aspect of violence and to tell us what should be done if that nature arises, is unlike any other religion's preparation for our own natures. It is not a sugar-coated religion, but one that to scholars and scientists alike resembles a most realistic one. And that is all necessary violence is--the ability to see realistically, rather than idealistically.