Islam promotes segregation, violence, and unequal treatment for women.

I would first like to address the closing statement in which Con has made. To beg a question that ends with an inquiry of my possible ignorance to historical records pertaining to the religious diversity of leaders in Muslim countries is irrelevant. I am not going to sit here and debate with you who is right and who is wrong under these historical pretexts. My focus is the promotion of the three factors at large during the inception and inevitable reception of Islamic ideology. Or, to rephrase, I am more concerned about the foundational core of Islam's proscriptions and prescriptions. I would have hoped you could avoid deviating from my burden of proof if your only second round position is to rebuttal. Adding an inference to ignorance is a juxtaposition for ambiguity, not for probable cause. I have read the Qur'an front to back and taken courses on Islam, so please do not insult my intelligence with your attempt to discredit any knowledge you THINK I do not have or have not diligently attempted to acquire.Here, I will clearly focus on a rebuttal for Con's second round response and try to make sense of any white noise that has seemingly hindered the crux of my argument. Preface: Context is a very important component for reading any religious writing, yet understanding the context in the Qur'an does not change the many literal interpretations and inevitable implementation. It is true that relevance of contextual time periods can change our understanding as to why components do not seem relevant today. Keeping this in mind, is the irrelevance derived from contextual misinterpretation widely adhered to in modern times? Or, do these misinterpretations have a stronger influence than the "correct" interpretations. Lastly, if we are to examine the effect of the introductory primer in the Qur'an , the Qur'an does not preface with, "I will be speaking in parables and allegory, and one should interpret it as such." The Qur'an asserts this book is to not be doubted. The first few pages then pump out rule after rule for how to live your life, while reinforcing the fear of divine punishment. How would any reasonable individual think to approach the Qur'an, in its entirety, having been indoctrinated in this fashion? *The paraphrased inferences I have made are referring to the first few pages of chapter 1 of the Qur'an, titled "The Cow". Dawood, N.J., "The Koran". Penguin Classics. England, 1999.-Itemized rebuttals in consecutive order- Segregation: Con has attempted to display my inattentiveness to the basis for segregation as if that is a rationale for the practice. Now, if I may, say that the potential interpretive impact the Qur'an may have is ideologically incompatible as a basis for comparison of these randomly drawn samples of groups. If you are concerned about the basis for segregation, then please explain why Islam is justified, comparably, to any given group who segregates.5.51: Are you saying that your recommended translation website, the one you outlined in your rules for accepting this debate, is not a reliable Arabic to English source of translation? I do not speak Arabic and did not read the word "Awliya" since the verses in their entirety were translated to English for me. Hence the reason for having, what you asserted to be, a reputable website to bridge this divide. Please show me in the rules where you said I should first utilize "X" as an expert resource and then utilize "Y" to refute/modify the results from "X". Now, pretending that the above said did not occur, I will address your point. The element of segregation remains, regardless of the "Awliya" misunderstanding. You explain that Allah is the protector and there's no other protector, but Him. Yet, why is it that Muhammad singles out only the Jews and Christians? He could simply state that He is the only protector, while eliminating the blatant segregation of two singled out religious groups. What I find almost comical that any Muslim I have ever spoken with says that Muhammad professes respect and relationships with those who have not declared war, yet the Qur'an's rhetoric is driven by fear and horrible punishments among the unbelievers (Jews/Christians). This does not overshadow the negative statements made towards "unbelievers" and those alike, it only shows that Muhammad contradicts himself in a consistent manner. Guidance and 9.30: You are right on one thing, "IF God exists." IF God does exist, then the absurd and horrible punishments He creates for the "unbelievers" are even less rational given the fact that God displays characteristics of a sociopath and narcissism. Either way, the verse in question does relate to segregation because this type of propaganda only further reinforces a fear of integration with the "unbelievers". If I were to take these professions of truth as sacrament, then I too would have a conditioned fear and potentiality for non association. 33.64: Claiming that Allah will cast the unbelievers into a blazing fire (metaphysical or not, it still refers to a place of wicked punishment) would weaken the reader's ability to relate to the unbelievers, hinder relative religious understanding, and further maintain the division between divine reasoning. This verse has everything to do with reinforcing a constant fear of integration with the "unbelievers". Same rule from above. 9.123: Incorporating humor as a mediocre attempt to down play my understanding of the historical context is not at all a damming piece of evidence (also, please refer to my preface on contextual relevance). I will tell you what I was expecting from a book that has been used as a fundamental resource for problem solving; divine guidance that is timeless and can be understood as such. The timelessness and concrete validity of religious text is the reason religions stay afloat for centuries. The crux of your argument about the the Byzantines is still controversial among scholars as to whether or not it even took place. I would never cite something that does not have major scholarly approval. You forgot to add that after the "battle", Muhammad's followers believed there to be nobody left to fight and wanted to sell their weapons. Muhammad wouldn't allow this and believed that there will always be a need to fight. Now, that is timeless and contextually modern.4.89: War is the fuel keeping the Qu'ran's fire from going out. The references to battle and war make up such a large portion of the book that ignoring them as contextually irrelevant deems a large portion of the Qur'an irrelevant. Knowing historically that Muslims were constantly at battle and engaging in conflict does not change the meaning no matter how you spin it. These conflicts were what Muhammad used as a resource for implementing his own militaristic strategy. The fact remains that Muhammad did not speak of battles from personal experience, he gives a divine and objective list of directions for engaging, attacking, and killing the opposition. That is not a story, it is a reference for Muhammad's rules of engagement. 2.82: I do not have the character length necessary in order to fill half of my rebuttal with this verse in its entirety. I actually had to omit much of my argument due to character constraints. I am going to take that as an aversion to refute my claim.4.43: The difference here is that the Qur'an details this verse specifically to men, disregarding that the man and woman both cohabited. Thus, this is blatant special circumstance that does not apply to women, even though they are involved. 2.223: If this verse was simply saying "the purpose of sexual intercourse is to procreate", then it would have said that. It says that men can go to their tilth as they desire (implying that male discretion supersedes that of their wife), not that sexual intercourse is for procreation, or husbands and wives can have sex as they please. I cannot fit anything else here.