It's time to send all Western Muslims back to the Middle East

I will once again begin this round by countering a few of my opponent's points: "'Muslims don't want to destroy everyone else, it's more about oneness between everything.'" 3:28" 'Don"t take unbelievers as friends and allies, unless it is for "fear of them,' i.e. deceptively for protection of oneself or of Islam.'" This is simply a single quotation, which my opponent has once again blankly looked over and is now labeling as all of Islam. Now firstly, the Christian bible has many examples of quotations like this, but do we label this as all of Christianity? This is simply a bit of philosophy. and in no way does it have to be taken literally. Not all of Islam believes in literal translations. Even if some do believe this is to be taken literally, the majority of those likely believe we are now in a different era, and therefore no longer have to follow every guideline set. This is like saying that all Christians believe that Jesus will destroy all non-believers once he returns to us. We're not going to kick every Christian out of the west because of their beliefs. Also, plenty of Christians believe in the bible, but not necessarily every single literal translation. (47:4) "When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads." My opponent actually made an incorrect statement in this verse and it actually goes: "So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens." Firstly, once again, this was a different era. This whole quotation could very well be a metaphor. Battle could be a metaphor for argument, and neck could be a metaphor for routes of belief. Slaughter could be a metaphor for defeat in argument. In every religion, the highest branch of orthodox will debate with other religious groups until the cows come home, and that is what I believe this could be suggesting. Also, if you read the end of the quotation, the intentions of the 'battle' are all good. They're not only doing it for the sake of fighting. They're performing the task in an attempt to force the opponent to stop fighting. These are two quotations my opponent has mistranslated into the modern era, and I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the quotations he has quoted from the Quran are just as incorrectly translated. However, I am not going through every single quotation he has mistranslated, as I am sure that my opponent understands my point. http://quran.com... "Con is arguing Islam with a former female Islamist who had her genitalia cut off per Islam because if a woman has a clitoris, she'll be tempted to have sex more than necessary." I understand my opponent's point here, but I don't exactly comprehend how it's supposed to be targeting my argument. I would like him to elaborate on this point a bit more, before he adds it to his case. Circumcision and this kind of thing is performed painlessly. "Shall I list the Western Muslims who have engaged in terrorism against Europe and the U.S.? It's huge." No, my opponent is once again incorrect. The number of Western Muslims participating in anti-west terrorism is not 'huge.' According to a recent poll, %80 of American Muslims believe that military action should be taken against Isis and various other terrorist groups. Secondly, there is no significant percentage of western Muslims who have joined Isis. Sure, there are a tiny amount, but the overwhelming majority are completely opposed to Isis and other groups. Also, if we were to send all Western Muslims to the Middle East, would that really strengthen their love for the west? Wouldn't that just make it more likely for them to have sympathy for terrorism? My opponent is obviously not thinking ahead, making this statement. http://www.pewresearch.org... "There were 452 suicide bombings in 2015. 450 were Islamic. That's 99%." My opponent still clearly doesn't understand what I have said at least five times now. These bombings have been claimed by Isis and various other terrorist groups. Western Muslims (once again) do not associate themselves with 'Islam' terrorist groups. I honestly don't understand how my opponent has not taken anything from this point. I believe it is a very obvious statement, and I do not understand why he keeps trying to use statements like these in his favour. "Well, it is the religion I grew up in..." My opponent made this statement countering mine, about his statements being opinion-based. I accept that you grew up with Islam. You have come to dislike it. I accept that. Does this mean that you can use untrue statistics to prove your points? I don't think so. When entering a debate, you need to have legitimately proven statistics. You can't stretch truths and creature misunderstandings in the fashion you are. From bring up the Sweden point (disproved) to claiming that a large percentage of Western Muslims are joining terrorist groups (disproved) you are only hurting your own case. "According to Con, Ex Muslims of North America (EXMNA) know nothing about Islam." I would like you to prove that. This is once again another statement that my opponent is just declaring to be true without providing any basis. Please elaborate on your point. I never stated what you apparently believe I had in this case. This has nothing to do with the debate. I said that the vast majority of Western Muslims are against terrorism in the Middle-East. That is the closest thing I can think of that matches what you are accusing me of saying. The links you have provided match people with your ideology, but nowhere do I see any evidence that I believe that Ex Muslims know nothing about Islam. I, however believe that these people do understand Islam. They just have come to different conclusions, regarding it. "Con must explain why the Swedish women are dying their hair and wearing hijabs to hide their identities." I did a bit of research about this online, and know for a fact that no significant percentage of Swedish women are dying their hair and wearing hiijabs. Once again, Sweden has a different way of labeling their rape statistics. Because of this, many people have misunderstood the stats as supposedly suggesting that the rape statistics were higher. I am yet to understand how my opponent thinks this qualifies as a point. I will conclude my argument here, by explaining how having Muslims in our society is a win-win. Here in the west, I am proud to live in such a diverse part of the world. We should all be free to celebrate our differences and share our culture with the rest of the world. I am aware my opponent is probably going to make a remark about Islam culture being destructive, but he is completely and utterly incorrect. Firstly, Middle-Eastern refugees are escaping carnage in their own nations. They are being pursued by cruel dictators, who want to harm them. In the west, they have an opportunity to express their joy, being in such a diverse and beautiful part of the world. Also, plenty of born-Western- Muslims are proud of their heritage. They are proud of their culture, their celebrations, their food etc. They want to share what makes them different with the rest of the world; just like we all do. This is how we should all reside. The spreading of diversity is a positive thing. We need more of it. We are not improving any of the world's problems by casting country-mates away. We need to celebrate each other. We need to come together as a people. Thank you.