Islam is a religion of violence

I should state that it's actually you that's taking the "Con" side. I am "Pro". Anyway, nowhere I have outlined a denial of the Arabic meaning of the word "Islam". The statement was that just because the word may derive from the term "peace" and so forth, it does not conclude that the actual entirety and practice of Islam does result in "peace". As for "submission to G-d", once more that does not necessarily suggest that the religion of Islam is not. "Submission to G-d" can and has constituted many violent religious and/or political movements throughout history. For example, the perpetrators of the Crusadeds believed they were submitting to G-d. It seems it's rather you that's ventured off-topic. The resolution states: the religion of Islam is violent (with you taking "Con"), not "the meaning of the word Islam is peace". We are discussing the religion, not the Arabic language itself. Additional Rebuttals "Whether Islam is practiced by Muslims or not is a question which has no relevance in contrast with the topic. Con failed again to justify her statement."Actually, my retort was completely relevant. The practice of Islam is important as this debate is about Islam. I justfied my statement by again providing more verse from the Qur'an that includes and encourages violence. "My statement "People quote various verses of The Holy Quran which are parts of a whole statement. Taking these verses out of context they manipulate the translation which then makes a complete different sense." is sufficient as an opening argument."If Pro had any experience with written debating he would have knowledge of the fact that an opening argument requires more thantwo sentences. It is your own argument that shapes the focus of your debate and confirms whether you have outlined a convincing structure. Instead of delving into any positive aspects of Islam and offering evidence on it not being a religion of violence, Pro proceeded straight to rebuttals and neglected all opportunies to compose a real argument of his own. One that specifically addressed Islam not being violent or endorsing violence. A debate consisits of both individual arguments and then later rebuttals. "Whereas it was Con who failed to bring up enough evidence in round 2 to produce a logical counter-argument. Instead Con moved further with her debate quoting verses repeatedly which were out of context and gave her own interpretations on them."In round two of my argument I addressed and responded to rebuttals and then included further verse from the Qur'an. These were all verse that included violence. My additional statements were not interpretations but rather explanation of what the verses were stating. What I stated was in fact translated words from the Qur'an. Additionally, they were not out of context. The precise context was that Muhammed was travelling around different parts of the Middle East and conquering towns/villages. Throughout the Hadith there is description of this; with the same verse that I used. Your example of the poem "Fire and Ice" by Robert Frost is again irrelevant to the debate. "In this poem Robert Frost describes the end of the world scientifically and emotionally, associating passionate "desire" with "fire" and "hatred" with "ice". If I simply quote these lines "From what I've tasted of desire, I hold with those who favor fire." without understanding the context in which it's said all I can tell from what it makes sense is that Frost is saying he knows the taste of "desire" and from which he can tell that the whole world will prefer "fire"." (1.) This is poem is an artistic work of fiction. Do you not consider the Qur'an to be real? (2.) The Qur'an is considered a "holy book", therefore it is unrelated to other forms of literature. (3.) The verses that I used are describing actual events that took place in reality. Muhammed did conquer areas, and he did attack the residents and tribes of these said areas. (4.) The context of the selected Fire and Ice verse is still not akin to the context of the Qur'anic verse I outlined. Described within the verse was the attacking of Arab, Jewish, Christian, and Pagan groups. As well as intolerance being expressed towards non-believers and the encouragement of fight and war. "This source confirms that muslims were outnumbered while they were NOT attacking BUT were defending Medina. While jewish tribe Banu-Qurayza violated the treaty, to live and practice their religion peacefully under Islamic rule they were asked to fight to defend Medina." Here we have another Wikipedia article on Banu Qurazya that entirely contradicts your statement. It is referred to as the "Invasion of Banu Qurazya":"The Islamic prophet Muhammad besieged the Banu Qurayza for 25 days until they surrendered.[1] One of Muhammad's companions decided that "the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives". Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment". (1.) http://en.wikipedia.org...It clearly states that Muhammed besieged Banu Qurazya for a number of 25 days until they surrendered. It was then decided that the men be killed, property be divided, and the women and children taken as captives. Which is precisely what I alluded to in round two. As it's important for other sources of information to be included. I will refer to a direct Ibn/Hashiq verse: "Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you neverunderstand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them."The "apostle" certainly was digging trenches here for self-defense. The verse explictly describes how the tribes heads were struck off and and how they were made an end to. So essentially, all men (600 to 900) were killed. Again, that is absolutely constitutes "violence" and provides further information on exactly how Islam was founded. As for your further statements: "As far as my resolution is concerned and aspects of Islam are considered? Then according to Islam and my argument, Bible and Torah are also Islamic scriptures, they are verses of God. Are they "Violent" too?" The the Torah and the Bible are not Islamic scriptures. (1.) The Torah belongs to the Jewish faith and was composed by Jews. (2.) The Bible belongs to the Christian faith and again, was composed by Jews bar one Greek man who added to the B'rit Hadasha (New Testament). Both faiths reject the Qur'an, so their individial holy books can in no way be considered 'Islamic". Islam was the final of all three religions to be established. As to whether Jewish or Christian scriptures are violent or not; irrelevant to the debate. I will once more outline the Hadith is widely accepted as important text within Islam, so it is absolutely relevant to the topic. An example of this significance is outlined here by Professor Shaul Hameed:"The two fundamental sources of Islam are the Qur'an (the word of God) and the Sunnah (the example) of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). By Sunnah, we mean the actions, sayings and silent permissions (or disapprovals) of the Prophet."He goes on to state; "The Qur'an is the message, while the Hadith is the verbal translation of the message into pragmatic terms, as exemplified by the Prophet. While the Qur'an is the metaphysical basis of the Sunnah, the Sunnah is the practical demonstration of the precepts laid down in the Qur'an.""It is therefore obligatory that we look up to the Prophet's morals and exemplary character and carry them out in our lives. We can never do so without studying Hadith."So, the Hadith is not only an examination of the past of Muhammed but it also a source of moral inspiration for Muslims. Mistreatment of women is assumes prominence within Muslim holy texts and thoughout Islam's history. In relation to modern aspects of the religion, research shows that in countries such as Sweden (where there is a high Muslim population) Muslim men are found to be overrepresented in statistics. As many as 77% Muslim men were found to be responsible of commiting rape. This increase is said to e directly related to advanced Muslim immigration into the country. Predominatly Muslim countries have also been shown to have the highest numer of female mutiliation cases, which again; constitutes "violence" and is considered a crime in most countries. In Iraq, the cases for sexual and domestic abuse against women was at 77%. Now to "honour violence", an estimated 200 too 300 honour killings are committed in Syria each year. In fact, half of the murder cases within Syria are said to to be attributed to this form of violence. Due to character length, I cannot expound on these next inclusions of Islamic violence in great detail but I will make referrence:Concerning Muslim terroism, one poll found that around 44% of Nigerian Muslims believed that suicide bombing attacks are "often" or "somewhat" justified. In Syria, the Christian community has also faced a series of kidnappings and brutal murders. (1.) http://www.onislam.net...(2.) http://europenews.dk...(3.) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...