Islam is a religion of peace.

Just to comment on your opening paragraph. I believe the exact opposite of what you believe. I believe that God is the foundation for objective mortality. I believe that the basis of religion is to teach one how they ought to live. Religion is a broad term and used very loosely. Religion is never mentioned in the (for example) the bible. Jesus never started a religion, he never even mentioned Christianity as a religion. Jesus says "Be Holy for I am holy" Daniel 7:9. To attach the stigma of what mainstream religion today is to the Bible would be incorrect. These different's in doctrines are in fact man-made and man influenced. These teachings divert the teachings instructed in the Bible. I believe science and the belief in God can co-exist, I am living proof of that. I admire the works of William Lane Craig and CS Lewis. However, science teaches you how the world is and not how it ought to be. Now I do not want to stray away from the topic at hand. If you wish to debate that further we can in another debate. I wish to keep this remained on the topic. I see your use of Christianity is used incorrectly, however since this isn't a debate of that I will not refute it. The term Christianity is very broad and often used to box in groups of people. For an example if you follow the Bible you MUST be a Christian which is not true at all. For the sake of this argument I'll be using the term "Christian" in layman's terms. Rebuttals: Con says : "If you were to randomly select any religion, and were able to examine its followers you would find that people from all ends of the "morality spectrum" are attracted and the religion in question is no reflection of this. Christianity attracts good and bad, Islam attracts good and bad, Buddhism attracts good and bad. All religions have elements of peace and hate. It is entirely down to the individual who practices it, depending on their views and morality that decides whether it is a peaceful religion or not. " I say : Yes, indeed religion does attract groups of many people good and bad. The point of having a set of beliefs are to give a foundation to base your objective morality from. How could an individual practice a religion and then use their own judgment to decide if it's peaceful or not? You are not practicing it at all if you decide what you believe it should say based on what you believe. This is why humanity is the way it is and why we need a divine intervention because obviously what happens in the world today. This is why God is here as a foundation. You decide if a religion is peace based on its teachings, core beliefs, doctrines, and the life of its figurehead i.e Muhammad. Once you interject your own beliefs into the religion you are not practicing it. For an example Qu'ran 9:29 teachings to fight and kill unbelievers. If I'm a Muslim and I see this verse but I deny it and choose to ignore it I am NOT practicing the teachings. Con seems to be straying away from the topic with his statement paragraphs. He seems to justify the violence of Islam in defense that other religions have peace and hate, so why can't Islam? Con seems to not have a solid argument as why Islam is a religion of peace, but rather playing the blame game. He brings up the crusades in mentioning that they were evil, and that they should be questioned for their actions. First of all, most of the people involved were not truly Christians even though they claimed to be. The argument that is present in Islam (Sura 9:5) which is either "convert" or "die" is not biblical at all. Furthermore, the crusades were attacking in response to Muslims conquering land. Muslims brutally invaded Christian land from 200-900 A.D and in response they fought back. The Crusaders came from Europe and those who commanded them were so-called Christians and not true to the faith at all. There is nothing biblical about killing innocent people. Again, this is not relevant to the topic at hand this is about whether Islam is peace or not. Con makes his argument that is relevant to the topic. Con writes : "Analysing holy books is a tricky job and can easily lead to misinterpretation based on the information you chose to include in your argument. It is far too easy to pick passages from any piece of literature in order to agree with your argument if you are biasedly selective. People often cherry-pick the Quran and come out with passages of hate and war, when you could easily do the same to show a religion of peace and love." I say : Analyzing holy books can be tricky to do but to combat misinterpretation one must fully research the text from its earliest writings. The verses I included do not leave much room for interpretation. The instructions are pretty transparent and one does not need to know a lot about Islam to know what these verses mean. Con says that I "cherry-pick" and I take what I do not like and use it in my argument. This is simply not true, if the website permitted a higher character limit I could give you over 170 verses in the Qu'ran that promote violence. I choose the ones that are more widely known in hopes that you would know this and you would be able to refute it. Con writes some passages from the Qu'ran that are peaceful, but he fails to acknowledge the overall message. You can find me many peaceful verses in the Qu'ran and I can find you many violent ones. The difference is that the final marching orders of the Qu'ran is jihad. The Qu'ran was spread by the sword and fear. I mentioned in my opening argument that Muhammad had 65 war campaigns. Islam was accepted because of jihad and fear for your life. Why is it that Muhammad receives convenient revelations when he would benefit? Muhammad is accepting when he is outnumbered but brutal when he is in power. As I said the final marching order of Islam is jihad and violently subjugate non-believers. The facts are that Muhammad did not live a peaceful life and he was a very violent person. Islam has over 170 verses that promote violence and surely you can see this is a trend in the book. The various Islamic text include violence here are a few : Sahih Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." Sahih Bukhari (52:65) - The Prophet said, 'He who fights that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause. Muhammad's words are the basis for offensive Jihad - spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today. (See also Sahih Bukhari 3:125) Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious Muhammad himself says how he spread Islam and became powerful : Sahih Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror' Con's closing statement again is not relevant to the topic. He says that religion are not good or evil nor are they peaceful or not peaceful. Again as I stated the term "religion" is used too broadly, and I'd argue that the Bible is peace. This does not pertain to the topic at hand. If con wishes to debate with me on my beliefs in the bible he can, but in another debate. Con says I am pigeoning a hole that is practiced peacefully by 1.7 billion people. Con is incorrect as he does not that 1.7 billion people are practicing it peacefully. And for his sake let's say they are practicing it "peaceful". They are not true Muslims because they do not follow what the text says. Those who are true Muslims are ISIS because they follow what the text actually says to do. These people who practice it "peacefully" is what I call moderate muslims. I'll propose 3 questions in my next argument, I am reaching my limit in this one. Sahih Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror