Islam is a religion of peace.

As I stated previously in this debate, the motion is whether Islam is a religion of peace of not. We are not debating the existence of God. If you wish to debate that with me you may just make it a separate debate. My opponent has made it clear that he is not here to defend any religion and that he thinks all are equally bad in different ways. Well if that is his standpoint then this debate is over. The motion is if Islam is a religion of peace. If his stance is that all religion are equally bad then he must think Islam is NOT a religion of peace. My opponent seems more interested in debating Science vs Religion rather than the motion. My opponent may debate with me on that topic as I am very well versed in it but this is whether Islam is a religion of peace or not. And from his opening statement he admittedly said "they are all equally bad in different ways". Therefore, again he must believe Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Keep this in mind when those go to vote. You are incorrectly using the term "Christianity" because it is not similar to the Bible, if you wish to gain the knowledge on this matter you may comment on my profile I'll be happy to explain. This however is not the motion. My opponent has chosen to play the blame game, and this is very interesting. He brings up what I said prior that if you pick and choose what verses to believe in the Qu'ran you are not following it correctly. He begins to argue that I must choose the right God and brings of different Gods. Once again this is not arguing that Islam is a religion of peace but rather how do I know my God is right. I have an excellent rebuttal to that statement, but that does NOT pertain to the motion. As I said my opponent is playing the blame game or "justification by defense". He is arguing that since the Bible has violent verses that should no way allow others to judge Qu'ran violent verses. For an example imagine when you were younger and you and a group of friends got into trouble. What would you do you save yourself? You would say "well he did it TOO!" This is exactly what my opponent is doing he playing the blame game. My opponent actually has agreed with me if he takes this stand. He is basically saying " Yes Islam is violent, but so is the Bible" . So therefore he has agreed with my arguments and openly admitted with what I have said. If he wishes to debate the violence in the Old Testament, he may but at a separate time. My opponent says "Of course you have cherry picked, you have selected passages which only represent the questionable teachings of the Quran, you haven"t included any of the good moral teachings. That is the exact definition of cherry picking and again I must reiterate that the same can be done for any religious text." I have chosen verses that are WELL known in hopes that you may try and refute them. The fact is that the Qu'ran has over 170 verses that promote violence. Since this website has character limit of 8,000 I cannot possibly give you 200 some verses that are violent. While there are verses that promote peace, in the same breath there are verses that promote violence. The difference is that these verses of violence in the Qu'ran are also present in the hadiths. This is obviously a trend in the Islamic sources and from these teachings we can see how groups like ISIS see these verses and behave. The way Islam was spread was by the sword, and fear. Muhammad said himself " Sahih Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror. This is how Islam spread with violence and terror. Another difference is that the final marching orders of Islam is jihad. There are 164 verses of jihad in the Qu'ran and with these verses how can one say Islam is peace? Jihad is exactly how Islam has spread. For your sake lets ignore the verses and just look at the figurehead of Islam. Scholars and historians use the figurehead or the leader of the religion to judge it. We judge Islam by the life of Muhammad and as I stated in my opening argument that his life was not peaceful at all. Is someone peaceful who does the following : Muhammad nicknames his weapons. Muhammad commands in his Quran that adulterers and adulteresses should receive a hundred lashes. Muhammad in his Quran permits husbands to beat their wives. Muhammad in his Quran commands that the hands of male or female thieves should be cut off. Muhammad assassinates poets and poetesses. Muhammad in his Quran commands death or the cutting off of hands and feet for fighting and corrupting the land. Muhammad aggressively attacks Meccan caravans. Muhammad in his Quran promises sensuous Gardens for martyrs dying in a military holy war. Muhammad unjustly executes around 600 male Jews and enslaves the women and children. Muhammad launches his own Crusades. You might say well I "cherry-pick" with what I do not like about Muhammad and ignore the moments were he was just. Well Allah said that : Verily you have in the Prophet of Allah an excellent model, for him who fears Allah and the Last Day and who remembers Allah much. Chapter 33:22. From that verse we see that Muhammad is supposed to be a model for Muslims to follow and his life was to set an example for Muslims. Therefore, we can conclude Islam is not peaceful because his life was not peaceful. I said groups like ISIS see this verse and will think "Hmm Muhammad killed unbelievers so should I". I stated prior that I believe that ISIS are more Islamic than "peaceful muslims" and they these muslims do not follow their teaching to 100%. My opponent has not disagreed with my statement, he in turns says well those who believe in the Bible do not follow it to 100 percent. Since you believe there are 1.7 billion Muslims who practice Islam peacefully (even though you have no way to verify that) I have two questions : If a victim of an Islamic terrorist attack studies the Muslim sources and sees a connection between the attack and the commands of Islam, would he be a bigot for becoming concerned about the spread of Islam? What's the difference, practically speaking, between: a religion that commands its adherents to violently subjugate unbelievers, and a religion that only sounds like it commands it adherents to violently subjugate unbelievers? We do not have to cherry-pick anything because from someone reading the Qu'ran and seeing these verses and understanding the life of Muhammad can conclude that Islam is not peaceful. If Muhammad were alive today, he would be tried for crimes against humanity and executed. Closing My opponent has actually agreed with me in saying that Islam is NOT peace. He says that all beliefs are equally bad so therefore he concludes that Islam is also bad. He seems to be more interested in debating Science vs Religion and gets his arguments from theoretical physicist. The motion is whether Islam is peaceful or not. He has taken the route to blame game and is basically saying "Yes Islam is violent but so is the Bible" therefore agreeing with my arguments. The motion is not about the Bible or Christ. My opponent has not given me one argument yet, that says Islam is peace. However, he has stated that he is not interested in saying Islam is peace but rather science is defeating religion. That argument does not pertain to the topic and he has failed to present one defending Islam. This debate is about whether Islam is peace not, and not about science. I have given facts about the life of Muhammad and the explanation of the verses. My argument still stands. From the verses I have given and the timeline of Muhammad, I can still conclude Islam is NOT a religion of peace based on the teachings and doctrine.