Islam is a religion of violence

Rebuttals "I will start my argument by pointing out the flaws in the definition of Islam given by my opponent". "Pro" should note that my definition is an actual dictionary definition, intended to provide a brief understanding of what Islam is. Pro is unable to point out flaws within this definition because (1.) It is not my own and (2.) It is clearly sourced. Definitions are not there to define the history of said words, but rather to describe what these said words are. The purpose of providing definintions is to inform to the viewer of the debate what exactly it is you're discussing. Additionally, just because the Arabic origins of the word Islam derive from words translating as submission, peace and to surrender; it does not mean that these are things entailed within the religion of Islam or practiced throughout its history. They are just mere translations. Moreover, I would like to highlight that as pro you have failed to outline an opening argument and explain why you think Islam is not a religion of violence. Instead, you have proceeded straight to rebuttals which thus means you have not presented a convincing counter-argument of your own. As for your points about the "poeticism" of Islam; they are largely irrelevant to the debate. The provided verses are neither poetic or aphoristic, rather they are explictly violent. More to the point, they are not out of context. These were verses that are openly promoting violence; including "fight" or "war" against non-believers, Jews, Christians, and as previously referenced with Mecca; residents of cities/towns that Muhammed and his followers visited and later gained control over. "The context of this verse was when Muslims were to fight their enemies for their very existence". When making such striking re-interpretations I would advise that pro support his claims with clearly defined historical evidence. On the contrary to rebutting my selected verse, you have attached to own opinion and added new meaning. The following flaws are: (1.) Muhammed and his followers were not being attacked (in this context) causing them to fight for their very existence. (2.) The fight launched upon the inhabitants of Mecca was offensive warefare, neither Muhhamed or his followers were under any attack from their Meccan adversaries. (3.) The aim of Muhhamed was to eliminate the Meccan residence. enforce Islam, and gain control over the city of Mecca. In fact, the Qu'ran itself and other sources of Islamic scripture and evidence confirm this. Never is it suggested that Muhammed and his followers are being persecuted, it strongly indicates that Muhammed launched warfre upon others. Primarily on the basis of his belief in Allah and his desire for the Muslim religion to expand. The impression one receives is that Muhammed was indeed an efficient military leader, changing the landscape of Arabic warefare forever. First off Muhammed sent his men out to raid Meccan caravans, before purposely this then lead to Muhammed and his army attackin further places within Mecca and fighting with the Meccan army; who were soley acting on defense for the city. Islam was in fact built on Muhammed and fellow Muslim conquering towns and cities, with the plan of overtaking and violently defeating the population into submission. This is how precisely how Islam formed its prominence throughout the Middle East. Another aspect to the Muhammed's violence (which I previously allluded to) is the fact he attacked and then cleansed three Jewish tribes on the basis of them refusing to convert to Islam and accept him as their prophet. Does this count as violence? It alsmost certainly does. Once more, it offers proof that Islam was founded and further expanded by violence. The HadithAs you have specified in your resolution that this debate is about Islam, your comments about the Hadith not being relevant are misplaced. If your title stated: The Q'uran is violent or (if you're taking pro); The Qu'ran is not violent, then your point would be verified. But, as you state: Islam, you are inviting reference on the entire religion of Islam. As pro you cannot simply select which aspects of Islam you want to be included and not. The Hadith assumes a very prominent role within Islam. For starters, it is considered important religious (or holy) text, and it covers significant details of Muhammed's life and the beginnings of Islam, and has invarialy shaped Islamic law; as well as being a fundamental source of inspiration for Islamic religious figures and leaders. Most importantly, it is again explictly violent in its teachings for Muslim followers. There is one particular verse within (Bukhari 46:717) that describes the violent fate of an Arab tribe named Banu Mustaliq that were attacked by Muhammed: "The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives". Here we have a tribe being attacked, without reason or valid justification. It was without warning while they were simply watering their cattle , their fighting men were killed, and their women and children were taken as captives. Is taking women and children in any way justified? And does this act of attacking and killing men of a tribe not fit in with the definition of "violence"? Again, it absolutely does. There is no added context within this verse that can offer any kind of counter-argument or refute the example of violence. Sexual abuse and rape was also practiced by Muhammed and his men. Example:(Sahih Muslim 3371), this verse states that Muhammed explictly gave his permission for his men to rape female captives, after their men had been slaughtered. Rape, as well as murder, counts as violent act and a violent crime. In addition to attacking on the basic of conversion and power, Muhammed also attacked for revenge. One such example is the tribe of Lihyan. The account of (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 718) states that were clearly unprepared and were thus forced to flee to the hills in order to save themselves. This somewhat resembles what Islamic terroist group Islamic State recently did to the Yazidi tribe of Iraq, they attacked their villages and their homes, gave the opition of conversion or death, and then forced them to flee to Sinjar mountain. Where a number of them died of deyhydration and exhaustionn. In essence this is just a modern-day version of what Muhammed himself enforced on people. Back the Hadith, Muhammed also attacked the inhabitants of Taif, because of their rejection of him. (Ibn/Hisham 280/872). Another such example is when Muhammed made a raid on Tabuk, which was his second incursion into the Christian terriotory of Syria. Muhammed forced the Christian population to pay him him tribute after he ambushed and killed their fellow local residents in order to assert his authourity and again, expand Islam and increase its power. Here is an passage from (Ibn/Hisham 959) that refers to another miliatry assault asserted on the Arab tribe the Banu al-Harith:"Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited."So basically, this tribe presented with the choice of conversion or death. They do not convert, they get the latter. Referencing the Qu'ran once again, the beginning part of the 9th Sura (9:5) it also shows further proof of attacks made against non-Muslim tribes. This time, it was the Pagans. "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them". If these Pagans make the individual and rightful choice not to convert, they are (as with other groups) to be slain and made war against. In (9:29) Jews and Christians are forced to pay financial compense for simply being Jews and Christians, and not Muslims. If they do not pay, the result is that they be killed. There's further verse in the Hadith (Ishaq/Hisham 757) referencing the Jews of Khaybar and how they were also threatened by Muhammed. "We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled… The apostle seized the property piece by piece". It seems that in this verse Muhammed's repuation of violence is actually proceeding him. These Jewish residents are forced to flee and have their property ceased by Muhammed. In (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764) it goes on to state that Muhammed then tortured the community treasurer, had him killed, and took his widow as his new wife. In (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 758) he trades two other women as slaves. It seems I have ran out of characters once again, but in round three I will further reference to the terroistic foundation of Islam and will include some of the modern-day aspects to it. (1.) http://islammonitor.org...(2.) http://www.answering-islam.org...(3.) http://muhammadanism.com...(4.) http://www.bibleprobe.com...(5.) http://www.answering-islam.org...