Islam is a peaceful religion

24:2 Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment.

4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.

5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful.

Surah 2:191: "And kill them (non-Muslims) wherever you find them … kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers

Quran 9.5: When sacred months have passed, kill polytheists wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them, sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, establish prayer and give zakah, let them go on their way. Indeed, Allah is forgiving and merciful.

Peaceful- Not involving war or violence.

“4:34

 

Another interesting quote, don't know why Con has included this either. If wives commit ill conduct to their husbands, the husband must consult and speak with her first. Is this not peace? If the wife persists then he has to leave the bedroom and sleep somewhere else. Is this not peace? And finally, if the wife carries on and takes it further, the man must tap the wife gently as stated in 4:34. 'then discipline them ˹gently˺'”

“Very intrigued to why Con has given this verse as well. It seems all have been questionable to be picked because none enforce violence without peace first or without reason. 

 

So 5:38 states that a thieves hands to be cut off when they steal something. First of all, 4 witnesses must testify in court to make this a fair trial and if the criminal has committed the crime, it is a punishment. As the other one, this is also a deterrent. It minimises pain and suffering to the victims side and the witnesses need good reason to confess he is guilty. If a person steals an apple from a market stall to feed himself or his family, the court will take this into consideration if it ends up reaching court, and he won't be persecuted. Just another quote that Con has given which I can't understand why.”

“2:191

 

I mean this one is so out of context it is unbelievable. Con has purposely not included bits of the verse to make his argument seem right, however not so fast.

 

2:190: Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors. 

 

2:191- and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out.

              And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there

             

2:192- But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

 

2:193- Fight against them ˹if they persecute you˺ until there is no more persecution

               If they stop ˹persecuting you˺, let there be no hostility except against the aggressors.

 

I mean come on, the proof is in the pudding. It is a war verse. This is a classic example of self defence. Peace was the first option, however remember the Holy War criteria? That a Muslim cannot go to war with the enemy unless they attack first. Clearly the Muslims are not the aggressors, they are not told to cause terror, they are not told to kill or fight first. Only attack if the enemy attacks, that is the rule. “

Pro is inadvertently defending a system of retribution that seeks to punish unmarried men and women for sleeping around. Draw your own conclusions about whether or not this system is acceptable. 

There are many different translations of this verse, this one saying.:

"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard.

But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

I’m going to respond with this.:

"‘Ā’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported that the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) said: ''The hand of a thief is to be cut off for a quarter of a dinar or more."

Like Muhammad’s raids on the Meccan Caravans and genocide of its people?

Or is this the exception to the self-defence rule? 

I mean come on; the proof is in the pudding, RIGHT!?!?!?!

Pro attempts to explain away the violence and brutality committed by Islam through claiming these verses are “cherry-picked." Not that extra detail nullifies the significance of these crimes. 

“It is a crime. You have to understand that the perpetrator has committed a crime and a crime must be dealt with by justice. If there was no justice, then there would be chaos and therefore this punishment is acceptable. And only in rare cases does this punishment actually happen. As I said, 4 witnesses, a fair trial and something of value and something kept in a place that is stolen is seen as a crime that would give this type of punishment.”

“No that is not right. What you are insinuating in that a man has a right to STRIKE a woman. The strike that me and you know very well, means to forcefully hit. Now in the actual translation it says strike gently. Why the use of this oxymoron? The answer is very obvious. In Arabic, the word 'strike' in this context does not mean to forcefully hit and therefore strike is translated to as 'tap'. 

 

Domestic abuse is not tolerated in Islam actually and is a worldwide crime. Funnily enough, in the western world, domestic abuse is actually very prominent. In fact after the Euros 2020, when England lost on pens, there was a 38% increase on domestic abuse by English white men. Actually, this happened not only due to the fact England lost, but also due to the problem of alcohol, something which Islam prohibits because of the intoxication it leads people to. Therefore, Con has no right to talk about this issue of domestic abuse when it is clear that Islam has nothing to do with it, and is a false claim made by him.”

“I would infer that Con is talking about the raid that led to a peace treaty being made and offered by the Muslims. Unless Con can find me a reference to where the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) raided and killed people for absolutely no reason, that example is nullified due to the agreement of a peace treaty and only attacking in the case of self defence. 

 

Also the second question that Con has given is promoting self defence not as a form of violence. Keep in mind Con has stated this and let's see if he changes in the future rounds.”

“What proof have you given?”

“Were they not cherry picked or are you denying it? Because clearly they were.”

Appeal To The Law Fallacy- When following the law is assumed to be the morally correct thing to do, without justification, or when breaking the law is assumed to be the morally incorrect thing to do, without justification.

“Facts and figures about domestic violence in the Muslim community are not as up to date as we would hope.

A study of 22 mosques in New York in 2005 found that 

• 96% of the participants perceived the imam as a counselor 
  
• 74% had sought counselling from imams for safety issues. (Abu-Ras and Gheith 2006)”
  

https://www.observationofislam/muhammadvsmeccancaravans

 Unless Con can find me a reference to where the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) raided and killed people for absolutely no reason, that example is nullified due to the agreement of a peace treaty and only attacking in the case of self defence. 

The statement that the verses were cherry-picked aren’t a shield either way. Despite the claims of self-defence, it is evident that the “prophet” was not as much of a victim as he is the perpetrator.

“Sam Shamoun is a biased source to get from. I understand why you have done that but it is not lawful to do so. Clearly a biased viewpoint satisfies your view on it, so you have found someone who thinks like you as well.”

“The Meccans wanted to kill the Prophet. They either wanted him dead or to go to war. As the Meccans were preparing for war, What the Muslims did was justified as an act of self defence thus Con has not answered the question. I asked for a reliable reference to where the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) raided or killed people for absolutely no reason. Any example, any Hadith. By the way, there is none.”

“By cherry picked, I meant out of context, and thank you for admitting that. Despite the claims that the Prophet was a perpetrator, Con has failed to justify why this is the case by giving no reference for it. 

 

Islam is a peaceful religion. 

 

Con has failed to product any evidence of the latter, any evidence of the Prophet attacking people for no reason, any evidence of the Quran telling people to attack others for no reason, any evidence of Islam advocating violence without reason and I can go on.”

"Instead, Adel froze, paralyzed by the crackling sounds of fire now drifting up the hillside as smoke ascended into the darkening sky. They have set the entire village ablaze. Every house would be consumed, she knew, including her own."

1. Eternity in blazing fire[11]
   
2. Hung by the breasts[12]
   
3. Bound in yokes[13] and chains[10]
   
4. Garments of liquid pitch[14] and fire[15]
   
5. Faces covered in fire[14] and lips burnt off[16]
   
6. Beat with maces of iron[15]
   
7. Fed painful, noxious, choking foods which will leave them hungry and boil their insides[13][17][18][19]
   
8. Boiling water[20] poured over one's head and used to scald the skin and internal organs[15]
   
9. Extremely hot, and extremely cold, filthy fluids of pus and blood[21]
   
10. Hot stones placed on the nipple that will burn through to the shoulder bone[22]
    
11. Dragged by the face through boiling water and fire[23][24]
    
12. Burning embers beneath the arches of the feet[25] or shoes of fire[26] that will cause one's brain to boil.
    
13. Intestines will come out[27]
    
14. Exchangeable skins so that people can be roasted over and over again[28]
    

• My point of flogging as a punishment for adultery as being a cruel and unusual punishment remains uncontested by Pro.
  

• I argue that the verses in Islam endorse domestic abuse and show statistics. (Slightly refuted.) Pro mentions that correlation is not causation, but my argument about the specific verse of men hitting their wives being misinterpreted has yet to be disproven.
  

• I argue that Muhammad has acted in offense before and cite a source. Pro’s response is an apparent ad hominem attack. 
  

And there is proof and documentation which establishes first-hand that Muhammad was the instigator who used bullying, threats of intimidation, and force to bend them to his will.

 

There was no admission of cherry-picking if you read back to my response from the previous round and I did prove that Muhammad was not acting in self-defence. Extend. 

On January 10, 2000, a Christian village was raided by Muslim extremists who sought to convert their new recruits by means of intimidation and force. They set fire to the houses, forcing the villagers on the retreat and to flee into the jungle in order to escape.

On March 19, 2015, a Muslim religious teacher by the name of Farkhunda Malikzada was reportedly accused of burning the Quran one day when a tragic argument took a turn for the worse.

 

She was attacked and brutalized by a mob that struggled against the police in their fight. The mob then burned her body, and evidence was released proving that the allegation made against her was in-fact, false.

The Concept of Eternal Punishment:

Each punishment varies judging by the actions of one previous to death. But of all the consequences seem to be very brutal. The technical term for hell in Islam being “Jahannam,”

 but he concedes on my point about flogging and the method of cutting off a person's arm as punishment. His only remedy to these two points is the difficulties in a trial. 

He claims that Muslims can only act in self-defence but fails to disprove my point about Muhammad being a murderer who used violence first. His response is a blatant ad hominem attack.

• Established that flogging is a brutal punishment which has not been properly refuted by Pro, so he tries to double down.  
  
• Proven that domestic abuse occurs in Islam with statistics and that the Quran verse permits men to put their hands on their wives.
  
• Demonstrated that Muhammad instigated war against the Meccans so he could force his religion on them, and he lied about having acted in self-defense to justify his cruelty.
  
• Showed real life accounts about how Muslims harassed Christian villagers by burning their houses down to get them to convert and how they brutalized a woman and set her body on fire.
  
• Made the point that their version of Hell is just blatant fear-mongering. 
  

The point of flogging is it is a deterrence. God doesn't want people to get hurt therefore he set this punishment, so people do not commit the crime and stay away from this. It is not an unusual punishment, it has a purpose. 

-Punishment is only applied if you are caught having sex outside of marriage in the Public with 4 male witnesses  testifying that you are guilty. This is near enough impossible. Only an ignorant person would have sex in public where there are witnesses. Even the UK has public indecency laws, the punishment is only a form of deterrence. Con has not debunked this at all, but just himself further down a hole. 

You have not showed how Islam endorses domestic abuse, only state why Muslims abuse their wife. Is it really to do with Islam or is it to do with cultural reasons in society? There has not been a single verse that Con has given except for Surah Nisa: 4:3 which has already been refuted. Your argument about the specific verse of men hitting their wives has been misinterpreted. I will repeat again, Men are not allowed to hurt their wives, not allowed to touch their wives face in an act of violence and not allowed to leave a mark or bruise and you still say that Islam endorses hitting women? This is not right and is a lie.

The fact that many men would misinterpret this quote to mean violence means that the fault lies with the root. This quote leaves the responsibility of judgment to the husband to decide whether or not his wife is acting irresponsibly, and for a man that gets temperamental, he can invoke this quote to justify his violence. 

Give me the proof. As you clearly said, within that book there is proof, so give the proof. Page number and reference. 

By the way, side note, 

Bullying is haram in Islam. 

Threats of intimidation is also haram without reason

Forcing something is also haram, it actually states '2:256- There is no compulsion in religion'. Muslims are not allowed to force people to join the religion and this makes Con's claim about this earlier on untrue. Forcing someone to join Islam is haram.

If the allegation was false, what is your point? Where does Islam teach that you should kill an innocent person? Again, Muslims only are allowed to act in self defence and even if they thought that they were, they were wrong. So if what you are saying is true, I condemn those Muslims as well as the Christian village ones and I am sure the rest of the Ummah does too. Therefore your point is void, Islam does not teach this once again. 

Weak, very weak point, What has something that you do not even believe in got to do with this? If you don't believe in it, you can't make this point because for you, it does not exist. This is a Muslim's belief. The concept of hell eternally, is only for those who are disbelievers. If you are Muslim, you will not go to hell for eternity. At some point, even the worst of Muslims will go to hell for a long time and then maybe once their punishment is done, they can go to heaven. This punishment is justified, you have your chance in this world to follow Islam, and it is down to a person's free will to do so if they choose. And if they don't, it is down to the same person. 

1. Eternity in blazing fire[11]
   
2. Hung by the breasts[12]
   
3. Bound in yokes[13] and chains[10]
   
4. Garments of liquid pitch[14] and fire[15]
   
5. Faces covered in fire[14] and lips burnt off[16]
   
6. Beat with maces of iron[15]
   
7. Fed painful, noxious, choking foods which will leave them hungry and boil their insides[13][17][18][19]
   
8. Boiling water[20] poured over one's head and used to scald the skin and internal organs[15]
   
9. Extremely hot, and extremely cold, filthy fluids of pus and blood[21]
   
10. Hot stones placed on the nipple that will burn through to the shoulder bone[22]
    
11. Dragged by the face through boiling water and fire[23][24]
    
12. Burning embers beneath the arches of the feet[25] or shoes of fire[26] that will cause one's brain to boil.
    
13. Intestines will come out[27]
    
14. Exchangeable skins so that people can be roasted over and over again[28]
    

First of all, even if Muhammad (PBUH) did act first and never used self defence- which he didn't- but lets say he did. How does that disprove the original question that Islam is peaceful religion. I am not talking about individuals, I am talking about the religion advocating what individuals do, know the difference please. And even so, Muhammad never so stop lying. You haven't even given an accurate source.