Islam is a religion of peace. (I am against)

1. The very basis of the religion's hereditary concept is that you can and morally are obligated to convert into it, regardless of bloodline, but that all Arabs and offspring of Muslim parent(s) can and should convert ASAP, regardless of their own belief as well as the beliefs of their other ancestors and family members. This contradictory concept enables the religion, much like Christianity, to have a 'born into it by heritage and yet all who are not born into it can and should join it and force their children and spouses into it' concept that enables it to spread aggressively, not passively.
   
2. The religion began as a warlike-religion. The Christian-run Crusades were justified as revenge against the Ottomans and other things, not actual aggressive justification in spite of what they were. The Muslims have, from start to now, embraced the sword as a logo of their means of spreading and have embraced 'empire' as what any and all Sharia Nations are to be categorised as.
   
3. The religion itself, ignoring culture, still is warlike. There is no single Qur'an verse implying peace is the goal whereas all verses imply hatred to non-Muslims and even MORE HATRED to people who pose as Muslim who aren't 'pure' or 'real'. Which is why ISIS and Al Qaeda were so able to justify their regimes and outlooks from intuitive interpretation about how to go about acting on the Qur'an's teachings.
   
4. It is the only religion to have legal backing out of international fear consistently in both a UN sense and local-nations uniting sense from justifying its violent outbursts and death threats to a Danish cartoonist to their attacks against Charlie Hebdo magazine. They consistently operate legally via the following paradigm:
   

• When it's mockery and/or violence against Muslims, it's wrong and disgusting abuse verbally.
  
• When it's the same back, it's okay because being Muslim is something you're born into.
  
• When you're not born into it and they try and convert you into it and do so by hate-speeching against the very governments who are so liberal and caring towards their culture and heritage, that's all good unless it's Terrorism.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

1 : a state of tranquillity or quiet: such as

• freedom from civil disturbance
  
• a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom
  

1. Islam has always been, and is, aggressive in a brutally 'we attack first but blame you for it to make it pseudo-defence' throughout history from its origin to this very day.
   
2. Sharia Nations and their regimes are among the most oppressive throughout history and to date... Oh look, just like #1 'then and now both' applies here too.
   
3. The goal is not tranquillity or quiet, the goal is tyranny and oppression, from how they treat women to how they justify every single element of their culture and Theistic 'theories'.
   

In the wake of the Manchester bombing, there was a row which showed clearly a key distinction between the Christian and Muslim faiths. Twitter came under fire for its perceived failure to quickly remove a tweet by an Isis supporter which read: ‘Face the people of kufr [non-believers] wherever you are and show Allah what He loves from you. Kill them wherever you find them’. Yet in the clamour for these words to be censored, what wasn’t mentioned was where these words actually came from: the Quran – or God’s word revealed to the Prophet Mohammed. Islamic scholars protest that this passage – outlining the correct way in which to fight a defensive war – is frequently taken out of context. As indeed it is, both by Islamophobes and Islamists, in that it does not condone the killing of innocents (though, in the modern world, that is sadly a very fluid concept).

But even within the context in which it was written, it is a grotesque sentence. Nothing even approaching its nature features anywhere in the Gospels. The most violent act Christ is recorded as having committed was overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the temple. Islam’s founding prophet, by contrast, conquered an empire. It is fair, too, for Islamic scholars to point out that Mohammed’s wars were ones of self-defence. Like Christ and the Apostles, Mohammed and his followers were persecuted by those around them, even when they established their own settlement in Medina. But here, too, the contrast is instructive. Christ and all ten of his remaining Apostles were murdered, inspiring through example a tradition of nonviolent resistance which over the proceeding three centuries would take over the very empire which had attempted to extinguish it. Two millennia later, it would also inspire Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela to affect real change in the world through peaceful means.

... So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. And those - We have made for you against them a clear authorization.

They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

Fascism requires some basic allegiances, such as to the nation, to national grandeur, and to a master race or group. The core principle — what Paxton defined as fascism's only definition of morality — is to make the nation stronger, more powerful, larger and more successful. Since fascists see national strength as the only thing that makes a nation "good," fascists will use any means necessary to achieve that goal.

As a result, fascists aim to use the country's assets to increase the country's strength. This leads to a nationalization of assets, Montague said, and in this, fascism resembles Marxism. [What Are the Different Types of Governments?]

"If Marxism was meant to become a magnitude of countries sharing assets in an economic idea, fascists tried to do the same thing within a country," he said.

Islamic law grew along with the expanding Muslim Empire. The Umayyad dynasty caliphs, who took control of the empire in 661, extended Islam into India, Northwest Africa, and Spain. The Umayyads appointed Islamic judges, kadis, to decide cases involving Muslims. (Non-Muslims kept their own legal system.) Knowledgeable about the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad, kadis decided cases in all areas of the law.

Following a period of revolts and civil war, the Umayyads were overthrown in 750 and replaced by the Abbasid dynasty. During the 500-year rule of the Abbasids, the Sharia reached its full development.

Under their absolute rule, the Abbasids transferred substantial areas of criminal law from the kadis to the government. The kadis continued to handle cases involving religious, family, property, and commercial law.

The Abbasids encouraged legal scholars to debate the Sharia vigorously. One group held that only the divinely inspired Koran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad should make up the Sharia. A rival group, however, argued that the Sharia should also include the reasoned opinions of qualified legal scholars. Different legal systems began to develop in different provinces.

In an attempt to reconcile the rival groups, a brilliant legal scholar named Shafii systematized and developed what were called the "roots of the law." Shafii argued that in solving a legal question, the kadi or government judge should first consult the Koran. If the answer were not clear there, the judge should refer to the authentic sayings and decisions of Muhammad. If the answer continued to elude the judge, he should then look to the consensus of Muslim legal scholars on the matter. Still failing to find a solution, the judge could form his own answer by analogy from "the precedent nearest in resemblance and most appropriate" to the case at hand.

Shafii provoked controversy. He constantly criticized what he called "people of reason" and "people of tradition." While speaking in Egypt in 820, he was physically attacked by enraged opponents and died a few days later. Nevertheless, Shafii's approach was later widely adopted throughout the Islamic world.

By around the year 900, the classic Sharia had taken shape. Islamic specialists in the law assembled handbooks for judges to use in making their decisions.

And the disbelievers planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners.

And [remember, O Muhammad], when those who disbelieved plotted against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you [from Makkah]. But they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners.

And those before them had plotted, but to Allah belongs the plan entirely. He knows what every soul earns, and the disbelievers will know for whom is the final home.

Of course, while Islam is a religion of peace, it is not a religion of pacifism. Sometimes, it is moral to engage in war against the oppressors in the short-term to uphold peace and justice in the long-term. An example of this would be the Allies fighting the Nazis in order to defeat an evil ideology and to achieve greater peace in the future.

Peace does not demand us to be harmonious with our oppressors since peace and pacifism are not equivalent.

In Islam, like in other monotheistic traditions and in compliance with all universal norms of morality, adultery is condemned.

The Qur’an firmly forbids adultery in this verse: "Those who commit adultery, men or women, give each of them a hundred lashes" Qur'an 24: 2.

It is noteworthy that the Qur’an does not stipulate stoning as punishment but rather “ a hundred lashes” that remains an exclusively dissuasive sanction.

It should be equally noted that both men and women are penalized for adultery, unlike what is generally assumed, namely that only women are blamed and responsible for adultery.

Notably, there is no verse that talks about stoning either men or women or for committing adultery.

The Qur'anic sanction prescribed for adultery - for both men and women - is the "flogging," a measure introduced as a corporal deterring punishment to replace the practice of stoning. Stoning was actually an inherent custom in the Mosaic law of Jewish communities living in the Medina at that time.

This measure of flogging - a hundred lashes - came to replace that most tragic measure of stoning to death, which was very common at that time.

It is true that the practice of stoning, which was originally a Jewish tradition, has long survived in the Arabian lands and resisted all attempts of reform, despite its evident absence in the sacred text.

The concept of stoning is maintained in the Muslim law, and its practice is justified later by virtue of a controversial interpretation of a hadith related to some cases where the adulterers voluntarily confessed their sin in front of the Prophet during the Medina period.

It should be clarified here that the Qur'an has voluntarily repealed the practice of stoning and replaced it with the corporal punishment of one hundred lashes, which reflected the universally recognized judicial system at that time.

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.

Those who said about their brothers while sitting [at home], "If they had obeyed us, they would not have been killed." Say, "Then prevent death from yourselves, if you should be truthful."

And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision,

Rejoicing in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounty, and they receive good tidings about those [to be martyred] after them who have not yet joined them - that there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.

They receive good tidings of favor from Allah and bounty and [of the fact] that Allah does not allow the reward of believers to be lost -

Those [believers] who responded to Allah and the Messenger after injury had struck them. For those who did good among them and feared Allah is a great reward -

Those to whom hypocrites said, "Indeed, the people have gathered against you, so fear them." But it [merely] increased them in faith, and they said, "Sufficient for us is Allah, and [He is] the best Disposer of affairs."

So they returned with favor from Allah and bounty, no harm having touched them. And they pursued the pleasure of Allah, and Allah is the possessor of great bounty.