It seems that you are forgetting that the thesis of my first argument was Islam is made up of rules, and sanctions for violating those very rules, in as much as any society. The fact that human rights are being abused is a fault of the government and not the religion.

The sanctions within Islam are human rights violations. Women are sanctioned by Islam to be inferior to men, and there is no tolerance for other beliefs. You either convert to the religion, die, or in some rare cases are treated as a second-class citizen known as a Dhimmi. Blasphemy, which encompasses any criticism of the religion, is punished by death.

This is what Sharia is, it is a stone-age set of rules for how to conduct society that has draconian punishments for the most innocuous of of behaviours. Amputations for theft. Death for apostasy.

The government is supposed to be responsible for the abuse of human rights and if those rights are not tend to, then it becomes the fault and negligence of the government in their incompetent leadership.

The government is merely following religious dogma, because in these cases the state is a theocratic one and the Quran supersedes state authority, as defined in the constitutions. What this really means is that Imams and Clerics run the state from the background and use barbarous punishments to force their societies into primitive social conditions. Islam is not a tolerant or enlightened religion, so it must follow that any state which follows its values can never escape barbarism, but the catch is that due to Islam's status as a religion with god-given laws, and the punishment for blasphemy being death, it means that these states can never blame Islam for gender inequality, or human rights violations. To do so would be like blaming god for his system not working. Therefore Islam's problems are ignored or blamed on something external.

If what that father did to his son (which by the way, i do not support) was lawful in a country with Islamic Laws, then why did he had to flee the country where the crime was committed if according to you, there is little respect for human rights? Was it that he was scared of being punished by the laws?

Because Turkey is a secular state, just like the United states, which means that he doesn't have a Sharia court and law to back him. That's an important point here, Turkey is suffering from Islamic fundamentalism just like the United States has Christian fundamentalism. Both have their own creationists, their own hate-mongers. However in Turkey one of the big social problems is honour killings.

I think the only thing that lets our nation maintain decency sometimes is our bitter struggle to defend free speech and our use of it to expose and ridicule fundamentalism here. In Turkey there doesn't seem to be as much of this, and indeed a number of works have been censored there due to Muslim sensitivities. If more Turkish men and women were outspoken against Islam, they might see a more free society there.

I reemphasised on the point that Islam is not the only source of rules and punishment because the conclusion or thesis of my argument is the fact that Islam is in as much as any other religion or society. Therefore, my arguments are based on my thesis or conclusion.

No it isn't. Islam is one of the most violent religions on Earth. It not only condones but praises religious violence. Christianity condones religious violence but is less explicit, and Judaism is a severe minority so it has hardly the following to do any damage.

Which is also just a minor point compared to the fact that it was in Christian empires that an enlightenment occurred which undermined religious authority and set us on the path for liberal democracies. Islam hasn't had this outcome. It is hardly changed from centuries ago in terms of social reform.

The biggest mistake people make is in considering Islam just another religion.

The other problem with this is that it is a kind of admission that as long as it is a religion, everything done in its name may be forgiven. People kill each other every day in the name of Islam and just because it is a religion does not mean it deserves a free pass for this. Nazism is an ideology and millions died in the name of it. We don't forgive Nazism as being unblamable for these atrocities. The same is true for Communism and Fascism. We do not forgive these ideologies for the deaths suffered due to their influence on the human mind. Why defend Islam? Billions of people are living repressed lifestyles because of it, but it gets a free pass? Are you kidding me here?

The United States is a secular nation but as far as i am aware of, executions in the United States took place as a result of traditional and religious punishment. That can be traced back to the origin of the capital punishment in the United States.

You'd better list some examples then. I'm not considering lynch mobs, by the way, these are illicit murders handled by mob justice.

We do have laws against Cruel and Unusual punishment but how many were innocently and brutally executed before those laws were implemented? In case you are forgetting, early executions in the United States were by hanging, burning, drowning, beheading and many more until the Supreme Court made specific rulings on the consitutionality of the methods of punishment used in capital punishment.

The Eighth Amendment was adopted in 1791, as part of our Bill of Rights.

How many people are innocently stoned to death every week, burned to death, drowned, buried alive, beheaded, and amputated in the Middle Eastern Islamic states? If you tried to change their ways against such brutal punishments you would be branded as a Kafir, because they are merely following holy law. Even if we accept that it took many painful deaths to arrive at lethal injection here, your argument resonates most clearly against the Islamic States you indirectly defend by passing Islam off as peaceful.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/descriptions-execution-methods

Also, how come the U.S Supreme Court ruled that it was not unconstitutional to execute a man the second time after the electric chair electrocuted but not to the extent of killing him due to a mechanical error but ordered his execution for the second time?

I was under the impression that these rulings were due to legal precedent. You will need to be more specific.

In the past, the death penalty was given for the offense of rape until the laws were ammended and various appeals were filed with the Supreme Court. I agree that we do not punish the victims, but in the past, victims of rape were allowed to be questioned about their past sexual history and then that line of questioning was used against the victims by making them appear as liars or prostitutes in the minds of the Judge or Jury.

Worlds different from taking a rape victim and putting them into jail.

Didnt in the past also, homosexuality was a crime. Werent people arrested and prosecuted for homosexuality as a crime? Homosexuality was even regarded as a mental disorder and still does according the opinions of many.

Again, this doesn't support your case because in Islamic states homosexuals are executed.

They are thanking God whenever they commit an act of terrorism but do you think that they are doing it for their religion or their country? Do you think that the source of these actions are of a political nature and because they express thanks to God for their actions does not mean that Islam favors their actions.

I suggest you try reading from the horse's mouth. An example is the Islamist Alliance's proclamation in Somalia:

Excerpts Below

History has shown us that Muslims were not able to achieve glory and propagate their religion except through their unity and holding on to the rope of Allah; and that Muslims have never tasted humiliation of defeat except when they were divided... This tragedy, however, will not end except with the unification of Muslims on the basis of Islam and the methodology of Ahlu Sunna Wal Jama’ and not on the basis of secular nationalism.

We have also agreed upon the following:

- Working towards the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate upon the path of the prophet.

- Waging Jihad in the cause of Allah to accomplish Tawheed and eradicate Polytheism until Allah is worshiped alone without partners

- Confrontation of the global Zionist-Christian Crusade and its suppression.

- Application of the Shariah of Allah and the administration of justice and elimination of injustice.

- The application of the ideology of Alliance and Enmity ( Al Wala Wal Bara)

- Restoration of the Islamic sanctities and cleansing them from the Jews, Christians and apostates

- Supporting the oppressed and freeing the Muslim prisoners

- nification of the Muslim Ummah upon the banner of Tawheed

- Creation of a cohesive Muslim society that is guided by a correct ideology, Islamic morals and Shariah

Source (More exist, this is just a blog that copied and pasted it):

http://occident.blogspot.com/

The point is that these people are acting under religious motivations which determine their politics in some way.

If that was indeed the case, then how come many muslims and these are not just muslims but strong level of faith belief muslims came out and spoke against the act of many of their other muslims? And how come did the Islamic Law not prosecute these muslims or muslim organisations?

In a free society they are allowed to condemn each other verbally. In an Islamic society they risk violence for blasphemy or simply going against the social norms of their area. In Islamic societies the condemnation seems to stem from sectarianism, always the Sunni and Shia against each other, calling each other infidels and apostates.

I agree that we are dealing with a mordern act, so the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI unlike the laws were created in modern society but they also have a different but similar definition of the term terrorism in that the word terrorism "is a politically motivated act." Why did the U.S and the mid east encountered a dispute? I do not suspect in the least amount that all it takes is for religion to spark a dispute, it is more than religion, it has to do with the politics involved in international relations and trade.

The difference is a matter of scope. When you have an individual who is engaged in violence, it is a matter of personal beliefs. When you have one mob fighting another, it is sectarianism (religion). When you have a nation fighting the other (or nation-wide military organisations) it is political. The top-down version is that the leaders of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and their hundreds of offshoots are fighting for purely political reasons (they want to be the future leaders of a megastate and see Islam as a means to this end) but they recruit people based on religion (these recruits believe that they are acting for god) and there are many casual supporters (they just believe as they were raised to). The religion makes allowances for violence and so it is very easily used to gain supporters for particularly violent movements.

Imagine trying to do the same thing with Buddhists or Jainists. How could you convince a population of largely nonviolent conviction that personal offense must lead to execution? How would you gain their support for implementing laws that treat women like slaves? It would be possible but much more difficult. With Islam we see ideas and indoctrinated culture that is ripe for manipulation.

While i would agree that Islam is a religion of peace, i do not agree with the way the government has executed it's functions. My country of origin is also a country where Islam is practised, but yet the Chief Prosecutor of my country is a muslim woman and she is part of an International Islamic Organisation.

You mean Maria Bashir? She's been on a hit list for some time. It really shows how much Muslim men fear women and their ability to succeed in society.

While my country is not built upon Islamic Laws, women like the one i previously mentioned would be counted as sinners because they are supposed to be the inferior housewife type that is subjected to the rules of their male counterparts in Islam but unlike what you are claiming, this is not the case. Women has always been considered as being the inferior type but many efforts are being made to change the perception of those who would think so.

What matters here is that Islam systematically places women into a role that is little different from property.

Oppression of women and homosexuals exists in many other societies as well, and not only Islamic societies. It has to do with traditions. And as far as i am aware of, every religion counts homosexuality as a sin and expects women to abide by the rules her husbands makes.

Matriarchies have existed in the past, and societies like the Greek and Roman empires were very tolerant of homosexuality. What is important to remember is that a religion is created from the local culture of origin and then is spread like a virus, taking those values with it. Islam and Judaism originated in the Middle East and took their views on women from those cultures. They then spread those views across the world.

I however do not support the oppression of homosexuals and women, is why i am publishing a paper on these two issues highlighting the origin of these issues in the Victorian Era.

They did not originate in that Era, however. They have existed for centuries as part of religion, and before those religions as parts of ancient cultures.

Islam forbids political activity to be closely associated with religion so if the state is in a political dispute and they provide funding to a terrorist group, it no longer becomes a religious act but a political act of vengeance.

Try reading Inspire and Jihad Recollections. They seem to not care about your theological distinction. To them politics and religion are part of the same thing.