Islam Is not a religion of violence and terror.

You do not need to give me a lesson on different terms I can assure you I am familiar with most of them and if i don't i can look them up myself.Surah 2:106 was NOT refering to abrogation in the quran it was refering to the past scriptures of the such as the torah, psalm and gospel This becomes evident if we read surah 5:12-13 and surah 2:101-2:106. Now let's look at this verse. The word (nasakh) means to abrogate and some like to bring up surah 16:101 which says "And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know."But the arabic word for abrogate is not present in the actual arabic writing. Here, there is no mention of nasakh either but instead the word corroborate which means to establish or strengthen with evidence. so it corroborates with the latter verses.So as we can see here God did not "abrogate" anything in the quran just the past abrahamic books and writtings. This is further strengthened by surah 6:115.Surah 8:12 is refering to the Battle of Bardr in the early 7th century when the arab pagans travelled far with around 1000 men to destroy the muslims. The muslims fled to makkah to avoid persecution but the pagans wanted to finish them off. This was a defensive war. And God was telling muhammad and his followers that they would win the battle.Surah 47:4 This was also refering to a defensive war during the persecution of the muslims. These verses you are listing are during battles not just killing any unbelievers for simply unbelievers. These pagans are transgressors and God has commanded muhammaed to fight back.Surah 3:151 is refering to hell which is waiting for non belivers surah 8:39 is refering to self defense as well if we read 8:38 "Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed."It's refering to those who have transgressed and if the transgressors stop then forgive them but if they persist then fight back. And the original verse utilised the word "fitna" to signify persecution.8:60 also refering to a wartime scenario. if we read further at 8:61"And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.”surah 9:5 i'm actually going to reference an article from TheAmericanMuslim which gave an exellent explenation for this. [1]" This verse, often called “the verse of the sword”, has been misquoted in a manner similar to the previous verses. First, we shall provide the verse in its context: 9:5-6 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge. Having presented the verse in context, we can analyze it properly. Dr. Maher Hathout gives an explanation on the historical context of the verse: This verse was revealed towards the end of the revelation period and relates to a limited context. Hostilities were frozen for a three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war. Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to encourage the combatants to join the Muslim ranks or, if they chose, to leave the area that was under Muslims rule; however, if they were to resume hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious. One is inspired to note that even in this context of war, the verse concludes by emphasizing the divine attributes of mercy and forgiveness. To minimize hostilities, the Qur’an ordered Muslims to grant asylum to anyone, even an enemy, who sought refuge. Asylum would be granted according to the customs of chivalry; the person would be told the message of the Qur’an but not coerced into accepting that message. Thereafter, he or she would be escorted to safety regardless of his or her religion. (9:6). (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, pp.52-53, emphasis added)"So this verse actually refers to the pagans who broke the treat and kept fighting even during the periode of peace. Surah 9:29 This one is interesting as verse context does not play much of a role but in my first argument to actually utilise this verse to justify violence the people must be transgressor against you and or the islamic religion. This question was asked to sheikh hani al-jubayr a judge at the jeddah supreme court [2]"Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?"The judge answered "If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people."The romans and the persians were aggressors. With context we can now see the verse was refering to aggression initiated against muslims.9:111 is refering to dying in battle not blatant suicide bombings on civilians. The verse was emphasising the importance of being non material and fighting for allah even if death follows in battle against those who have transgressed against muslims.How does the new years celeberation have anything to do with islam? yes some of these people came from areas where islam is prevalent but how does their actions which anyone regardless of religion who are weather demented or criminals could have done. Why when someone who is a muslim does something everyone has to assume it has something to do with thei religion? These were clealry hooligans and you have no evidence to support your claim that this has anything to do with islam. And surah 4:19 clearly prohibits the use of force against women such as this.Muruna Takiya Kitman Tawriya These are shia concepts and are not accepted by modern sunnis. shia only makes up around 10% of islam and most of the terrorism that is done right now is done by sunnis. These concepts are not backed by the quran.So in conclusion to this round you clearly did not look up any verses for context it seems you simply went on thereligionofpeace.com and copied and pasted out of contexte verses. I shall await your rebuttal. Sources: http://theamericanmuslim.org...;[1] http://theamericanmuslim.org...;[2]