Islam is a religion of peace

As we can clearly see above, my opponent has failed to quote the words "attack first" in verse 9:5 of the Qur'an. No where are these words mentioned, or anything synonymous to it, within the verse. Yet my opponent insists on suggesting that the verse means to attack first, despite the words not being there. This is clearly illogical. For any reasonable person can see, in order to claim words mean something, either the words or its synonym should be there. This is simple basic, English. Does "The Dog is fast" mean the same as "the cat is fast"? Of course not. Why? Because the word "Dog" and "Cat" are not synonymous or the same. In order for words to mean the same, they should be synonymous. Yet when my opponent is asked to quote the words "attack first" from verse 9:5 or anything synonymous to it, he provides ......nothing. Thus the evidence is clear, that verse 9:5 does not refer to muslims attacking first, for the obvious reason, which is ......the words are not there. But in an effort to defend this obvious fact, my opponent states: "This doesn't even make sense. If I say "on December 18th kill all Muslims who have been fighting with U.S. troops. & in January kill Muslims wherever you find them." will you say that the 2nd fighting is in self defence, because I didn't say "1st"? The answer is no, the fact that it doesn't say the word 1st, doesn't mean that it isn't."It should be noted that my opponent's example refutes absolutely nothing. My opponent tries to imply that I claim that the verse means self-defense because it does not say "attack first". Yet this claim is false. My exact words are:"Once again, no where in verse 9:5 does it say in the verse for muslims to attack first because they did not convert. So my opponent's argument fails. Yet at the same time, no where in the entire verse does it say that muslims attacked in self-defense. This means that the verse is ambiguous. The only thing the verse says is for muslims to attack and kill, but never states the reason why." As we all can see clearly above, I clearly stated that the verse does not mean attack first AND it does not mean self-defense. The actual meaning of the verse alone is ambiguous as to who attacked first. So my opponent's analogy completely fails. My argument that the verse means self-defense is based not on the actual meaning of the verse, but the context of the verse, which clearly states in verse 13 of the same chapter: "Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger and they were first to commence hostilities against you? Do you fear them? Nay, Allah is most worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers." As we can clearly see, the very context of the verse states who attacked first, which were the non-muslims. Thus the evidence is clear, that the verse refers to self-defense based on the very context of the verse. My opponent continues and says:"The self defence killing was already commanded in verse 3, to take place on "the greatest day".Thus the verse 5 killing which is set for "when the Sacred Months have passed", & says "wherever you find them" is refering to the rest.What was the difference between the 2 killings, other than that the 2nd one was non-discriminatory, on the rest of non believers."Once again, my opponent's interpolation of the verse fails, as he failed to quote anything from verse 9:3 which states that self-defense killing took place on the greatest day, and that verse 5 refers to a different fight from verse 3. Simply put, since nothing in verse 9:3 states self-defense killing, nor can my opponent quote and prove otherwise, then giving the verse such a meaning fails again. And since nothing in verse 9:5 says for muslims to attack first or anything synonymous to it, then this interpolation also fails. He then states: "b) If it was self defence it should be done right away."This is a flawed accusation, as there is nothing in the meaning of self-defense which states "it should be done right away". He also states: "c) Why does it refer to them as "Mushrikun (disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah)". It should have just said your enemy's/oppressors. The fact that it uses that term "Mushrikun" to describe him indicates that the war was religious in nature, & not simply self defence."A religious war can be fought in self-defense, so this makes no sense. In fact, my opponent's very own argument proves so, since it is his claim that non-muslims are fighting in defense of religious attacks by muslims. Similarly, muslims can also be attacked based on the same premise. My opponent's argument fails again by his own logic. Finally, my opponent concludes his argument again, by quoting countless verses and hadiths stating for muslims to fight. But once again, not one of them ever states "attack first". So once again, my opponent's argument fails.In short, my opponent claims that the verses in the Qur'an and in islamic sources that refer to fighting means that the muslims are ordered to "attack first", yet not one of the verses, I repeat, not one of them ever state to attack first. So my opponent's argument fails.Yet I have presented verses from the Qur'an which clearly states that the non-muslims attacked first, (9:13), that muslims are prohibited to fight those who incline to peace (8:61), and that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256). Thus the very context of the verses of fighting is clear that the verses refer to fighting in self-defense. Thus it should be recognized once again, that islam is a religion of peace.