ISIL represents Islam

I will now clarify a few items before stating my conclusion. First of all, there are many words and interpretations of fight in Arabic, and the dialects change. My opponent continues to find only arbitrary cases that not only help exemplify my points, but weaken the arguments made by my opponent himself. Secondly, ISIL DOES oppress Christians in ISIL controlled territory. I extend the argument made earlier, stating that my opponent only provided red-herring cases that do not explain deep into the resolve of this debate. Thirdly, the rules of this debate was 'Muslims only plzzz', according to my opponent. I did not quote the Qur'an directly because the sources I previously stated contain verses of the Qur'an in comparison to ISIL's ideology. I will not even respond to the fourth argument made because this is only a case of semantics and does not represent the debate resolution whatsoever. The Jordanian pilot was burned in front of a building destroyed by the coalition, according to my opponent. This would be a good point, except for the fact that the pilot was not part of the attack coalition on ISIL members, but on ammunition targets. This point made by my opposition is false. The point made about Saudi Arabia was simply incongruous and again shows a lack of understanding of policy within international entities. It stands no basis for argument. "So let it be clear: NO COUNTRY, NATION, OR EVEN ORGANISATION MAKES CHRISTIANS PAY JIZYAH, THAT IS STATED IN THE QURAN, IN HADITH, AND FROM THE QUOTINGS OF THE MUSLIM SCHOLARS. Besides, aren't there any Muslim builders? Engineers? Architects? Leave them and bring in Non-Muslims? With the fact that in Islam a Muslim should be considered better than a Non- Muslim, PROVIDED THAT THE NON-MUSLIM IS GETTING HIS RIGHTS." -This again expresses a preference towards the discrimination of non-muslims in order to make Muslims more powerful. This is not a point that makes any legitimate case, as surely a country cannot disallow citizens and foreigners to enter the respective countries. My opponent represents a clear dirth in knowledge of foreign policy. I will now conclude my argument. ISIL is an entity that attempts to parade in the glory of violence, in the same way that the crusades have many years ago. ISIL commits heinous crimes against humanity, BOMBS Muslim places of worship, and calls for killing. Islam is a religion that does NOT condone violence in any way, as do other world religions. The terror group has murdered even Muslims, with the vast majority being killed over non-muslims. I make a pitch to voters, so they can fully understand the crux of this debate. As I assume the voters come from a diverse background of religions; Muslims,Christians, Catholics, Hindus, Buddists, etc. I would assume that if a terror group that kills, tortures and disgraces people claims to be of one of the voter's religion, I would assume that he/she would think that the group was ridiculous. I have explained why my arguments pertain to the debate at hand, while I hope that I have informed the voters about this very contentious issue. While I disagree with my opponent very strongly, I appreciate this debate, and I thank him for this debate. I wish the semantics were reduced, however this debate was not too hard for voters to follow. I extend all my arguments and sources.