Islam is a religion of peace

Dear audience, the equivocation displayed by my opponent is something extraordinary. For it is my opponent who states that verses 9:3-5 of the Qur'an states for muslims to attacf first. Yet when asked to quote the words "attack first" or anything synonymous to it, he presents.........nothing. In 4 rounds of debate, he still fails to present it. It's amazing. Thus the claim that the verse says to attack first is clearly false. For words cannot mean something if the words are not there. it's that simple.Not only this, but when asked of my opponent to quote any verse from the entire Qur'an that says "attack first" or anything synonymous to it.....again he presents.....nothing. In the over 6,000 verses of the Qur'an, he could not find one with these words, or anything synonymous to it. Thus the evidence is clear, that no verse in the entire Qur'an says for muslims to attack first. So instead, what my opponent tries to do ...is reason with the audience. He quotes verses that mentions fighting, then provides reasoning as to why these verses mean to attack first, despite the words not being there. So he states: "1) On "the greatest day(s)" Kill the idol worshipers , with the exception of those who have not failed you. (v.3-4) 2) Then when the Sacred Months have passed, kill idol worshipers wherever you find them. (v.5)It is clear that 2 separate fights are being commanded here set to take place at 2 different times.They are in 2 separate verses, with an exclusion clause on the 1st verse in between, followed by a sentence starting with the words "than (after that)...".(Also, the 1st verse it says kill with an exclusion clause the 2nd one not only says kill without an exclusion clause but includes the words "wherever you find them".)" So according to my opponent, because the verses make a command to fight, then this means that it refers to an offensive war, instead of a defensive war. This makes no sense. For clearly, a person can be commanded to fight out of defense as well. Didn't the President of America make a command to fight the taliban? Yes. Yet my opponent would not call that an offensive war, but a defensive war. So stating that it's an offensive war just because it was a command fails.So the question still remains, for what reason are the muslims ordered to fight? Clearly, the verses say to fight. I agree. But what reason is that. Again, the answer comes not from me, but from the very context of the verses which says:"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."The reason is clear. The muslims attacked in self-defense, for the very verse above clearly states that the non-muslims attacked first. But the Qur'an does not stop there. It also states that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256), and that muslims are prohibited to fight those who incline to peace(8:61). Dear audience, how clearer can the evidence be? My opponent's argument clearly does not hold. The very context of the Qur'an states that muslims cannot fight anyone who is peaceful and cannot use compulsion. So the argument that the verses of fighting refer to an offensive war against peaceful people fails. But again, my opponent continues by concluding his argument with more quotes from hadiths, the Qur'an, and other sources, that mentions the order for muslims to fight and concludes that they mean to create an offensive fight against innocent and peaceful people. Yet not one of them, I repeat, not one of them mentions to attack first. So his logic fails.So in conclusion, the topic of the debate is whether the order to fight in islam is to attack innocent people, or in self-defense. My opponent has stated that they refer to an offensive war, meaning to attack first on peaceful people. Yet my opponent has presented the following evidence:Verses from the Qur'an and islamic sources that mentions fighting, attacking, and killing, but not one of them ever states for the muslims to attack first, or anything synonymous to it, nor does it say so in any of the Qur'an or Sunnah. Therefore, since the verses that mention fighting never say to fight and attack first,or anything synonymous to it, nor is it mentioned in the entire Qur'an or Sunnah, then it is completely illogical to claim that they mean to attack first. Words cannot mean something if the words are not there. So my opponent's argument fails.Yet it is my claim that the verses refer to self-defense. That yes, the verses do mention fighting, but the reason for the fight is never mentioned, so it is ambiguous. To know the reason for the fighting, you must refer to the context. To prove so, I have provided context from the Qur'an itself: Verse 9:13 that says that non-muslims attacked first.Verse 8:61 that says that muslims are prohibited to fight those who incline to peaceVerse 2:256 which says that there is no compulsion in religion.Thus the evidence is clear, that since muslims can neither use compulsion or fight people who are peaceful, then that means that every verse that refers to fighting refers o self-defense, further proven by the fact that verse 9:13 says that the muslims were attacked first. Once again, islam should be acknowledged as exactly what the Qur'an and Sunnah demonstrates, which is Islam is a religion of peace. As salaamu alaikum