Islam is a religion of peace.

Time to wrap up.Rebuttal"Islam means submission."The Arabic word 'Islam' does mean 'submission', but derives from a word meaning 'peace' [1.http://www.islamicity.com...]. Interpreted religiously it means voluntary submission to the will of God. Some Muslim scholars define Islam as submission through peace; others define it as peace through submission."It is explained in the Qur’an that if two or more passages contradict or conflict with each other, the passage written later abrogates the ones written earlier."Let's take a look, then.Verse 9.29The idolators in this verse are actually the pagans of Mecca, who tried to kill Muhammad and violated their treaty. Here is another verse from the same chapter: "Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.""Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.”That is called the Verse of the Sword, which you would undoubtedly have heard of if you had done the slightest research into the religion instead of just Googling anti-Islamic websites. Again, you have managed to take it completely out of context. The entire chapter nine is about making treaties with the idolators.'And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them.' [2.http://quran.com...]"The penalty for apostasy in Islam is death."This is an outright lie. The Qur'an does not detail any punishment for apostasy except in the afterlife: [3.http://en.wikipedia.org...]Verse 2:191"The injunction “slay them wherever you may come upon them” is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress, on the understanding that “those who wage war against you” are the aggressors or oppressors." [4.http://www.religiousforums.com...]"But if there are any wrong-doers around after you've killed off all the disbelievers, persecutors and aggressors, then you'll have to kill them too."It seems you didn't even bother to actually quote the verse and instead gave your own misquotation. Here is the real thing: "Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors."What this verse actually is referring are not mere "wrong-doers," as my opponent tried to insinuate with his arbitrary interpretation, but the oppressors [5. http://quran.com...]. The part about worship being for Allah is does not mean the idolators themselves, but until there is no more persecution of believers [6. http://www.altafsir.com...]"If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant."I have to wonder if my opponent really believes his own resolution. Even his own quoted verse says that killing the unbelievers is only justified when they don't offer peace. Even the verse directly behind it (v4:90) explicitly forbids aggression towards those who don't want war: "Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them." [7. http://quran.com...]“Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire.”I would encourage my opponent to read about the Constitution of Medina, which gave non-Muslims equal rights under both God and the law. [8. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Muhammad also spared the lives of the Meccan civilians upon capturing the city.His reign was inherently unstable due to the fact that he ruled over nomads, since they could simply move their tents and flocks outside Muhammad's territory to be free. His conquests were more defensive then aggressive measures [9. http://en.wikipedia.org...]."Islam swept through the Middle East and North Africa at the point of a sword."I see you decided to ignore my source."No one needs to take the Quran out of context to demonstrate that the passages are laden with cruelty, violence, and intolerance."You do, apparently."This is not to be attributed to the Quran or Islam in general, but diplomacy of a great leader."After a major victory at the Battle of Hattin, Saladin discovered that Raymond III, in his attacks on Muslim caravans, insulted Muhammad before murdering and torturing them. He personally executed Raymond for his crimes, but spared the life of Guy of Lusignan, who had also fought against him in the battle. He then said "It is not the wont of kings to kill kings; but that man had transgressed all bounds, and therefore did I treat him thus [10. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. If you need another example, he not only allowed the Frankish prisoners in Jerusalem to be ransomed back to the Crusaders, but freed many of their families who could not afford to do so. [10]"Also, you sort of have to overlook the millions of people who were killed in those wars to glean something positive out of this statement."This is referring to all the crusades. Saladin killed nowhere near that amount of people."My quote is also a question to Pro. "If Islam is a religion of peace, then why is it the only one that consistently produces religiously-motivated terrorist attacks each and every day of the year?"You are confusing association with causation. This is a very basic logical fallacy, and something that I would expect from a ten-year old, not a debater. Muslim scholars from all over the world have attacked and denounced the terrorists' interpretation of Islam [11. http://en.wikipedia.org...].ConclusionMy opponent has argued using unsubstantiated, flawed, and biased arguments. His sources seem to consist of blogs and radical websites. If I may quote one: "Of course it isn't just the innocent and gullible who swallow the 'Religion of Peace' BS spread by the Muslims and their PC Marxist allies. The Marxists have drugged western culture with a Mickey Finn cocktail of post-modernism and multiculturalism which has suppressed rational analysis of Islam as being 'racist' and Islamophobic."I am getting tired of this. I have heard all of your arguments before, presented better, without the inconsistencies and radical sources that you are utilising, but none of them have impressed me. You're totally and completely wrong. There is no causal link between Islam as a religion and terrorism."I believe in the religion of Islam. I believe in Allah and peace." -Muhammad Ali