Islam is not a religion of terrorism

Thank you, and thank you for your response. It has been a great honor to me also to have this debate with you. --------------------------------- What is Jihad? Con says that you cannot use Jihad to stop oppression, but his quote from the "Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam" does not refute in any way that Jihad cannot be used to stop oppression. Even if it said that Muslim's must take over the world, that can be in a way so Muslims can stop oppression in the world. God clearly says in the Quran that Muslims should fight for those who are oppressed(4:75), and so Con's claim is a failure indeed. The Dictionary of Islam also refutes Con claim. This is what the dictionary of Islam, which Con seems like have ignored, says about Jihad: '(1) Personal Struggle (in the way of Allah (God) to keep evil away from yourself) (2) Holy War (Fighting a fair, defensive war - to stop oppression.' [1] What the "Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam" is concerned, this is not a Islamic scource. This encyclopedia, was created by non-Muslims. Its not a encyclopedia created by Muslims and so that is enough, because a encyclopedia is a site to learn things, and which better way to learn Islam, from Muslims or non-Muslims? No link to this encyclopedia is given also. Con links it to a another site, but Con doesn't make it better by doing so, especially not to one of the biggest anti-Islamist site. Nowhere in the Quran or the sayings of prophet Muhammed does it say that Muslims should rule the whole world. Muslims should take a country only if they are attacked first or if the rulers of that country is oppressing the people. If Muslims are going to rule the whole world, is for those two reasons alone, and nothing more. At war, Jihad is only for defensive purposes or to stop oppression. I have explained Jihad in my argument round, and have shown what it really is. Con refutes nothing of it. He only give a quote from a site created by non-Muslims and thinks that that will do it. That's a failure. Ask Muslims about what Jihad is, not non-Muslims. Con's knowledge of Jihad is based only on non-Muslims, and anti-Islamist sites. Please go to my source 1 and read what a real Muslim says about Jihad. Its all explained there. Con's argument is biased, and basically just a failure, and do not stand. I want to end this by this great saying of Dr. Shahid Athar: The word "Jihad" means struggle or, to be specific, striving in the cause of God. Any struggle done in day-to-day life to please God can be considered jihad. One of the highest levels of jihad is to stand up to a tyrant and speak a word of truth. Control of the self from wrongdoing is also a great jihad. One of the forms of jihad is to take up arms in defense of Islam or a Muslim country when Islam is attacked. This kind of jihad has to be declared by the religious leadership or by a Muslim head of state who is following the Quran and the Sunnah. [2] 　 What the Qur'an says about unbelievers :149-151 Con clearly misunderstood what I meant. What I meant, is that this verse does not mean that we Muslims in this world and life, should kill the unbelievers and make terror. This verse is only talking about God and his creators. Because he's own creators makes partner with him, terror/fear will be cast into their heart. This verse is talking about God creating terror into them, not as Con claims, the Muslims. This can clearly been seen by reading the whole verse. "We" is used only as the "Royal WE" just as in English for royalty. 4:91 Tafsir Ibn Kathir does not say what Con claims. He only said that if the disbelievers are considered more powerful and numerous than the Muslims, then the Imam may decide to hold a treaty if he judges that it entails a benefit for the Muslims. It doesn't say that they should kill them or something. Its talking about a treaty, in which the Muslims and the disbelievers should not fight in teen years. Where does it say that the Muslims, as Con claims, should kill the disbelievers after 10 years of that treaty? Con's conclusion of this saying is exaggerated and only meant to help his point. He says what he want it to say. Concerning verse 47:35, it does not say that you should not offer or seek peace. The Quran clearly says that if someone offer peace, then you should accept it (8:61). This verse does not prohibit the Muslims to seek peace if the enemy did incline to peace. It simply means that you shouldn't be the first to do so, since it is not necessary. Why should we fight them? Yes, there is no complusion in Islam, as it clearly and without a doubt says at verse 2:256. Now, to your verses which does not in any way say that there is complusion in Islam or that Muslims should force people to become Muslims: 9:3 This verse is talking about those who recect faith. It doesn't say that you should kill those who don't accept the faith. I really don't have to say more than that, because only this fact alone completely refutes Con's claim. 9:5 This verse is only refered to those pagans who would continue to fight after the period of peace. Have nothing to do with forcing people, as Con claims, to Islam. Ibn al-`Arabi, in his commentary on the Quran, writes: "It is clear from this that the meaning of this verse is to kill the pagans who are waging war against you." [3] 9:28-9:30 They have to pay the poll tac because they are living under Muslim protection and land. This is after a country is taken by Muslims. If they don't want to pay, then they can just leave, simple as that. Con also fails to see that there is a tax levied on Muslims as well, the zakat, which non-Muslims are not required to pay. This Zakat is not much more than the poll tax. If Islam is a religion of terrorism because of tax, then must of the world today is also. 　 How would the fighting of the unbelievers give them money? Let us say for the sake of the argument that some Arabs did this, which you have given no proof for, what does that have to do with Islam itself being a religion of terrorism? 　 Conclusion Con has not answered even one of my arguments. Con has failed to defend his argument "How the early Muslims interpreted all of this". Con's sources are almost based only on what some anti-Islamist's says, which is very pathetic indeed. I have clearly shown that the verses Con have given are taken out of context, misunderstood, and does not have anything to do with Islam promoting terrorism. The verses I gave and sayings of prophet Muhammed are clearly against terrorism, and stands much stronger than the musinderstood verses which my partner gave. The conclusion still stands very strong: Islam is not a religion of terrorism. Thank you and please vote Pro. Source 1. http://www.islamic-dictionary.com... 2. http://aboutjihad.com... 3. http://islamnewsroom.com...