Instigator / Pro
0
1523
rating
16
debates
43.75%
won
Topic

Islam does not condone terrorism

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Voting points
0
1

With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

Ehyeh
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
1
1520
rating
28
debates
37.5%
won
Description
~ 47 / 5,000

I believe that Islam takes no part in terrorism

Round 1
Pro
Definition of Islam

Islam is a religion, just like any other religion, which has morals and righteousness implanted in its veins. The heart, core and soul of Islam is peace. Yes there are some Quranic verses that talk about war and justice, but people as well as the media have taken these out of context. 

Criteria of a Holy War

Now a war in Islam has very strict guidelines. There are principles in place to make sure that a war is not declared under false premises. The principles are below. 

-The enemy must start the war. Muslims cannot go to war unless the opposition declares it and then the Muslim Ummah will fight back, as self defence. 
-Innocent people must not be harmed
-Trees, plants and the environment must not be harmed
-Must be leaded by a Muslim leader

Terrorist Groups

There are some huge misconceptions in the religion of Islam which the media want to point fingers at to prove that Islam is a violent religion. This entire argument that Islam doesn't promote terrorism is based on promoting violence. Now as Con has seen the criteria of a Holy War,  we can be quick to dismiss groups such as ISIS and the Taliban. I do not agree/affiliate to the extremist measures taken by such groups. The majority of Muslims will also agree with me on this. 

The belief is in Islam for groups such as ISIS etc, there will be 3 groups of people on the day of judgement. The first is the Martyr's who only fought to make people think of themselves as courageous. This is the reference. It is a hadith of the Prophet (PBUH). The point I am trying to make is, your destiny all depends of your intention and actions. If you have an intention actually doing good and not to impress people, heaven is for you. However the latter is the opposite. 

Now terrorism is not affiliated with Islam at all. In fact it is the opposite. A key quote from the Quran that Muslims stand by is- Q5:32 Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel: that whoever kills a person—unless it is for murder or corruption on earth—it is as if he killed the whole of mankind; and whoever saves it, it is as if he saved the whole of mankind.' In hindsight you may say, what is described as innocent? Innocent is a person who has done nothing wrong. ISIS, the Taliban, these are groups who are killing innocents left, right and centre, and I condemn them for doing so. 

Terrorism in Religion

Now yes, there are terrorists in the religion of Islam. In the religion of Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism etc, there are too. This is because, as people, we need to accept this key teaching. It is not the religion that is supporting terrorism, it is the people. How many Muslims are there in the world? 1.8/1.9 billion? Has there been 1.8 billion attacks or 1.8 billion stabbings or 1.8 billion bombings or shootings or beheadings etc done by Muslims in the last 100 years? Of course not. It is a fact that there has been nowhere near the amount of attacks killing the amount of people that others think Muslims kill. Islam is not a terrorist religion, but Muslims can be terrorists. This idea of terrorism has nothing to do with any religion, even if the terrorists think it is. 

There are many terrorists shouting 'God is the greatest' and then commit a bombing and there are many committing these vile acts and doing it in the name of Islam. But are they? It is clear that the Quran condemns terrorism to say the least. 

Terrorist attacks committed by non-Muslims

There have been a handful of attacks committed by non Muslims, however the media doesn't want to pay attention. 

-1 million in Iraq dead due to the US and most particularly Christian George Bush 
-6 million Jews killed by Christian Hitler
-51 Muslims in MOSQUE dead due to Brenton Tarrant, a right winged Christian 

I could go on and on. I am not sitting here, claiming that Christianity is a terrorist religion and it should be condemned because it is not. However, Islam is not to blame for terrorism. 


'(2:190) AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression - for, verily, God does not love aggressors.'

This quote means those who start the war, you should act upon self defence and do NOT attack first. 

There are many other quotes which say the same thing. It is now up to Con to find me with references, where it is suitable to commit these acts of terror with no reason. 

I have finished my points for now, I have kept it quite short and I look forward to what Con has in store for me. 


References

Con
Definitions
Since this debate is about whether Islam promotes or discourages terrorism, I believe it is necessary to define terrorism first so that we do not accidentally argue about two different concepts. I'll use Dictionary.com's definition, which reads as follows: the use of force or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government in order to achieve political, social, or ideological goals Based on the standard definitions of terrorism, I should be able to demonstrate that Islam supports acts of terrorism, even if they are in self-defense. Please select a different definition if you want to add or remove anything from this one. (References are provided below.)

Definition of Islam
Surrender to God, I would argue, is the heart and soul of Islam. The Arabic term for Islam literally means "Surrender," and finding peace through surrendering to the Islamic God is a separate discussion from this one, so I won't weigh in on that.

Criteria of a holy war
While a significant number of scholars posit that jihad has only defensive applications, some scholars such as Sayyed Qutb reject the argument that jihad is only defensive in nature. Qutb refers to several verses to support the idea that the ultimate goal of jihad is to eliminate the subjection to anyone but God (Allah), including the following:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (9:29)

Osama bin Laden emphasised that his commands were in the context of a defensive jihad against the enemy. In his "Letter to the Americans," he quoted the Quran as saying: "Those who have been attacked are permitted to take up arms because they have been wronged – God has the power to help them to victory." Bin Laden referred to American bases in Saudi Arabia as "humiliating" and a symbol of occupation of "the holiest parts of the Islamic lands". To Osama Bin Laden, American bases in Saudi Arabia was seen as an occupation of the holiest parts of the Islamic Lands. To him, his actions against the US was done in defence of Islam.  Even if Islam only claims to fight in defense of God, there is still room for interpretation based on what someone perceives as a threat or attack on God and Islam. For some, this could simply be verbal, written or pictorial insults directed at Prophet. Terrorism, according to the definition, is supported by Islam, at least in self-defense. The idea that the enemy must declare war is also open to interpretation, as Prophet Muhammad did preemptively kill people suspected of being spies or in talks with his enemies, and Prophet Muhammad may have seen written poetical insults about him as insults and declarations of war against him and God (as you will find out later). I should have won by default because the debate's premise was whether Islam condones terrorism or not. As long as it is used in self-defense, Islam does condone some forms of terrorism. However, I will attempt to demonstrate more vile interpretations of Islam and explain why organizations such as the Taliban exist.

"Fight (قَٰتِلُوا۟) those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Quran 9:29

The word قَٰتِلُوا۟ (qaatiloo), translated as "fight", is derived from the root ق-ت-ل (q-t-l). The basic meaning of this root is "to kill".
As a result, "fight" is an extremely generous translation of what it actually means in Arabic; in reality, there is strong evidence that there is a command to kill nonbelievers here. When we look at the translation issues between fighting and killing, We can now see why such diametrically opposed sects of Islam can emerge. Some interpret it as murder, while others see it as a metaphor for a spiritual or cultural battle. If I see the word "fight" in a Quranic verse, I can now translate it to "kill," and it should be just as logically consistent within the language.

“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Quran 9:5

With the broadness of saying idolaters and not idolaters who attack Islam and God, it becomes very easy to find loose interpretations here, and to justify the killing of adulterers' even if they don't say anything bad about Islam or the Prophet, because they have already attacked God and Islam by being an adulterer. They have spiritually, if not physically. I imagine your argument will be a contextual argument, implying that context is important. It could be  considered blasphemy to claim that these statements have been taken out of context. These are from the Quranic verses, which should be timeless. It is supposed to be unchangeable and perfect. As a result, they cannot be taken out of context because they are the contexts. People based on sharia are capable of getting their fingers cut off, for stealing. These are just a few interpretations of what can be more uplifting verses for a Muslim.

Although not cited within the Quran but the hadiths Prophet Muhammad called and ordered the assassination of poets, for insulting him of which will be in the sources, to check out for yourself. Once we combine the hadiths with the Quran to form sharia we can come to interpretations where killing innocents is acceptable, such as adulterers and homosexuals, Point being: whether it is ok  or not to hurt others depends on your interpretation of the teachings, which is probably a very uphill battle demonstrating yours is the one true vision of the Quran and hadiths.

In Sahih Bukhari Volume 4 / Book 52 / Hadith 256 Prophet Muhammad made it clear it is ok to kill the women and children of the pagans' as they are not Muslims, this would appear as a direct contradiction to the criterion of a holy war.




Sources



Round 2
Pro
Definitions Response

I should be able to demonstrate that Islam supports acts of terrorism, even if they are in self-defence
Con has stated that 'terrorism' means 'the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives.' Now con also added the term 'self defence' to his definition which is incorrect. If we go back to the dictionary definition, it conclusively states 'unlawful' in the use of violence or threats. Now if we go back to the website he referenced, the term 'unlawful' means 'not lawful; contrary to law; illegal. Is self defence unlawful in government law or Sharia law? It is not, it is permissible. Which means self defence is not an act of terrorism as you are not instilling fear onto people, just protecting yourself. So that should clear up the point of self defence not being included in terrorism, as I have provided evidence for that. So now any argument that uses self defence as a motive, is dismissed. 

Definition of Islam response

Yes, I would agree with the word 'Islam' to literally mean surrender and the definition of 'Muslim' is to submit your will to the creator and obey him. Obey His teachings and His book and His prophets. 

Criteria of a Holy War Response

some scholars such as Sayyed Qutb reject the argument that jihad is only defensive in nature

Sayyed Qutb supported the idea of a violent Islam, one that would terrorize nations and supporting groups such as Al Qaeda. He is not a reliable Islamic scholar as he has a different interpretation of Islam, one that is in the extremist view. There is nowhere in the Holy War Criteria ,that is not interpreted by extremists, does it say that Islam is a violent religion used to instil fear unto people. This is wrong, you may as well include ISIS in the list of 'scholars' as their views are not in the majority. As I said, the majority of the population of Muslims, including well known scholars such as Mufti Menk, do not support the idea of terrorism and condemn ISIS etc. 

Osama bin Laden
Yet again, this is an extremist. His views do not reflect the true Islam. So this entire thing on extremists is shut down. 

Terrorism, according to the definition, is supported by Islam, at least in self-defence
This has already been dismissed as self defence has no part in terrorism. I will give you a scenario. If the a country are bombed by another country, you think the bombed country are not going to retaliate? And if they do, you going to call them terrorists? Unfeasible argument.

For some, this could simply be verbal, written or pictorial insults directed at Prophet. Terrorism, according to the definition, is supported by Islam, at least in self-defence.   
still room for interpretation based on what someone perceives as a threat or attack on God and Islam

 If I see the word "fight" in a Quranic verse, I can now translate it to "kill," and it should be just as logically consistent within the language.
Now these two statements you wrote are contradicting each other. I am not saying I agree with any of them, I just want to question your belief. I will get onto the 'fight' and 'kill' later. You stated that no one knows what 'attack' is feasible to attack back and then stated it could be 'verbal'. But then later on, you also said 'fight' in the Quranic verse means to 'kill'. So if the enemy 'fight' first it needs to mean 'kill' right? So, according to your logic, there is your answer. Self defence is permitted when the enemy 'kills'. So verbal is not permitted. But all this is just according to you and your logic. 

as Prophet Muhammad did pre-emptively kill people suspected of being spies
The Prophet did not kill the spy, I think you are suggesting 'Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Hadith Number 286. Now this is an interesting one. You probably interpreted this off the answering-Islam website. Now you inferred this wrong. The alleged spy talked and went away. Why did he go away? And the Prophet never killed him if you read it properly. May I add, being a spy which is committing treason is punishable by death. Not only in Islamic countries, but also in countries such as the US. So that dismisses this case. 

As long as it is used in self-defence, Islam does condone some forms of terrorism
Yet again, the same misconception. Self defence is not included in terrorism so this entire point is dismissed. 

The word قَٰتِلُوا۟ (qaatiloo), translated as "fight", is derived from the root ق-ت-ل (q-t-l). The basic meaning of this root is "to kill".

This is referenced to Surah 9:29. Let me debunk this misconception. First of all, Islam only allows war in the case of self defence. Secondly, 'qatilu' means to fight whereas 'iqtulu' means means to kill. In the verse 60:8 it talks about those who think that God has a son and says 'May Allah condemn them and the word is "qatalahum Allah". Oppose or condemn, does not state to wage war on them. Misconceptions, cherry picked quotes, Con has got it all here. Also it says the word 'Jizya' which is a punishment for whoever breaks the law of the land. No one is going to pay Jizya if they have not done anything wrong. 

If I see the word "fight" in a Quranic verse, I can now translate it to "kill," and it should be just as logically consistent within the language.
Now I have debunked this point, this statement no longer stands. Even if you think qaatiloo is derived from a word, doesn't mean it will mean that word. I will give an example. Lets take the word 'vowel'. The root word for 'vowel' is 'vocalis' and this means relating to the voice. So whenever I see the word vowel, I say it means 'relating to the voice'. This just doesn't make sense, therefore this point is dismissed. 

“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Quran 9:5
Con has yet again taken these words out of context. And then said, 'you cannot take these words out of context' as the Quran is meant to be 'timeless' etc. If I select a random verse in the Quran and I just read that one, with no context, how am I supposed to know what it is referring to? This point is ludicrous. Lets now put this into context, maybe Con was scared that I would debunk this so he said 'you cannot put it into context'. Now lets read from 9:1. '˹This is˺ a discharge from all obligations,1 by Allah and His Messenger, to the polytheists you ˹believers˺ have entered into treaties with:'. Treaties is referring to peace treaties, and if the peace treaty is broken, by invoked violence, self defence comes into the mix. However, 9:2 states that '“You ˹polytheists˺ may travel freely through the land for four months'. They have 4 months to fix this peace agreement or if they do not then Muslims can use self defence to 'slay' these people. Then 9:4 states, 'As for the polytheists who have honoured every term of their treaty with you and have not supported an enemy against you, honour your treaty with them until the end of its term. Surely Allah loves those who are mindful ˹of Him˺.'. This means those who keep the peace treaty, Allah loves those people. So no, this verse is not unjust, just an act of self defence, yet again. 

It could be  considered blasphemy to claim that these statements have been taken out of context. 
Untrue, this entire point has been debunked, once again declaring that Islam has no part in terrorism. 

People based on sharia are capable of getting their fingers cut off, for stealing. 

This requires a long winded process. If the criminal is found guilty by 4 witnesses and the court agrees and everything is done fairy and justly, then there is no problem. This punishment is a deterrent. If you got robbed in the middle of the night and they took all your belongings and you are now homeless, how would you feel? Like you want to kill them right? Exactly. 

Prophet Muhammad called and ordered the assassination of poets
This poet you are talking about, is Ka'b bin al Ashraf I presume. He went to Mecca and told the Meccans to attack the Muslims. He wrote dirty poems about Muslim women. He also committed treason, which is punishable by death (in the US too), and he tried to destroy reputations of Muslim women. So this is yet again, a misconception that this person died as an innocent. 

In Sahih Bukhari Volume 4 / Book 52 / Hadith 256 Prophet Muhammad made it clear it is ok to kill the women and children of the pagans' as they are not Muslims, this would appear as a direct contradiction to the criterion of a holy war.
Yet again, another cherry picked hadith. The term 'Hima' used in the Hadith is meaning that it is forbidden unless there is no way to fight the enemy. If peace treaties are broken, enemy attacking first etc. It is another method of self defence. It is not permissible to target the women and children of the Pagans. 

Now, every quote has been debunked, every point has been answered I think. Con has given cherry picked, no context quotes. Then he said context is not needed but it really was. There is not a single Quranic verse or hadith that encourages terrorism unjustly. Therefore Islam is not a terrorist religion. Muslims can be, the extremists such as ISIS and the Taliban have a distorted view on Islam. Both Con and ISIS have 1 thing in common. They both like to use quotes with no context nor any understanding. Well done. 

That is all I have to say, unless Con can bring me a convincing argument that Islam advocates terrorism using the Quran or the Hadith. And remember it needs to be 'unjust' to the enemy as if not, it isn't terrorism. Your turn buddy

References


Con
Definition of terrorism
Con has stated that 'terrorism' means 'the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives.' Now con also added the term 'self defence' to his definition which is incorrect. If we go back to the dictionary definition, it conclusively states 'unlawful' in the use of violence or threats. Now if we go back to the website he referenced, the term 'unlawful' means 'not lawful; contrary to law; illegal. Is self defence unlawful in government law or Sharia law? It is not, it is permissible. Which means self defence is not an act of terrorism as you are not instilling fear onto people, just protecting yourself. So that should clear up the point of self defence not being included in terrorism, as I have provided evidence for that. So now any argument that uses self defence as a motive, is dismissed. 
Your argument, while not incorrect, is not very relevant to me because I have previously established that what can be viewed as a defensive holy war appears to have significant interpretation. No one would seriously consider Osama bin Laden to be a non-terrorist simply because he believed he was acting in self-defense of Islam. Even if Osama Bin Laden considered American army bases in the Holy Land to be an attack or insult to God, he would still be considered a terrorist under Western law. Because what he did was illegal in their respective countries.

Validity of Sayyed Qutb
Qutb supported the idea of a violent Islam, one that would terrorize nations and supporting groups such as Al Qaeda. He is not a reliable Islamic scholar as he has a different interpretation of Islam, one that is in the extremist view. 

You are correct that he has a more extreme interpretation of the scripture, but I have not seen any other Islamic scholars refute his interpretation. For every argument a moderate Muslim scholar can find, he can simply select his favorite verses that contradict it or impart his own interpretation of what the wording really means, effectively halting the debate or making it inconsequential. He even has many books explaining why he is an extremist based on his reading of the Quran. He is a scholar with a non-mainstream viewpoint, but whether you like it or not, many Muslims regard him as a martyr. You can't simply declare who is and isn't a legitimate Muslim scholar unless his philosophy has been thoroughly debunked, which no one has done with Sayyed Qutb. 

 There is nowhere in the Holy War Criteria ,that is not interpreted by extremists, does it say that Islam is a violent religion used to instil fear unto people. 
Some scholars believe that. Just because an opinion is more popular or mainstream does not make it more correct. Sayyed Qutb is surely more knowledgeable about the Quran, hadiths, and surah than you and I are. Once again, he would have to be completely wrong in his interpretation of the language, which I will demonstrate is entirely dependent on interpretation.

Interpretation of the Quran

For some, this could simply be verbal, written or pictorial insults directed at Prophet. Terrorism, according to the definition, is supported by Islam, at least in self-defence.   
still room for interpretation based on what someone perceives as a threat or attack on God and Islam
Well no they don't actually contradict each other.  I had already moved on from demonstrating how you can be a terrorist even if you believe it is in self-defense to discussing more "vile" interpretations of Islam. In my opinion, whether it means to attack based on a verbal insult or a declaration of war is open to interpretation.

The Prophet did not kill the spy
I actually was not referring to Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Hadith Number 286 the link is in the sources, click them all. 

The word قَٰتِلُوا۟ (qaatiloo), translated as "fight", is derived from the root ق-ت-ل (q-t-l). The basic meaning of this root is "to kill".

This is referenced to Surah 9:29. Let me debunk this misconception. First of all, Islam only allows war in the case of self defence. Secondly, 'qatilu' means to fight whereas 'iqtulu' means means to kill. In the verse 60:8 it talks about those who think that God has a son and says 'May Allah condemn them and the word is "qatalahum Allah". Oppose or condemn, does not state to wage war on them. Misconceptions, cherry picked quotes, Con has got it all here. Also it says the word 'Jizya' which is a punishment for whoever breaks the law of the land. No one is going to pay Jizya if they have not done anything wrong. 
Well, the beauty of it is the fact you can cherry pick quotes with Islam, as it is timeless and the perfect word of God. In Surah 9:29 it uses the term qaatiloo also known as قَٰتِلُوا۟ a quick google translate lets this been known that this means to kill or very easily can be interpreted as such. In English, "fight" rarely connotes "murder" or "death". Only if "fight" is used in reference to fighting in a war does the word ever connote the loss of lives.
Even then, it is the war itself that causes death and not just the fight. "Fighting" can often be a positive action. In English, people "fight" against cancer, people "fight" to be heard.

In Arabic however, the verb for "fight" does not contain these benign meanings. Another verb such as saari' صارع "to struggle" or "to wrestle" would be used for these meanings. In Arabic, the verb translated fight is "Qātala" (قَاتَلَ with an alif between the first two letters), which is the form III verb from the root Q-T-L (قتل). From this root are also derived other verb forms that mean "kill", "massacre", or "slaughter". The form III verb can most accurately be described as to "try to kill", which is the most extreme form of what is called "fighting" in English.


Con has yet again taken these words out of context. And then said, 'you cannot take these words out of context' as the Quran is meant to be 'timeless' etc. If I select a random verse in the Quran and I just read that one, with no context, how am I supposed to know what it is referring to?
 The Quran is timeless and should not require information to be added in brackets by outside scholars or websites. If it is perfect, it should be applicable in any context and at any time period without knowing the history. Why is it so difficult for God to add a bit more descriptiveness, such as simply saying "only those who declare verbal, written war on us"? Why is it unclear whether he meant only the pagans of his time or all pagan? Why doesn't God just make it clear? If the Quran is perfect, there is no need for context because it denies its timelessness. There should be no need for scholars to interpret the Quran for us to add and remove things in brackets.

Sharia

"People based on sharia are capable of getting their fingers cut off, for stealing."

 This requires a long winded process. If the criminal is found guilty by 4 witnesses and the court agrees and everything is done fairy and justly, then there is no problem. This punishment is a deterrent. If you got robbed in the middle of the night and they took all your belongings and you are now homeless, how would you feel? Like you want to kill them right? Exactly. 

No, I would not want their fingers to be severed. I believe in forgiveness and rehabilitation rather than vengeance or retribution. Rehabilitation models have also been shown to be empirically superior in terms of criminal re-visitation rates.


Prophet Muhammad ordering killings

This poet you are talking about, is Ka'b bin al Ashraf I presume. He went to Mecca and told the Meccans to attack the Muslims. He wrote dirty poems about Muslim women. He also committed treason, which is punishable by death (in the US too), and he tried to destroy reputations of Muslim women. So this is yet again, a misconception that this person died as an innocent. 

According to the link I provided, while most admittedly betrayed Muhammad, some simply wrote mean poems about him or killed on suspicions. I want to make it clear, i personally have a very egalitarian view of the Quran. I personally truly feel like the Quran has a loving message, I'd be lying if I said I could PROVE my point. That is the only thing I am arguing against. Personally, I like Islam because of what it could offer people at the time it was created.

Round 3
Pro
I have previously established that what can be viewed as a defensive holy war appears to have significant interpretation. 
Defending yourself means to protect yourself from more harm, if the opposition has attacked first, then you can attack back. It is very simple. 

No one would seriously consider Osama bin Laden to be a non-terrorist simply because he believed he was acting in self-defence of Islam
Osama Bin Laden did not comply with the rules of the holy war. Innocents got killed in the twin towers, the rule is no innocents can be killed. Innocents mean people who have done nothing wrong. If Osama Bin Laden wanted to comply with the rules, then he would have, but he didn't. Every Muslim knows these rules but it is their choice to act upon them. This is why he was considered a terrorist, because he killed innocent people to inflict terror on the USA, however the president and the US did have some wrongdoings. But that isn't the question, it is about Islam. Osama did not comply with the rules of Islam and we as Muslims believe he will suffer the consequences in the Hereafter.  And the Quran also says 'Follow the laws of your land' so yes he did do something illegal in the US, and he died because of it. 

 but I have not seen any other Islamic scholars refute his interpretation.
His interpretation of Islam is much like the extremists. Those who take Jihad and twist it so it seems as if killing innocents is justified. And there are multiple scholars such as Mustafa Mashhur, Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi, Shaykh Muhammed Sayyid al-Tantawi, Abdel-Mo’tei Bayyoumi, Shaykh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah 
and there are so much more. The point is, these scholars refute terrorism and extremists. They do not have to refute Sayyed Qutb personally as his actions and opinions are refuted everyday by Muslim scholars. 

he can simply select his favourite verses that contradict it 
The scholars who refute terrorism give a direct response with a sufficient quote, not just a 'favourite quote'. 

Just because an opinion is more popular or mainstream does not make it more correct.
It is not an opinion, it is a fact. Scholars who I have listed in the above points surely know more about the Quran than one individual who takes Islam to a new level of extremism. Plus, please speak for yourself in saying me and you don't know more than Sayyed Qutb about the Quran. It is like saying that an actor knows more about a role than a die hard fan. Sometimes true, sometimes false. Con or anyone else cannot give me 1 single verse that accepts terrorism with the conditions I have set (holy war, etc). And even if a verse is given, as I cannot respond, it is deemed false. This is because every single verse that talks about violence in the Quran is not referring to oppressing an individual, just fighting back and the rest of the conditions. 

In my opinion, whether it means to attack based on a verbal insult or a declaration of war is open to interpretation.
This directly contradicts it. In your opinion, if the word 'fight' means 'kill' in Arabic, then it should mean kill for the enemy as well. So, if the enemy fights with a Muslim, it means kill, which means the Holy War criteria is set in place to retaliate. You cannot use this point just for the Muslims, have to use for the non Muslims as well, which justifies self defence, which justifies no terrorism. It is clear double standards. 

I actually was not referring to Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Hadith Number 286 the link is in the sources, click them all. 
This is a funny point. Not because of the point, but because of the website. This website  is called wikiIslam and it makes you think it is like Wikipedia right? But in the top left, where the logo is, just below that is a 'donate' button. Once you click that it directs you to a place where you donate to EX MUSLIMS. This just means this website is a Muslim hate website and the page makes it look like it is non biased. But it is clearly biased. But I will still address the Hadith you were talking about. 

If you were talking about ''Asma' bint Marwan' then this is the explanation. Some scholars consider this story to be a forgery because of the lack of evidence and many believe that one of the reporters in this chain of narration 'Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj' is known for fabricating hadith. All the reporters of this chain say this man forged it. In the actual, authentic Sunnah of the Prophet, women cannot be killed in war, same with innocents etc. Even Abu-Bakr (Prophets (SAW)  best friend) said to not kill women. This is the site

If you were referring to 'Abu Afak' then let me answer this Hadith for you. Abu Afak not only wrote poetry which was insulted towards the Prophet, but also instigated people against him. This is treason and still punishable by death in the USA as well as the Sharia Law Countries. This was justified and not terrorism. And also the Prophet didn't kill him, just a killing by a man named 'Saalim ibn Umayr.' 

 you can cherry pick quotes with Islam, as it is timeless and the perfect word of God
I just do not get this point. It is like saying to Christians 'why does it say that Jesus called a woman a dog?'. And then you say to them, 'I won't accept context'. I really do not understand this as context is what is needed. I can open up a random page and say a line, you will not understand it without context. It is needed, end of. 

In Surah 9:29 it uses the term qaatiloo also known as قَٰتِلُوا۟ a quick google translate lets this been known that this means to kill 
This is wrong. You are talking about Arabic on google translate, it just doesn't work. The Quran was revealed 1400 years ago, you think the  language that Arabians speak now, is the same as the Quran. If we are talking linguistics of the Quran, it is the most unique book, one that has to be divinely written. But that is besides the point. Now obviously new Arabic does not match up to the Quran. This is why it is translated into English, not by using google though. So this point is invalid. 

Another verb such as saari' صارع "to struggle" or "to wrestle" would be used for these meanings.
No it would not. It is a completely different word in the Quran. I don't think the word struggle was invented 1400 years ago anyway, or wrestled. It is a translation using the Quran, not google. 

which is the form III verb from the root Q-T-L (قتل).
Not QTL, it is Qutulu. 'fa-uq'tulū' means to kill. 'waqātilū' means to fight. Two different words with two different meanings. 

 The Quran is timeless and should not require information to be added in brackets by outside scholars or websites
Information does not even matter. You need to read a few lines up and a few lines down to know what it is talking about. 

Why is it so difficult for God to add a bit more descriptiveness, such as simply saying "only those who declare verbal, written war on us"?
This makes no sense and a complete disregard for a deity such as God. Now God is not going to describe everything in such detail when stuff like this is not important. There is a criteria in place for a holy war, self defence is not terrorism and neither is killing people justly. A war is not the biggest impact and thought on a Muslims mind, therefore, context is needed to know what the verses are saying. 

Why is it unclear whether he meant only the pagans of his time or all pagan?
It is absolutely crystal clear but you need to read from the beginning of that verse/chapter to then know who it is talking about. It clearly states which time the pagans are in. This should be obvious, but you disregard context, and one that does that, is not serious. 

No, I would not want their fingers to be severed. I believe in forgiveness and rehabilitation rather than vengeance or retribution. Rehabilitation models have also been shown to be empirically superior in terms of criminal re-visitation rates.

This is not only for you, it is for the rest of the world. Not everyone agrees with you. And besides, if you commit a crime like robbing someone, why commit it if you can't handle the punishment? This punishment is very severe yes. But just don't do the crime. It is a deterrent. And it is working.  Crime rates are so much lower than western countries. 

i personally have a very egalitarian view of the Quran
This is good. 

 Personally, I like Islam because of what it could offer people at the time it was created.
The Quran offers so much more to people now as well. Rights for women, 1400 years ago these rights were given, only a 100 years ago in the UK similar rights were given. No racism. No oppression. The Quran sends a  message, to worship the one deity or suffer the consequences in the afterlife. If people follow the rules of the land, there is no problem. 

Conclusion

There is absolutely no terrorism in the Quran or Authentic Hadith. There is no wrongful convictions of anyone that Con has mentioned, all these deaths have been fully justified. Yes Muslims can be terrorists, but it only equates to 0.01% of the population. Islamic teachings do not consider terrorism in them, and condemn the ideology of making people scared and inflicting fear or pain. This is not the correct way. Groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban are condemned by many including myself, these are not following the teachings of Islam. 

I have no more points to make and I am running out of time, so I just want to leave a short and sweet message. 

Islam does not condone terrorism, Muslims can advocate it and say Islam does, but these are lying and I hope you all agree. 

Thank you and vote Pro

REFERENCES 

Con
Defending yourself means to protect yourself from more harm, if the opposition has attacked first, then you can attack back. It is very simple. 

This is a strawman argument. Throughout this debate, I've tried to demonstrate to you that what constitutes an "attack" in Islam is not black and white. What is considered "defence" in Islam is subjective, based primarily on how you interpret "fight," which I have demonstrated can and frequently is interpreted to suggest murder.

Osama Bin Laden killing innocents
Osama Bin Laden did not comply with the rules of the holy war. Innocents got killed in the twin towers, the rule is no innocents can be killed. Innocents mean people who have done nothing wrong. If Osama Bin Laden wanted to comply with the rules, then he would have, but he didn't. Every Muslim knows these rules but it is their choice to act upon them. This is why he was considered a terrorist, because he killed innocent people to inflict terror on the USA, however the president and the US did have some wrongdoings. But that isn't the question, it is about Islam. Osama did not comply with the rules of Islam and we as Muslims believe he will suffer the consequences in the Hereafter.  And the Quran also says 'Follow the laws of your land' so yes he did do something illegal in the US, and he died because of it. 
Good argument! You're right. Islam says not to intentionally kill innocents, but we don't know who innocent are.....it depends on interpretation! the problem is Prophet Muhammad wasn't against killing innocents in "collateral damage"  Bin Laden's interpretation of Islamic doctrine allows retaliation against U.S. citizens because of perceived indiscriminate U.S. aggression against Muslims. To another question by a Muslim interviewer about Muslims killed in the September 11 attacks, bin Laden replied that "Islamic law says that Muslim should not stay long in the land of infidels," although he suggested Muslim casualties in the attack were "collateral damage".

Bin Laden was also greatly inspired by a scholar by the name of Ibn Taymiyyah. He gave a broad definition of what constituted "aggression" against Muslims and what actions by non-believers made jihad against them permissible. He declared
It is allowed to fight people for (not observing) unambiguous and generally recognized obligations and prohibitions, until they undertake to perform the explicitly prescribed prayers, to pay zakat, to fast during the month of Ramadan, to make the pilgrimage to Mecca and to avoid what is prohibited, such as marrying women in spite of legal impediments, eating impure things, acting unlawfully against the lives and properties of Muslims and the like. It is obligatory to take the initiative in fighting those people, as soon as the prophet's summons with the reasons for which they are fought has reached them. But if they first attack the Muslims then fighting them is even more urgent, as we have mentioned when dealing with the fighting against rebellious and aggressive bandits.
His interpretation of Islam is much like the extremists. Those who take Jihad and twist it so it seems as if killing innocents is justified. And there are multiple scholars such as Mustafa Mashhur, Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi, Shaykh Muhammed Sayyid al-Tantawi, Abdel-Mo’tei Bayyoumi, Shaykh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah 
and there are so much more. The point is, these scholars refute terrorism and extremists. They do not have to refute Sayyed Qutb personally as his actions and opinions are refuted everyday by Muslim scholars. 
Citation needed.
he scholars who refute terrorism give a direct response with a sufficient quote, not just a 'favourite quote'. 
Citation needed.
It is not an opinion, it is a fact. Scholars who I have listed in the above points surely know more about the Quran than one individual who takes Islam to a new level of extremism. Plus, please speak for yourself in saying me and you don't know more than Sayyed Qutb about the Quran. It is like saying that an actor knows more about a role than a die hard fan. Sometimes true, sometimes false. Con or anyone else cannot give me 1 single verse that accepts terrorism with the conditions I have set (holy war, etc). And even if a verse is given, as I cannot respond, it is deemed false. This is because every single verse that talks about violence in the Quran is not referring to oppressing an individual, just fighting back and the rest of the conditions. 

Proof?
This directly contradicts it. In your opinion, if the word 'fight' means 'kill' in Arabic, then it should mean kill for the enemy as well. So, if the enemy fights with a Muslim, it means kill, which means the Holy War criteria is set in place to retaliate. You cannot use this point just for the Muslims, have to use for the non Muslims as well, which justifies self defence, which justifies no terrorism. It is clear double standards. 
I've found no source in the Quran where non-Muslims are described as "fighting" Islam without physically oppressing it or Prophet Muhammad. Non-Muslim tribes attempted to kill Prophet Muhammad on a regular basis. So, citation is required, and I will conduct my own research.

his is a funny point. Not because of the point, but because of the website. This website  is called wikiIslam and it makes you think it is like Wikipedia right? But in the top left, where the logo is, just below that is a 'donate' button. Once you click that it directs you to a place where you donate to EX MUSLIMS. 
Irrelevant, as they have the sources within the wiki, so you can go to the root and see if the source itself is biased.

I just do not get this point. It is like saying to Christians 'why does it say that Jesus called a woman a dog?'
The pragmatic answer would be that the bible needs context and is therefore not timeless. 

This is wrong. You are talking about Arabic on google translate, it just doesn't work. The Quran was revealed 1400 years ago, you think the  language that Arabians speak now, is the same as the Quran. If we are talking linguistics of the Quran, it is the most unique book, one that has to be divinely written. But that is besides the point. Now obviously new Arabic does not match up to the Quran. This is why it is translated into English, not by using google though. So this point is invalid. 
 Even if the words has changed where it has derived from has not. It has an innately violent suggestion  

No it would not. It is a completely different word in the Quran. I don't think the word struggle was invented 1400 years ago anyway, or wrestled. It is a translation using the Quran, not google. 
Citation needed to prove when the word was invented.
Not QTL, it is Qutulu. 'fa-uq'tulū' means to kill. 'waqātilū' means to fight. Two different words with two different meanings. 
Two different words with similar suggestions.

This makes no sense and a complete disregard for a deity such as God. Now God is not going to describe everything in such detail when stuff like this is not important. There is a criteria in place for a holy war
It is critical; otherwise, there would be no Islamic extremists. Jainist extremists are unheard of.

Sources