Extremists: a question and a talk

[Angrboda]

I read what you wrote.   The context was examined in great detail in the video.  The surahs you brought in reply weren't even relevant to the argument presented in the video, so what in fuck are you even babbling about?  If you had watched the video, you'd know why your arguments were irrelevant.  I noticed you didn't address specific claims made in the video, you just dismissed them outright and repeated your standard defense.  I don't believe you actually watched the video.  Either you didn't watch the video, and you're a liar, or you're so incompetent you can't even reply coherently to an argument.

The only intellectual problem I see is yours.

To be honest, I didn't complete it. I watched the first 2 minutes or something, and felt so disgusted by the childish, low method of reading 43435345345 verses in 2 seconds and expect me to answer that, a biased video made for biased people -like you-.
That is a biased man, who ignores the contexts and cherry picks to prove his biased opinion. Sorry Jormungander, but I always thought that these types of videos are made by atheists for atheists, made to bash and listened to by people who also want to bash.
Bring me the verses one by one like a real scholar, read them one by one, detail their explanation, and then maybe you'll be worthy of convincing me.
We humans do that to any other field. But we don't do it to the Quran? consider it another piece of history.

So, in other words, by pretending you were responding to the video, you were essentially lying.  Gotcha.  I think I understand what you call honest scholarship now.

I'll repeat the points for the benefit of the stupid.


No, they do not. Surah 9:29, the verse in question does not. And even those verses you've presented simply give permission to fight defensively, they do not forbid fighting when defense is not an issue, as in 9:29, so your defense doesn't even work. The context of 9:29 was clear. The only person distorting context is you.

You're sure? Let's see the verses with their context:

Yes, let's....

Sura 9, The Quran:
( 7 )   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. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

( 8 )   How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.

( 9 )   They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing.
( 10 )   They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.
.

.
.
( 25 )   Allah has already given you victory in many regions and [even] on the day of Hunayn, when your great number pleased you, but it did not avail you at all, and the earth was confining for you with its vastness; then you turned back, fleeing.
( 26 )   Then Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger and upon the believers and sent down soldiers angels whom you did not see and punished those who disbelieved. And that is the recompense of the disbelievers.
( 28 )   O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.
( 29 )   Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
( 30 )   The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
( 31 )   They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

Did you see, how he cherry picked verse 29 and ignored the other verses that prove torture and a war being the context of all of this?

What I see is that the context you provided, surah 9:8, refers to the polytheists, whereas surah 9:29 is referring to those who "were given the scripture," which refers to the Jews and Christians, not the polytheists.  Moreover, even with respect to the polytheists, Mohammad says, "So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term....[but] When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush."  That isn't any kind of defensive action at all, and the surahs you quote as "context" are merely justification for open warfare.  Regardless, this is about surah 9:29, and the context you provided is talking about a different group.   The context is clear, Mohammad is denying the polytheists access to the sacred mosque, and in order to make up the lost income, he proposes war on the Jews and Christians.

So, no, he didn't cherry pick anything.

That is the saddest story I ever read!
The crimes of this man are so violent, it makes Vlad the Impaler -the Christian European- and the Cannibal medieval European knights and the American Slavers and Joseph Stalin and Hitler look like angels !

Wikipedia talks about an assassination that targeted Mohammed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Quray...the_Trench

Tensions quickly mounted between the growing numbers of Muslims and Jewish tribes, while Muhammad found himself at war with his native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh. In 624, after his victory over the Meccans in the Battle of Badr, Banu Qaynuqa threatened Muhammad's political position and assaulted a Muslim woman which led to their expulsion from Medina for breaking the peace treaty of Constitution of Medina.[32][33] The Qurayza remained passive during the whole Qaynuqa affair, apparently because the Qaynuqa were historically allied with the Khazraj, while the Qurayza were the allies of the Aws.[34]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#cite_note-34][/url]

Could you read history before debating me, please?
Your sources are biased, and has nothing to do with the truth about Islam's history.

It's always somebody else's fault, isn't it, Atlas?  I'm getting sick of your tu quoque arguments, your lies, and your attempts to twist scripture to fit your modernist narrative.  You're full of shit.  You didn't watch the video.  You didn't refute his arguments.  You didn't provide any justifying context for surah 9:29.  And you didn't provide any justification for Mohammad's ruthless behavior ("There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often." Surah 33:21).

You're full of shit to the core, Atlas.

Btw, I could care less whether you think I'm "worthy of convincing you." That's just stupid arrogance talking on your part. Maybe if you'd asked nicely for a summarization of the points in the video, I might have obliged. But seeing as you pretended to have watched the video, pretended to have rebutted its arguments, and only now are demanding the argument be presented differently, I think you can go fuck yourself.

[WinterHold]

So, in other words, by pretending you were responding to the video, you were essentially lying.  Gotcha.  I think I understand what you call honest scholarship now.

No, it meant that I know this argument already; responded to it a lot in here too.
Cherry picking vocabulary from verses that involve "orders of killing somebody else" or "orders of mutilating people" is not a hard job with the Quran. But books are not about the vocabulary; they are about the context built by the vocabulary. This argument is the same broken record repeated from the days of Ahmed Deedat:

What I see is that the context you provided, surah 9:8, refers to the polytheists, whereas surah 9:29 is referring to those who "were given the scripture," which refers to the Jews and Christians, not the polytheists.  Moreover, even with respect to the polytheists, Mohammad says, "So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term....[but] When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush."  That isn't any kind of defensive action at all, and the surahs you quote as "context" are merely justification for open warfare.  Regardless, this is about surah 9:29, and the context you provided is talking about a different group.   The context is clear, Mohammad is denying the polytheists access to the sacred mosque, and in order to make up the lost income, he proposes war on the Jews and Christians.

So, no, he didn't cherry pick anything.

Mohammed -peace be upon him- was ordered to ambush and fight the polytheists who fought him indeed, but he was also ordered -in the next verse- to spare any polytheist that came in peace:

Sura 9, The Quran:

( 1 )   [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

( 2 )   So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

( 3 )   And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah. And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.

( 4 )   Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

( 5 )   And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

( 6 )   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.

Mohammed made a treaty with the heathens of Mecca, he also made a treaty with the "Jews and Christians" at Medinah -which the jews broke; I even posted the link for it from wikipedia in the previous comment to you-:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Quray...the_Trench

Tensions quickly mounted between the growing numbers of Muslims and Jewish tribes, while Muhammad found himself at war with his native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh. In 624, after his victory over the Meccans in the Battle of Badr, Banu Qaynuqa threatened Muhammad's political position and assaulted a Muslim woman which led to their expulsion from Medina for breaking the peace treaty of Constitution of Medina.[32][33] The Qurayza remained passive during the whole Qaynuqa affair, apparently because the Qaynuqa were historically allied with the Khazraj, while the Qurayza were the allies of the Aws.[34]

That's why the Jewish war tribes were fought. I should also mention that they entered an alliance with the heathens of Mecca -Mohammed's arch enemies-:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trench

It's always somebody else's fault, isn't it, Atlas?  I'm getting sick of your tu quoque arguments, your lies, and your attempts to twist scripture to fit your modernist narrative.  You're full of shit.  You didn't watch the video.  You didn't refute his arguments.  You didn't provide any justifying context for surah 9:29.  And you didn't provide any justification for Mohammad's ruthless behavior ("There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often." Surah 33:21).

The reason I hold to this religion so much is my despise for the level of cruelty the modern human reached; being born today doesn't mean that I forgot what happened 80 years ago.

I'm seeing the pattern of a man who broke treaties when a single woman of his people got hurt, also I'm seeing a man who "gave peace to confused enemies" just like Sura 9:6 foretold, that's a one fine pattern, better than tactical bombings, nuclear bombs, generating money out of thin air, right?

and all of that before 1400 years. It wasn't him, it was the orders of God though.

You're full of shit to the core, Atlas.

Btw, I could care less whether you think I'm "worthy of convincing you." That's just stupid arrogance talking on your part. Maybe if you'd asked nicely for a summarization of the points in the video, I might have obliged. But seeing as you pretended to have watched the video, pretended to have rebutted its arguments, and only now are demanding the argument be presented differently, I think you can go fuck yourself.

I was referring to the man in the video, serpent, not you !
His argument is repeated a lot, since the 80s and the 90s and maybe even older, all of them have one answer: context.

[The Grand Nudger]

Magic book justifies a campaign of then-current or then-recent military expansion.  An exhortation to be kind to newly surrendered vassals is underwhelming.

[Angrboda]

So, in other words, by pretending you were responding to the video, you were essentially lying.  Gotcha.  I think I understand what you call honest scholarship now.

No, it meant that I know this argument already; responded to it a lot in here too.
Cherry picking vocabulary from verses that involve "orders of killing somebody else" or "orders of mutilating people" is not a hard job with the Quran. But books are not about the vocabulary; they are about the context built by the vocabulary. This argument is the same broken record repeated from the days of Ahmed Deedat:

My God, Atlas, you've actually found a Muslim apologist whose arguments are worse than yours!  What, am I supposed to be impressed?  This video doesn't answer dick.

What I see is that the context you provided, surah 9:8, refers to the polytheists, whereas surah 9:29 is referring to those who "were given the scripture," which refers to the Jews and Christians, not the polytheists.  Moreover, even with respect to the polytheists, Mohammad says, "So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term....[but] When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush."  That isn't any kind of defensive action at all, and the surahs you quote as "context" are merely justification for open warfare.  Regardless, this is about surah 9:29, and the context you provided is talking about a different group.   The context is clear, Mohammad is denying the polytheists access to the sacred mosque, and in order to make up the lost income, he proposes war on the Jews and Christians.

So, no, he didn't cherry pick anything.

Mohammed -peace be upon him- was ordered to ambush and fight the polytheists who fought him indeed, but he was also ordered -in the next verse- to spare any polytheist that came in peace:

Sura 9, The Quran:

---

( 1 )   [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

( 2 )   So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

( 3 )   And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah. And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.

( 4 )   Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

( 5 )   And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

( 6 )   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.

---

Mohammed made a treaty with the heathens of Mecca, he also made a treaty with the "Jews and Christians" at Medinah -which the jews broke; I even posted the link for it from wikipedia in the previous comment to you-:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Quray...the_Trench

Tensions quickly mounted between the growing numbers of Muslims and Jewish tribes, while Muhammad found himself at war with his native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh. In 624, after his victory over the Meccans in the Battle of Badr, Banu Qaynuqa threatened Muhammad's political position and assaulted a Muslim woman which led to their expulsion from Medina for breaking the peace treaty of Constitution of Medina.[32][33] The Qurayza remained passive during the whole Qaynuqa affair, apparently because the Qaynuqa were historically allied with the Khazraj, while the Qurayza were the allies of the Aws.[34]

That's why the Jewish war tribes were fought. I should also mention that they entered an alliance with the heathens of Mecca -Mohammed's arch enemies-:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trench

Oh bullshit, Atlas.  First of all, the treaty was broken by one tribe of Jews, and didn't involve the Christians at all.  Second, the timeline simply doesn't support you, as it's well known what the circumstances surrounding the revelation of surah 9 were, and it was not related to the battle of the trench.  The battle of the trench occurred in 627.  Mohammad's unsuccessful expedition to Tabuk occurred three years later in 630, and it was around that time that the surah was revealed.  The Tabuk expedition was two years after even the fighting at Kaibar and involved the Byzantines, not the Jews.  You're mushing together entirely separate events in order to try to draw a connection between them, and it simply doesn't work.  Either you're ignorant of these facts and are simply laboring under false information imparted to you by other dishonest Muslim apologists, or you yourself are intentionally misrepresenting events hoping that I like many would not be familiar with the facts.  As a matter of history, Mohammad desired to expel the Christians and Jews from the entire Arabian peninsula.  That, and a need for more income, drove the revelation of surahs 9:28-33.

It's always somebody else's fault, isn't it, Atlas?  I'm getting sick of your tu quoque arguments, your lies, and your attempts to twist scripture to fit your modernist narrative.  You're full of shit.  You didn't watch the video.  You didn't refute his arguments.  You didn't provide any justifying context for surah 9:29.  And you didn't provide any justification for Mohammad's ruthless behavior ("There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often." Surah 33:21).

The reason I hold to this religion so much is my despise for the level of cruelty the modern human reached; being born today doesn't mean that I forgot what happened 80 years ago.

I'm seeing the pattern of a man who broke treaties when a single woman of his people got hurt, also I'm seeing a man who "gave peace to confused enemies" just like Sura 9:6 foretold, that's a one fine pattern, better than tactical bombings, nuclear bombs, generating money out of thin air, right?

and all of that before 1400 years. It wasn't him, it was the orders of God though.

You're a part of the problem, Atlas, not the solution.  This kind of lex talionis justice and blood feuding is a cause, not an answer.  You're just perpetuating it.

You're full of shit to the core, Atlas.

Btw, I could care less whether you think I'm "worthy of convincing you." That's just stupid arrogance talking on your part. Maybe if you'd asked nicely for a summarization of the points in the video, I might have obliged. But seeing as you pretended to have watched the video, pretended to have rebutted its arguments, and only now are demanding the argument be presented differently, I think you can go fuck yourself.

I was referring to the man in the video, serpent, not you !
His argument is repeated a lot, since the 80s and the 90s and maybe even older, all of them have one answer: context.

I suspect that you still haven't watched the video, which would make this more lies and bullshit about an argument you haven't bothered to even hear.

Again, you're full of shit to the core. You're nothing but a second rate liar.

[ReptilianPeon]

There is a good reason why Ahmed Deedat was given the "King Faisal Award": he is the original Saudi Stooge. Even if he is right, I won't here it from him. Abdul Wahaab would be so proud of Ahmed Deedat.

[WinterHold]

My God, Atlas, you've actually found a Muslim apologist whose arguments are worse than yours!  What, am I supposed to be impressed?  This video doesn't answer dick.

Yes it does. It refers to the verse repeated millions of times on these boards:

Mohammed -peace be upon him- was ordered to ambush and fight the polytheists who fought him indeed, but he was also ordered -in the next verse- to spare any polytheist that came in peace:


Mohammed made a treaty with the heathens of Mecca, he also made a treaty with the "Jews and Christians" at Medinah -which the jews broke; I even posted the link for it from wikipedia in the previous comment to you-:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Quray...the_Trench


That's why the Jewish war tribes were fought. I should also mention that they entered an alliance with the heathens of Mecca -Mohammed's arch enemies-:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trench

 Second, the timeline simply doesn't support you, as it's well known what the circumstances surrounding the revelation of surah 9 were, and it was not related to the battle of the trench.  The battle of the trench occurred in 627.  Mohammad's unsuccessful expedition to Tabuk occurred three years later in 630, and it was around that time that the surah was revealed.  The Tabuk expedition was two years after even the fighting at Kaibar and involved the Byzantines, not the Jews.  You're mushing together entirely separate events in order to try to draw a connection between them, and it simply doesn't work.  Either you're ignorant of these facts and are simply laboring under false information imparted to you by other dishonest Muslim apologists, or you yourself are intentionally misrepresenting events hoping that I like many would not be familiar with the facts.  As a matter of history, Mohammad desired to expel the Christians and Jews from the entire Arabian peninsula.  That, and a need for more income, drove the revelation of surahs 9:28-33.

The reason I hold to this religion so much is my despise for the level of cruelty the modern human reached; being born today doesn't mean that I forgot what happened 80 years ago.

I'm seeing the pattern of a man who broke treaties when a single woman of his people got hurt, also I'm seeing a man who "gave peace to confused enemies" just like Sura 9:6 foretold, that's a one fine pattern, better than tactical bombings, nuclear bombs, generating money out of thin air, right?

and all of that before 1400 years. It wasn't him, it was the orders of God though.

You're a part of the problem, Atlas, not the solution.  This kind of lex talionis justice and blood feuding is a cause, not an answer.  You're just perpetuating it.

I was referring to the man in the video, serpent, not you !
His argument is repeated a lot, since the 80s and the 90s and maybe even older, all of them have one answer: context.

I suspect that you still haven't watched the video, which would make this more lies and bullshit about an argument you haven't bothered to even hear.

Again, you're full of shit to the core.  You're nothing but a second rate liar.

Sura 2, The Quran:
http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#a...rans=en_sh

( 256 )   There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

The whole Quran -whole; not even a single verse- orders Muslims to compulsively convert others to Islam, 1400 years and Egypt -an Islamic dominated country- has a prospurse Christian community mostly richer than the Muslim community by a wide degree, what about Indonisia which entered Islam without an arrow fired, what about Spain that Christian natives remained in until the bloody inquisitions?

But all of these facts matter not to a biased individual who is living an imaginary dream.

Oh bullshit, Atlas.  First of all, the treaty was broken by one tribe of Jews, and didn't involve the Christians at all.

No. I'll repeat my previous post because yours has no relationship with mine:

There were two treaties: one with the tribes of Medinah, and one with the heathens of Mecca.

1-(Medinah Treaty; AKA The Constitution of Medinah -see more details in the link-:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina

I should also point to the amount of sophistication and organizing Islam brought to ancient Arabia. Mohammed -peace be upon him; under the command of God- brought a multi-cultural and multi-religious society to life, ending tribal fighting in the city.

2-(Treaty of Hudaybiyyah , it was a very crucial treaty between Mohammed -peace be upon him- and the heathens of Mecca -see more details in the link-:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah

Arabian Jews broke number 1. Posted the link to you, along with the incident that involved "assaulting a Muslim woman by the Jewish tribe of Banu Qaynuqa:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#cite_note-34

Tensions quickly mounted between the growing numbers of Muslims and Jewish tribes, while Muhammad found himself at war with his native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh. In 624, after his victory over the Meccans in the Battle of Badr, Banu Qaynuqa threatened Muhammad's political position and assaulted a Muslim woman which led to their expulsion from Medina for breaking the peace treaty of Constitution of Medina.[32][33] The Qurayza remained passive during the whole Qaynuqa affair, apparently because the Qaynuqa were historically allied with the Khazraj, while the Qurayza were the allies of the Aws.[34]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#cite_note-34][/url]

For Christians, the first conflict to ever take place was because a Muslim emissary was killed by a Ghassanid chief, the Byzantines though have another story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mu%27tah

Which source would you like to believe? it depends on your reason, research and bias.
All of this, and I don't take the dates to be the exact truth.

The battle was said to take place on September, year 629:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mu%27tah

For the timeline, the Surah was revealed in 622 - 632 AD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_su..._the_Quran

The first conflict with christians was at 629.
The first conflict with Jews was in 624

Case closed. The Sura is revelation date extends to 632. You have no case; and you're officially lying or you're officially ignorant.
Yes I didn't watch the video because it's author also has no case, and I have no room for speech without evidence.

[robvalue]

Who said that the goal of God is preventing "people from getting killed", by sending the scriptures?

You did, by making this thread. I'm going to have to give up debating you from now on.

[Angrboda]

Regardless, Atlas, any conflict with the Byzantines offers no justification for an attack upon the Jews and Christians. Nothing in your post refutes any of the problems I've pointed out in my last post. Yes indeed, the case is closed, and you lost. Now I'm done arguing with you as you have repeatedly claimed that an argument you haven't even heard is false, and you have no explanation for the facts that exist. And now you're just throwing shit against the wall to see if any of it sticks.

Surah 9:29 records the beginning of aggression against the Jews and Christians, not out of defense or because of any broken treaty, but solely because of their beliefs. It clearly demonstrates that, while you yourself may be a peaceful Muslim, there are legitimate grounds for a Muslim engaging in violent warfare against Jews, Christians, and "hypocrites" solely on the basis of their beliefs and for no other reason.

Now I'm done talking to you because you're simply yet again proving that you're stupid, ignorant, bigoted, and crazy, and cannot look at the issue objectively. You are nothing less than yet another dishonest Muslim apologist telling lies and stories. Islam is not fundamentally a religion of peace, and the Quran and the history of it tell us that beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's not the likes of ISIS or Al-Qaeda who are the extremists who are distorting the truth of Islam, but morons like you with your absurd and revisionist modernist interpretations.

[ReptilianPeon]

Well I mean I've heard it said by apologists that Surah nine refers to the "Battle of Tabouk" (in Saudi, not Tobruk in Libya) or whatever. And yet, do we even have any evidence that this battle between the Byzantines and the Sahabah actually took place? I'd love to see it. I don't recall the Byzantines writing about any such battle. I hope it's not another fabrication (like Mecca being as old as the Pyramids of Egypt).

[Angrboda]

Well I mean I've heard it said by apologists that Surah nine refers to the "Battle of Tabouk" (in Saudi, not Tobruk in Libya) or whatever. And yet, do we even have any evidence that this battle between the Byzantines and the Sahabah actually took place? I'd love to see it. I don't recall the Byzantines writing about any such battle. I hope it's not another fabrication (like Mecca being as old as the Pyramids of Egypt).

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages...-9-29.aspx