> Debate: Terrorism in Surah Tawbah

[Acid]

Originally Posted by salman

As-Salamu 'Alaykum

bro just make sure not to move on unless he gives you an evidence which says that the Muslims broke the treaty or he admits his mistake.

Walikum Assalam,

Yes bro , thanks for the support. I have not seen any evidence from him to substantiate his claim that Muslims broke the treaty. Anything without any evidence is considered as a myth and those who believe and propagate and argue on it are called either myth-makers or liars.

Anyways , I do hope that the misunderstanding of Islam with Alex regarding these verses is now clear.

As Its my turn in round 2 , I wouldnt want to say anything against Christanity or Bible . I believe that Prophet Jesus ( peace be upon him ) was a Noble Messenger of Almighty on whom God revealed The Gospel - The Gospel of Jesus which is now a lost document and traces of it are found in current days bible which is no more then historical document and ofcourse far away from being a divine book.

I wait to respond to Alex next query and would like to thank him for placing and agreeing for this inter-faith dialogue.

Best Regards

[Acid]

Hello Acid,
You're welcome bro (for the info). Anytime!

By the way, I have some 'bad' news for you. Some of your arguments my friend was very, very weak and baseless my friend, sorry to say that.

Before everything, Biblical verses and other Christianity related questions/ things can be discussed later, so lets just stick to 9:5. About the 'warning' thing, I'm not bothered by it. Its not our topic, I was just correcting you!

Second, before coming to our argument, you've commented somethings at the end. Well buddy, taking things from answering-christiainty, which dont even argue it properly, dont make much use to it. I know that was taken from answering-christianity which claims to have 'refuted' 9:5 argument!
You'll have to bring valid and supportive arguement, as you can see, Osama Abdullah is even a disgrace to Islam and Muslims: A Call For Osama Abdullah To Step Down As Answering-Christianity.Com Webmaster Petition

Btw, since you asked:
"So even if you prove that Muhammad broke the treaty he still does not disprove his Prophethood. So then what is the whole point of this debate if its not going to prove anything in the end?"

It will prove the violent nature of the Verse and that Muhammed doesnt stand up to his words and treaties and many other thngs.

Again you ask:
"If the God of the Bible gave authority to husbands to cancel the oaths of their wives and fathers to cancel the oaths of their daughters (Numbers 30) then why can't God give authority to the Prophet to cancel a part of an agreement that was unjust in the first place? (because the Muslims were supposed to return those from the Quraysh that ran away from them but the Quraysh does not return the Muslims who ran away from them)"

Now you've just violated the rules! :)

One of our rules says "One will not be involved in any other things beside the subject brought. If I am talking about something in the Qur'an, you dont say "Also the Bible says the same". We will come to your points at your turn, but the purpose of the debate is to answer me/ refute my points."....

So my friend, lets refrain from things that may harm our debate. We can get to ANYTHING Biblican or Christinaity later, but you cant really justify anything Islamic through Christianity!!


Now to your arguement, I'm still wondering if you read the summary and background properly. Firstly, Banu Khuza'a allied itself with the Muslims much later after the Treaty, and after Quraish started feuding with them, so Muslims had no right to interfere suddenly breaking all treaties. If it was a real peace-maker, it would have atleast tried making negotiations or peace deal (assumptions! :). So that alone destroys your arguements where you said: (They should have said, "no we will not enter this treaty because that would mean that we would have to have peace with Banu Khuza'ah and we don't want that because we want to avenge our leader's deaths".).
Please read the background I've send it, and dont miss it again.

To your second argument. Now you're bringing a GOOD argument! :)
This is how a debate, filled with argumentive points!

Since I was actually 'eager' for that, I will now refute all your claims in detail!

As I said before, the 'alligiance' b/w the Banu Khuza'a and the Muslims happened much later AFTER the Treaty.

Now lets go deep into detail.


Lets observe:

At the time Muhammad spoke the passage he had enough power to dominate and crush the remaining Pagan tribes within the Hijaz, so he used it. He changed the rules and regulations that involved the Pagans. The Pagans did nothing to precipitate this change; they continued to do as they had done for the last year under Muhammad's rule. But Muhammad used his ever growing power and placed his power of Islam around their necks. Pagans were forced to join Islam or die. This is not self defense.
Some observations:

1. Muhammad was the aggressor (9:2, 3, 5), this passage is an edict for war. Muhammad gave instructions to his followers to defend if attacked, but to also go out and attack all Pagans once the sacred months were completed.
2. Muhammad was a truce breaker. The Pagans did not break all the truces. Muhammad claimed that God gave him a "revelation" allowing him to lie and break his word, i.e. the truces, stated in 9:1: "A declaration of immunity from God and His apostle to the idolaters with whom you have made agreements", and described as "A discharge came down, permitting the breaking of the agreement between the apostle and the polytheists" (from 1.1 Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah). The materials state that it was Muhammad who broke all truces except those few he had with specific tribes or individuals for a limited time. When the sacred months were ended, those truces would also end. Muhammad would now be at war with all polytheistic tribes including those who had been peaceful. Had the Pagans broken the truces there would be no need for Muhammad to get a revelation to break them for they would already have been broken. Further, the Pagans were weak and demoralized and they were not about to start a war with the mighty Muhammad. Also note that Muhammad did not make an effort to renew the truce with the peaceful tribes, rather he initiated a state of war.
3. Muhammad used compulsion to force people to convert to Islam: 9:5, "…If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way.". The verse describes conversion to Islam. The Pagans were going to be murdered if they did not convert. People tend to define religious conversion at the point of the sword as "compulsion."
4. Muhammad commanded murder and terrorism for Islam, 9:5, 6, "When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them", described as "one of those whom I have ordered you to kill,"….(from1.1 Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah) Once the sacred months ended it was open season on the Pagans. They were going to be attacked, hounded, ambushed, captured, terrorized, and murdered by the Muslims. Muslim terrorists today do what this verse commands.

When Mohammed himself declares to brake the Treaty, it is really senseless to say that Mohammed DID NOT brake it.

And btw, just for your information, heres a hadith that testifies this fact:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Bukhari'scollection, volume 1, number 365
On the Day of Nahr (10th of Dhul-Hijja, in the year prior to the last Hajj of the Prophet when Abu Bakr was the leader of the pilgrims in that Hajj) Abu Bakr sent me along with other announcers to Mina to make a public announcement: "No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba. Then Allah's Apostle sent 'All to read out the Surat Bara'a (At-Tauba) to the people; so he made the announcement along with us on the day of Nahr in Mina: "No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba."

OR

Bukhari, Book 6, Volume 60, Hadith 179
Narrated Humaid bin Abdur Rahman:
Abu Huraira said, "Abu Bakr sent me in that Hajj in which he was the chief of the pilgrims along with the announcers whom he sent on the Day of Nahr to announce at Mina: "No pagan shall perform Hajj after this year, and none shall perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba in a naked state." Humaid added: That the Prophet sent 'Ali bin Abi Talib (after Abu Bakr) and ordered him to recite aloud in public Surat-Baraa. Abu Huraira added, "So 'Ali, along with us, recited Bara'a (loudly) before the people at Mina on the Day of Nahr and announced "No pagan shall perform Hajj after this year and none shall perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba in a naked state."..except those pagans with whom you (Muslims) have a treaty." (9.4)

And to make things even clearer, you should know that Mohammed made a sudden invasion to Mecca (source: Compendium of Muslim Texts).

Anyways, now to the main point. Lets analyze the verses:

I have already shown you that its Mohammed who started the all out war.

Muhammad in verse 9:1 says that he is divinely ordained to break any treaty with idolaters as he wills. All he it needs from his part is mere suspicion (that arises to suit his position)

8:58. If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous. ( Yusuf Ali's Qur'an Translation )

Muhammad can break any treaty fearing mere treachery! And now he goes a step further and puts away this hurdle too and gives himself a free hand!

In 9:2 Muhammad gives all the non-believers a span of four months to submit before him this in tandem with 9:4 allows those non-muslims who had been good terms with muslims by not earning their warth on any account, then the treaty will be observed till the specified time, all other treaties where not valid. Any treaty of others that had a validation period of more than four months was reduced four months and for non-muslims who had no treaty a period of fifty days was given to submit to Muhammad. He would keep those treaties that were for a specified time with tribes that were on friendly terms. However, once those times were complete, a state of war would be in place. Lest I should be accused of misinterpreting the verses, here are some views of Islamic scholars:


Quote:
And from his narration on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who said regarding Allah's saying: (Freedom from obligation): '(Freedom from obligation) this is freedom from obligation (from Allah and His messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty) but then they broke that treaty; freedom from obligation is the breaking of treaties. Allah says: whosoever has a treaty with the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) let him know that it is broken. Some of them had a treaty lasting four months, and some of more nine months, while others had treaties for longer or shorter periods. Others had no treaty with Allah's Messenger at all. All these treaties were broken except for the treaty with the Banu Kinanah which was for nine months. Whoever had a treaty for more or less than four months, their treaties were ratified to last four month beginning from the day of immolation; and whoever had a treaty of four months, that treaty was ratified to last four months beginning from the day of immolation. Those who had a treaty of nine months, their treaties were left as they were, while those who did not sign any treaty, were granted one of 50 days beginning from the day of immolation until the departure of the person who was in a state of ritual consecration: (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn 'Abbâs; [http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=9&tAyah No=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0]



And Ibn Kathir says:

Quote:
Allah said,

Freedom from obligations from Allah and His Messenger, is a declaration of freedom from all obligations from Allah and His Messenger ,

to those of the Mushrikin, with whom you made a treaty. So travel freely (Mushrikin) for four months (as you will) throughout the land 9:1-2 ﴾. This Ayah refers to idolators who had indefinite treaties and those, whose treaties with Muslims ended in less than four months. The terms of these treaties were restricted to four months only. As for those whose term of peace ended at a specific date later (than the four months), then their treaties would end when their terms ended, no matter how long afterwards, for Allah said,


So fulfill their treaty for them until the end of their term 9:4 So whoever had a coventant with Allah's Messenger then it would last until its period expired




In the light of the above the verse says to give safe passage to Non-Muslims who have till they hear Allah's message. If they refuse to accept Islam later on, they will also be killed! Here is what Ibn Kathir says:


Quote:
Allah said to His Prophet, peace be upon him,

(And if anyone of the Mushrikin), whom you were commanded to fight and We allowed you their blood and property,'

(seeks your protection), asked you for safe passage, then accept his request until he hears the Words of Allah, the Qur'an. Recite the Qur'an to him and mention a good part of the religion with which you establish Allah's proof against him,


(and then escort him to where he can be secure) and safe, until he goes back to his land, his home, and area of safety,

(that is because they are men who know not.) The Ayah says, `We legislated giving such people safe passage so that they may learn about the religion of Allah, so that Allah's call will spread among His servants. Ibn Abi Najih narrated that Mujahid said that this Ayah, "Refers to someone who comes to you to hear what you say and what was revealed to you (O Muhammad). Therefore, he is safe until he comes to you, hears Allah's Words and then proceeds to the safe area where he came from.'' The Messenger of Allah used to thereafter grant safe passage to those who came to him for guidance or to deliver a message. On the day of Hudaybiyyah, several emissaries from Quraysh came to him, such as `Urwah bin Mas`ud, Mikraz bin Hafs, Suhayl bin `Amr and several others. They came mediating between him and the Quraysh pagans. They witnessed the great respect the Muslims had for the Prophet , which astonished them, for they never before saw such respect for anyone, kings nor czars. They went back to their people and conveyed this news to them; this, among other reasons, was one reason that most of them accepted the guidance. When Musaylimah the Liar sent an emissary to the Messenger of Allah, he asked him, "Do you testify that Musaylimah is a messenger from Allah'' He said, "Yes.'' The Messenger of Allah said,

(I would have cut off your head, if it was not that emissaries are not killed.) That man, Ibn An-Nawwahah, was later beheaded when `Abdullah bin Mas`ud was the governor of Al-Kufah. When it became known that he still testified that Musaylimah was a messenger from Allah, Ibn Mas`ud summoned him and said to him, "You are not delivering a message now!'' He commanded that Ibn An-Nawwahah be decapitated, may Allah curse him and deprive him of His mercy.

In summary, those who come from a land at war with Muslims to the area of Islam, delivering a message, for business transactions, to negotiate a peace treaty, to pay the Jizyah, to offer an end to hostilities, and so forth, and request safe passage from Muslim leaders or their deputies, should be granted safe passage, as long as they remain in Muslim areas, until they go back to their land and sanctuary.



The verse 9 refers to people who want to hear of Islam, for the purpose of converting him to Islam and spread its message. But those of who still question Muhammad's claim to prophethood will be put to sword! As in the above example Ibn An-Nawwahah, the emissary of Musaylimah who was given such a safe passage, but still continued his disbelief in Muhammad and paid off with his head!

Look at the sequence of events, Muhammad becomes more powerful with fall of Mecca and as result decides breaks all treaties he had and decides to keep the ones with the he feels have been friendly with him, we will see who these people are below, and calls for them to submit within four months time.

If we look at who are considered fighting the Muslims, the verse 9:12-13 gives the answer:

But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism, then fight (you) against the leaders of disbelief -- for surely, their oaths are nothing to them -- so that they may stop (evil actions). Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths and intended to expel the Messenger while they did attack you first Do you fear them Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers.


Therefore,It says to fight

(a) the people who disobey the covenant. For which there is very little substance from the Islamic sources. In fact, at most times, one will find Muhammad is the person who breaks the treaty citting God's will and fear of treachery!

(b) Attack islam with disapproval and criticism (as Ibn kathir puts it), slander it (as al-Jalalayn), defame the Religion of Islam (as Ibn Abbas puts it).

(c) plotted to expel Mohammad; another claim which has not got lot of objective evidence though there are instances of these happening, but does it justify an all-out war?

(d) Attacked the Muslims first. This does hold water if it has substance (justified reason!).

So I've clearly proven you wrong, including by your own Islamic books.

I'll be waiting for your response. Until then, be well.

Regards,

Alex

[salman]

As-Salamau 'Alaykum

just a kind advice to you akhi, don't respond to his reply yet. We'll go over it together and then reply to him. I thought he was going to join the forum because that'll make things easier for me.

[Acid]

Alex refused to join the forum ...may be due to the public disclouure it would make if someone lose the debate ? Who knows , heres what he got to say about joining the forum :

Hello Acid.

I regret to inform you that I cannot join the Islamic forum you asked me to. I have strict and personal reasons not to. If it was a normal non-religious forum, I would've accepted, but this I cannot.

So forgive me, but I will not join the forum. I hope you understand brother.

And thankyou very much for the good words u said about me at the intro.

I will respond to your mail tomorow morning. Until then, be well.


Regards,
Alex


*********************

Alright I will wait for your response. This way we can have refutations which will be beneficial for everyone here.

Regards

[Acid]

Hi Alex,

Thank you for your email . I hope that you are doing well.

All praise be to Allah , The Lord Of the Worlds . The One The Irrestible over His Slaves.

Second, before coming to our argument, you've commented somethings at the end. Well buddy, taking things from answering-christiainty, which dont even argue it properly, dont make much use to it. I know that was taken from answering-christianity which claims to have 'refuted' 9:5 argument!

Your hypocrisy is laugable. You tell me that I took the article from answering christanity and yes i accept i did as this topic was sufficiently covered on that link. But you had an objection ! And then you said :

**To your second argument. Now you're bringing a GOOD argument! :)
This is how a debate, filled with argumentive points!

Since I was actually 'eager' for that, I will now refute all your claims in detail! **

So you were actually supposed to write genuine responses and were eager for genuine responses and according to you , you are refutting ALL MY CLAIMS in DETAILS. But ALL your text/response is a copy/paste from :

www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

So you are actually not doing any debate but simply you have found this web and pasting the articles over here and thinking that you are actually doing some scholastic debate. While If other person does that then you seem to have a problem. So you accept something for yourself which you dont accept for other. So I turn the table and say that that you have used this Silas article which "claim" to have "proved" voilent nature of 9.5 .

I understand that a person with as little knowledge as your fells contentment when he see's a website full of refutations , it gives a feeling of security. While If you open your eyes and see them then you actually see broken mirror. But anyways. I am sure that now we are having a debate you will learn with time like many other Westerners who are entering into the folds of Islam.. as they say in the bible " set the truth free and the truth shall set you free".

So this truly shows your hypocritic nature. Thank you for the disclosure.

Coming to our debate - Round 1 "

By the way, I have some 'bad' news for you. Some of your arguments my friend was very, very weak and baseless my friend, sorry to say that.

This is nothing new my friend , I've had many debates with Christians and this is just the way the greet. Would you tell me why are the arguements weak?

Btw, since you asked:
"So even if you prove that Muhammad broke the treaty he still does not disprove his Prophethood. So then what is the whole point of this debate if its not going to prove anything in the end?"

It will prove the violent nature of the Verse and that Muhammed doesnt stand up to his words and treaties and many other thngs.

It's strange that yet you havent been able to proove this point but lets continue.

Now to your arguement, I'm still wondering if you read the summary and background properly. Firstly, Banu Khuza'a allied itself with the Muslims much later after the Treaty, and after Quraish started feuding with them, so Muslims had no right to interfere suddenly breaking all treaties. If it was a real peace-maker, it would have atleast tried making negotiations or peace deal (assumptions! :).

Evidence ? or Assumptions ? Or is it sam shamoun speaking?

Lets observe:

At the time Muhammad spoke the passage he had enough power to dominate and crush the remaining Pagan tribes within the Hijaz, so he used it. He changed the rules and regulations that involved the Pagans. The Pagans did nothing to precipitate this change; they continued to do as they had done for the last year under Muhammad's rule. But Muhammad used his ever growing power and placed his power of Islam around their necks. Pagans were forced to join Islam or die. This is not self defense.

If Muhammad ( peace be upon him ) had this power to dominate and crush the remaining pagans so why was there a need for the treaty at the first place? And from where is all coming from ? again no evidence no sources ? Just your imaginations?

Muhammad was the aggressor (9:2, 3, 5), this passage is an edict for war. Muhammad gave instructions to his followers to defend if attacked, but to also go out and attack all Pagans once the sacred months were completed.

Your hypocrisy becomes clear here. I think you should have adapted this article from your website ( I wouldnt name here as i dont want to promote link to any web promoting falsehood ) to make it a bit more sensible.

You said that Muhammad gave instructions to his followers to defend if attacked but also go out and attack ALL PAGANS once the sacred months were completed.Here is what the orders were given to Prophet :

1A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-

Only THOSE pagans with whom there was a MUTUAL ALLIANCE and were in breach and not ALL PAGANS.

2 Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.

Here we are talking about 4 months.

3 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

The declaration from God.

4(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

Here you can see that the treaty should be fulfilled to its end with Pagans who didnt violate the terms of treaty , contrary to what you said . Here this destroys your arguements.

**************-----------------------****************


Let's come to your hypocrisy no 2.

Muhammad was a truce breaker. The Pagans did not break all the truces.

Again this is a figment of your imagination, I think your holy ghost needs some of the gifts to understand the "facts". you simply stated ( infact not you ) that Pagans did not breach "all the truce". Now this leads us to few questions:

1. Did pagans broke "some" of the truce ? - If yes what were they ?
2. You accept that they broke "some" truce ? - If yes , so it means they broke the treaty first . So your argument gets destroyed here.
3. If pagan didnt break any truce or some truce or all truce , what evidence do you have ?

This debunks your baseless weak non sense arguments..


**************************************************
Your hypocrisy no 3:

Muhammad claimed that God gave him a "revelation" allowing him to lie and break his word, i.e. the truces, stated in 9:1: "A declaration of immunity from God and His apostle to the idolaters with whom you have made agreements"

No where verse 9:1 allows Muhammad (peace be upon him ) to lie or break his word. It simply says that performance of the duty is no longer to be held with the pagans. BECAUSE they violated the terms of treaty.

It NOWHERE says that Muhammad ( PBUH ) should lie. If someone is speaking a lie here than its U.

************************************

, and described as "A discharge came down, permitting the breaking of the agreement between the apostle and the polytheists" (from 1.1 Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah). The materials state that it was Muhammad who broke all truces except those few he had with specific tribes or individuals for a limited time.

Again a myth and as usual a lie. Where does ANY of the material say that Muhammad broke the truce except those few he had with specific tribe or individual for the time ? Just read it and tell me where does it says ?? And what evidence do you have for " except for few individuals or tribes?"

It simply says that a discharge came down permitting the breaking of the agreement between Prophet and pagans since pagans voilated the terms. But still you can see that our Noble Prophet didnt simply went to attack the pagans and his companion who had high morals , something which your generations have never seen and will never see. They didnt went and started killing pagans as soon as they broke the terms of treaty. They waited for ORDERS FROM HIGH to come down and take action.

When the sacred months were ended, those truces would also end. Muhammad would now be at war with all polytheistic tribes including those who had been peaceful.

LOL... Now i can see that you are putting all your lies in between the paragraphs... as soon as test progress the lies started getting bigger and bigger. Where does it says that Muhammad PBUH would now be at war with all polythestic tribes including those who had been peaceful ???? It says :

V.4 : (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

Look at this Mr.Mythmaker .. look at this :

V.5 :But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.


Now I am sure that you will cherry pick verse 5 and say that its all about killing all the pagans including the peaceful...again you wouldnt have any evidence! This verse is only talking about pagans who existed back then and created mess for Muslims. It doesnt say about peaceful pagans , have a look:

V.6: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

Verse 6 shows the tolerant nature of Islam. We are encouraged to build a harmonious society , respecting each other beliefs ( the part of islam , you dont have a cheek to look at ).

Now If you argue that verse 5 is just talking about killing ALL pagans then which pagans are we talking about in verse 6? Yes my friend , silence would be the best action for you , I promise I wouldnt say i won :)

Had the Pagans broken the truces there would be no need for Muhammad to get a revelation to break them for they would already have been broken.

Lie , Muslims had been people of High morale. Even if Pagans , Christians , or Jews broke any treaty they wouldnt go like animals attacking them . They would wait for Orders to come from The Almighty . As it says in your bible " turn your other cheek to the enemy" . We followed the ORIGINIAL TEACHINGS of Jesus PBUH more then you trinitarians do .

Further, the Pagans were weak and demoralized and they were not about to start a war with the mighty Muhammad

I wouldnt mention that again no evidence as your entire email comes without any evidence. So repitation will only make it longer. Ofcourse they were not about to start a war with Muslims thats why they were meadling and were involved in passing confidential information from Muslims to Ceaser and Persian Empire.

.

Also note that Muhammad did not make an effort to renew the truce with the peaceful tribes, rather he initiated a state of war.

Myth , myth , myth .... my nephew would sing " liar , liar your pants on fire"

Since there is again no evidence , I wouldnt bother answering something which you just think!

********************************

Muhammad used compulsion to force people to convert to Islam:

Really ?

9:5, "…If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way.". The verse describes conversion to Islam. The Pagans were going to be murdered if they did not convert. People tend to define religious conversion at the point of the sword as "compulsion.

Putting verses out its place and context is common habit of christian missionaries. But you are special... you are not only putting it out of context but you are quoting INCOMPLETE VERSES... Have a look:
"…If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way."

Why didnt you quote the entire voilent veese ? lol.. why you started 9:5 with ".....If they repent"... ??????????

The original verse 9:5 says:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.


Now first thing we see is the war scenerio...its coming up all the way from Verse 1. So this doesnt prove any thing which you are saying.

Lets just talk about your hald quote of verse 5 :

"…If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way."


I dont see any thing voilent in nature here.. ok fine.. IF THEY REPENT then pray and pay alms then open the way for them...

Now the question is .. IF THEY REPENT from WHAT??? What is God saying that they should repent ? It doesnt say KILL PAGANS or Kill them because they are not muslims...it is only saying IF THEY REPENT... So theres a question for you .

************************

Originally Posted by Alex

Muhammad commanded murder and terrorism for Islam, 9:5, 6, "When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them", described as "one of those whom I have ordered you to kill,"….(from1.1 Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah) Once the sacred months ended it was open season on the Pagans. They were going to be attacked, hounded, ambushed, captured, terrorized, and murdered by the Muslims. Muslim terrorists today do what this verse commands

Again you wouldnt leave your misquotes , mis representations . The verse 5 says :

V.5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

However the verse 5 you quote is only this :

Originally Posted by Verse 5 According to Alex

"When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them"

So you can see my friend , that again you wrote that partial of the verse and added some text before it and after it and said that " oh terrorism, terrorism terrorism!!" ... So it doesnt make sense arguing .. Verse 5 has been repeatedly discussed above .


************************************

Originally Posted by Alex

When Mohammed himself declares to brake the Treaty, it is really senseless to say that Mohammed DID NOT brake it.

Muhammad ( PBUH ) didnt break the treaty , so it makes sense to say that he didnt break it. The burden of proove is on you to proove that he did break the treaty so proove it .

*************************************

Originally Posted by Alex

And btw, just for your information, heres a hadith that testifies this fact:

It doesnt testifies of of your act.

Narrated Abu Huraira: Bukhari'scollection, volume 1, number 365
On the Day of Nahr (10th of Dhul-Hijja, in the year prior to the last Hajj of the Prophet when Abu Bakr was the leader of the pilgrims in that Hajj) Abu Bakr sent me along with other announcers to Mina to make a public announcement: "No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba. Then Allah's Apostle sent 'All to read out the Surat Bara'a (At-Tauba) to the people; so he made the announcement along with us on the day of Nahr in Mina: "No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba."

lol.. Thank you for prooving my point and thank you for understanding the high class society of Muslims. As this Hadith cleary shows that Pagans werent allowed to visit the House of God and NO NAKED PERSON to peform Tawaf around the Kaabah.

So the muslims were fighting for ethics , morales . They didnt allow naked ladies to visit The House of God . Would your bible allows that ? I know that although in Churches are now days are full with gay preists and those who change sexes and I am sure there are prostitutes as well. So does it makes any difference to you? Would you allow a prostitute naked to hang a cross on her bottom? Obviously no.

That is the reason that The Noble Muslim's prohibited the entry of pagans who loved wine and woman and naked ladies from entires the Sacred Premises.

So once again it prooves NOTHING but at the same time it prooved my point. Thank you for bringing this hadith to our topic.

**********

Originally Posted by Alex

Bukhari, Book 6, Volume 60, Hadith 179
Narrated Humaid bin Abdur Rahman:
Abu Huraira said, "Abu Bakr sent me in that Hajj in which he was the chief of the pilgrims along with the announcers whom he sent on the Day of Nahr to announce at Mina: "No pagan shall perform Hajj after this year, and none shall perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba in a naked state." Humaid added: That the Prophet sent 'Ali bin Abi Talib (after Abu Bakr) and ordered him to recite aloud in public Surat-Baraa. Abu Huraira added, "So 'Ali, along with us, recited Bara'a (loudly) before the people at Mina on the Day of Nahr and announced "No pagan shall perform Hajj after this year and none shall perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba in a naked state."..except those pagans with whom you (Muslims) have a treaty." (9.4)

Again you can see the high standards of Muslims who said that no naked would enter sacred premises BUT ONLY THOSE PAGANS WITH WHOM YOU HAVE A TREATY

So my friend as you can see that Muslims allowed entry to those who were under treaty. This destroys your already weak and baseless arguement that Muslims broke the treaty. Here you can see that Muslims continued performance of obligations under the treaty with those pagans with whom we had the treaty.

That sums everything up , so what you staring at ? ;)

**********

Originally Posted by Alex

And to make things even clearer, you should know that Mohammed made a sudden invasion to Mecca (source: Compendium of Muslim Texts).

Okay , fine ...so ? If you invite a quest at party on tuesday night at 9 and when he knocks at your door at tue night at 9 , would you say that your guest made a SUDDEN INVASION??

Obviously , sudden invasion in war is nothing new and nothing old . Its as clear as the text you are reading now.

**********

Originally Posted by Alex

Anyways, now to the main point. Lets analyze the verses:

So till now , were we discussing subsidary points ?

Originally Posted by Alex

I have already shown you that its Mohammed who started the all out war.

No , you have not shown this , you have only shown that you have acquired the computer skills of copy/paste action.

Originally Posted by Alex

Muhammad in verse 9:1 says that he is divinely ordained to break any treaty with idolaters as he wills. All he it needs from his part is mere suspicion (that arises to suit his position)

Lol.. i wouldnt argue .. Here is the Verse 9:1 in front of you , please read it and tell me if in this Muhammad says that he is divinely orgained to break any treaty with odolators as he wills.

Verse 9:1 - A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:

Originally Posted by Alex

8:58. If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous. ( Yusuf Ali's Qur'an Translation )

You have violated the terms of debate . These Verse is not a part of our discussion. However asusual its misquoted , mis represented but respecting the rules and due to time constraint I wouldnt answer this in this round .

**********

Originally Posted by Alex

In 9:2 Muhammad gives all the non-believers a span of four months to submit before him this in tandem with 9:4 allows those non-muslims who had been good terms with muslims by not earning their warth on any account, then the treaty will be observed till the specified time, all other treaties where not valid. Any treaty of others that had a validation period of more than four months was reduced four months and for non-muslims who had no treaty a period of fifty days was given to submit to Muhammad. He would keep those treaties that were for a specified time with tribes that were on friendly terms. However, once those times were complete, a state of war would be in place. Lest I should be accused of misinterpreting the verses, here are some views of Islamic scholars:

Yes you are being accused of misinterpreting the verses.

Originally Posted by Alex

Quote:
And from his narration on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who said regarding Allah's saying: (Freedom from obligation): '(Freedom from obligation) this is freedom from obligation (from Allah and His messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty) but then they broke that treaty; freedom from obligation is the breaking of treaties

Alex , this doesnt prove your point at all. Infact it prooves my point :) Read the emphasised. So you yourself presented from an Islamic source that Pagans broke the treaty.

So my friend , this is called hammering your own feet .


I have no objection with the rest of tafsir which you quoted since if you just read it then it only prooves my point and not yours.


Then you quote about the treatment of FALSE PROPHET musliymah. As its not a part of our discussion but since when you pasted the article , you forgot to remove this part so it came along and can be discussed in other rounds. I wouldnt answer in this round.

Now lets come to your ( your ? ) conclusion.

Originally Posted by Alex

So I've clearly proven you wrong, including by your own Islamic books.

I'll be waiting for your response. Until then, be well.

Regards,

Alex

Alex , You have failed to prove the objective of our debate.

I hope that your commitments are going well .

Stay well.

Acid

[salman]

^lol, akhi kareem, tabark Allah; May Allah Ta'ala reward you tons, ameen. You completely smoked him; however, there's still room to improve the arguments, specially your last few points. I'll try my best to add my response by tonight or by end of tomorrow, insha'Allah.

As-Salamu 'Alaykum

I seek refuge in Allah Ta'ala from my nafs and the cursed Shatan. With the Name Of Allah, Ar-Rahman (The Bestower Of Mercy), Ar-Raheem (The Most Merciful), I start writing; Seeking His Help and His Blessings. I testify there is none worthy of worship except Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala and Muhammad ibn Abdullah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa sallam - Blessings and peace be upon him) is His last and final Prophet and Messenger. He (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was best of mankind and mercy for mankind.

This is not a direct response to Alex but rather for the beneficial of the readers. I'm also not abide to the discussion rules set between Alex and brother Asad.

Originally Posted by Alex

Second, before coming to our argument, you've commented somethings at the end. Well buddy, taking things from answering-christiainty, which dont even argue it properly, dont make much use to it. I know that was taken from answering-christianity which claims to have 'refuted' 9:5 argument!

my friend, you're spending too much time on answering-islam because this argument is similar to what Sam Shamoun said to brother Bassam (May Allah preserve him). I've to say this is a nonsensical arguments. Why does it matter where a person takes his information from as long as it is valid point, proves what he is saying and doesn't plagiarize? Unlike you, we don't plagiarize and you've been caught red handed.

This is what your fellow trinitarian said:

Originally Posted by Sam Shamoun

It seems that Bassam Zawadi has been getting most of his research for his articles and "rebuttals" from this Islamic forum

For instance, the arguments which he uses here are actually taken from the responses of the Muslims in this forum.

My Response:

Originally Posted by salman

Now, what kind of nonsensical argument is that! This clearly shows that he is intellectually challenged and how badly he was struggling. He even has problems with where and how do we learn about Islamic sources to debunk their false claims. Is he even going to complain if I learn from a scholar or anyone for that matter? Will he still say that look "islamiclife [my user on other forum] mostly gets his research from his teacher"? duh! So let me ask you genius, where do you get English translations of Arabic passages when you do not know Arabic? Let me guess someone helps you, in other words external help! Would it make sense if i say "Shamoun gets extra help from this/that person/place"? Off course not, even a 5th grader can realize it! But then again, how can I blame you when you believe in nonsense like god is 100% created and 100% uncreated and he repents and regrets.

brother Bassam, you did not respond with a stronger argument in rebuttal to his nonsensical argument; you had a wonderful opportunity to expose his stupidity. Even if we assume what he says is true then so what! What does that prove anything or has anything to do with the topic? Why does it matter to him or readers where do we get our research from as long as we reference the sources? I mean honestly, come on!

anyway, this is my first little rebuttal to Shamoun and insha'Allah more will be coming in future! I hope he liked it! btw Shamoun, try to say that I committed logical fallacy "ad hominem" and I'll show your readers how big scholar you are.

Originally Posted by Alex

You'll have to bring valid and supportive arguement, as you can see, Osama Abdullah is even a disgrace to Islam and Muslims: A Call For Osama Abdullah To Step Down As Answering-Christianity.Com Webmaster Petition

We disagree with brother Osama's 'aqeedah and his Qur'anic interpretations; however, it doesn't mean he doesn't have good points to disapprove you trinitarians. You poor attempt to show that Muslims disagree with him doesn't prove that all of his arguments are poor. Please try harder next time.

Originally Posted by Alex

Btw, since you asked: "So even if you prove that Muhammad broke the treaty he still does not disprove his Prophethood. So then what is the whole point of this debate if its not going to prove anything in the end?"

It will prove the violent nature of the Verse and that Muhammed doesnt stand up to his words and treaties and many other thngs.

Let me assume what you say. I'm sorry, doesn't the Bible say that the Prophets of God can commit sins like idolatry and apparently your lord Jesus (peace be upon him) didn't protect his prophets from committing sins. So, what's up with the hypocrisy? Why don't you apply the same standards to Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam)? According to your Bible, your lord Jesus (peace be upon him) ordered the jews to do jihad and destroy evey thing except the virgins. Do you call this something peaceful? You Christians don't get a single fact and that's you're in no position to argue against Muslims and objecting the character of the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) because according to you Prophets can commit sins like idolatry.

Here is one more thing for you to answer, I think this is what brother Bassam said if i'm not wrong.

If the God of the Bible gave authority to husbands to cancel the oaths of their wives and fathers to cancel the oaths of their daughters (Numbers 30) then why can't God give authority to the Prophet to cancel a part of an agreement that was unjust in the first place? (because the Muslims were supposed to return those from the Quraysh that ran away from them but the Quraysh does not return the Muslims who ran away from them)

Originally Posted by Alex

Now to your arguement, I'm still wondering if you read the summary and background properly.

What you plagiarized is a complete academic dishonesty by Silas as it doesn't mention every fact of the history and what the majority of the Muslim scholars agreed upon. One of the conditions in the treaty said that any tribe in Arabian Peninsula can join either of the parties whenever they want. What will happen as a result, the new tribe either will join Muslims or Mushrikeen and thus becoming enemy (short term ally) with the opposite group and have to abide to the conditions of the treaty till the end term of treaty, and the time was for 10 years.

Originally Posted by Alex

Firstly, Banu Khuza'a allied itself with the Muslims much later after the Treaty, and after Quraish started feuding with them, so Muslims had no right to interfere suddenly breaking all treaties.

Yeh, the Banu Kuza'a allied later and I don't see why there's problem with it as they simply followed one of the conditions of the treaty. The condition simply say that any tribe can join; it doesn't put any limit on time. Thus, if any tribe decided to enter into the alliance with any of the group then that tribe had to abide to the treaty. It is simple as that not a rocket science! Do you realize that you have contradicted yourself or more like double standards and hypocrisy. If the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu wa salam) broke the treaty then that is violent but when Mushrikeen did then there doesn't seem to be any objection from you to their actions. The Banu Kuza'a was Muslim's ally and Quyrash attacked them; thus, breaking the treaty. Why wouldn't Muslim help their allies by breaking the treaty with those who broke it first? Honestly, what are you smoking? If Muslims didn't have acted this way, you hate-mangors would have said "look Muhammad didn't help his ally and let the Quyrash slaughter them".

Originally Posted by Alex

If it was a real peace-maker, it would have atleast tried making negotiations or peace deal (assumptions! :).

It seems you're telling brother Asad to read history over and over again but first you need re-read the history. Let's quickly go over it

1 - The Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) saw a dream and thus they decided to go for pilgrimage to Makkah
2 - Quyrash intercepted the Muslims and as a result a treaty of alliance took place between the two groups.
3 - The treaty conditions seemed to be more beneficial for the Quraysh

Now, if Muslims weren't peaceful, why in the world would they form a treaty with the disbelievers? Make sure not to bring the lame argument like they were weak etc.

4 - According to the majority of the Islamic scholars and historical facts, the Quyrash broke the treaty first by helping Banu Bakr against Banu Khuza'a

The Banu Bakr entered into alliance with Quyrash knowing the fact that they were under a treaty with Muslims and Banu Khuza'a were also Muslims' ally. Now, when Banu Bakr attacked Banu Khuza'a for revenge, they broke the treaty. It was Quyrash's job to either stop them or break their alliance with them; however, they didn't do either and helped Banu Bakr against Banu Khuza'a. Now to say that why Muslims broke the treaty with Quyrash or why did they help Banu Khuza'a is only a nosensical and intellectually challenged argument! Second, why would Muslims try to make peace with a party who betrayed them? If someone doesn't keep his words, what is the evidence that he'll not do the same again.

Originally Posted by Alex

So that alone destroys your arguements where you said: (They should have said, "no we will not enter this treaty because that would mean that we would have to have peace with Banu Khuza'ah and we don't want that because we want to avenge our leader's deaths".).

no it doesn't; it only exposes your inability to produce a decent argument and misinterpreting or distorting the historical facts. What brother is arguing is this: If Banu Bakr wanted to revenge for what Banu Khuza'a did years ago, why did they enter the treaty? This is a unrefutable valid logical question from which you brotherns in the past have run away!

Originally Posted by Alex

Please read the background I've send it, and dont miss it again.

We've read our history and we don't commit academic dishonesty or present distorted versions of it.

Originally Posted by Alex

As I said before, the 'alligiance' b/w the Banu Khuza'a and the Muslims happened much later AFTER the Treaty.

as I have responded above so what? The group of people who enter in a treaty must be treated equally and must abide the conditions of the treaty regardless of the time when the join in unless there's a time condition. However, there's none in this case! Therefore, I don't see how this argument of yours is even worth mentioning but for some reasons you seem to think it is a very good argument.

Originally Posted by Alex

At the time Muhammad spoke the passage he had enough power to dominate and crush the remaining Pagan tribes within the Hijaz, so he used it

the funny part is yet the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) didn't do so; thank you for proving our point.

Originally Posted by Alex

He changed the rules and regulations that involved the Pagans. The Pagans did nothing to precipitate this change; they continued to do as they had done for the last year under Muhammad's rule. But Muhammad used his ever growing power and placed his power of Islam around their necks. Pagans were forced to join Islam or die. This is not self defense.

reread the history my friend and what rules and regulations are you talking about? Please get your head straight, the PAGANS BROKE THE TRETAY FIRST! The Pagans who broke the treaty were no longer to be protected by the treaty; thus, they became enemies of Muslims. Is there a problem with developing strategies against your enemies? The matter of the fact is that Muslims even allowed the Pagans, who broke the treaty, to live freely for months or accept Islam; the Qur'anic ayat are clear on this. Talk about the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) being violent and all that. Which country would today let their enemies give that kind of choice who betrayed them during the times of war? Do you think Britain would have let go France for few months if they would have broke the alliance with them and allied with Germany in the WWII?

Originally Posted by Alex

Muhammad was the aggressor (9:2, 3, 5), this passage is an edict for war. Muhammad gave instructions to his followers to defend if attacked, but to also go out and attack all Pagans once the sacred months were completed.

Again, the PAGANS BROKE THE TRETAY FIRST! I don't see how defending yourself and taking the initiative to attack your enemies is violent and problematic. Please explain us following: Why did America attack Iraq? Apparently, Iraq was a threat to the peace of the world! So, what did America and some of his allies do?

It is completely ridiculous and nonsensical to claim: if a country or group of people order their soldiers to take the initiative to attack their enemies, it is violent. I mean, what kind of logic is this?

[salman]

brother Asad has responded strongly to rest of his points but here's my quick response

Originally Posted by Alex

Muhammad was a truce breaker. The Pagans did not break all the truces. Muhammad claimed that God gave him a "revelation" allowing him to lie and break his word, i.e. the truces, stated in 9:1: "A declaration of immunity from God and His apostle to the idolaters with whom you have made agreements", and described as "A discharge came down, permitting the breaking of the agreement between the apostle and the polytheists" (from 1.1 Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah). The materials state that it was Muhammad who broke all truces except those few he had with specific tribes or individuals for a limited time.

lol, the PAGANS BROKE THE TRETAY FIRST! So, how can you logically conclude that there was any treaty left between Muslims and those who broke it? What did you want the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) do? Let his followers be victim of these Pagans and their betrayal like Banu Khuza'a?

Originally Posted by Alex

When the sacred months were ended, those truces would also end. Muhammad would now be at war with all polytheistic tribes including those who had been peaceful.

here you're completely smoking myths with no evidence to support it!

Originally Posted by Alex

Had the Pagans broken the truces there would be no need for Muhammad to get a revelation to break them for they would already have been broken.

The order came telling Muslims what to do with Pagans who broke the treaty and what to do what people who didn't break the treaty. Read the tafsir of the ayat; I guess, I'll post it later, insha'Allah

Originally Posted by Alex

Further, the Pagans were weak and demoralized and they were not about to start a war with the mighty Muhammad.

If they were, why did the help Banu Bakr? Why did they break the treaty? They should have paid attention to their conditions. Even if they were weak, how does this justify their betrayl and breaking the treaty?

Originally Posted by Alex

Also note that Muhammad did not make an effort to renew the truce with the peaceful tribes, rather he initiated a state of war.

already responded to this above

Originally Posted by Alex

Muhammad commanded murder and terrorism for Islam, 9:5, 6, "When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them", described as "one of those whom I have ordered you to kill,"….(from1.1 Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah) Once the sacred months ended it was open season on the Pagans. They were going to be attacked, hounded, ambushed, captured, terrorized, and murdered by the Muslims. Muslim terrorists today do what this verse commands.

lol, so what? The order was to attack their enemies, the Pagans who broke the treaty! What did you want Muslims to do, have a tea party with them? This is what you have proved so far:

1 - Anyone who fights or order his soldiers to defend or attack their enemies is a terrorist.

2 - Anyone who protects his fellow soldiers from their enemies is a terrorist

3 - Anyone protecting the week from the oppersors by ordering his fellow soldiers to defend or attack their enemy is a terrorist

4 - The God of the bible (in your case your lord Jesus - peace be upon him) is a terrorist as he ordered the Jews to attack their enemies and completely annihilate them except the virgin girls.

the list can go on but we can clearly see your inability to argue and how badly you guys are struggling with your arguments

Originally Posted by Alex

When Mohammed himself declares to brake the Treaty, it is really senseless to say that Mohammed DID NOT brake it.

responded this to above

Originally Posted by Alex

And btw, just for your information, heres a hadith that testifies this fact:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Bukhari'scollection, volume 1, number 365
On the Day of Nahr (10th of Dhul-Hijja, in the year prior to the last Hajj of the Prophet when Abu Bakr was the leader of the pilgrims in that Hajj) Abu Bakr sent me along with other announcers to Mina to make a public announcement: "No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba. Then Allah's Apostle sent 'All to read out the Surat Bara'a (At-Tauba) to the people; so he made the announcement along with us on the day of Nahr in Mina: "No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba."

OR

Bukhari, Book 6, Volume 60, Hadith 179
Narrated Humaid bin Abdur Rahman:
Abu Huraira said, "Abu Bakr sent me in that Hajj in which he was the chief of the pilgrims along with the announcers whom he sent on the Day of Nahr to announce at Mina: "No pagan shall perform Hajj after this year, and none shall perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba in a naked state." Humaid added: That the Prophet sent 'Ali bin Abi Talib (after Abu Bakr) and ordered him to recite aloud in public Surat-Baraa. Abu Huraira added, "So 'Ali, along with us, recited Bara'a (loudly) before the people at Mina on the Day of Nahr and announced "No pagan shall perform Hajj after this year and none shall perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba in a naked state."..except those pagans with whom you (Muslims) have a treaty." (9.4)

this doesn't prove anything! This was order for those who broke the treaty! Again, what do you expect a country to do with their ex-ally, who broke the treaty without any valid reason and attacked your other ally? Do you expect a get together feast party?

Originally Posted by Alex

And to make things even clearer, you should know that Mohammed made a sudden invasion to Mecca (source: Compendium of Muslim Texts).

lol, yeh so what? Isn't sudden attack on your enemy part of war strategies? Honestly, this is what happens when you let your hatred take over you and as a result you can't even think straight anymore!

I'll respond to other arguments later but they're ridiculously stupid and intellectually challenged like the arguments we have seen above.