> Debate: Terrorism in Surah Tawbah

[salman]

As-Salamu 'Alaykum

LMAO, this guy's response is too unintelligent to respond back but for the benefits of the readers. My friend Alex, did you bother reading this:

Originally Posted by slaman

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.

I'm not debating with you so why do I need to abide to rules! Again, it is ridiculously stupid to say "why are you asking this or that person for help". I mean hello! Is this all your trinitarian can say when you get debunked? Did you happen to forget that you plagiarized the work of Silas? Do you expect us to say "let's have a tea party Alex and its ok if you plagiarize but you can call us and our Prophet whatever you want"? btw plagiarism isn't a reference and copy pasting 4-5 pages long article isn't a reference either. You never gave a reference in the first place! Is that how you Christian act when caught red handed of cheating and being academically dishonest?

You can invite whoever you want: Sam Shamoun, Silas, Curtz, Robert Spencer, David Wood etc or palagirize their work! You'll not hear the same child wihining and complaints from us. It doesn't matter how many of you work together beause at the end of day, you'll only end up proving that your lord Jesus (peace be upon him) was a terrorist!

No where in my response, I insulted you! I only pointed out the weaknesses and nonsensical logic in your arguments, which thus proves that you and your brotherns are struggling really badly and not good at debating.

[Acid]

Why do many, if not all, muslims act this way? You become hostile, I show you how inappropriate your behaviour is, then later, respond in a much behaved manner and more civilized way! But whatever....

Pls be reminded that I'm working on responding you, so this is out of debate!


Lets see about ure claims!

From: Harun <lightwarrior@ymail.com>
Subject: Email
To: alexpatt@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 12:12 PM

Hi Alex

Thank you for your recent emails.

Coming directly to the point , I would like to answer few of your doubts.

1. You said I bought my friend into the debate - No I did not. I only sent you his answer and I didnt ask you to write back or argue to him or on his points. Similar to If i tell you to read a website doesnt mean I am involving a website into our arguement.

(He responded to me! Isn't that called 'involvement'? Well, if its different in your dictionary, then you're mistaken!)

2.You said that I always break the rules etc. - However i would like to clarify that this issue arised when I made a reference to MORAL STANDARDS of bibical prophets on which you had an objection.

(You not only brought Biblical stuff, but insulted and behaved in a rude manner! THAT proves ure disobedience too. Wasn't one of the rules not to say "Yes, my Qur'an says so, but also your Bible says the same" You dont make something right by proving another mistake! How is that a reference to moral standards of the bible? If I answered u in detail and discussion to the point you brought, I would have already started another subject! Now..isn't that called a violation?)

Furthermore , you violated the rule of genuinue debate by copy pasting from answering islam and not telling me so..

Originally Posted by Alex

I will get to details of all these later. And btw, I havent broke ONE rule. That was a reference, I will discuss it later too.

(WHY should I tell you so? You pasted a historical context and many others without providing the source...but I KNEW the sources. Was that part of our rules? That I should tell you from where I brought it? And by the way, i havent even pasted 50% of my claims from the site you refered. Get your sources right! And btw, even if I pasted them all from sites, I wont tell you, because you DONT have to know. Did I tell you not to paste things from Islamic sites? NO! I told u dont involve foreign subjects in our debate! I did NOT brake the rules, its you)

So what is this my friend ? When you provide references to other Verses which arent part of the topic then you dont consider yourself as breaking the rules but certainly If I do that it seems to be a problem to you! Now decide yourself who is being a hypocrite.

(I'm not being a hypocrite, but you're puting your own assumptions to my mouth!)
I never did insult you , but i did said you are a hypocrite because i genuniely believed th need to. But I think this would be harmdul for our peaceful debate environment and so we will refrain for that now onwards.

(Yes, I hope you will refrain from it. I know you remember you asked if i was respectful. Yes, I am always to the people, and I said "I demand my opponents to be the same". Respect isn't demanded, its earned! You called me liar, hypocrite, myth maker, etc. shall I go on?)

"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"

I thought you said these too "No worries , actually I was just planning to write you in the email that forum wouldnt work well. As I cant stop people getting in between there. So we will talk here."

I dont understands whats wrong here ? Okay we agreed to do it on email as I couldnt stop public getting in between thats why we both are talking via email . I am just keeping a copy of our posts on forum for public VIEWING and for using the enhanced writing controls. There is no problem here.

(You wanted to defame me and make me look like I was running away from disgraces, and I responded. Whats so hard to understand? Do you mean you DONT want to understand? You see how I make of myself? False accusations and false assumptions! You tried to defame me, but you failed!)

3. And yes I am busy in Fasts and studies. You are absolutely wrong in pointing this . Yes bro Salman said that hold on while he writes to but that doesnt mean I m not studying!

(Good! So I was 'mistaken' here! I apologize. I make mistakes and I apologize. )

Look at your last email. Its soo long , you just paste it from the website but i have to read and analyse and find out the truth . So it takes time and I do it in pieces.

(You're SO wrong. I did NOT paste it all from the website. Did you even look at the website? I swear to God, I didnt even copy 40% of it, and you falsely accuse me of pasting it all!)

In your last email you said that you are working on refuting my points , I sincerely look forward to it and I wouldnt conclude the Round 1 till then.

(Good. And I hope you wont conclude until either one of us admits being defeated in this 'round'.)

I would look forward to remove the obstacles which will harm our healthy deabte environment and apologies for the disturbance caused due to my last refutation points. But I assure you that with more knowledge things will get better for you.

(I wish things can return like before! But I was actually going to end this debate because things went out of control because you and salman decided to be outlaws...we'll see if out situation gets 'repaired'...we still have a long way to go)

Best Regards
Assad

I'm out of state now, and I wasn't really supposed to respond. But your hostility was really unbelievable. I will respond to everything tomorow morning.

[Acid]

Dear Alex,

I Look forward for your response on you return.

Till then enjoy your stay.

Best Wishes

[Acid]

This reply is available at : Islamic-Life Forums - The Seekers & Propogaters of Truth ; Alex vs Acid Debate

Hi Alex,

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

(Oh, I'm doing well...thanks for asking...I'm actually doing great! lol)

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


Quote:
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

(Did you even look at that website or you're talking rubbish? Prove to me that ALL my text/response is a copy/paste from there....LOL...one, second, you can take things from answering-islam or whatever, but why did u have to violate the rules by posting Christianized subjects and why did u even talk of things out of the debate! lol...You've taken things out of site before, (like that historical context), I dint say nothing...but ure just copying words and insults and does not even carry any value!)

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 .

(You might wana look at the site again and see if I took everything from there...my response does not even constitute 50% of answering-christiainty, not as you claim, ALL...and I didnt say I dont accept others pasting things, dont put your own assumptions in my mouth...If I was like that, I would've objected from beginning, but i'm not a hypocrite, as you insult)

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".

(First of all, I acknowledge that there are many decieved and fooled by Islamic apologetics and then come to Islam...they do compare the ethical behaviours in America and Arab lands and other things....but let me bring u a site that shows a portion on how much have left you too: Muslims who left Islam - WikiIslam


And have you heard about the 6 million yearly leaving your religion in Africa?

But I really dont care. Let the whole world population come to Islam, for thats the least of my concern!

And I already told u that I didnt take all things from answering-islam, which already proved ure ignorance. And what security are you talking about? You're not sending me death threats, are you?

By the way, the Bible never says "set the truth free and the truth shall set you free"...Its like this, if you havent known; "If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:31,32."....If only we follow Jesus can we set ourself free, not Mohammed, who helped fulfill Biblical prophesies on false prophets!)


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

(Nope...I was not the hypocrite, but you were....and time by time, you decide to break the rules you want to...so not only hypocrite, but never law-abiding)

Coming to our debate - Round 1 "

Quote:
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?

(Oh I already did...you're just saying this too make some kind of spice in your words! lol)



Quote:
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.

(Haven't I? Well, thats a shame isn't it? Let me just see if I truly can believe you {anymore}?)


Quote:
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?

(Although I didnt understand what you actually meant, but this is NOT Sam Shamoun speaking...I would like you to bring me the words where he said these things. Thats why I said assumptions, if he was a real peace-maker, he wouldnt have attacked Pagans)

Lets observe:


Quote:
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?

(You understand things the way you want them! Mohammed was increading in power after the Treaty. Many joined him. And for the source, you might wana see verse 5 and 6, it will tell u if I was just imagining or not)


Quote:
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.

(Lol...why? Afraid people will look at the truth that you hide and call falsehood..anyways, that words are just from answering-christianity, so no big deal, its the same website that you've 'promoted' {is that even the right word??}).

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.

(Uhuh....ofcourse, the ones that came to the Muslims for help, and the ones willing to convert to Islam...I told u it was a submit or die situation)

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.

(Destroys WHAT argument exactly? Firstly, let me remind you that I've already told u in the beginning that Mohammed did spare those who were on his side and who took him as a refuge. He did to the ones who fought Quraish. He spared the ones who came to Islam or abided by the announcement rules. You claim verse 4 destroys my argument, but you're wrong my friend. It deos not talk about all Pagans. He specifically mentioned allied pagans, like Khuza'a)
**************-----------------------****************


Let's come to your hypocrisy no 2.

(If I think of something as a wrong thing, or I misunderstood a verse, or I said something against your beliefs, I'm a hypocrite? Good, lets continue....)
Quote:
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..

(First, there was no need to bring the "Holy Ghost" in between, but I'll ignore your insults {I'm used to it, there was once a Muslim who insulted me by comparing the Holy Spirit to the horror movie Haunted, and said he is the Ghost....so its nothing new!, SECOND, I said they didnt brake ANY of the Truce that happened b/w Mohammed and the Pagans...dont put your own assumptions on my mouth again pls...your questions are all answered by the one sentence. I never said they broke some treaties. They never broke any treaty that was going on b/w Mohmmend and Quraish, and in fact, it was the Muslims who initially broke treatry number 4)

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


Quote:
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.

(Oh I can bring plenty of evidence where your prophet was permitted to lie, wether to enemies or not! Let us wait to later times. But when I said "lie", I meant he broke the treaty...HE NEVER KEPT HIS WORD, and thats defined as a lie. You didnt even bring one evidence supporting your claim "the pagans broke the treaty". YOU believe they violated the terms, its not a FACT. I did not lie...When I bring my points in a debate, thats not called a LIE smarty )


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


Quote:
, 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?"

(Comon pal...what can you be smoking now! You JUST SAID IT YOURSELF! My proof...verse 4 ALONE. He specifically specified some tribes. Why do you want to deny what came from you?)

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.

(Again, pls provide an evidence that its the Pagans who broke it! Second, from the first verse itself, it says "God has given Mohammed permission"...About "My generation have never seen and will never see"...I myself cant believe a Muslim is talking about War Morals, but this is personal pal...stop being outlawed)




Quote:
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 :)


(LOOOOOL....What a laugh! No, I wouldn't be silent, as most you Muslims demand "Behead those who say Islam is not peaceful"...LOL. You will promise you wouldnt say you won because you never DID smarty...dont conclude things so fast!
To our discussion: The Pagans I mentioned are the QURAISH, the ones who signed the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, how many times am I supposed to say it? Mohammed will finish all pagans, peaceful or warrior, unless they submit themselves to Muslims. Verse 4 talks about specific 'allied' Pagans, 5 talks when the Treaty brakes and to kill unsubmitting Pagans (NONallied pagans), then it continues saying they should be MUSLIMS (indirectly by mentioning the pillars), verse 6 talks about the Pagans who surrendered and asked for asylum so they may be Muslims.

Quote:
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 .


(Oh goody, goody...here comes the famous sayings "Islam is peacful and tolerant as well as Muslims"...yeah, fine!
Anyways, about your "High Morale", let me remind you that its the Muslims are the ones who kept on invading lands including eastern lands and european lands. Let me remind you that its the Muslims who triggered the Crusades. Let me remind you of the cultural system of Muslims: http://billrosspolitics.blogspot.com/2008/03/islam-progression-through-societies.html
No, I dont think you follow Lord Jesus more than us buddy. We hear from your sides everyday of the eye for an eye, not turn the other cheek (yeah, I know...media, if only the media can shut the hell up, right?). Mohammed executed who insulted him only, not just his enemies)


Quote:
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.

. (Well, you said it yourself! Pagans wre NOT about to start a war, so what evidence are you asking? Second, thats new information am hearing about passing information! Pls provide REAL proof! Third, even though they passed info, what would make Mohammed trigger a war? Is that even a point in the treaty? Was the treaty broken because infos were passed to other nations? I suppose NOT!)


Quote:
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!

(Ok, I suppose you have the evidence? LOL
Does it state ANYWHERE that Mohammed renewed a peace truce? He, with his 'allied' tribes NEVER made a truce with their enemies. So can you say the contrary or will you keep on singing that rhyme? And again, debates DONT mean LIES)
********************************

Quote:
Muhammad used compulsion to force people to convert to Islam:
Really ?

(Yup..., he did actually use a tricky no compulsion...it was either you die or become a Muslim...see? No compulsion, you're given an option!)


Quote:
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.


(What the heck? What context? You actually made it more worse! lol
First you slay the hell out them, but if they repent (technically, if they become Muslims), they're spared. Is there any better or easier explanation to that? I'm not a missionary. And I dont quote things purely out of context! That words justified my words being said that Mohammed will spare ppl who become Muslims!).

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 .


(I demand minds and common sense please!!! If they repent from their deeds ofcourse. Then continue...."and take to prayer and render the alms levy"...I believe that completes my answer! Your argument is senseless, my dear)
************************


Quote:
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 :

Quote:
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 .


(Strange! When I quoted the second half of the verse to justify my claim, you say out of context, when I quoted the FIRST half of the verse, again its out of context...Though it has been answered above, my quote there is to justify what Mohammed was doing. Even if your 'out of context' was true, what better did he do? You kill them, or if they repent and become muslims, you leave them! Big deal!)

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



Quote:
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 .

(firstly, I haven't seen ANY where where you have brought up a proof yet, so there is nothing that can make you say "the burden of proof is on me". I proved it, you failed to disprove it. End of story!).
*************************************

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
And btw, just for your information, heres a hadith that testifies this fact:

It doesnt testifies of of your act.


Quote:
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.

(Hey Pal...mind looking at the whole hadith instead of the things that may suite you? ""No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba." Do you see the words where it says NO PAGANS IS ALLOWED TO PERFORM HAJJ. We're not talking about Naked people here, its the Pagans)

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.

(Firstly, as I said, its not the matter of ethical standards, but violence. I never said the Bible allows that. And Churches that allow gay marriages and priests are NOT Christian churches. And you're mixing cultural sins with religion. You didnt really have to bring all these useless and baseless points? So whats the deal here? Did you prove anything? You talked about something which we never opened)

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.

(Yeah, unfortunately, nothing have been 'proven' from you. U didnt even talk about the main subjects and went blabering how 'ethical' you people are)
**********



Quote:
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

(Pal...I ADDED that verse in the hadith...It was NOT part of the Hadith for ure info, but just to let you know. You have now gave me a different explanation to that hadith. lol.
First, its all about the 'moral ethics' of Muslims, and now, you say the allies pagans are allowed to come to the Ka'aba. And those pagans were allies pagans who asked Muslims's help in the war against Meccan pagans. This shows that you don't even know what you're taking about!)

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.

(Well, I dont see anywhere where you 'destroyed' my arguments, once again, its all weak!)

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



Quote:
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.

(You and Salman are very funny on this part. Yes, Mohammed invaded Mecca SUDDENLY...which proved that HE started a war. That Pagans were not ready. And btw, only warriors without honor or coward guerillas start sudden and unpredicted war. But that was just for your info, you made it something big. Well, for the silly example u gave me, I INVITED my friend, he did not come suddenly and broke my door and came in. Thats called invasion. But your example doesn't match anything with the invasions Mohammed made!)
**********


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
Anyways, now to the main point. Lets analyze the verses:


So till now , were we discussing subsidary points ?

Quote:
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.

(Yeah right! Look who's talking!!!)


Quote:
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:

(What the heck? Then whats it called? A declaration came from Allah of "immunity", (Bara'at) from the treaty came to Mohammed. Now Mohammed was Immune to that treaty. He was "Free" from the treaty. Which part of the verse is confusing?)

Quote:
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 .

(Ok, here comes the drama. Let me remind you again that you or any other ally you have on this debate are the last persons to talk about violating the rules! Second, I pointed out that one to refer what Mohammed was ordered. He would attack his enemies if he only smelt something funny going on from their side! But I never brought it up to start a new subject. Read the whole thing first. Then I continued "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!"....Dont assume things that I never even did or thought so!)

**********


Quote:
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.

(Who cares? I predicted it! and I gave a proper explanation to that down there: lol)


Quote:
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 .

(No, my friend. I didnt 'hammer my own feet'. That proves you WRONG in quite a few stances: First, you said that Allah didn't give divine orders to break the Treaty but this itself refuted you, second, to show some 'hypocritic' acts going on here: Why didn't you paste THE WHOLE thing, instead of words that may suite you. Here is the WHOLE continuation: "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:"So who's being hypocrite now? If not you, then its certainly not ME! Again, read the whole thing, instead of saying things that's not even thought of. I proved you wrong itself from that 'incomplete' tafseer, but then again, everything should be considered, not just the "good words").

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.

(Nope, it doesnt support your claims! This is what your great scholar concluded: "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"..)


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.


(Why dont you read the whole thing first? I brought it up as an EXAMPLE of what happened! Read what I said in the conclusion "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!"...Refer to everything pal, dont try to put me into corners by misquoting things! Its not part of the debate, but I showed you an example of what happened to justify my claim!)

Now lets come to your ( your ? ) conclusion.

(Oh I didn't conclude immediately! Seems like you forgot to read what I said before conclusion...LOL...typical behaviour!!!)

Quote:
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

(I've seen some funny video clip which almost looks like this! You greet me well, insult me like hell and treat me as your enemy, and conclude your statements in a civilized manner! lol...But no probs, I think we settled everything regarding the insults yesterday. Anyways, I dont think I have failed to prove anything, in fact, you just shown in many parts that you yourself dont even know what you're talking about. And you have a bad habit to quote things that may suite your claims! Anyways, leaving all that, I await for your response. And I will try again to spare time to answer Salman's (similar only) claims, but if he does want to join, please tell him that we are now on a last chance and if he's willing to abide by the rules given and play fairly, he's welcome, and that goes to you also!
Hope your fasting is going well!

Regards

[Acid]

Dear Alex ,

Thank you for your recent email.

Part (A)

Originally Posted by Alex

(Did you even look at that website or you're talking rubbish? Prove to me that ALL my text/response is a copy/paste from there....LOL...one, second, you can take things from answering-islam or whatever, but why did u have to violate the rules by posting Christianized subjects and why did u even talk of things out of the debate! lol...You've taken things out of site before, (like that historical context), I dint say nothing...but ure just copying words and insults and does not even carry any value!)

Alex , Providing a history of something , as I said that which was on your demand , from a website is a different thing than bringing fabricated arguments for debate purposes from the apologetic websites.

Yes all your arguments where taken from other websites by that i don't mean that each and every word you wrote including " Hi Acid , I hope you are doing well " . But you bought fabricated arguments from websites and added a bit of text by you before and after it. - Anyways since this is not the purpose of our debate to prove , I will not entertain your response in this regard.

You said in your second email :

Originally Posted by Alex

Hello.

Thanks for the agreement.

Ok, we will start by debating on Surrah 9:5.

Can you explain Surrah 9 (Al-Taubah), verse number 5:
"Then when the sacred months have passed, then SLAY the Mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform Salat, and give Zakat, then leave their way free" (basiclly if they become Muslims).

With all the context and the verse, this verse proves a very violent and cruel nature on how to treat Mushrikun (Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, even Trinitarians!).

Can you please clarify this verse for me?
Thanks.

Now in this email you pasted Verse 5 of Surah Tawbah. ofcourse you didnt knew it by heart , you pasted it from any Islamic or non Islamic Site which contained this verse of the Qur'an , using your logic I would say that you pasted stuff from other side and hence you are wrong in doing so . - i know its a ridiculous example but thats the same to which you are pointing too. Anyways this topic is over and out.


Part ( A.1 )

Originally Posted by Alex

(First of all, I acknowledge that there are many decieved and fooled by Islamic apologetics and then come to Islam...they do compare the ethical behaviours in America and Arab lands and other things....but let me bring u a site that shows a portion on how much have left you too: Muslims who left Islam - WikiIslam


And have you heard about the 6 million yearly leaving your religion in Africa?

If you ask me the figures of Islamic converts in Europe I would provide you links to authentic website for example like BBC , Sky news , and many many others. But the website which you quote doesn't only have have logical fallacy which I will mention but are all linked to Christians apologetic or anti islamic websites . more then 90% of references are all given to Ali Sina's website (Faithfreedom)who is the most hilarious missionary ( and disgrace too )in Christian world. So your information is not coming from any authentic source at all.

Now coming to logical fallacy , If 6 million people are leaving Islam every where , then it means that looking at the World wide Muslim population of more then 1.6 billion people , in just a matter of 5 years more then half Muslim population would leave Islam.This is not the case in anyway . You have all the statistics available . Secondly . Talk about Africa. In African Muslims are found in Nigeria , Sudan , Eritrea and some other countries , who wouldnt have a total of this much population who are infact by you becoming Christians every year!!!!

Let's look at the Muslims population according to CIA 2008 World factbook Muslim Population in Africa ( Table Attached , Click to enlarge ).

So what are you talking about my friend? According to CIA Stats Its more then clear that African Majority is Muslim. Wth almost 99 % Muslims in every country in Northern Africa , and other countries are clearly inhabited by the Muslims .

This information was just to show you the demo graphs and If 6 million yearly converts from Muslims according to Ali Sina is true than in 2006 there would be only few muslims inhabiting the Africa.

Also for your information purposes , Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world .

CNN >> Muslim win Western Converts
Daily Cinema >> Empty Churches , Full Mosques
UK Telegraphs >> Belgium dwindling churches to be converted in Mosques

These are few amongst many which shows that Christanity is not serving as a useful social tool . But anyway this is not related to our debate objective but I included it to show you that Worldwide Islam is growing contrary to what you , infact contrary to what Ali Sina say according to his OWN website that Africa have 6 million annual converts to Christanity.



Part B : - What does it means my "If they repent".
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 .


(I demand minds and common sense please!!! If they repent from their deeds ofcourse. Then continue...."and take to prayer and render the alms levy"...I believe that completes my answer! Your argument is senseless, my dear)

As I said that If they repent ie. accept the mistake and amend their evil ways and pray and pay alms then open the way for them. There is no problem here. The pagans were tolerated of their acts against Muslims and Islam and then after the warning period given to them if they dont amend thier evil ways then they should be killed but if they repent , pray and pay alms then for them the ways are open.

It doesnt say anywhere that Muslims are always going to kill all pagans. But just those who are enemies of Islam and Muslims and despite of warnings dont amend their ways .


Part B (a) - Did not Muhammad ( PBUH ) establish peace ?

(Although I didnt understand what you actually meant, but this is NOT Sam Shamoun speaking...I would like you to bring me the words where he said these things. Thats why I said assumptions, if he was a real peace-maker, he wouldnt have attacked Pagans)

I should remind you that its your assumption only. Muhammad was indeed a peacemaker . As you already accepted that Pagans were weak against Mighty Muhammad PBUH. So that means Muhammad PBUH was in the position to kill pagans straight away but he entered into a Pact with pagans - the pact of hudaybiyyah. Which turn out to be the victory for Muslims and Islamic empire grew rapidly in peninsula and Muslims then became Powerful. Again against these Mighty Muslims , the weak pagans were helpess thats how they resorted to passing confidential information and siding with other tribes against Muslims.

It was an act of Peace that Muhammad PBUH after giving warning to pagans , on orders of God went on war with them because they never resorted to peace since the beginning of Islamic history.


Part C - Evidence from History that Pagans broke the history first.

(Again, pls provide an evidence that its the Pagans who broke it! Second, from the first verse itself, it says "God has given Mohammed permission"...About "My generation have never seen and will never see"...I myself cant believe a Muslim is talking about War Morals, but this is personal pal...stop being outlawed

You asked for the evidence that pagans broke the history. Here is the evidence :

Khuza`ah had no choice but to inform the Messenger, their ally, that Banu Bakar and their allies Quraysh had unilaterally broken the treaty of Hudaybiyah by attacking them. The Messenger promised them, "I will prevent from you what I will prevent from myself." (Ibn Hishaam)
The Quraish realized they had broken the treaty with the Messenger by attacking the Muslims' allies.



Taken from Compendium of Muslim Texts...





Some further evidence :

In 629 AD, the Muslims made The first pilgrimage. Two years later, in 630 AD, a skirmish between the Bedouin tribe of Khuza'a and the Banu Bakr tribe which was an ally of the Quraysh occurred; this was a breach of the treaty as one of the clauses of the treaty was 'An attack on an ally of the party, will be considered an attack on the party itself'. Muhammad offered the Quraish three alternatives:

1. Dissolve their alliance with the Banu Bakr.
2. Compensate by paying blood money.
3. State that the treaty stood dissolved.

The Quraish chose the third alternative. Thus, Muhammad was left with 'no alternative' but to march on Mecca. He, along with 10000 men, marched to Mecca where he gave orders that old or sick men, children, men who dropped their arms, men who stayed in their homes, or people who stayed in Abu Sufyan's home were not to be harmed and no trees were to be cut. Thus, there was no bloodshed in the conquest.
Islam spread widely and quickly during the two years that the treaty was in effect. While Muhammad had one thousand four hundred followers when he signed the treaty in Hudaybiyya, he had well over ten thousand for his conquest of Mecca two years later. ( Sirat ul Rasool )
_________________________

And some further historical evidence for you my friend.
Behind the Treaty of Hudaybiyya
ISLAMIC SUPREME COUNCIL OF AMERICA - SUMMER 2002


Recently, a number of authors and commentators in the media have referred to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya - between Prophet Muhammad and his adversaries, the Quraysh - as something on which recent Mideast peace efforts have been based. Unfortunately, such references have stated, more often than not, that the Hudaybiyya Treaty was a temporary truce into which the Prophet Muhammad entered with the leaders of Mecca, then subsequently violated.
ISCA is concerned that this falsehood, that the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be upon him, violated the Treaty of Hudaybiyya is being repeated throughout the world. For the sake of better understanding, we will briefly elucidate the actual circumstances of the breaking of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya.
The treaty was established in 628 CE between Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh tribe, rulers of Makkah, several years after the Prophet migrated to Madina to escape the Quraysh's vicious persecution of the Muslim faithful.
In the years preceding the treaty, the Prophet had transformed Madina into a city-state ruled by a constitution (agreed upon among the local Arab tribes, Jews and Muslims), and had begun to propagate the faith, sending preachers throughout Arabia and nearby lands.
Seeing Islam's successful and rapid growth, the Quraysh had sent armies time and again to destroy the fledgling Muslim state, without success. Fearing the loss of their prestige and power as custodians of Arabia's idolatrous religion, the Quraysh continued fighting the new Muslim community, but lost a series of decisive battles.
Six years after migrating to Madina, the Prophet decided to make the lesser pilgrimage to Makkah, which years of warfare with the Quraysh had prevented. Despite his willingness to enter the Holy City with his companions unarmed, and with the intention to perform the rites of the pilgrimage and leave, the Quraysh refused him entry. The Prophet's companions urged him to fight to defend his right to perform the ritual, but the Prophet always preferred to seek a peaceful solution instead of resorting to bloodshed. Therefore, at a place known as Hudaybiyya, he agreed to a truce - an agreement that he would return to Madina without completing the pilgrimage. Other conditions were imposed that were disadvantageous to the Muslims but the Prophet agreed to them in order to avoid bloodshed.
It was agreed that:
1. all hostilities should cease for ten years;
2. any one leaving the Quraysh to join the Prophet without the permission of his guardian or chief should be returned to Makkah;
3. any Muslims joining the Quraysh should not be returned to the Muslims;
4. any tribe seeking to entering into alliance with either with the Quraysh or the Muslims should be at liberty to do so;
5. the Muslims should return to Madina on the present occasion without advancing further; and
6. they should be permitted in the following year to visit Makkah and to remain there for three days.
The following year, the Prophet made the pilgrimage, according to the terms of the Treaty and unopposed by the Quraysh.
Near the end of the seventh year after migration, the Quraysh and the tribe of Bani Bakr attacked the Bani Khuzaah tribe, who were allies of the Muslims. This incident directly violated the treaty of Hudaybiyya (cf. item 1 above) and the Bani Khuzaah appealed to the Prophet for help and protection.
However, even then the Prophet did not act in haste. Instead he sent a letter to the Quraysh demanding payment of blood money for those killed, and a disbandment of their alliance with the Bani Bakr. Otherwise, the Prophet said, the treaty would be declared null and void.
Quraysh then sent an envoy to Madina to announce that they themselves considered the Treaty of Hudaybiyya null and void. However, they immediately regretted this step and Quraysh leader Abu Sufyan himself traveled to Madina to renew the contract. Despite being the greatest enemy and persecutor of the Muslims, no hand was laid on him. He was permitted to enter the Prophet's mosque and announce that he was reinstating the Treaty of Hudaybiyya." His tardy announcement was unheeded by the Muslims and Abu Sufyan returned to Makkah in humiliation before his people.
It was only then, after the Muslims had honored a treaty that was largely disadvantageous to them, after they refused to respond to the Quraysh's breach of the contract, and the Quraysh's subsequent nullification of said contract, that the Prophet prepared to retake of Makkah. He therefore did not breach the Treaty of Hudaybiyya.


Part C ( a ) : - Hypocrites passing secret information.

. (Well, you said it yourself! Pagans wre NOT about to start a war, so what evidence are you asking? Second, thats new information am hearing about passing information! Pls provide REAL proof! Third, even though they passed info, what would make Mohammed trigger a war? Is that even a point in the treaty? Was the treaty broken because infos were passed to other nations? I suppose NOT!)

You demanded evidence for hypotcrites passing secret information from Muslims to Persian / Roman Empires and why did it trigger to a war?

Here is the evidence from Tafsir of Qur'an by Maududi .

The third important problem was to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, who had hitherto been tolerated in spite of their flagrant crimes. Now that there was practically no pressure upon them from outside, the Muslims were enjoined to treat them openly as disbelievers (v. 73). Accordingly, the Holy Prophet set on fire the house of Swailim, where the hypocrites used to gather for consultations in order to dissuade the people from joining the expedition to Tabuk. Likewise on his return from Tabuk, he ordered to pull down and burn the 'Mosque' that had been built to serve as a cover for the hypocrites for hatching plots against the true Believers.



This was an implied condition of treaty although its breach wouldnt warrant a dissolution of treaty but Pact was made to estalblish peace and these hypocrites were threat to societys peace. The reason I told you this was so show tha "Acts" of hypocrites. They were not only passing information but misugiding believers and taking sides with Quraysh who were in breach of the treaty as proved above.

This was the most important asepcts of the Leadership of Prophet Muhammad that he took steps to crush these hypocrites who were passing nations Top secret informations to enemies.


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

(Ok, I suppose you have the evidence? LOL
Does it state ANYWHERE that Mohammed renewed a peace truce? He, with his 'allied' tribes NEVER made a truce with their enemies. So can you say the contrary or will you keep on singing that rhyme? And again, debates DONT mean LIES)

This has already been answered above. Muhammad PBUH made attempts to be at peace with these pagans and made a peace treaty but pagans didnt like it and broke it. Pagans started attacking Muslim allies and i suppose it would be idiotic to say to those pagans who broke the peace treaty that " ok ok lets renew our peace arrangments , now dont attack us in violation of the treaty ok dear? " ... Besides Prophet Muhammad didnt wanted to stop performanceo f treaty and thats why provided options to Pagans as I told above.


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

Muhammad used compulsion to force people to convert to Islam:
Really ?

(Yup..., he did actually use a tricky no compulsion...it was either you die or become a Muslim...see? No compulsion, you're given an option!)

This is just your statement. Qur'an clearly says " LET THERE BE NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION".


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

Do you see the words where it says NO PAGANS IS ALLOWED TO PERFORM HAJJ. We're not talking about Naked people here, its the Pagans)

OK so ? After that naked ladies and pagans were no longer allowed to peform HAJJ as the Kaabah is the House of God and Exclusive place for Muslims to peform hajj. The Pagans dont have a right to peform Hajj . Even today no non-muslim have right to visit the Kaabah. The Sole Right to visit the Most Sacred House and Oldest House of Worship on Planet belongs to Muslims only.


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


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

(No, my friend. I didnt 'hammer my own feet'. That proves you WRONG in quite a few stances: First, you said that Allah didn't give divine orders to break the Treaty but this itself refuted you, second, to show some 'hypocritic' acts going on here: Why didn't you paste THE WHOLE thing, instead of words that may suite you. Here is the WHOLE continuation:[/quote]


It only proves my point again. Allah didnt said to break the treaty in the sense Allah didnt said to VIOLATE the treaty. Allah said that Muslims should break the treaty in the sense that they should STOP PERFORMANCE of argreements under treaty because the Pagans have already breached it ! Thats what I was saying and still saying .

You yourself above in your qoute have showed that Pagans already broke the treaty.
*****************************



I have sufficiently covered all your points in the above response and have proved :

1. Pagans broke the treaty first.
2. Muhammad PBUH made efforts to continue treaty by giving them options but pagans decided to dissolve the treaty.
3.Thy hypocritic nature of hypocrite pagans.
4.The verses relevant in S.9 were talking about the people mentioned in above point 1-3.


Alex , i look forward for your response and please read the above properly.

Regards

[Acid]

Originally Posted by Alex

Originally Posted by Christian
I want you to note that I'm not here to make a tool of myself for your filthy mouth, and I will not abide by any of the rules you've given here: Islamic-Life Forums - Forum Rules

I will not accept rules numbers 1, 4, 11, etc! I am not a participant, just here to speak to you specifically! And then again, you have broken many of your own rules like insulting and stuff. Anyways, I will not respond to your insults or whatever by the same attitude, and since you falsely claimed you havent insulted me, I will show it you later (if I even bother coming here again!) I will start working on responding to your tasteless claims and insults, but mind that you have shown nothing of yourself but a worthless intolerant hypocrite, who doesn't even play by the rules he himself made!

Why dont you debate me instead of Acid? LOL...You keep on responding to every word I said expecting no reply! I dont have a problem helping him, and dont worry, I aint no coward, I'm not going to get help from others, as this is just a mere spoiled debate, I'm not fighting! As for Lord Jesus is terrorist, well...if you think he was, then may God forgive your filthy words, but I assure you that the Lord was the most tolerant, peaceful, loving Lord no one ever could have been like him, not MOHAMMED, nor Jospeh Smith, not Ali or any of your scholars!

I got one sentence to tell you: "Practice what you preach"

Originally Posted by Christian
Look you jerk! Dont threaten me! You can dismiss my profile, for all I care is NOTHING at all. In fact, its a disgrace for me to join this filthy forum. Dont go around and threaten me of dismissal, I told you from the beginning, I aint no participant, so you can block me or do whatever you want, coz I SPIT at this forum!

And about the Bible stuff, you can talk whatever you want, but I will neither waste my time responding to a hypocrite like you, I have other better things to do that waste even a single second for your worthless talks. Ok, call my lord a terrorist, or my Bible book of terror...you dont provoke me mister, I am used to filthy mouths, you're not the first person, just another piece of garbage like other intolerant folks.

By the way, in case you dont know, for your bad news, things b/w me and Acid are back to normal now and our friendship is restored. Try to spoil t again, I hope Acid understand what truly your nature is!

DISMISS ME, I demand it!!! Again, I SPITT at your forum!

Alex , You such unethical behavior will not be tolerated. Just because someone does not accept your beliefs doesnnt mean that you have to insult and mock .

If Bro Salman said that your bibical Jesus is a terrorist so what