70 jawans killed in biggest Maoists/Naxal attack ever in India

[Kriterion]

that summary is from one of your own sources that you linked earlier ( the wiki link for persecution of Muslims by Quraysh)... Iam sure they did their research well :--D

not well enough...they didn't provide a verse either. there are no quranic verses to indicate Muhammad attacked the meccan religion. what he did attack was the logic on which idol worship was based (that onipotent god needs no secretaries), their practice of female infanticide, their embezzlement of the properties of orphans and slaves, their obsession with alcohol and fornication (still continues today amongst many wealthy arabs, btw), and their hindrance of the truth when it is made manifest.

if you read your own links and sources you will find that the Quraish tolerated Muhammads nonsense far more than any Islamic state ever has or ever will including Muhammad himself. Just the fact that Muhammad was able to preach for 10 yrs in Mecca is proof. No verses are needed.

if Muhammad had it so good in Mecca, why did he leave his hometown?

While being in the Quraish jurisdiction he is bound by their laws and they are withing their rights to deal with Muhammad however they deem fit when he has mocked , ridiculed , abused their gods and said that their religion is false without providing any evidence.

so you do not believe in freedom of religious expression?

To their credit they have been faar more lenient and human than Muhammad ever was with polytheists. Its one thing if Muhammad did something miraculous and then commanded their respects but its simply preposterous to expect the Quraysh to fall in line just because Muhammad said that he is Gods messenger.

except that Muhammad enshrined religious freedom in surah 109, surah 2:256, etc. and the quraish expelled people who disagreed with them. in other words did exactly what the Kashmiris did to the KPs...

[Kriterion]

Iam not saying that the tribes of those times were as tolerant and secular as per modern sensibilites. But to simply expect the Quraish to fall in line without seeing any evidence to corroborate Muhammads claim of being Gods messenger is quite simply absurd by even modern standards.

i don't expect the Quraysh to "fall in line" (i.e convert). but i do expect them to not torture and kill people and force whoever survives into fleeing. the quraysh could not do that and they lost in the ensuing war. who's fault is that?

[Kriterion]

have you found the context of the Quran demanding offensive warfare yet?

[Kriterion]

v 9:5 ... I already provided the tafsir explanations on the context behind it. (will elaborate more later)

9:5 is a direct reference to the treaty breakers from 9:1-3. thats where the chapter gets its name of "immunity" from. i.e immunity from treaties with those who break them. 9:4, tells us that those who observe their treaty with muslims are fine and dandy and makes no mention of "sacred months" or an expiration date of peace. since both 9:5 and 9:2 have a reference to the 4 sacred months, it is clear to the critically thinking reader that those who break treaties get a 4 month grace period - itself more than peace itself. thus the verse for "offensive" ware in 9:5 is actaully linked to the defensive context of 9:2. 9:4 is a total verse of peace. no Ibn Kathir needed. Quran is the clear book , as it claims. you just have to think critically. i got all that just from the quran...the tafsir, is not only INCORRECT logically, it is also UNNECESSARY

so on what basis do you claim that those links and their references are proving your point of Meccan persecution ? (never mind about them being neutral or accepted by scholars)

on the basis that the sources which claim that Muhammad initiated hostilities, don't cite any Quranic verses...and the quran only makes rhetorical points theologically speaking. thus these sources, can't hold any water and are irrelevant. all other sources, including islamophobic ones, ackowledge the "peaceful" nature of the meccan period...thereby proving that Muhammad did not initiate hostilties. unless you consider philopshical discourse to be hostile... this here is an excerpt from http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/History.htm: The locals intensified their mockery of Muslims and made life particularly difficult for some of them. Although Muslims today often use the word "persecution" to describe this ordeal (justifiably, in some cases), it is important to note that the earliest and most reliable biographers (Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari) record the death of only one Muslim during this period, an older woman who died from stress. please note that ishaq and tabari lived 100 and 200 years after the death of the prophet. further quotes from this site to shed doubt that the people of arabia were just slightly barbaric vis a vis "modern sensibilities". To understand Islam, you must understand the harsh circumstances into which the religion was born... and the Arabians lived short and brutal lives in warring tribes with little to offer the rest of the world beyond their own harsh existence here's is another from the Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network (http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/onlinediscipleship/understandingislam/Some_of_the_Basics_of_Islam.aspx): Converts were slow in coming at first. Many people were even derisive, but eventually Muhammed’s group of followers grew to the point that they irritated the city fathers. After all, nothing ruins the business of idol worship like someone who incessantly claims there’s only one God. Persecution escalated until Muhammed and his followers fled Mecca and went to a city called Yathrib. so according to Pat Robertson's website, the only "hostility" of the Meccan Muslim community was to "grow to the point of irritating" the Quraysh. and just in case you might think that Roberston is a friend of his fellow Abrahamic religion, here you go: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR-CjrbGjjU]YouTube- Pat Robertson Condemns Islam (11.11.09)[/ame]

[Kriterion]

I have posted the said "philosophical" discourses in the form of verses in post#206. If such verses which go along the lines of "my pr!ck is bigger than yours" are considered to be "philosophical" by the Islamic community .... I think that answers all that one needs to know about Islam and its prophet.

lol, is that all you've got to argue that the quran has verses analogous to comparing penis sizes? you couldn't find anything more substantive to say? you couldn't find any other answer to the correct context of verse 9:5 which is verses 9:1-3 which any fellow with down's syndrome can see? unless it is correct to assume that your last post of sheer frustration means that i've proven my point...

[Kriterion]

I have posted the said "philosophical" discourses in the form of verses in post#206. If such verses which go along the lines of "my pr!ck is bigger than yours" are considered to be "philosophical" by the Islamic community .... I think that answers all that one needs to know about Islam and its prophet.

again, basic common sense is missing, nothing more, nothing less. you state that philosophical discourse (i.e 9:5) is why the meccans persecuted Muhammad. but how is this possible? surah 9 is a classic Medina "violent" verse? if Muhammad had already left Mecca, how would could they persecute him for these "insults"? thus, it must be that the Meccans persecuted Muslims based on something other than 9:5, or any other Medina verse. remember, there are no verses of even self defensive warfare in the Meccan chapters - hence, why islamophobes refer to that as the "peaceful" period. all war verses, came in medina and were thus reactionary to the persecution faced as a result of inherent hostility to the Meccan verses. it must be noted, that all secular commentators agree that the reason for Meccan hostility was simple. Meccans had no inherent qualms with Muhammad or his followers: they were one of them, their own flesh and blood. In fact, they ignored Muhammad until more people started converting. they didn't mind his philosophical discourse, because it wasn't offensive beyond mere disagreement. but that all changed once they realized that they might lose their grip on religious thought in the region, and as a result couldn't make money via the annual pilgrimage. now its one thing to lose your livelihood to someone who steals it from you, quite another when a competitor's business venture markets a product people like more and you lose all your customers (a la Mcdonnell Douglas to Boeing). you can't say Mcdonnell Douglas is justified in sabotoging or attacking Boeing simply because they're taking your revenue stream away.

[mhr123]

Going back to the question on Hadiths ... and your position that most of them are fabricated .... it is normal for believers to fabricate false stories to make their leader look grand. But why would they lie to make him look like a villain? We have stories about Muhammad raiding innocent unarmed people with no warning, massacring and looting them, enslaving their wives and children and raping them, torturing people to make them reveal the whereabouts of their treasures, branding their eyes with hot red iron and then raping their wives on the same day. There are stories about him beheading in cold blood 750 innocent men who had surrendered to him without a fight when he blockaded their quarter and diverted the flow of the water to their town. We have hadiths that say he assassinated his opponents including a 120 year old man and a mother of five small children only because they composed poetries criticizing them. These hadiths are confirmed in the Siras. They come to us from a variety of sources. They vary in detail but are consistent in the main theme which is normal when a story is reported by several people. There are names of the people involved. They do not seem to be fabrications because of the amount of details. The main question is WHY? Why would devout followers who loved their prophet report so many false stories about him that portray him as anything but a messenger of God. The motive is important. We can see a clear motive why people fabricate lies to make their prophet look holy but what motive could they have to lie about their prophet and make him look so evil? We could also overlook such hadiths if they were just a few. Someone could have been an enemy in disguise and might have lied. But we have thousands upon thousands of hadiths that tell the same tale of brutality and portray Muhammad as anything but Godly. At the same time we have no other version of the same events. If Muhammad actually did not raid the innocent populations how they converted to Islam? Do we have a different version of how Islam expanded? Why would so many devout believers who waged wars for Islam and gave their lives fabricate so many falsehoods against their prophet? Why did his companions follow the same route as well ? And why would dedicated scholars such as Ibh Ishaq, Tabari, Waqidi, Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Hisham, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Malik or others spend an entire life writing books based on nothing but lies? What happened to the "real" history of Muhammad? How come not a single version of that was ever written? And all what is survived are lies? If all these people were liars, where were the truthful scholars of Islam? How can it be that for 1300 years all the Muslims were lying and suddenly when they came in contact with the West and were embarrassed to see their religion is barbaric in comparison to the humanistic values of the Westerners they discovered that the history of Muhammad that they have is all lies? Your position of denial is absurd and untenable. You are shocked by the sheer inhumanity of Muhammad, but you are not capable to let go. You try to cling to him desperately but you mask the truth, lie to yourself and cocooned in your lies you feel safe. By these denials you are not changing the truth. You are simply sugarcoating the bitter truth so you can swallow it easier. You are simply beguiling yourself. Can you bring yourself to answer this important question honestly ?

Just one Question BB... were did u find these things marked in Bold.. plz point out , if u are referring to Banu Qureza then it has already been answered in the earlier post #195.. i have related to u all the events leading to it ... read it again rather than asking again and again the same thing. Hadith are as important to us like Quran is .. no i don't think they should be any issues . There are plenty of fabricated hadith which have been marked in the books the scholars and Ideally Muslims accepts all the Sahih Hadeeth ... for e.g . Bhukari and Muslim have all the Sahih Hadith , followed by Muwatta Malik ,Abu Dawood , Tirmidhi , Ibn Majah etc they have some fabricated hadith but they are marked. In other post you

There is no doubt whatsoever that Muhammad antagonised the Quraish by ridiculing their polythiest faith and that the Quraysh did not take up arms against him for a long-long time which they could easily have done. While in Mecca ... Muhammad called them wicked and sinners, who were bent upon "wickedness supreme" [Quran 56:46] and "wretched", who will be thrown into the ‘midst of a Fierce Blast of Fire and in Boiling Water [Quran 56:41–42]. Muhammad even denounced and threatened the Pagans of Mecca with consequence in saying, thus shall We deal with the guilty. Woe on that day unto the rejecters (of Truth) [Quran 77:18–19]. He called himself and his followers the righteous and those, who rejected it, were liars, wrong-doers and inventors of falsehood. He consigned the Meccan idolaters to the eternal fi re of hell. Some of the initial verses read as follows: Then will he be of those who believe, and enjoin patience (constancy, and self-restraint), and enjoin deeds of kindness and compassion. Such are the Companions of the Right Hand (of God). But those who reject Our Sign… On them will be Fire vaulted over (all round) [Quran 90: 17–20]. 2. Those who believe not in the Signs of Allah, Allah will not guide them and theirs will be a grievous Penalty. It is those, who believe not in the Signs of Allah that forge falsehood: it is they who lie! [Quran 16:104–05].

Read the Seerah carefully and refer to those chapter on Quraish treatment inflicted upon Muhammad (SAWS) In points so that its easier a) The growing strength of the Muslim community stirred the Quraish to action. They launched a vilification campaign against the Holy Prophet, Islam and the Muslims. b) They persecuted the Muslims and subjected them to great hardships. When the persecutions of the Quraish became unbearable the Holy Prophet ordered his followers to migrate to Abyssinia. (I have already mentioned in my previous post as most of the new converts were poor and slaves , so it was easy for Quraishies to prosecute them) c) About two dozen Muslims, including Abu Bakr and Ali, were left in Makkah, and this included the Holy Prophet and the members of his family. Thus to all intents and purposes,the Muslims evacuated Makkah. d) The Quraish failed miserably in their attack on the Holy Quran. In view of their defeat on this front, the Quraish changed their strategy, and adopted new maneuvers. They whipped up their persecution campaign on the one hand, and offered inducements to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) on the other hand. They offered him the crown of Makkah in case he desisted from his activities. e) Because of their repeated failures, the Quraish became desperate. They felt that now the only way before them was to kill Muhammad (peace be on him . The Holy Prophet enjoyed the protection of his tribe Abu Hashim, and as long as such protection was there Muhammad (peace be on him) could not be killed according to the tribal code, for any such murder would have precipitated tribal warfare.ABU TALIB was the chief of Babu Hashim ( I hope this answers u) f) The Quraish asked Abu Talib to withdraw the protection of Banu Hashim from Muhammad (pbuh). Abu Talib consulted the Holy Prophet again, and tried to prevail upon him to compromise with the Quraish in some way, which could avert the crisis. The Prophet told his uncle that he could withdraw his protection from him if he liked, but he could not compromise in any way in the matter of the mission entrusted to him by God. Abu Talib felt unhappy on the growing rift between the Muslims and the Quraish, but he assured him that he would not abandon him, whatever might come. This makes it more clear Now when Banu Hashim declared its support then Quraish boycotted them a) Quraish would neither marry their daughters to the Banu Hashim, nor marry the daughters of Banu Hashim. It was also provided that they would neither sell anything to nor buy anything from the Banu Hashim. The document was hung on the Kaaba. The Holy Prophet and the Banu Hashim moved to a glen outside Makkah and there remained in a state of semi-captivity for a period of two to three years. Thereafter the social boycott was lifted, and the Banu Hashim returned to their homes in Makkah. b) Later on in the years to come on the 13th year of his prophethood , Abu Talib and prophets wife Khadijah Died in the same year.. Now Banu Hashim support was over and now things became much easier for Quraish . c) The Quraish held a council of war under the leadership of Abu Sufyan and Abu Jahl.They resolved that Muhammad (pbuh) should be assassinated before he could proceed to Yathrib. The Council of war decided that the young men belonging to all sections should surround the house of Muhammad at night, and assassinate him when he came out of his house in the morning by falling on him in a body, and putting an end to him with the blows of their daggers. So it sums up ... Quraish always wanted to kill Muhammad (PBUH) but feared Banu Hashim , they waited till the time Abu Talib died and once it happened they plotted an assassination .

[Kriterion]

not 9:5 .. see the bottom half of post#206 (posted again below) There is no doubt whatsoever that Muhammad antagonised the Quraish by ridiculing their polythiest faith and that the Quraysh did not take up arms against him for a long-long time which they could easily have done. While in Mecca ... Muhammad called them wicked and sinners, who were bent upon "wickedness supreme" [Quran 56:46] and "wretched", who will be thrown into the ‘midst of a Fierce Blast of Fire and in Boiling Water [Quran 56:41–42]. Muhammad even denounced and threatened the Pagans of Mecca with consequence in saying, thus shall We deal with the guilty. Woe on that day unto the rejecters (of Truth) [Quran 77:18–19]. He called himself and his followers the righteous and those, who rejected it, were liars, wrong-doers and inventors of falsehood. He consigned the Meccan idolaters to the eternal fi re of hell. Some of the initial verses read as follows: Then will he be of those who believe, and enjoin patience (constancy, and self-restraint), and enjoin deeds of kindness and compassion. Such are the Companions of the Right Hand (of God). But those who reject Our Sign… On them will be Fire vaulted over (all round) [Quran 90: 17–20]. 2. Those who believe not in the Signs of Allah, Allah will not guide them and theirs will be a grievous Penalty. It is those, who believe not in the Signs of Allah that forge falsehood: it is they who lie! [Quran 16:104–05].

OK, finally...references to the Quran, the ABSOLUTE authority of islam, without which there is no basis for hadeeth/tafsir/seerah. now we're cooking! your first "beef" 56:46 says thus: but as those who persevere in evil - what of those who persevere in evil? [rhetorical question, FYI] they will find themselves in hell and shadows of black smoke. shadows neither cool nor soothing. for behold, in times gone by, they pursued only pleasure. and would persist in heinous sinning [surah 56, verses 40-46] all this verses is saying is that sinners will go to hell. the only person who would take offense to this is a sinner. if you're not a sinner this verse isn't about you. the day you show me one religion which says nothing about sinners or only speaks positive about sin, is the day i'll agree that this verse is insulting to the meccans. further finding offense to this is akin to a police officer informing a bank robber that he will go to jail. can the robber take offense? sure. but that sentiment would bear no weight, especially if the robber didn't accept the authority of the cops to begin with. that is, it makes zero sense for me to say "i don't believe in your religion - hinduism, but i take offense to the idea that karma will follow me". this also applies to your citation of surah 77, verses 18-19, and surah 90, verse 15-20, as well as surah 16. note that NOT ONE of these verses contains any words which ask muslims to fight, or insults anyone. it doesn't even so much as say "your religion is retarded". all it does is make moral judgements, which is what religion as whole is all about.

once you are done with those verses try this entire sura and tell me what is philosophical about it : http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/111.qmt.html

another perfectly good example of a religion merely saying "disbelief is bad". Abu Lahab, cannot take offense to a punishment he doesn't believe in. note once again, Muhammad is referring to divine punishment, and not exhorting his followers to burn abu lahab in a worldly fire.

Dr. Muhsin Khan the translator of Sahih Bukhari and the Quran into English writes: "Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizya (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as per 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are STRONG and have the ability to fight against them. So at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory "[introduction to English translation of Sahih Bukhari, p.xxiv.] Iam sure you are going to tell me that this well renowned scholar is wrong.

Dr Khan can be wrong because he is a FALLIBLE human being. he ain't god. for example, ask Dr Khan how he explains verse 9:4 which demands peace against disbelievers? what is the difference in the the disbelievers of verse 4, and the very next verse, verse 5 (and verse 29)? if they are the same disbelievers, why are there different rules of engagement? further what kind of genocidal killer grants his enemies 4 months to escape/stock arms/etc? that doesn't make any sense at all?

Another example of offensive war: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/c...n/007.qmt.html (7:3) How many towns have We destroyed (for their sins)? Our punishment took them on a sudden by night or while they slept for their afternoon rest

thats verse 7:4 actually, not 7:3, but no worries. classic example of misunderstanding of Abrahamic English as used scripturally. as well as blatant oblivion to the context established in the preceeding verses 7:2 and 3: Divine revelation has come to warn and ADMONISH believers. Follow has been revealed by your Sustainer, how seldom do you keep this in mind! How many communities we have destroyed by Our punishment when they were asleep or at resting at noon? [possibly a rhetorical question, but definitely a rhetorical statement] [surah 7, verses 2-4] this is referring to Divine punishment and is not a call to war. there is no future or present tense for "fight" or "destroy". in fact the presence of the royal first person singular "our" means this is God speaking about something He did. the ancient arabs took this to indicate a wide array of sinners who were eliminated by Divine decree i.e "natural disasters" and not acts of "holy struggle" or "war". the biblical episodes of Noah's flood, the destruction of Lots people at Sodom and Gommorah, as well as the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. the quran also adds the destruction of the ancient Arab tribes of Aad (killed by drought and storms), Thamud (killed by an earthquake or volcanic explosion), and Midian (killed by earthquake or tornado). these are reference of surah 7, found in more detail in surah 11 ("Hud"). Floods, "fire and brimstone" i.e hailstorm, earthquakes and tornados, are not considered to be forms of "holy war". even the bin ladens of the world do not cite these verses as calls for holy war - and they see war everywhere.

The details of this are explained in this Hadith (19:4292) http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/c...m/019.smt.html

now here is a hadith i can agree with, at least in part. thank you for proving my point! here what that hadiths says: The word Jihad is derived from the verb jahada which means:" he exerted himself". Thus literally, Jihad means exertion, striving; but in juridico-religious sense, it signifies the exertion of one's power to the utmost of one's capacity in the cause of Allah. This is why the word Jihad has been used as the antonym to the word Qu, ud (sitting) in the Holy Qur'an (iv. 95). Thus Jihad in Islam is NOT an act of violence directed indiscriminately against the non-Muslims; it is the name given to an all-round struggle which a Muslim should launch against evil in whatever form or shape it appears. Qital fi sabilillah (fighting in the way of Allah) is only one aspect of Jihad. Even this qital in Islam is not an act of mad brutality. It has its material and moral functions, i. e. self-preservation and the preservation of the moral order in the world. The verdict of all religious and ethical philosophies-ancient and modern-justify war on moral grounds. When one nation is assaulted [sic] by the ambitions and cupidity of another, the doctrine of non-resistance is anti-social, as it involves non-assertion, not only of one's own rights, but of those of others who need protection against the forces of tyranny and oppression. A Muslim is saddled with the responsibilities to protect himself and all those who seek his protection. He cannot afford to abandon the defenceless people, old man, women and children to privation, suffering and moral peril. Fighting in Islam, therefore, represents in Islamic Law what is known among Western jurists as" just war". [hadith Bossbhai provided above] note that this hadith is AUTHENTIC because it backs itself up with the Quran verses in surah 8, and in surah 22: Permission to fight is granted to those against whom war is wrongfully waged, God will succour you. those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, “Our Sustainer is God!” For, if God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another, [all] monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques - in [all of] which Gods name is abundantly extolled - would surely have been destroyed [ere now]. [surah 22, verses 39-40] In chapter 2 it lays down the rules of engagement for the military commanders : it doesn't say that in chapter 2 of the Quran. what you quoted was a report from a person, who heard from Sulaiman b Barud, who heard from his father, Muhammad saying "____________". thats one, two, three people in between the paper and the alleged author of those words (Muhammad). that is a quarternary source, and that frankly wouldn't hold up in any court of law, much less a "court of common sense" with such serious ramifications as deciding the nature of an entire religion of 1.5 billion people.

Going back to the question on Hadiths ... and your position that most of them are fabricated .... it is normal for believers to fabricate false stories to make their leader look grand. But why would they lie to make him look like a villain? We have stories about Muhammad raiding innocent unarmed people with no warning, massacring and looting them, enslaving their wives and children and raping them, torturing people to make them reveal the whereabouts of their treasures, branding their eyes with hot red iron and then raping their wives on the same day. There are stories about him beheading in cold blood 750 innocent men who had surrendered to him without a fight when he blockaded their quarter and diverted the flow of the water to their town. We have hadiths that say he assassinated his opponents including a 120 year old man and a mother of five small children only because they composed poetries criticizing them. These hadiths are confirmed in the Siras. They come to us from a variety of sources. They vary in detail but are consistent in the main theme which is normal when a story is reported by several people. There are names of the people involved. They do not seem to be fabrications because of the amount of details. The main question is WHY? Why would devout followers who loved their prophet report so many false stories about him that portray him as anything but a messenger of God. The motive is important. We can see a clear motive why people fabricate lies to make their prophet look holy but what motive could they have to lie about their prophet and make him look so evil?

a few years back, my parents came home early from a dawaat and caught me and my friends smoking marijuana. it was a dumb thing to do, and i regret it. but i got in some major trouble. i tried defending by saying "everyone's doing it...its not that bad" etc. it didn't work. but, my parents, being reasonably religious especially in social matters, may have reacted differently if tried to justify myself this way and provide this hadith which i'm making up right now: Narratted, Jabir bin Abdullah: I heard Uthman bin Affan relate the story during the Battle of the Trench. Uthman was suffering from a disease of the eye and had poor vision. So he inquired with the Messenger of Allah: "Oh, Messenger of Allah, I do desire to fight in the way of Allah and prove my bravery. However, my vision is poor, and I fear lest I am unable to to fight." The Messenger of Allah replied "Oh Uthman, do not despair, for the hemp herb comes from the Earth, and Allah is a Lord of the Earth and all its vegetations!" i'm sure you can see the folly of such a "pot-friendly" hadeeth, and why i may have tried a stunt like that. so you see, the reason why these "distinguished muslims" like bukhari or ibn kathir or ibn ishaq might fabricate hadiths is obviously to justify their own personal agenda. bear in mind the majority of muslims, nay all humans, were illiterate, and uneducated masses. they had no idea of what the Quran really taught. they also didn't learn anything from the outside non-muslim world in a time and age when secular morality vis a vis warfare endorsed slavery, rape, genocide, and other crimes against humanity. it may have been that this early Islamic leadership itself was unaware of the extent of pacifisim in teh quran, or if aware, felt (correctly) that they could simply bury it under the volume of "hadeeths" to justify the conquest of non-muslims. why would these muslims want to conquor the world? for the same reasons anyone else would: money, power, women, and glory.

We could also overlook such hadiths if they were just a few. Someone could have been an enemy in disguise and might have lied. But we have thousands upon thousands of hadiths that tell the same tale of brutality and portray Muhammad as anything but Godly. At the same time we have no other version of the same events. If Muhammad actually did not raid the innocent populations how they converted to Islam? Do we have a different version of how Islam expanded?

according to my Mosque's imam, there are over 700,000 hadeeths. disguising even 10,000 fake ones would be a simple task.

Why would so many devout believers who waged wars for Islam and gave their lives fabricate so many falsehoods against their prophet? Why did his companions follow the same route as well ?

simple, these muslims had much power, wealth, and glory to gain from conquest. the only thing that stood in there way, was the Quran itself. fortunately, most muslims could not read and write, despite the majestic might of achievement that was the Golden Age of Islam. the easiest way to convince other muslims to engage in such anti-Quranic barbarism was to invent the body of hadeeths that contradict the quran's war of self-defense only.

And why would dedicated scholars such as Ibh Ishaq, Tabari, Waqidi, Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Hisham, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Malik or others spend an entire life writing books based on nothing but lies? What happened to the "real" history of Muhammad? How come not a single version of that was ever written? And all what is survived are lies? If all these people were liars, where were the truthful scholars of Islam? How can it be that for 1300 years all the Muslims were lying and suddenly when they came in contact with the West and were embarrassed to see their religion is barbaric in comparison to the humanistic values of the Westerners they discovered that the history of Muhammad that they have is all lies?

see the above reason. while it is certainly true that exposure to liberal ideas of freedom and human rights have spawned much introspection in many educated muslims, it is incorrect to assume that this has only happened in modern times due to exposure to the West. the west does not own liberalism, nor is the west truly dominated by liberals. liberals (from west and east) favor the equality of all humans and minorities. conservatives, be they republicans in the US or cons in the UK/Canada, or Likud in Israel, BJP in India, Jamaat in BD do not believe in the equality of minorities and do not believe in things like freedom/equality and the right to live for all people (liberal ideas). there is a reason why the right wing is called "conservative" for they seek to conserve the old world way of doing things by hook or crook.

Your position of denial is absurd and untenable. You are shocked by the sheer inhumanity of Muhammad, but you are not capable to let go. You try to cling to him desperately but you mask the truth, lie to yourself and cocooned in your lies you feel safe. By these denials you are not changing the truth. You are simply sugarcoating the bitter truth so you can swallow it easier. You are simply beguiling yourself. Can you bring yourself to answer this important question honestly ?

i am shocked at the garbage i read in the majority of hadeeths and how blatantly they can contradict the quran. but then when i realize that most muslims and people are stubborn to change beliefs, plus just plain old uneducated, it makes a lot of sense. i am far more shocked at how a person such as yourself, who is educated, who has no excuse of lack of resources, cannot fathom the difference between the Quran which never once makes a call of war against peaceful people and the hadeeths which do indeed make such exhortations. the questions of utmost importance that i ask myself (and you, of course) is this: how can you guarantee that the hadeeths are the EXACT words of Muhammad when they where written centuries (in the case of the tafsir of Ibn Kathir, nearly a millenium) after his death? how can you say that the Quran which was at the latest compiled 30 years after Muhammad's death is equally or less valid than the hadeeth? how can you explain the lack of any verbs denoting aggressive un-provocated attacks on disbelievers in the Quran, even in the verses you have shown me? how can you explain that the hadith/tafsir you yourself provided calls for war on as self defense? how can you reconcile that hadith which contradicts with the ones that do call for aggressive war? how can you tell between 2 contradicting hadiths which is more authentic since both cannot be true at the same time?

[Kriterion]

another question: why is that while i have answered almost every point, regardless of how un-proven or self-contradictory it may be, you've brought up, you've only managed to reply to (at best) one third of my posts? time constrains can't be an issue since your replies are usually one liners and you've managed to post here nearly 13,000 times on various topics of lesser importance. i'll even do you a favor, just answer one question in leu of the above questions (which are merely rhetorical anyways): if the hadith/tafsir/seerah contradicts the quran, which one is correct? the only choices are a) one of them or b) neither of them. but if neither is correct, than you can't say anything definitely about Islam since no other factual sources exists.

[Kriterion]

No it is not. It clearly points a finger at Quraysh and says that they are wicked and sinners' date=' who were bent upon "wickedness supreme" [Quran 56:46'] . He is clearly baiting the Quraysh here. The pasifist way of doing things would be to keep your beliefs to yourselves and not worry about others or make sweeping judgements on what will happen to them if they dont foolow your ideology. This is what the Dharmic faiths do. So at this point you need to very clearly tell me what is it that you find philosophical about this verse and the basis for it. This was your original contention.

your allegation that this verse speaks of offensive war is obviously not true here. this verse is speaking of a future ethereal punishment. how can you not see that? it is philosophical because it is speaking about the intangibility which is sin. all religions believe in sin and call it out. one may find hinduisms division of humanity into castes insulting, as many westerners and indians alike do. does this mean that hinduism is an offenssive aggressive faith? so why is islam, when it condemns the quraysh for alcoholism, adultery, female infanticide, and fraudulent trade? your disagreement with the surah 56 above indicates that you support sin and/or a sinning lifestyle. do you see that? It is backed up by 7:4 and not 8:22 . This very clearly tells about the aggresive nature of Muhammad and his ideology.

And how many a [rebellious] community have We destroyed, with Our punishment coming upon it by night, or while they were resting at noontide!

the word "We" with a capital "w" indicates God speaking. remember Muhammad never claimed to speak for himself, and if he did, he would have used the pronoun "I". God is the creator, and God is destroyer. If you think this is aggressive, then do you have issues with dharmic Shiva as well? what about the shaivaite hindus?

heres the link again : http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html and heres the tafsir : http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=7&tid=17474 they all add up to the usual petty violence i.e if you dont do this this and this we will kill you. All written in pretty straight forward english. If you are going to tell me that it means the exact opposite I have nothing else to say except that you have problem reconciling yourself to the true facts about your religion.

i don't have any problems reconciling the Quran with anything else. and since that is the supreme authority of Islam, i have no qualms with the religion either. again you have to rely on the tafsir to relate a violent interpretation. so what about Islam before Ibn Kathir's tafsir, the first 700 years? no tafsir existed in Muhammad's time or even centuries after.

It is not applicable to you. Hindu scriptures never make any mention of other religions (never mind ridiculing them or saying we are right you are wrong) and try to get into silly one-upmanship. Heck they dont even preach or proselytize.They dont even care. This is why it gave Birth to 3 other dharmic faiths Jain,Buddh,Sikh. Some day I will take up the topic of spirituality as per Hinduism.

And the Quran never makes any mention of any Dharmic faith either. The only defensive war it sanctions is against those disbelievers who attacked muslims first. btw, if your religious authority never made comparisons, then how do you say that dharmic is "peaceful" and abrahamic is "violent"? if you are right, doesn't this mean that your religion is wrong or vice versa?

[Kriterion]

Where have we arrived at the conclusion that the Tafsir contradicts Quran ? Can you show me some scholarly works to that effect ?

at every place where the tafsir calls for holy war, and the Quran doesn't i.e 9:4, 8:60-62, 2:256, 109:5, etc, etc, etc.

Your interpretation is wrong. This is what the tafsir says regarding the exceptions ... the keyword there is "Longest". After that their only option is to convert, flee or die .

thats the point, i'm NOT giving you an interpretation. i am only giving you Quran verses in reference to other Quran verses. you are providing tafsirs. you are providing hadiths. you are providing interpretations - often, ones which aren't even related to the subject of your sources, indicating that you don't even read them beyond the titles. why do you think I only quote from the Quran and those hadiths which agree with it? to remove this "interpretation" BS. each person must interpret for himself. independence of thought is of paramount importance.

This is an exception regulating the longest extent of time for those who have a general treaty - with out time mentioned - to four months. They would have four months to travel the lands in search of sanctuary for themselves wherever they wish. Those whose treaty mentioned a specifec limited term, then the longest it would extend was to the point of its agreed upon termination date. Hadiths in this regard preceeded. So anyone who had a treaty with Allah's Messenger , it lasted until its specific termination date. However, those in this category were required to refrain from breaking the terms of the agreement with Muslims and from helping non-Muslims against Muslims. This is the type whose peace agreement with Muslims was carried out to its end. Allah encouraged honoring such peace treaties, saying, http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20744

again, oyu have to resort to the tafsir to arrive at all that unnecessary interpretation. the quran is very clear in the first 5 verses of surah 9. it says basically 2 things. prove me wrong by quoting the quran not what so and so person 700 years later said. 1) fight disbelievers who have broken the treaty 2) peace with disbelievers who have not broken the treaty again, i ask you, why 2 different rules for disbelievers? if all disbelievers must be eliminated, why peace with one and war with the other? whats the difference?

And BTW why has Muhammad confiscated Kaaba which was a Pagan worship site for centuries and converted it into a Muslim one and promptly banning the Pagans from entering it ever again ? Isnt this in direct contradiction to the pacifist and tolerant nature of Muhammad and Islam ?

the muslims came back to their hometown, Mecca, in 630 and by that time the Meccans had lost all the meaningful battles, and their civilians surrendered expecting death and destruction. but this was the flesh and blood of the Muslims. there mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters. the Muslims offerred amnesty to all of them, so long as they don't raise a finger against them. stunned by this grace (remember this 7th century arabia) pretty much everyone converted to Islam on the spot. the muslims then took over the Kaaba as there were no pagans left.

Couldnt he have left the pagans and their beliefs to their own and moved his own way ?

he did MOVE his own way in 622-23. its called the Hijrah to Medina.

Why is a non-muslim not allowed anywhere near the holy shrines to till this day ? What happens if you accidently get in there ?

this is another beef i have with the traditional "interpretation" of islam as understood by majority of the authorities, who are infallible. unlike the roman catholic church and many other religions, the Islamic "clergy" is totally fallible. they are purely human. this is why islam is said to not have a "clergy" or priesthood in the literal sense. if we look to the Quran which is the authority of Islam, we see that only one group of people has been banned from entering the Kaaba. these are the mushrikeen. who are they? they are the pagan arabs, and more specifically, those led by abu jahl and his successors. they were barred from the holy shrine due to them barring the Muslims from the holy shrine and expelling the muslims to Medina. But even the House of Saud is willing to make exceptions (hypocracy much?). for example, the 1992 Hollywood film "Malcolm X" saw Denzel Washington, a devout christian, enter the Kaaba and *perform* all the Hajj/Umrah rituals. plenty of people have "accidentally" entered, as there is no way to disntinguish who is a muslims and who is not unless someone says "hey, i'm not muslim". Guru Nanak is claimed to have made a trip to Mecca and IIRC, performed the Hajj as well during his spiritual training.

[Kriterion]

Bossbhai: when the Hadith contradicts the Quran, which one is "right"? why does the Quran urge "offensive" war, as you claim, in verse 9:5 when 9:4 says "peace"? why does the Quran repeatedly mention provocations as the only justification for war? if you condemn islam for condemning "wicked sinning", is it then correct to assume that you support "wicked sinning" or that dharmic religions support "wicked sinning"? if abrahamic peoples are so "violent" today, how do you believe the pagan arabs and arabian jews were perfectly peaceful to Muhammad 1400 years ago?

[mhr123]

in post#195 you didnt provide any link to back up your claim that the Jews asked to be killed. Nor is there any evidence to blame the Qurayza for battle of Ditch. In any case its barbaric to behead people. As a messenger of God shouldnt he know better ? Isnt letting them free and returning their possesions a more honorable and noble thing to do (Something a lot of Indian Rulers did when they came across the Arab/Persian barbarians ) the hadith 280 says no such thing. http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html also take a look at 260,261,262,263,264,286,288 for more acts of violence.

Well i am not sure from where are u copying and pasting the articles about the seerah ... if you had referred to the original source of ibn Ishaq , Ibn hibban , rahmatullil alameen or the Sealed Nectar u could have found exactly the same thing which i have pointed out.. All the events leading to Banu Qureza , there treachery , Ali going to have an understanding with them, events leading to battle , Banu Qureza themselves appointing of sa'ad to give the ruling etc... Since most the sites on the internet just copy and paste articles they also give quotationg from Quran and hadeeth w/o proper context. Regarding being noble .. yah if u read the whole story in Seerah about Banu Nadir , Khaiber or conquest of mekkah u can get the proper picture..

because you wll not know the political situation and ground realities and the equation between the Pagans and Muslims from those 5 verses without reading the history surrounding those events. Even otherwise it is pretty clear ... just use your common sense ... why does Muhammad need immunity for his deeds if the deeds are righteous anyways ? You are saying that the verses are applicable to only those who broke terms of treaties. If so why does he need special immunity (to free himself from all obligations) from God to deal with such tribes ? In short you need to come to terms with the fact that the Quran when read without any knowledge of events surrounding the verses makes no-sense or is at best misleading. This is not the complete story. Muhammad had a 10yr treaty with the Quraysh as part of which he reqd not to indulge in violence or ambush their trade caravans. There were other terms which you very well know. So when he attacked Mecca he violated those terms because the Meccans did not even know about the attack and their leader (Sufyan?) was spared because he came begging. Although not all who asked to be forgiven were spared. Iam sure you know the horrific details of what happened to some others who were not as fortunate as Sufyan.

mate , i would love to know your source of information ... every seerah and histroy have suggested and even i had pointed that in my earlier post that Mekkan's under Abu Sufiyaan had breached the treaty ... they killed many muslim while they were in there sleep. Later on , Muslims marched towards mekkah and stayed outside the Mecca for 2 days so that Meccan's know that Muslims are outside the city ... so there were no sudden attack... And i would love to know some of the horrific details mate..

[Kriterion]

where did I say that it amounted to offensive war about verse [56:46] ? Your claim was that these verses which were during the early period of his preaching in Mecca were all philosophical. My position is that they were all antagonistic in nature and amounted to one-upmanship. Please keep track of the discussion.

talking about the afterlife is philosophical. thats what ALL religions do: make philosophical claims about the afterlife.

No I dont need to. The verse itself is pretty cut and dry ...

then why do you keep quoting the tafsirs? i don't. clearly you're quotation and subsequent arguements indicate the verses are anything but cut and dry.

In short you need to come to terms with the fact that the Quran when read without any knowledge of events surrounding the verses makes no-sense or is at best misleading.

direct contradiction to your previous assertion that the verses are "cut and dry".

There is no ambiguity there as to what is happening unless you claim that it is fictitious. The tafsir , sirah and hadith simply reinforce this by providing real incidents.

there is NO tafsir, seerah, or hadeeth which confuses this verse with that of the struggle between Mecca and Medina. your allegation, prove it. this time i am asking for a tafsir or a hadeeth or a seerah concering these verses - because i know they don't exist.

[Kriterion]

Pls show me some scholarly works that say the Tafsirs and the Sirah are in complete contradiction to those verses and any others.

you don't need scholars for common sense and help in spotting basic contradictions. take this fake hadeeth for example highlighting an alleged historical event: Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Massud: During the lifetime of the Prophet the moon was split into two parts and on that the Prophet said, ‘Bear witness (to this).’" [bukhari vol.4 book 56 (The Virtues and Merits of the Prophet and his Companions) ch.26 no.830 p.533.] And yet they say, “Why have no miraculous signs ever been bestowed upon him from on high by his Sustainer?” Say: “miracles are in the power of God alone; and as for me - I am but a plain warner.” [surah 29, verse 50] Now they swear by God with their most solemn oaths that if a miracle were shown to them, they would indeed believe in this [divine writ]. Say: "miracles are in the power of God alone." And for all you know, even if one should be shown to them, they would not believe. [surah 6, verse 109] so here we have a Bukhari hadeeth in direct contradiction to what the Quran says: that miracles in the traditional sense (i.e walking on water, etc) are not in Muhammad's domain. further, the second quote shows that Muhammad believed such miracles to be futile: people would still argue for the sake of arguing. so even if Muhammad had the power to split the moon, he would not have done so, if for no other reason than for fear of someone saying "but you said you wouldn't do such a thing..."

[Kriterion]

because you wll not know the political situation and ground realities and the equation between the Pagans and Muslims from those 5 verses without reading the history surrounding those events. Even otherwise it is pretty clear ... just use your common sense ... why does Muhammad need immunity for his deeds if the deeds are righteous anyways ? You are saying that the verses are applicable to only those who broke terms of treaties. If so why does he need special immunity (to free himself from all obligations) from God to deal with such tribes ? In short you need to come to terms with the fact that the Quran when read without any knowledge of events surrounding the verses makes no-sense or is at best misleading.

In order to set a clear example that there is no justification for staying within a contract if the other party breaks it off first. remember that the early muslims refused to fight for their own defense, not too due to cowardice or lack of ability, but because they had been so used to not fighting back in the Meccan period. and it still leaves the question of why verses 9:4 and 9:5 say completely different things for supposedly the same group of people, the disbelievers?

This is not the complete story. Muhammad had a 10yr treaty with the Quraysh as part of which he reqd not to indulge in violence or ambush their trade caravans. There were other terms which you very well know. So when he attacked Mecca he violated those terms because the Meccans did not even know about the attack and their leader (Sufyan?) was spared because he came begging. Although not all who asked to be forgiven were spared. Iam sure you know the horrific details of what happened to some others who were not as fortunate as Sufyan.

the possibility of such an alleged treaty is zero. if Muhammad had a standing 10 year treaty with the Quraysh in 630, then what are the various battles about starting with Badr which happened in 623 or 624? there were no treaties, because the Meccans declared war, not really at Badr, but even before that during the persecution (which you have admitted to above but justifying it) and forced expulsion of Muslims to Medina. you may be confused here with the treaty of Hudaibiya, in which case you would do well to realize that this strategic treaty of the Quraysh fell apart within 2 years...the quraysh themselves came and informed Muhammad the deal was off, to which Muhammad agreed. neither side "broke" the treaty. you can read about it on wikipedia. the quraysh offered the treaty to squeeze the muslims, Muhammad (to the dismay of Umar and to the surprise of the Quraysh for so easily taking the bait) accepted. later when quraysh realized it wasn't working, they informed Muhammad that they were cancelling the treaty and were declaring war again to which Muhammad basically said "bring it". since you've only answered or attempted to answer only one of these questions, i will repeat them here again until i receive either an acceptable answer or a concession: Bossbhai: when the Hadith contradicts the Quran, which one is "right"? [you answered already, to which i proved above the contradictions between the hadeeth and the quran regarding public miracles or spectacles of divine power.] why does the Quran urge "offensive" war, as you claim, in verse 9:5 when 9:4 says "peace"? why does the Quran repeatedly mention provocations as the only justification for war? if you condemn islam for condemning "wicked sinning", is it then correct to assume that you support "wicked sinning" or that dharmic religions support "wicked sinning"? if abrahamic peoples are so "violent" today, how do you believe the pagan arabs and arabian jews were perfectly peaceful to Muhammad 1400 years ago?

[Kriterion]

Find below the evidence from the various texts for 7:4 ( Our punishment took them on a sudden by night or while they slept for their afternoon rest ) http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html Sahih Muslim Hadith : Book 019, Number 4292: Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before m". ing them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops. The Tafsir: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=7&tid=17474 The Quran: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/007.qmt.html And I will later copy/paste the relevant section from the Sirah

none of the 3 links you cited make any mention of 7:4. once again, you are forced to resort to tafsirs and other "after the fact" manufacturings to discuss the "cut and dry" alleged "violence" of the Quran.

[Kriterion]

just one more Question to add to the half dozen above: AND fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors [surah 2, verse 190] this is the very first call to war to occur in the Quran, textually speaking. none of the preceeding 197 verses makes any mention of warfare or fighting. what part of "do not commit aggression" do you find to be so aggressive and/or offensively violent?

[Kriterion]

Not forced .. you wanted evidence from the Hadith as per your post 231 .. (Again you need to keep track of the discussion ) because somehow you are trying to arrive at a completely opposite meaning to a verse which as I said is cut and dry ... hence the Hadith and Tafsir links to go with it. The hadith clearly narrate a incident where Muhammad is the agressor. Simple common sense tells you that the Hadith is in line with the theme of 7-4 ( sudden attack to punish the towns who are sinners in his and ofcourse Allahs estimation )

i essentially asked you to go and look for a unicorn, knowing full well that none exist. none of those 3 links you cited as evidence, are relevant. one is just the verse in question, the other is a tafsir which fails to make mention of Muhammad launching any such attack, and the third is a commentary which likewise makes no mention of verse 7:4. you have yet to locate the unicorn, and are free to keep looking as long as you like. let me know when you find it.

That is a given. You dont need special permissions and instructions from God as to what to do with parties that violate treaties unless ofcourse Muhammad wants to break treaties en-masse with all the Pagans because now he feels that he is powerfull enough to deal with them come what may which is exactly what happened. So your excuse doesnt hold.

the fact that an intelligent person such as yourself fails to understand basic things for whatever reason, is proof enough that a given must be stated, by religious texts. stealing, lying, murder, and adultery are also obviously immoral actions, yet religious texts of all stripes make obsessive statements denouncing these very actions. that people should be good is also a "given"...yet every religion has texts highlighting exactly that. and for the record, such actions were not necessarily givens to the early muslims. they were so used to suffering without fighting back, that the Quran asks them rhetorically in surah 2, "will you not fight those who attacked you first?" and that is exactly whats repeated in the verse that is currently being discussed.

[Kriterion]

The Quran is full of contradictions and errors ... the classic example is the different verses that tell how many days it took God to create earth , heaven and stuff inbetween at one point it is 2 days and at others it is 6 days IIRC.

i suppose this is what you are referring to:

Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly say that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days. But then there is also the following passage: 2 Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in TWO Days And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds. + He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measured therein all things 4 to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR Days in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance). Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience." + 2 So He completed them as seven firmaments in TWO Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge. -- Sura 41:9-12 (Yusuf Ali) = 8 altogether these are EIGHT Days.

The Quran does not specify that these "days" were NOT concurrent. one cannot, with any certainty, rule out the possibility that some of these eight days overlapped with each other to make a total of exactly 6 days. it is still within the bounds of possibility.

The point is the verses that come towards the end over-ride the ones before it in case of confusion ... this is how the ulema go about it. And its common sense too.

there is no reason for over-riding because the verses do not contradict one other. 7:4, is speaking of Divine punishment, not war. the words "fight" or "war" are not mentioned. 2:190, on the other hand is speaking about defensive war. morever, i have only quoted from Medina verses, so there is no way a person can distinguish between two Medina verses which came first and which came later.

And Muhammads last wish on his death bed is another clear example of the inherent intolerence of his ideology. Let me know if you need something opposite to that of 2-190 (well we already have 7-4 )

again you must resort to questionable hadiths/seerah to generate something like this. the fact of the matter is, Muhammad's lasting legacy, the Quran never mentions anything except tolerance for peaceful disbelievers.

BTW can you exaplain why Muhammad sent armies to fight neighbouring territories (for eg the Jews of Khaybar ) that were soo far off that they never posed any military threat to the Muslims ?

the Quran explains best Muhammad's motivatins, since he's the one who wrote the book. according to wikipedia, after the Banu Nadir broke their treaty and were banished, they settled in Khaybar and made an alliance with the Meccans to attack the Muslims. After they were sent into exile in 625, the Banu Nadir had settled in Khaybar. In 627, the Nadir chief Huyayy ibn Akhtab together with his son joined the Meccans and Bedouins besieging Medina during the Battle of the Trench.[8] In addition, the Nadir paid Arabian tribes to go to war against the Muslims. Bribing Banu Ghatafan with half their harvest, Banu Nadir secured 2,000 men 300 horsemen from the tribe to attack Muhammad, [from Battle of Khaybar Wikipedia link Perhaps the best proof that Muhammad was not acting in self-defense is the fact that his own people did not understand why they were marching to war against the Jews of Khaibar. His son-in-law, who was in charge of the military expedition, had to ask for justification: Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917). there is too little information to comment on the veracity of this hadeeth. however, if the bolded part is not preceeded by a provocation of some sort (treaty violations, pre-emptive attack, oppression), then this hadeeth CLEARLY violates surah 2, verses 190 and 256, as well as surah 109, verse 5. if it was preceeded by provocation, then there is no reason to call it to question on moral grounds.

The question Ali posed would have been unnecessary had the Muslims been under attack by the Khaybar or if the answer to the question were obvious. As it is, Muhammad’s reply underscores the ostensible purpose of the campaign, which was to force the Jews into acknowledging the superiority of Islam

not if, as the wikipedia article claims, the khayber were acting indirectly and forging alliances with the Meccans and other Arab tribes such as Banu Asad and Banu Ghatafan. The Banu Nadir did not directly attack Muhammad but acted by proxy. remember that Ali, during the lifetime of Muhammad had a very low rank in the heirarchy due to his youth, and would not necessarily know of these developments. Abu Bakr, Uthman, Umar, Hamza all had ranks higher than Ali due to seniority. which is why Ali was the 4th caliph of Islam and not the first (as was favored by the Shia).