freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2012 at 3:36pm:


You don't waltz into someone elses country, boot them out and then claim to want peace.

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2012 at 3:36pm:


Can you name one single nation that kept every single one of its peace treaties from the time it was made until the time said nation ceased to exist? You seem to be under some delusion a peace treaty is a fixed state of affairs that will never cease. Or you at least think you can assert that Muslims must be held to such a childish and naive set of rules.

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2012 at 3:36pm:


Can you provide some context to these fantastical claims of yours?

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2012 at 8:38am:


Displaced Jews in the Qur'an? Do tell...

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2012 at 8:38am:


Like this treaty you mean?

Declaration Prohibiting the use of Asphyxiating Gases (1907).

Right up till the 1940's Australia was involved in developing and testing chemical weapons such as Mustard gas, even testing it on their own troops (so much for "support the troops").

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2012 at 8:38am:


This is just absolute lies. Please do point me to the historical record of where Muhammad (pbuh) broke his treaty with Abyssinia? Then please point me to any instance of him breaking ANY treaty at all. And don't give me this "he claimed others broke them" crap.

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2012 at 8:38am:


Please work out who you are speaking to.

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2012 at 8:38am:


In other words you can't? Just more nonsensical rants?

When you can provide some actual facts for us, fire this one back up.

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2012 at 10:43am:



That's exactly what I was thinking.
More a signatory of a Convention.

Muslims living in the West can pursue a course of peace with their unbelieving neighbors since the latter clearly outnumber the former. Yet when the Muslims muster enough power and wealth to overcome the "infidels" they will be forced to abandon peace and seek to conquer the disbelievers instead.

In particular, this Islamic teaching destroys any basis for trust in peace treaties made by Muslims. They are never thought to be lasting but only until such time as the Muslims feel strong enough that it is to their advantage to break the peace and attack the unbelievers again. For this reason Islam does not know genuine peace treaties with non-Muslims, i.e. peace treaties that end war once and for all, but only temporary truces that can be dissolved at any time. Is it any wonder that Muhammad is quoted as saying that war is deceit!

There are hadiths that explicitly state that lying is allowed in Jihad to expand the rule of Allah over the infidels, by all means, military and non-military. The late Christian scholar of Islam and biographer of Muhammad, Sir William Muir wrote:

    The common Moslem belief is that it is allowable to tell a falsehood on four occasions: 1st, to save one's life; 2nd, to effect a peace or reconciliation; 3rd, to persuade a woman; 4th, on the occasion of a journey or expedition.

    The first is borne out by Mahomet’s express sanction. Ammar ibn Yasir was sorely persecuted by the pagans of Mecca, and denied the faith for his deliverance. The Prophet approved of his conduct:- "If they do this again, then repeat the same recantation to them again." Katib al Wackidi; p. 227 ½.. Another tradition preserved in the family of Yasir, is as follows:- "The idolators seized Ammar, and they let him not go until he had abused Mahomet and spoken well of their gods. He then repaired to the Prophet, who asked of him what had happened." - "Evil, oh Prophet of the Lord! I was not let go until I had abused thee, and spoken well of their gods." - "But how," replied Mahomet, "dost thou find thine own heart?" - "Secure and steadfast in the faith." - "Then," said Mahomet, "if they repeat the same, do thou' too repeat the same." Ibid. Mahomet also said that Ammar's lie was better than Abu Jahl’s truth.

    The second is directly sanctioned by the following tradition:- "That person is not a liar who makes peace between two people, and speaks good words to do away their quarrel, although they should be lies. Mishcat, vol ii. p.427.

    As to the third, we have a melancholy instance that Mahomet did not think it wrong to make false promises to his wives, in the matter of Mary his Egyptian maid. And regarding the fourth, it was his constant habit in projecting expeditions (excepting only that to Tabuk) to conceal his intentions, and to give out that he was about to proceed in another direction from the true one. Hishami, p.392; Katib al Wackidi, p.133 ½.. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet: With Introductory Chapters On The Original Sources For The Biography Of Mahomet, And On The Pre-Islamite History Of Arabia, Volume 1, fn. 88; source)

However, a military war is not the only way that Muslims seek to enforce their laws on a society. War can have many faces. Similar to the above, the Muslim community in a non-Muslim country may pretend to be law-abiding and loyal to constitution (i.e. talk peace) while they are small and weak, but simply ignore, or even attack and destroy, the laws of their host country when they become stronger. The article The Islamization of Europe's Cities is a disturbing report.

Moreover, the problem is not even so much the statement that "war is deceit". In war, all armies seek to gain an advantage by surprising the enemy. Whether morally justified or not, tricks and deception are expected in war. The real problem is that based on the above facts one can hardly avoid the conclusion that in Islam "peace is deceit", i.e. the "peace talk" of Muslims is deceit, because the Muslims do not seek genuine and lasting peace that includes freedom and security for the non-Muslims, particularly the freedom of religion, but only seek to buy time and the opportunity to regroup and gain strength until they are strong enough to subjugate the infidels and force them under the rule of Islam. That certainly cannot be called "seeking peace".

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/peace_or_not.html

What of the above is untrue, Abu?

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 8^th, 2012 at 12:06pm:



As I always say- Islam is a parody of other religions, especially of Judaism and Christianity. A joke.

You'd die if you couldn't reference the Jews. You Islamists have Jews on the brain, 24/7. You are obsessed with the Jews.

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2012 at 1:46pm:


Well given Australia has never really been a truly independent nation, it's kinda hard to bring an example. We've only ever been to war at the behest of our masters, so talking about Australia breaking peace treaties is really moot.

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2012 at 1:46pm:


Still playing this childish little game of claiming that Muslims broke a treaty with a people who aided and abetted their enemy during an invasion.

That in itself says more than I can say.

Abu, how many peace treaties did Muhammed make? How many did he break before he died? Did he blame every single broken treaty on the other party? If God intervened and told him he had to break the treaty, is it still proof of the treachery of the Jews?

It seems to be completely missing the point Soren. The vast majority of people from both sides frame the issue in terms of the rights of people who are alive today or who lived in the last half century. No-one cares about the implications for Christian identity.