>
>My Response: Actually there is no correct English way to
>spell the word Iya, Ayat, Ayah, Iyah, so if your point is to
>make me look as if I don't know what I'm talking about, one
>should look at ones self

Response: Hmm, I thought that is all you had to say. Oh well.
>
>>No where in that verse does it say that if they didn't
>acknowledge Muhammad (Peace be upon him) as a Prophet to
>"get them". (And I know you didn't mean the words "get them"
>literally, but what you're implying does not apply)

Response: Fight those who do not believe in Allah is pretty clear. There is no way around it, the evidence is overwhelming.
>
>But since your so up on your knowledge of Islam, then
>explain to me why this wasn't the case with the Abysinians
>who took in the Muslims, and please come better than
>debating how Muslims needed asylumn<--spelling isn't
>perfect, I know!

Response: Because after Muhammed gained an army is when his thinking changed. All of the earlier suras he pleaded with jews trying to get them to convert, afterwards it was kill, attack etc. I guess gaining an army changes ones thinking.

>
>My Response: Common sense, knowledge of Islamic history and
>the Qur'an and knowledge of the history of the Qur'an would
>tell you and explain that when the verse was revealed that
>it spoke specifically about that moment, but just like in
>every part of the Qur'an it teaches us, it sets the
>foundation of how we are to be in this world. It's not an
>open invite or an open declaration for Muslims to fight or
>attack non Muslims. I wouldn't expect you to understand
>this though, so there really isn't much sense in me
>continuing further.

Response: You said that last time. And your common sense is not so common amongst groups in Islam, because they use these verses to justify killings that they do.

>
>My Response: Nonsense? How so? Teach me oh wise one.
>Explain to me about my own religion. I must have missed
>something, because even when I first read the Qur'an I
>understood that Muslims are never to be the aggressor. We
>aren't supposed to get smacked down and take it either, but
>it is not Islamic for one to be the aggressor.

Response: Because, Islam is an aggressor. Islam grew out of war, it is remains in war. It's evident in the Qu'ran (and I have not used half of my verses) and in the Hadith's and in Mohammeds personal life. It is a very violent religion, the self defense arguement if no good anymore.

As far as
>the Muslim world seeing America as the aggressor, it goes
>further than Hollywood and pop culture. Are you aware of
>our years of involvement in the Middle east? Of the U.S.
>not only influencing through its exports (which to me is
>only a small part of the equation) but being directly
>envolved with keeping corrupt leaders in Muslim countries,
>financially supporting countries who openly oppose Muslims
>and Arabs alike? Nice try yourself.

Response: Yeah but you are attacking america and I am not defending all what americal does. That's no arguement to me, like I said Islam use of the words self defense are infinite. That is a bad arguement.
>My Response: And what here don't you get? God commands one
>to fight and stand up for oneself and defend the religion,
>even though one may dislike it.

Response: The words "stand up for yourself" are not in the verse. You are reading into the text.

That mankind, men, human
>beings may dislike a thing that is good for them and love
>something that is bad. God knows when man knows nothing.
>What about this don't you get? Americans in the military
>who go to fight the wars for this country I'm sure aren't
>just a bunch of trigger happy kids, but actually are going
>to defend their country, defend their freedom (or that's the
>pitch anyways) so what's the difference here. C'mon now
>man, pick you fights a little better than that.

Response; The problem is that you are attacking america, and not defending the Qu'ran. Two wrongs don't make a right.
>>My Response Again: And? It's not saying, "Muslims, do
>nothing but fight! War is the only way!" These verses are
>speaking specifically about fighting for Islam. That
>doesn't mean that this is what the whole religion is all
>about. Islam is a complete way of life, so obviously this
>would be one of the other topics covered. You make it sound
>as if this is all the Qur'an talks about. The Qur'an covers
>much, much more than this my friend. Your argument is
>loosing its steam. I'm not understanding your point.

Response: Well, you have not defending islam( I don't think anybody can) all you have done is said we are "defending ourselves" and "america is not so good." Thats not an arguement that is ducking the premise, you offer no context of the passage itself.
>

>
>Source please.

Response: I believe "Life of Mohammed" by Guilluame published by Oxford University around 1955.
>
>Again, provide a source. I wasn't aware that Muslims
>stomped through Africa forcing people to believe. Speak to
>some Somali Muslims and ask them how Islam came into East
>Africa.

Response: You never heard of how islam spread? whoa I thought that was common knowledge, I'd have to find you a source on that one.
>
>
>Tell me how Muslims were treated in non Muslim lands. Tell
>me how Jews were treated and how Christians were treated in
>other lands then compare it to how they were treated in
>Muslims lands. There were many, many years of coexistence
>in Muslim lands. Remember Spain? How were Christians and
>Jews treated there by Muslims before the Muslims were
>murdered and expelled.

Response: You are drifting.
>
>Come better or don't come at all because your arguement goes
>nowhere.
>
Response: No, they are good. You guys have no answer. The typical "we are better than america/we are defending ourselves one is not very convincing." Come with some exegesis(interpretation) next time lets deal with the text itself.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos