Answering Christianity Research Center

Aside from the verses and Hadiths regarding violence which explicitly include the context of self-defence, there is definitely a portion of scripture which does not include such conditions, at least not explicitly. In other words, scripture that calls for violence against non-Muslims without explicitly mentioning it be done only for protection against harm.

The present Hadiths and Qur'an 9:29 are significant in this regard. From what I've seen, there are three major interpretations for scripture pertaining to this subject matter.

1. The idea that such scripture, like the rest of violence pertaining verses and Hadiths, also refers only to self-defence, it's just not explicitly mentioned. For example, Qur'an 9:29 is argued to have come at a time of warfare between Muslims and Christians.

2. That Qur'an 9:29 referring to people of the Book, and Prophet's commands to destroy idol temples in Arabia are relevant to all humanity for all time. If I understood correctly, Ibn Taymiyyah argued along those lines, such as in Al Sarim-Ul-Maslool, and I have seen Wahabism argue, according to their interpretation, for the Islamic obligation to destroy all idols wherever they may exist.

3. That such scripture is relevant to only the Arabs or the people in surrounding areas, who were directly reached by Prophet Muhammad's teachings. The argument being, that since Prophet Muhammad had a direct link with God, therefore the Prophet would have been able to resolve any suspicion against Islam that a sceptical person might have had, and even provide miracles if need be. Since there would have been no reason or excuse to deny God when a Prophet is present among the people, no one had the right to deny Islam; and those who did so, deserved punishment. This punishment, during the previous Prophets' and Biblical times, was served directly by God while during  Prophet Muhammad's times was served by Muslims. This punishment is what, Qur'an 9:29 and the destruction of Arab idol temples, is referring to. People to whom Prophet Muhammad's teachings did not reach or those who lived after him, are exempt from such a punishment as they may have a legitimate excuse or unanswered question for not believing in Islam.

The narrations mentioned above might very well be referring to only the Arabs, however, they alone are definitely not enough to convince people who believe in the second interpretation. As far as I understand, the narrations include nothing to suggest their being restricted only to the Arabs.

The fighting against the inhabitants of Arabia coincide with the prophecy from the passage Isaiah 42

Nvm the video needs a bit of reediting i reupload it later

— Point: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah."

The entire narration is:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Source: https://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/2/18

As far as I've understood it, the narration is talking about people who have already become Muslims. I think pointing this out would've made a better, more accurate argument.

My understanding is based on the fact that it is an accepted fact non-Muslims cannot be forcefully converted, the "no compulsion is religion" argument; and if that wasn't enough, I doubt there is any difference of opinion on the matter that in Islam, non-Muslims are supposed to say Muslim prayers and pay Zakat (" the obligatory charity" in the above narration).

From my understanding this narration is a good example of things because they are so clear, it takes a longer time to realise what is obvious. The anti-Islamists, quite often, criticise Islam because, in their opinion, Islam forces non-Muslims living under Muslim rule to pay the Jizya tax. However, through this narration they also argue Islam calls for forcing non-Muslims to convert too. In other words, Islam taxes non-Muslims while at the same time it forces conversion thereby eliminating its non-Muslim population. Who is going to pay the Jizya, if all non-Muslims have to be eliminated?

This is a clear and obvious contradiction. Either there has to be a Jizya tax or there is to be forceful conversions. Both of these conditions cannot exist at the same time!

Therefore, the narration has to be talking only about Muslims and from here, you can see that this narration and others similar to it come forward during the Ridda wars after Prophet Muhammad's death.

Here you also quote Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, and I believe the quoted incident is unreliable, but I could be wrong here.

The "dictator" narration you quoted from Jami`at-Tirmidhi Hadith is not the evidence which refutes this person's argument. You accused him of misquoting the Hadith, the accusation is probably correct but, in my opinion, not because of the Tirmidhi Hadith but because of the Sahih Bukhari Hadith not quoted in full.

— Point: Prophet Muhammad "created a state".

Maybe a nitpick, but Prophet Muhammad did not go to Medina for the purpose of creating a government or state, its just that majority of the people there accepted him as their leader and that naturally gave him and his followers the government.

— Point: "Unlike in other religions, Islam has misogyny..."

Did he really say "unlike". Sure, there are a number of interpretations which can be argued as misogynistic (whether those interpretations are correct or not is another matter) but to say that other religions don't have similar or even worse problems is quite an extraordinary claim. But after this he contradicts himself, saying: "... to be fair there weren't many ideologies and thoughts that were very friendly with women in the past", but apparently unfriendly ideologies don't count as misogyny in front of this person.

— Point: Qur'an 2:282

You write that "it says that a woman may err due to her emotional attachment to her husband in court and the other woman can remind her". However, the verse explicitly does not indicate anything regarding any "emotional attachment".

A better argument would've been to point out the interpretation of those scholars who argue that the verse is only providing a recommendation about the witnesses, and it is completely silent on the question of whether a single woman's testimony would be accepted or not in a court of law. According to one source, even "Ibn Taymiyyah also reasoned the deficiency of using Qur'an 2:282 to prove evidentiary discrimination against women."
Source: https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/lectures/religion_fadel_0710.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDD1onoahxc&lc=z22denlzwovjsxg11acdp4343gn0bwuxkg3e3rk4z25w03c010c

I'll be making more refutations and the last part to Apostate Prophet. You can see the texts,etc for yourself and judge by yourself if Apostate Prophet really is truthful.