Isn't this another shining example of how Muslims are incapable of actual debate but just preaching - you know, Muslims need to tell you what to think and you better believe it, or else !
The challenge I was referring to in the post shafique quoted in the OP was a response by a Muslim who was quoted claiming that holy war is not a concept found in Islam
I quoted five heavyweight and universally accepted classical Sunni Muslim scholars providing their rulings on the teachings of holy war (in fact, I took shafique's advice and consulted Muslims to see what Islam teaches regarding offensive holy war, Islam calls for perpetual Jihad, who knew ?), disproving the claim that a concept of holy war does not exist in Islam - if it didn't, then what are Muslim scholars doing discussing that Muslims are to wage a 'holy war' against unbelievers until they convert to Islam or live under a Muslim occupation ?
The mind boggles.
But now we've come to the all familiar Muslim tendency of switching tactics and smearing their opponents. The quotes from Muslim scholars have been provided, but instead of addressing these quotes to acknowledge that this belief of holy war (it is pretty hilarious to claim otherwise) does exist within Islam, we see Muslims who are incapable of debate.
Instead, we see a rather trollish attempt at obfuscation. First by presenting a rather winky-dink argument that Muhammad needed to tell his 'peaceful' followers not to attack a territory (apparently, if we follow this logic, upstanding citizens must be told not to pickpocket) then a refusal to quote the actual hadith to examine what reason or reasons were given why Muhammad chose one nation as an exemption from attack, to see if the loon's claims that Muhammad only allowed for holy war against nations that were 'hostile' to Islam was true. And finally, a complete look at Muhammad's utterances and actions regarding holy war. Is shafique citing an isolated example or did Muhammad peacefully co-exist with tribes without demanding subjugation or loyalty to Medina ?
The response that Muhammad needed to say 'hey, don't attack these people, they've done favors for us in the past, but it's 'ok' to attack everybody else' apparently has not sunk in that this particular example does not help one's argument that Muhammad and the early Muslims were peaceful people.
Currently, our resident loon is left to his usual trickery that the quotes are now 'taken out of context', as if the complete paragraphs these scholars are quoted in calling for war against non-believers to establish Islamic supremacy over non-Muslims couldn't be any clearer. And no, there is no way anyone but Muslim loons could claim such clear and complete quotations were taken out of context.
