🤣🤣🤣🤣...very typical. The moment you put a "moderate and peaceful" Muslim in the corner, the face of the devil comes out and you start using the f-word. Doesn't your Quran tell you to "speak kind to mankind"? Why am I not surprised given you follow a prophet who himself used the f-word and said you should tell people to bite the private part of their father. Now listen Abdul...

What is the relationship between Muhammad's treaty with the polytheists and the people of the book who he is commanded to fight? I am asking you about the people of the book you liar! Surah 9 distinguishes between polytheists and the people of the book. It makes no mention of the people of the book breaking any treaty thus leading to the command to fight them. On the contrary, you son of Satan, the Muslims were worried that since the Polytheists are not allowed near the mosque, trade and commerce would cease and the economy would be weak then Allah says,

"If you fear poverty do not worry because Allah would enrich you from his bounty" (9:28)

How does Allah enrich them?

"Fight those who do not believe....from among the people of the book UNTIL THEY PAY THE JIZYA" (9:29).

So the command to fight Christians and Jews was a money making scheme to replace the money lost from trade with the Polytheists. So stop conflating the explanation of fight the Polytheists with fight the Christians and Jews.

On Surah 2:256, you have lied and lied and lied. I said it is abrogated and asked you which scholar believes this verse supercedes Surah 9:29. First you said no scholar believes it is abrogated. That's a lie because it is in fact one of the main stream opinions (even Ibn Kathir says this verse is abrogated by Surah 9:29), then you misrepresented Tabari to say the verse is not abrogated, but Tabari says AFTER you have fought people and subjugated them based on 9:29 and they are paying you Jizyah THEN you don't compel them to come to Islam. Another opinion is that people that come to Islam by the sword should not be seen as "compelled". The above opinions are acknowledged by Qurtubi. Even the opinions that say you should not force people to convert to Islam say it does not apply to someone leaving Islam as such a person should be killed according to the command of Muhammad.

Point is there is absolutely no classical Islamic opinion that has this idea that the verse means everybody has absolute freedom of religion under Shariah. And that is what you lied about and tried to misrepresent the scholars to say. All your scholars recognize it must be interpreted with an eye on Surah 9:29 which tells you the latter is the default if Muslims are able not the former.

Surprise surprise Ibn Ishaq is inauthentic,, like the pact of Umar and any other thing in Islam that contradicts your claim. Muslim historians really need to stop lying about Muhammad and his companions.

On Sahih Muslim, You are an incurable liar again. Muhammad said he has been commanded to fight the people and you say it is not a general command. How come Umar quoted that hadith to Abubakar to dissuade him from fighting fellow Muslims who were not paying the Zakat to him the same way? Umar took it for granted that the hadith says to fight non-Muslims and Abu Bakr on his own part was ready to treat those Muslims not paying Zakat like they used to as non Muslims and fight them. Read the below Abdul,

"It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said:
"When Abu Bakr mobilized to fight them, 'Umar said: 'O Abu Bakr, how can you fight the people when the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "I have been commanded to fight the people until they say La ilaha illallah (there is none worthy or worship except Allah). Whoever says La ilaha illallah, his life and his property are safe from me, except for its right, and his reckoning will be with Allah?'" Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with me him, said: 'By Allah, I will surely fight those who separate prayer and Zakah, for Zakah is what is due on wealth. By Allah, if they withhold from me a small she-goat that they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) I will fight them for withholding it.' ('Umar said) 'By Allah, when I realized that Allah, the Most High, had opened the chest of Abu Bakr to fighting them, then I knew that it was the truth.'"

You are still citing Ibn Taymiyyah I see? I ask you again, How did Ibn Taymiyyah define "aggression" that warrants you to wage Jihad against somebody?

On peace treaties, did Muhammad not have peace treaties when he was a weak potato? Then when he gathered enough strength, he said Allah told him to break the treaty 🤣🤣. Is HAMAS not crying for peace right now as the IDF is sending them to the virgins? Would that be because Islam which they believe in is a religion of peace or because it is the convenient thing to do? Does the Quran itself not say in Surah 47:35,

"...DO NOT SUE FOR PEACE WHEN YOU ARE THE UPPERMOST"

So when you are strong you wage war and kill other people, when you are weak, you come on Medium and cry that Islam is peaceful and you just want peace (until you are put in a corner and then you open your very religious mouth and the f-word comes out!)

On coexistence with dhimmis - Okay, would you like to live as a Dhimmi in the west? Should we charge you exhorbitant amounts of money (say 50% of your salary like Muhammad did to the Jews) just to practise Islam? And if you don't pay, we burn down your house, imprison your imam, desecrate your mosque and enslave your kids, And then after all this we claim you are leaving in peace in the west? Are you insane? You call them dhimmis because they have been subjugated and are paying you Jizyah with humiliation, they are inferior second class citizens, then you talk about peaceful coexistence you idiot? And you bring up the rapacious Ottoman empire as a picture of coexistence? Isn't this the same stupid opinion of Tabari on Surah 2:256 which it now looks like you hold deep down?

Don't even get started on Andalusia. Go read the book, "The myth of the Andalusian paradise" by Dario Fernandez Moriera then come back and talk to me. Andalusia thrived economically on the back of Christian Jizyah. Which you earlier claimed was "so cheap". So don't go there.

On Bukhari 4557, that is very stupid of you again. The name of the chapter is literally "Tafseers of the prophet p.b.u.h. on the Quran". The hadith is Muhammad's commentary on the Quran Abdul! 🤣🤣. Why did Imam Bukhari put it there if it does not go back to the prophet? Just for decoration?

Now do you admit you are a liar and a fraud? Or are you going to show me a scholar that says Surah 2:256 supercedes Surah 9:29?