@lm2k - Its easy to see where you quoted all this from and hence too predictable. Anyways,
Firstly, you need to understand that Islam is merely 1400 yrs old. You may refer Zoroastrian texts of Ahura-Mazda which predates Islam. Here's a few text from the same and if you understand sanskrit, you might even understand what it says.
PersianDNA™* [KHORDEH AVESTA] Niyayesh: Atash (Litany to Fire)
Secondly, a peace treaty between the rulers of mecca and muslims leads the following points to ponder.
a) Rulers of Mecca -> A geographic connotation and not a religion
b) Pagans - The ones who question everything
b) Muslim/Islam -> A religion, where Allah cannot be questioned!
The verses that you yourself have quoted talk about spreading Islam { 8.39, 9.29, 9.5, 9.11, 9.56-57,2.193,3.83, Shahi Muslim - 1.33,19.4294 etc }.
So lets say, Muslims are trying to Islamize the whole world and I as an unbeliever protest that and do not believe in Allah, or the last day or pay acknowledgement of superiority, will you necessarily chop my limbs?
Obviously, if you fight me for not believing in Allah, then I'll have to fight you out of self-defense and my freedom of thought. Will this be seen as waging a war against Allah?
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger [i.e., Muhammad], and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter. ( Quran 5.33)”
Fight those who believe not in Allåh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allåh and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of s subjection (9.29)
For your clarification, Surah tauba is not even thousand miles near to Bhagvad-Geet, for it might suprise you that Hinduism is not even a religion and Bhagvad-Geet not a manual to tell if jews, christias are bad or someone tagged as hindu is good or Krishna is the best, meat of swine is forbidden or "food invoked the name of other name of God" (Quran 5.3). It goes beyond name, forms, shapes to knowing oneself through detachment which in very short is called as aatm-gyaan. Before even talking about Geeta, you need to apt yourself with the understanding of dharma (which is not religion). Injustice in the form of Draupadi vastra haran, poisoning of Bheem, Varnavrat and many more incidents lead to an unstable situation where Pandavas only wanted to live happily away from all this. They were repeatedly chased away by Kauravas and hence lead to a compromise where Pandavas were satisfied even if Kauravas gave them 5 villages. But Duryodhan didn't even want to give them an inch of land and wanted to destroy them out of pure jealously, insecurity and longing for the throne.
So no my friend, Arjun never fought for the throne, but for justice which included that which was deceitfully taken away from him/Pandavas. Also, Krishna never instigated him to kill Kauravas, but to fight, as kshatriya's dharma is to fight which may or may not include killing.
Coming back, here dharma includes righteousness, duty and not to spread a doctrine or religion or word of Krishna as in the case of word of Allah. In Mahabharat, Krishna tried to stop war before i.e karma based on dharma which idealizes to non-violence. But when all the doors were closed, he did his duty which was opposite to the earlier i.e karm based on dharma of a kshatriya. This is way different than the peace treaty between the rulers of Mecca and Muslims who chopped of limbs and fight just because a peace treaty has been broken. Again, here we are not talking of two nations breaking a peace treaty but rulers of mecca (geography) and Islam/muslims (religion). Further, your argument itself stresses on the fact that Islam does not respect the boundaries, but divides the world between believers/muslims and unbelievers/non-muslims, unleashes war just because a treaty is broken between a geography and religion.
Next, there is no such thing like brotherhood or 'quam' amongst the pagans or as per the ancient Indian culture which sees the world as one family. Your argument that pagans of mecca broke the peace treaty and muslims were compelled to fight again connotes division of "us Vs them". FYI, one of the pandavas i.e Karna fought on the side of Kauravas and hence again this totally annhilates your argument of comparison to Mahabharat. Moreover, neither Kaurava nor Pandava refers to a religion or geography, but lineage, part of one family. Also, there is no concept of believer or non-believer, hindu or non-hindu as per Indian science and philosophy. Before you trains your guns, nastik is the one who has not yet questioned the Veda let alone understanding them. Astik, the one who has questioned, realized, verified and validated Veda to be a shruti or conforms to a shruti i,e the science of supreme consciousness, with his pinnacle of aatm-gyaan in the picture.
Unknowingly, you have put this verse
"If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum,grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he
can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge."[Al-Qur’an 9:6]
This again strengthens my point that Islam sees the word of Allah as the ultimate and belittles others who do not agree with it and calls them "men without knowledge". In contrast to this, since you mentioned Bhagvad-Geet, Krishna nowhere tells to worship someone called Krishna from a level of understanding of Islam, nor imposes it on Arjun to follow it where in the end of chapter 18 he simple says that this is his "opinion" and do as you wish to do!
But the science of uniting the individual consciousness with the Ultimate Consciousness practiced by one with uncontrolled mind is difficult to obtain; thus it is My opinion that in this endeavor controlling the mind is the practical and appropriate means of achievement. (BG 6.36)
Thus the most confidential wisdom of all that is confidential has been described by me to you; deliberating fully on this; accordingly act as you wish. (BG 18.63)
If you understand riddles, poetry, metaphors etc then you will also understand the meaning of "I/Me" in Gita which is why it is called as "Bhagavad-Geet" (The Divine Song). This same riddle exists in devi Purana, "that" in some Upanishads and "brahman" in other. The meaning is the same!
lm2k said:
5:32 Because of that, We ordained for the Children
of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in
retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in
the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind,
and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved
the life of all mankind.
If we read the complete surah , we find that the muslims are
strictly commanded to spare the women,childern and those who are
not armed against them. Merely quoting the incomplete verses about
rules of war without is nonsense.
Here, what you have not stated specifically, is why Allah ordained Children of Israel not to kill anyone. Read from the earlier chapters, this again starts with the Islamization process where if anybody protests for not agreeing with Allah, should be killed. Verse 5.32 simply tells where Allah ordains the natural actions of a human being in case of an attack. Who is a "person" here? And obviously, nations can fight which may include killing if their security is at threat i.e Islamization in this case. The peace treaty between pagans of mecca and muslims itself is a contradiction to be looked at, because Islam at its core calls for spreading of Allah's word or Islamization. How can there be peace if we stare at all the verses of Quran which talk of Islamization? Who is oppressor, the one who disagrees or the one who forcefully imposes the word of Allah?
Verse 2.191 revolves around what I've said.
lm2k said:
8:39 And fight them until there is no more Fitnah,
and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone.
But if they cease, then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of
what they do.
Fitnah mentioned here means, until no Muslim is persecuted so that
he abandons his religion. So i think it is not a crime to fight
against the operessors.
Here you yourself have upholded my point. The above basically speaks to fight until there is no more muslim persecution or stress and "the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone."
lm2k said:
3:83 Do they seek other than the religion of Allah,
while to Him submitted all creatures in the heavens
and the earth, willingly or unwillingly. And to Him
shall they all be returned.
God rebukes those who prefer a religion other
than the religion that He sent His Books and
Messengers with, which is the worship of Allah
Alone without partners, to Whom,(submitted all creatures in the
heavens and the earth), Willingly, or not.
can anybody tell me religion where it encouraged to abandon
swadharma?
Again, dharma is NOT religion. For a kshatriya, his dharma is different than that of a brahmin. But for your literal answer, here we go--
Relinquishing all ideas of righteousness, surrender unto Me exclusively; I will deliver you from all sinful reactions, do not despair. (BG 18.66)
The above talks of "sarva-dharmān parityajya" i.e abandoning all varieties of dharma and to seek the highest, the undivided reality, the shunyata, or the infinite potential or the "sat" (18.20) from which all the "lower dharma" themselves purify. For e.g Karna was a very dharmic guy, but from a high-level of reality, he sided with adharma and hence flew in the wave of adharma. Same goes for Bhishma, Drona, Kripa etc who were the greatest of the kashitriyas and sages. If they abandon, their attachment, and seek the highest truth, they could have sided with truth. But one was bound by an oath, while one was indebted with friendship.
This is similar in the case your brother is found guilty of a crime and you start defending him instead looking objectively. You may be a dharmic guy, but a small attachment can leave you flowing in the wave of adharma.
Regarding, smritis
Sita’s Agnipariksha in Ramayan
For other question of yours you need to understand the concept of avatar. Ram was just a normal human, who took the help of vanar-sena, Agastya-Rishi for getting divine weapons, Hanuman for fetching Sanjeevini and Vibhishan who aided him in his war against Ravan.
The Indian philosophy is vast. You need to decondition, yourself from that abrahamic template you've been carrying where you take geography and religion on equal sense of context and then use "lineage, philosophy and science of consciousness" to hold disconnected analogies.
You yourself have confirmed more than half of what I have stated. Its no use to discuss more, for further inflow of Quranic verses is only going to strenghten my case.
