> The disingenuous deception will never cease with you, I see.

As opposed to the classic sincere deception.

> Your logic: "I found one violent reference, therefore Islam is violent." By this reasoning: humanity commits violence, therefore you, nailer, are violent; because you're human

No - as discussed earlier, not every follower of Islam is individually violent, like not every human is violent.

> You're still avoiding the actual questions: Why did Umar invite Jews back to Jerusalem? Why did he not slaughter them?

I answered this earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44381029

> Why haven't 1.8 billion Muslims enacted this "unrestricted violence" you claim is a part of the religion?

I answered that earlier too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44373946

I previously asked you what your own thoughts are regarding why Islam is violent, you didn’t answer. Your most recent post seems to indicate that you don’t think Islam is violent at all. What is your own explanation for the widespread worldwide occurrence of Islamic violence, if Islam itself is not violent?

I am going to systematically address every single evasion in your latest response.

1. "As opposed to the classic sincere deception."

Cute wordplay, but you're still avoiding the substance. Your disingenuous behavior includes but is not limited to: misrepresenting my arguments, claiming you "answered" questions you dodged, and shifting burden of proof when cornered.

2. "No as discussed earlier, not every follower of Islam is individually violent, like not every human is violent."

This actually destroys your argument. You've been claiming Islam mandates unrestricted violence against Jews, but now admit not every Muslim enacts this supposed mandate. Your own logic proves that either:

A) The doctrine doesn't actually mandate what you claim, OR

B) 1.8 billion Muslims are failing to follow their own religion

If you choose option B, you're committing the exact No True Scotsman fallacy you've been accusing me of: redefining 'true Islam' to exclude the vast majority of Muslims who don't commit this supposed mandated violence.

3. Your "I already answered" evasions

You claim you answered the Umar ibn al-Khattab question by saying he "liked money from overtaxation."

If Islamic doctrine truly mandated unrestricted violence against Jews, then Umar, a direct companion of the Prophet and one of the most revered figures in Islamic history, would be religiously obligated to follow it. Instead, he went OUT OF HIS WAY to invite Jews back to Jerusalem after 500 years of Christian expulsion.

Your 'tax money' explanation is incorrect on multiple levels:

First, Jerusalem already contained Christians who vastly outnumbered Jews across the Middle East. Umar had no economic need to invite back a tiny Jewish minority when he already had a much larger Christian tax base.

Second, your "overtaxation" claim is historically false. The dhimmi system wasn't exploitation, it was a social contract. The actual jizya rates under Umar demonstrate this clearly:

The jizya was structured as a modest, graduated tax based on ability to pay:

The wealthy paid 4 dirhams annually

The middle class paid 2 dirhams annually

The working poor paid only 1 dirham annually

In regions using gold currency, it was 4 dinars per year

In silver currency regions, it was 40 dirhams per year

These amounts represented reasonable, graduated taxation rather than exploitation. This wasn't "overtaxation" by any historical standard.

Medieval European serfs typically paid far higher proportions of their income in various taxes and obligations to feudal lords.

Non-Muslims paid jizya in exchange for:

A. Military protection by Islamic forces

B. Exemption from military service (only Muslims were required to enlist)

C. Legal protection and religious autonomy

D. Integration into the economic system

The rates were deliberately affordable and often collected in goods rather than currency when cash wasn't available. This was a protection arrangement, not exploitation.

If Islam truly mandated violence against Jews, why would Umar create a system specifically designed to protect them from violence while exempting them from military obligations at such reasonable rates?

He showed deliberate favor to Jews when he had zero obligation to do so, implementing a tax system that was proportional, fair, and designed for long-term coexistence rather than exploitation.

This demonstrates what Islamic governance actually looks like according to someone who learned directly from Muhammad. Your interpretation would make one of Islam's most celebrated figures a religious failure.

Similarly, your claim that you "answered" why 1.8 billion Muslims haven't enacted this violence is circular reasoning that assumes your conclusion.

4. Your massive burden shifting attempt: "What is your own explanation for the widespread worldwide occurrence of Islamic violence, if Islam itself is not violent?"

More examples of textbook circular reasoning. You're asking me to explain "Islamic violence" as if its existence as a distinct category is proven fact. I could equally demand you explain "Christian violence" (Crusades, Inquisition, Northern Ireland), "Buddhist violence" (Myanmar), "Hindu violence" (Kashmir), or "atheist violence" (Stalin, Mao).

The question isn't why violence exists. Humans commit violence for political, economic, territorial, and tribal reasons regardless of religion. The question is whether Islam uniquely mandates it.

5. "Your most recent post seems to indicate that you don't think Islam is violent at all."

False, and a strawman. I never said Islam contains zero provisions for violence. I said you cannot prove it mandates UNRESTRICTED violence against Jews specifically. There's a massive difference between acknowledging that Islam allows for violence in limited circumstances such as persecution and self-defense (true of most legal and religious systems) and your specific claim about doctrinal mandates for unrestricted violence.

6. The core issues you keep avoiding:

After all these posts, you still have:

ONE end-times hadith about a minority of Jews in eschatological prophecy

ZERO prescriptive commands for present-day Muslims

ZERO explanation beyond unfounded speculation which I have rebutted for why Muhammad's companions protected Jews

ZERO response to the contextual hadiths I provided showing Muslims fleeing persecution

ZERO engagement with the distinction between prophecy and religious law

7. Your fundamental logical fallacy which is still unaddressed

You found ONE eschatological hadith about end-times and declared it proves Islam mandates present day violence.

By your exact logic:

Christianity mandates violence because Revelation describes end-times warfare

America mandates violence because our military exists

Humans mandate violence because we have the capacity for it

Defend this composition fallacy or abandon your argument. You cannot keep dodging this fundamental flaw. Well you can keep dodging it, which you will because you have no response, but we all see what you're doing.

Here's your choice, no more deflections:

Either:

A) Admit you cannot distinguish between eschatological prophecy and prescriptive religious law, making your entire argument invalid,

OR

B) Provide actual prescriptive Islamic doctrine commanding present-day unrestricted violence against Jews (which doesn't exist).

Name ONE verse or hadith that commands present day Muslims to commit unrestricted violence against Jews.

You claim to be citing Islamic doctrine, prove it, or concede the point.

Your inability to do this after so many bankrupt posts while making increasingly desperate deflections speaks volumes about the strength of your position.

The inability to properly respond is your concession.