But the problem with your assumption David is that you assume that when the prophet (pbuh) said fight, that he meant to go to war. This is a gross misinterpretation to the word like Jihad and martyrdom. Most non muslims assume that Jihad means to wage holy war, but it is a strive or struggle in the way of Allah (swt)in many matters such as a muslim like me defending the faith by discussing issues in Islam. You shouldn't take a verse from the Quran that applied to a certain scenario, and then apply that verse to every scenario. That is the reason that historical context is important. When you quote a verse such as 9:29, you should also apply the historical context of how the verse was used by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Now we'll zero in on individual claims.
"But the problem with your assumption David is that you assume that when the prophet (pbuh) said fight, that he meant to go to war."
Did I assume that when Allah commands Muslims to fight (in 9:29), he meant Muslims should go to war? Not at all. Samatar's god explained things for me quite well. In Surah 9:111, Allah explained what "fight" means in the context of this Surah:
Qur’an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain.
So according to Allah, the "fighting" in Surah 9 involves "slaying" and "getting slain." But apparently Samatar knows more than Allah, because Samatar doesn't believe that "fighting" actually involves "fighting." I confess, I like Samatar's Qur'an better than Allah's.
"This is a gross misinterpretation to the word like Jihad and martyrdom. Most non muslims assume that Jihad means to wage holy war, but it is a strive or struggle in the way of Allah (swt)in many matters such as a muslim like me defending the faith by discussing issues in Islam."
As usual, Samatar is inventing his religion as he goes along. If I am guilty of a "gross misinterpretation" for claiming that Jihad involves fighting, then Muhammad was guilty of the same gross misinterpretation. For Muhammad claimed that the best kind of Jihad is the kind that involves shedding blood:
Sunan Ibn Majah 2794—It was narrated that Amr bin Abasah said: “I came to the Prophet and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, which Jihad is best?’ He said: ‘(That of a man) whose blood is shed and his horse is wounded.’”
But Samatar likes peaceful Jihad best, which is why Samatar is a much better man than his prophet. I find it strange, however, that Samatar asks us to believe in Muhammad, and then tries to convince us that Muhammad was totally ignorant of Islam.
"That is the reason that historical context is important. When you quote a verse such as 9:29, you should also apply the historical context of how the verse was used by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)."
Okay. Here's the historical context of Surah 9:29:
Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4—Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.
So what's the context? Muslims were wondering where they were going to get money, and Allah revealed that they would get money by subjugating the unbelievers and forcing them to pay the Jizyah. Muhammad then put together and army and set out to fight the Romans.
According to Samatar, however, the command to "fight" in 9:29 doesn't involve actual fighting. Poor Muhammad! He didn't know about Samatar's special understanding of the Qur'an! When Allah commanded Muhammad to fight, Muhammad fought. When Allah commands Samatar to fight, Samatar reinterprets the command, insults his god, reviles his prophet, and then tells us to become Muslims! I love Westernized Muslims!
I'll wait for Samatar to respond before I go on to his other absurd claims. (Wait till you see how he massacres the Qur'an in an effort to attack the Old Testament! Classic!)