They expanded due to curcumstance and not due to intent as we can tell the itnent from what hadhrat Umar (ra) stated. I am not stating my own intentions, but showing his own words when he told the Muslims to not pursue the Persians any further. I don't need to paraphrase.

Since you refuse to acknowlefge when you are in the wrong, is there any point at all to the discussion?

I have shown where hadhrat Umar (ra) wanted a wall so that both empires could co exist in peace. You reject that as him wanting a border. That is your choice, but I will not accept what you write and I reject your mental gymnastics.

As far as I see it, unless you bring new info to the table, I am out of the discussion for now atleast. I cba.

You wrote:

They expanded due to curcumstance and not due to intent as we can tell the itnent from what hadhrat Umar (ra) stated. I am not stating my own intentions, but showing his own words when he told the Muslims to not pursue the Persians any further. I don't need to paraphrase.

Since you refuse to acknowlefge when you are in the wrong, is there any point at all to the discussion?

I have shown where hadhrat Umar (ra) wanted a wall so that both empires could co exist in peace. You reject that as him wanting a border. That is your choice, but I will not accept what you write and I reject your mental gymnastics.

As far as I see it, unless you bring new info to the table, I am out of the discussion for now atleast. I cba.

What about the rest of the state expanding its borders in all directions - does that not indicate temporary borders or would you say those were fixed borders too????? Your argument is so absurd, I'm not sure if you are serious...

Suleiman managed to take these fixed borders all the way to Vienna - a remarkable feat for fixed borders!

It indicates circumstance.

I show you hadhrat Umar (ra)'s words where he wishes there was a solid impenetrable wall, you ask for proof that he meant a border.

I show you a verse in the Qur'an where God tells the prophet to remind the mushrikeen that he is a human like them and you ask for proof to show the validity of the human bond, as if that verse was meant in a context where the prophet was being asked to eg carry some really heavy object.

If you are not willing to accept the flaws in your argument and ignore facts, why bother discussing things? I have shown you the context, I have shown the words. you still deny them. Which is your right.

but going around in circles is not something I wish to do.

You wrote:

It indicates circumstance.

I show you hadhrat Umar (ra)'s words where he wishes there was a solid impenetrable wall, you ask for proof that he meant a border.

The flaw in your argument is all you've shown, at best, is Umar wanted a border - which supports both our arguments. To show he wanted a permanent border you need further proof and likewise if I want to say he wanted a temporary border. So I bring other borders of the state (including this one) which expanded beyond their original places to show this border like others is temporary and can expand due to jihad. You have brought no further evidence.

You wrote:

I show you a verse in the Qur'an where God tells the prophet to remind the mushrikeen that he is a human like them and you ask for proof to show the validity of the human bond, as if that verse was meant in a context where the prophet was being asked to eg carry some really heavy object.

Here you showed at best a human commonality, comprising biological similarity with all of humanity, and not just with the kuffar - however you were arguing there was something more that was established here, some kind of humanity, which you neither defined nor proved through any text. Citing a text which states I'm a mortal like you does not show anything other than a commonality of mortality or humanness. Unless I'm missing something you are attempting to say?