freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2015 at 2:16pm:

All 800 of them? That's a big conspiracy Gandalf. Why is it that you previously argued that most of them deserved to die merely on account of them being part of that tribe of treacherous Jews?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 28^th, 2015 at 4:08pm:

The leaders conspired - yes. The rest of them had the opportunity to disown their treachery. They declined. So tough titties- off with their heads. Muhammad learned his lesson when he let the other tribe who attacked him leave in good will - who then recommenced their war with him from their new base. There are only so many options for a fledgling and militarily vulnerable 7th century arabian leader desperately trying to stave off annihilation both from within and without.  What do you think the Banu Qurayza would have done to the muslims if their planned back-stabbing assault on Medina had succeeded? Shook hands and said better luck next time? They had already tried to attack a part of the city where women and children had taken refuge - according to the Sealed Nectar. These were serious times FD - you don't play with kid gloves.

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2015 at 5:44pm:

Quote: The rest of them had the opportunity to disown their treachery. How so? [quote]They declined. So tough titties- off with their heads.

So their crime was not actually treachery, but "declining to disown" the treachery of other Jews?


Quote:

Muhammad learned his lesson when he let the other tribe who attacked him leave in good will - who then recommenced their war with him from their new base.

Sounds like those Jews were ungrateful to Muhammed for letting them live. Luckily Muhammed wasn't fooled by Jewish trickery the next time hey? Of course, this has nothing at all to do with them being Jews.


Quote:

There are only so many options for a fledgling and militarily vulnerable 7th century arabian leader desperately trying to stave off annihilation both from within and without.

 

Of course. Wiping out Jews is perfectly understandable if it is done to establish an Islamic state, right? Especially when they are all guilty of declining to disown treachery.


Quote:

What do you think the Banu Qurayza would have done to the muslims if their planned back-stabbing assault on Medina had succeeded?

No idea. I would have wanted Muhammed dead also. Any rational person would have. Having watched as Muhammed took over and the other two powerful Jewish tribes got kicked out of their homes by a crazy man who demands in the market place that the Jews acknowledge him as their prophet or face the same fate, they didn't have many options either. Did you know that the Jews also conspired against Hitler? No wonder he rounded them up.[/quote]


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 29^th, 2015 at 11:37am:

*yawn* - another tedious FD post that is duly ignored.

---

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 6:50pm:

Quote: To be honest I really can't figure out this position that refuses to acknowledge simple common decency to treat honest, law abiding muslims who claim to reject your version of the historical Muhammad (as well as Islamic doctrine) - as somehow deeply sinister and deceitful. You don't reject it Gandalf. You agree with all the facts - including them being executed for being treacherous Jews. You merely try to put a positive spin on it. [quote]You cannot simultaneously hold two contradictory views

I believe he can Soren.[/quote]


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 7:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 6:34pm: blah blah blah you really expect me to trawl through all that tedious rubbish? Sympathies for spending all that time on a nonsense post that no one is going to read. Welcome to Yadda's world FD.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:

Here is the short version: So they were treacherous and they were Jews, but they were not treacherous Jews because that would be racist. They were of course, dead Jews, once Muhammed had his way with them. All 800 of them. And of course this has nothing to do with Muhammed becoming increasingly frustrated with the reluctance of Jews to convert to Islam, despite his sincere warnings to them of the dangers of remaining Jews. Nor does it have anything to do with them being the last remaining of 3 large Jewish tribes that stood between Muhammed and absolute power in Medina. Muhammed killed them for being treacherous. He could tell they were treacherous, because they were all members of the same group of treacherous Jews, which has nothing to do with them being Jews. Nothing at all. I can tell you are sneering right now. Stop sneering at me.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 7:49pm:

Sorry FD - I'm still reading "blah blah blah" - just in a much better format.

lol maybe there's someone besides FD who can be bothered to give this a moment's notice  - but I highly doubt it.

If you have nothing to say, why did you feel the need to post a response Gandalf?

nothing to say? Isn't that what you were doing by starting this thread? I guess I just took this for a "say nothing" thread. That was your intention right?

I thought you were over these childish 'quote-dump' threads.

I didn't want to lose track of where we were up to in the discussion of this particular incident, as it was spread over a few threads.

Plus I think this discussion has a long way to go.

Treachery is not the right word. The Jews, like Muslims, are God's chosen people remember. Put in simple terms, they think they are better than everyone else.

issuevoter wrote on Jun 29^th, 2015 at 10:26pm:

Treachery is not the right word. The Jews, like Muslims, are God's chosen people remember. Put in simple terms, they think they are better than everyone else.

issuevoter,

You know your Bible!  ....you atheist you!          ;D




Isaiah 41:8
But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

Isaiah 41:9
Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.

Isaiah 42:1
Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

Isaiah 42:19
Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD'S servant?

Isaiah 43:10
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 44:1
Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:

Isaiah 44:2  Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

Isaiah 44:21
Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.

Isaiah 45:4
For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

Isaiah 49:3
And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.




.



Isaiah 40:1
Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
2  Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins.

issuevoter wrote on Jun 29^th, 2015 at 10:26pm:

Treachery is not the right word. The Jews, like Muslims, are God's chosen people remember. Put in simple terms, they think they are better than everyone else.

issuevoter,

Moslems are dog-poo, under my shoe.

They are a faithless, treacherous people.

Moslems are INFIDELS.

Look in a dictionary, look up the meaning, of the word; infidelity.   !!!






The moslem, has no integrity.

He is an INFIDEL!!!



"Dear muslim, YOU are the kuffar"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1229682951/0#0

Quote:

You who embrace ISLAM, your own lies and deception, have become a witness against you, before God...... "kuffar" = = "...is an Arabic word meaning.....[an unbeliever] a person....who hides, denies, or covers the truth."

ISLAM is a false religion, for a false people, for a false person.

ISLAM is well suited to those who declare themselves to be,      'moslem'.




God is clever.

Men are dumb.

God knows how to separate the sheep, from the goats.

He lets them self-select themselves,   ....he lets all of the goats choose their own 'home'.        :)

How should modern Muslims interpret this example for guidance?

many blessings

re : treacherous ' jews '

to what jews does one refer to here

the khazars ?

either way they are the foundation for modern freemasonry which is in and itself a religion

pushing the barrow of ancient jewish ideals idols and symbols

this is forgiven and observed for what it is

namaste

- : ) =

The ones that were executed were from the Banu Qurayza tribe.

Yadda wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 10:36am:

issuevoter wrote on Jun 29th, 2015 at 10:26pm: Treachery is not the right word. The Jews, like Muslims, are God's chosen people remember. Put in simple terms, they think they are better than everyone else. issuevoter, You know your Bible!  ....you atheist you!          ;D

The most unimaginative interpretation of human spirituality is the trichotomy: god-worshiper, agnostic, atheist.

Its usually accompanied by a lot of tripe out of ancient scripture from the Abrahamic tribes. (You know them, those lovely people the Muslims, Jews and Christians) They'd all cut your throat for the price of a bag of camel dung.

Any one who claims to be god's chosen people need to be watched carefully. A lot of bad things happen when you have god on your side.

freediver wrote on Jun 29^th, 2015 at 5:23pm:

I didn't want to lose track of where we were up to in the discussion of this particular incident, as it was spread over a few threads. Plus I think this discussion has a long way to go.

Sometimes a question is just a question.

Isn’t it.

Lmao, FD is talking over a incident that happened 1400 years ago, i wonder if he will do the same for the thousands of palestinians slaughtered by the jews in palestine.

Or i wonder if FD will talk about the 10,000 christians murdered by the jews in 1948 on establishment of the jewish state.

Whats funny is that for all the atrocities muslim terrorists commit, I don't recall ever hearing any of them justify their actions based on what Muhammad did to the Banu Qurayza.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 8:08am:

Whats funny is that for all the atrocities muslim terrorists commit, I don't recall ever hearing any of them justify their actions based on what Muhammad did to the Banu Qurayza.

Looks like FD is hiding.

Yadda wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 10:47am:

issuevoter wrote on Jun 29th, 2015 at 10:26pm: Treachery is not the right word. The Jews, like Muslims, are God's chosen people remember. Put in simple terms, they think they are better than everyone else. issuevoter, Moslems are dog-poo, under my shoe. They are a faithless, treacherous people. Moslems are INFIDELS. Look in a dictionary, look up the meaning, of the word; infidelity.   !!! The moslem, has no integrity. He is an INFIDEL!!! "Dear muslim, YOU are the kuffar" http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1229682951/0#0 Quote: You who embrace ISLAM, your own lies and deception, have become a witness against you, before God...... "kuffar" = = "...is an Arabic word meaning.....[an unbeliever] a person....who hides, denies, or covers the truth." ISLAM is a false religion, for a false people, for a false person. ISLAM is well suited to those who declare themselves to be,      'moslem'. God is clever. Men are dumb. God knows how to separate the sheep, from the goats. He lets them self-select themselves,   ....he lets all of the goats choose their own 'home'.        :)

You have poo under your shoe,don't u clean them?

When is the last time u showered?

Quote:

Lmao, FD is talking over a incident that happened 1400 years ago, i wonder if he will do the same for the thousands of palestinians slaughtered by the jews in palestine.

We are discussing something that is still happening today.


Quote:

Whats funny is that for all the atrocities muslim terrorists commit, I don't recall ever hearing any of them justify their actions based on what Muhammad did to the Banu Qurayza.

Being a Muslim you can take your pick from a long, grizzly list for motivations, guidance, and excuses. How should modern Muslims interpret this example for guidance?

FD you constantly hold the Banu Qurayza incident as *THE* ultimate example for muslims to follow. Surely it therefore wouldn't be difficult to find some terrorists citing that example as they lop people's heads off no?


freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 6:40pm:

How should modern Muslims interpret this example for guidance?

I think it follows a fairly universal "example" of treating the sort of treachery that creates an existential threat to society as amongst the most serious crimes a citizen could commit. Thats probably why the terrorists don't cite this when finding religious justifications for their atrocities - because its not a specifically "Islamic" thing.

How should modern Muslims interpret this example for guidance?


Quote:

FD you constantly hold the Banu Qurayza incident as *THE* ultimate example for muslims to follow.

No Gandalf. I hold it as an example of you using the Jewish borg theory to justify slaughtering innocent people in the name of the new Islamic state.


Quote:

Surely it therefore wouldn't be difficult to find some terrorists citing that example as they lop people's heads off no?

Sure. Let's start with Muhammed.


Quote:

I think it follows a fairly universal "example" of treating the sort of treachery that creates an existential threat to society

Can you give some examples of people slaughtering large numbers of innocent, unarmed people because they feel threatened by them?

How is it an existential threat to society? Muhamemd was the threat. He was trying to destroy the existing social structure and replace it with an Islamic state. He was kicking out (and now executing) any powerful groups that refused to accept his absolute power, at the same time as belligerently demanding Jews change their religion.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 6:55pm:

FD you constantly hold the Banu Qurayza incident as *THE* ultimate example for muslims to follow. Surely it therefore wouldn't be difficult to find some terrorists citing that example as they lop people's heads off no? freediver wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 6:40pm: How should modern Muslims interpret this example for guidance? I think it follows a fairly universal "example" of treating the sort of treachery that creates an existential threat to society as amongst the most serious crimes a citizen could commit. Thats probably why the terrorists don't cite this when finding religious justifications for their atrocities - because its not a specifically "Islamic" thing.

Undeniable moslem intentions, in the West.

Google;
Muslim Brotherhood in America, memo, sabotage, miserable house from within




.




Quote:

Live in peace till strong enough to wage jihad, says UK Deoband scholar to Muslims London, Sept.8 [2007] A Deobandi scholar believes Muslims should preach peace till they are strong enough to undertake a jihad, or a holy war. Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani was quoted by the BBC as saying that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle. A former Sharia judge in Pakistan's Supreme Court, 64-year-old Usmani, is...a regular visitor to Britain. Polite and softly spoken.... He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire non-Muslim world was intent on destroying Islam, but justifies an aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece




.




IMAGE...
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/_admin/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/129.jpeg

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami



Quote:

How Circumstance Dictates Islamic Behavior January 18, 2012 Preach Peace When Weak, Wage War When Strong "...all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance. When Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive."

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami - an ISLAMIC scholar and Egyptian Salafi leader
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/how-circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior/





QUESTION;
How can Australians ever have a peaceful relationship with 'Aussie' moslems, when the moslem community in Australia, hides a malevolent intent towards all Australians who are not moslems ?




Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1424590530/17#17

Quote:

The heart of ISLAM is the Koran  [and heart of the Koran, is the ideas and ideals it contains]. SO WHAT DOES THE KORAN SAY ABOUT MOSLEMS LIVING IN PEACE WITH DISBELIEVERS ? ; ---------- >

QUESTION;
Is ISLAM and ISLAM's religious and cultural tenets, tolerant of democracy ?

Does ordinary, mainstream ISLAM, allow a democratic form of government [i.e. a form of government which takes to itself, the authority to formulate laws for a society of people] ?

Does ordinary, mainstream ISLAM, allow moslems to peacefully co-exist with [such] a democratic form of government ?



Quote:

"[a respected moslem community spokesman has] called on Australian Muslims to spurn secular democracy and Western notions of moderate Islam... ...[moslems in Australia were told] that democracy is "haram" (forbidden) for Muslims, whose political engagement should be be based purely on Islamic law. "We must adhere to Islam and Islam alone," Mr Hanif [said]"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/australia-members-of-hizb-ut-tahrir-say-country-is-god-forsaken-and-that-muslims-must-shun-secular-a.html

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 7:02pm:

Can you give some examples of people slaughtering large numbers of innocent, unarmed people because they feel threatened by them?

There are about a billion historical examples of people being executed for conspiring with the enemy. Thats why its not extraordinary.

Can you cite some examples of people using your Jew borg theory to justify executing hundreds of people who were not directly involved in the conspiracy?

What happened to your "refusal to disown" theory?

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 7:58pm:

Can you cite some examples of people using your Jew borg theory to justify executing hundreds of people who were not directly involved in the conspiracy?

You mean a state having enemy soldiers executed who were just following orders?

Yes, FD, I believe I could find a couple.  ::)

They were not enemy soldiers. The vast majority of them never picked up a weapon, except to defend themselves in their own town.

Keep trying. Please give one example that is actually similar.

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 7:02pm:

Can you give some examples of people slaughtering large numbers of innocent, unarmed people because they feel threatened by them?

A good place one could start...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 8:36pm:

They were not enemy soldiers

They were soldiers (all males of military age were by default soldiers) and the moment they conspired with the enemy, they became 'enemy soldiers'.


freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 8:36pm:

Keep trying. Please give one example that is actually similar.

Would you like an example that was relatively so mild - or a more typical example - like mass slaughter of everyone - men, women and children? I believe the Old Testament has quote a catalogue of those.

Or if you want a more contemporary example, I could cite the 5000 or so Christians (men, women, children) slaughtered by jews in Yemen - just a few years before Muhammad's time.

But if you want an equivalent example of the confessed traitors getting a fair hearing, and judged according to their own laws, and given the opportunity to re-pledge their loyalty and be welcomed back into the state they betrayed, and have the women and children spared - you're right, I would be struggling to find such an equivalent. Rarely were the victors ever so generous.

Quote:

They were soldiers (all males of military age were by default soldiers) and the moment they conspired with the enemy, they became 'enemy soldiers'.

Can you give some other examples of people being executed by default?


Quote:

But if you want an equivalent example of the confessed traitors getting a fair hearing, and judged according to their own laws, and given the opportunity to re-pledge their loyalty and be welcomed back into the state they betrayed, and have the women and children spared - you're right, I would be struggling to find such an equivalent. Rarely were the victors ever so generous.

Do you support this?


Quote:

But if you want an equivalent example of the confessed traitors getting a fair hearing

Can you give other examples where people consider it fair to be judged guilty by default?


Quote:

and given the opportunity to re-pledge their loyalty and be welcomed back into the state they betrayed

Can you quote the relevant bit?

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 9:03pm:

Can you give other examples where people consider it fair to be judged guilty by default?

Refugees in Australia...

Refugee applicants are either let in or sent home without being considered guilty of anything.

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 9:12pm:

Refugee applicants are either let in or sent home without being considered guilty of anything.

So what, it is still considered fair by "people" to judge them guilty by default, as you asked... You made no mention of any other "systems" in place.

Further to that though, you overlooked detention - there is the elephant in the room...

Effectively they are now (more so than ever) imprisoned and worse incommunicado... Tell me that isn't at least, treated as guilty by default as I suspect you will. It will only demonstrate perfectly where you stand as a "balanced" commentator on these human conditions.

Quote:

So what, it is still considered fair by "people" to judge them guilty by default

Phem, we are not talking about people's opinion. We are talking about the decision of an authority and a punishment - in this isntance death. What most people would consider to be the most serious punishment demanding the most serious consideration, Gandalf is happy to judge by default based on age and sex alone. You are guilty by default for being male and over a certain age. Death.


Quote:

Further to that though, you overlooked detention - there is the elephant in the room...

People are frequently detained prior to being judged. Are you saying that our treatment of refugees is equivalent to Muhammed executing 800 innocent people?

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 9:03pm:

Quote: They were soldiers (all males of military age were by default soldiers) and the moment they conspired with the enemy, they became 'enemy soldiers'. Can you give some other examples of people being executed by default? [quote]But if you want an equivalent example of the confessed traitors getting a fair hearing, and judged according to their own laws, and given the opportunity to re-pledge their loyalty and be welcomed back into the state they betrayed, and have the women and children spared - you're right, I would be struggling to find such an equivalent. Rarely were the victors ever so generous.

Do you support this?


Quote:

But if you want an equivalent example of the confessed traitors getting a fair hearing

Can you give other examples where people consider it fair to be judged guilty by default?


Quote:

and given the opportunity to re-pledge their loyalty and be welcomed back into the state they betrayed

Can you quote the relevant bit?[/quote]

So FD, are you still running with the line that it was completely unheard of for victorious armies to execute enemy soldiers en masse - except when Muhammad did it? I find this position rather fascinating.

They were not soldiers. They never went into battle. Muhammed laid siege to their home until they surrendered to him without a fight.

I am not saying Muhammed was the only one. If your position is that Muhammed was just another cruel warmonger from a long history of them, I am happy to leave it at that.

I am unaware that they were offered freedom in exchange for re-pledging loyalty to Muhammed's new state. Can you back this up?

Do you think it is fair to be judged guilty and handed a death penalty by default because of your age and gender?

Do you have any examples since Muhammed's time of something equivalent?

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 10:14pm:

Do you have any examples since Muhammed's time of something equivalent?

Probably not - as I said mostly it was far worse. Mostly they were slaughtered along with their women and children - with no option of repenting and re-pledging their loyalty.

This really is an extraordinary line you are running with FD - that executing enemy soldiers men of military age en-masse was completely unheard of in all of history - with the exception of Muhammad. Are you standing by that?

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 8:46pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 7:02pm: Can you give some examples of people slaughtering large numbers of innocent, unarmed people because they feel threatened by them? A good place one could start... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians

An exceptionally good place to start.

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 7:02pm:

Can you give some examples of people slaughtering large numbers of innocent, unarmed people because they feel threatened by them?

Requoted for the lolz

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 9:23pm:

Quote: So what, it is still considered fair by "people" to judge them guilty by default Phem, we are not talking about people's opinion. We are talking about the decision of an authority and a punishment - in this isntance death. What most people would consider to be the most serious punishment demanding the most serious consideration, Gandalf is happy to judge by default based on age and sex alone. You are guilty by default for being male and over a certain age. Death. [quote]Further to that though, you overlooked detention - there is the elephant in the room...

People are frequently detained prior to being judged. Are you saying that our treatment of refugees is equivalent to Muhammed executing 800 innocent people?[/quote]

I see, well, you asked a question that I openly answered - your response - shift the goal posts....

It is actually all about opinion presently with a random smattering of select facts to suit particular agenda and/or bias.

It is noteworthy as well you have overlooked the slaughter of indigenous people in our own country. Ironically, this also very pointedly fits the description you gave and some questions that you asked.

The point is, Muslims do bad things because they are human beings - if nothing else, history consistently demonstrates that humans can be both divine and devils at any given time, regardless of morals, religion, skin colour, social structures, social constructs, laws and the list goes on.

Rather than the narrow (myopic) view targetting one specific group - it may behoove you to recognise this as part of the human condition broadly.

It might not invalidate your argument, which, interestingly enough is not my intention. The argument is and always will be much bigger than the little boxes people try to put it in. It is the little box fittings that cause the conflict to be ongoing, because, you guessed it (hopefully), people put in the box tend to get a bit out of sorts and immediately put their opponents into boxes - and so it goes around and around...

People throughout history have done every evil imaginable - to even attempt to compare acts as being better or worse or perhaps less evil is to justify at least one or more evils. An evil act is simply evil - there is not justification.

Gandalf do you think it is fair to be judged guilty and handed a death penalty by default because of your age and gender?

Can you come up with a similar example of such a slaughter of innocent people that you support?

Can you give any other example of people being found guilty 'by default' and facing the death penalty?

What happened to your "refusal to disown" justification for this slaughter?


Quote:

and given the opportunity to re-pledge their loyalty and be welcomed back into the state they betrayed

Can you quote the relevant bit?


Quote:

This really is an extraordinary line you are running with FD - that executing enemy soldiers men of military age en-masse was completely unheard of in all of history - with the exception of Muhammad. Are you standing by that?

Where did I claim that Gandalf?


Quote:

It is noteworthy as well you have overlooked the slaughter of indigenous people in our own country.

I haven't overlooked it. I just don't see anyone trying to justify it because they are compelled by their religion to come up with some kind of excuse. If someone did try that, would you be tripping over yourself to change the topic and divert criticism in case they felt pigeon-holed?


Quote:

The point is, Muslims do bad things because they are human beings - if nothing else, history consistently demonstrates that humans can be both divine and devils at any given time, regardless of morals, religion, skin colour, social structures, social constructs, laws and the list goes on.

So all those Aussie Muslims travelling to the other side of the world to take part in the Muslim rape and pillage festival are doing this because it is in their nature as hguman beings - nothing to do with Islam?


Quote:

Rather than the narrow (myopic) view targetting one specific group - it may behoove you to recognise this as part of the human condition broadly.

We are discussing the slaughter of about 800 Jews by Muhammed, and Gandalf's efforts to excuse it. Being able to stick to the topic is not a bad thing Phem. Why do you feel compelled to try to change it?


Quote:

It might not invalidate your argument, which, interestingly enough is not my intention. The argument is and always will be much bigger than the little boxes people try to put it in. It is the little box fittings that cause the conflict to be ongoing, because, you guessed it (hopefully), people put in the box tend to get a bit out of sorts and immediately put their opponents into boxes - and so it goes around and around...

Is that why they are raping and pillaging their way across the middle east?

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 6:51pm:

Where did I claim that Gandalf?

By demanding that I come up with a single other example - as if you are certain nothing like it has ever happened more than once.

If you agreed, like me, that it was standard fair throughout human history for victorious armies to (at the very least) mass slaughter all enemy men of military age (but usually far more than that) - it seems rather silly to seek proof that it happened more than once - agreed?

So what is it FD - are you claiming that nothing in the whole of history was comparable with what Muhammad did - or not? And if not, why the stupid song and dance about "find me just one example of it happening before"?


freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 6:51pm:

We are discussing the slaughter of about 800 Jews by Muhammed, and Gandalf's efforts to excuse it.

Indeed - strange then that its you, not phem, who is demanding us to cite examples in history that were at least as bad as what Muhammad did - and then, when one of the gazillion instances of such behaviour is pointed out to you, suddenly declaring "oh no, we're not talking about that, we're talking about the slaughter of jews by the muslims".

Quote:

By demanding that I come up with a single other example - as if you are certain nothing like it has ever happened more than once.

So you can tell what I am really saying by the way I ask a question?


Quote:

If you agreed, like me, that it was standard fair throughout human history for victorious armies to (at the very least) mass slaughter all enemy men of military age (but usually far more than that)

It happened a lot, but so did armies refraining from slaughtering innocent people. I would not describe it as 'standard fair'. Even by historical standards Muhammed was brutal.


Quote:

it seems rather silly to seek proof that it happened more than once - agreed?

I was not asking for proof Gandalf. Did you make up the story about Jews slaughtering Christians?


Quote:

So what is it FD - are you claiming that nothing in the whole of history was comparable with what Muhammad did - or not? And if not, why the stupid song and dance about "find me just one example of it happening before"?

No. The point was that you would rightly condemn every other example as barbaric cruelty - except when Muhammed did it.


Quote:

Indeed - strange then that its you, not phem, who is demanding us to cite examples in history that were at least as bad as what Muhammad did - and then, when one of the gazillion instances of such behaviour is pointed out to you, suddenly declaring "oh no, we're not talking about that, we're talking about the slaughter of jews by the muslims".

That is not what happened Gandalf. Phem actually brought up the example of boat people. Hardly the same thing. Then when he brought up aboriginal slaughter I pointed out that no-one is compelled to defend it in the same way you are compelled to defend Muhammed slaughtering innocent Jews. Do you see yet where I am going with this?

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 7:52pm:

It happened a lot

Right, so no need to demand we cite other examples.


freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 7:52pm:

Even by historical standards Muhammed was brutal.

Then you obviously know nothing about history.

Gandalf do you think it is fair to be judged guilty and handed a death penalty by default because of your age and gender?

Can you come up with a similar example of such a slaughter of innocent people that you support?

Can you give any other example of people being found guilty 'by default' and facing the death penalty?

What happened to your "refusal to disown" justification for this slaughter?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 7:56pm:

Then you obviously know nothing about history.

I think you are correct. I'm no historian but I am a fan. The Romans, in their first contacts with the Gauls in northern Italy, Cisalpine Gaul, carried our what you would call "cutting the tree off at it's root" by slaughtering the women/children/elders everyone that was left after the warriors went out to fight so there was nothing to come back to and to continue to fight for. Caesar, as the protector of the Gauls in Gaul killed and sold into slavery 2/3 of the population. His treatment of Gergovia, 40,000 men women and children, the whole population, slaughtered. Look at the Roman boasts about the  Dacian population after Trajan's escapades. I wonder if the Visigoths decided to get up and leave their home and venture across the Danube to Rome's territory because the Huns were taxing them too much rather than killing wholesale.

This does not mean I support any of this, is just a fact of history.

Edit: You could also look at the smallpox infected blankets given to the American Indians type thing, lovely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt

Or the first recorded bio warfare, hurling plague infected corpses into a city. 1346 Siege of Caffa.

All good points sentana, I am currently thinking that you will be further advised as to how, why and where they do not fit the story. Ultimately though, it would seem that all of the denials about these like events will come down to the inability to point at Muslims as being responsible.

FD appears unable to grasp that one basic idea, not all atrocities are committed by people of Islamic faith, or that not all atrocities are committed by and/or supported by people of Islamic faith.

Human history is full of examples of people's slaughtering, enslaving, torturing, raping, pillaging and inflicting all manner of brutality and deprivation on each other - it is, quite clearly, part of our nature. It is human strength of character underneath all of this barbarity that makes some people exceptional, it is human strength of character that makes acts of barbarity a part of our nature and not our entire nature...It is also, seemingly at least, part of our nature to recognise when we have done wrong and try to justify it in emotive terms... Occasionally some humans simply take responsibility for their actions - even that is not limited though to Muslims or non Muslims....

It didn't seem hard to work this out, well until I came to this forum and met those who abjectly fail to grasp it...

Quote:

Ultimately though, it would seem that all of the denials

Where did I deny them Phem? You seem to be buying into Gandalfs strawman.


Quote:

FD appears unable to grasp that one basic idea, not all atrocities are committed by people of Islamic faith, or that not all atrocities are committed by and/or supported by people of Islamic faith.

Yet even when they are, you still insist it has nothing to do with Islam.

Quote:

FD appears unable to grasp that one basic idea, not all atrocities are committed by people of Islamic faith, or that not all atrocities are committed by and/or supported by people of Islamic faith.

Yet even when they are, you still insist it has nothing to do with Islam.[/quote]

Really, show me where I have ever insisted that is has nothing to do with Islam?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 9:10am:

Where did I deny them Phem?

You asked for examples of people slaughtering others, I have you the slaughters (more than one...) of Indigenous people of Australia as an example - you then claim it is out of context because it was not justified by a religion - arguable it was though, just not the religion of Islam. That is a denial, then when I point out that it is ok for people to pre judge all Asylum seekers as guilty you shift the goal posts and, yep, more denial.

If you are going to ask for examples...

a) The onus is on you to be more specific
b) The onus is on you to cop it on the chin when the examples are put up, exactly as you originally framed the request.

You denied their validity, that is denial....

Now, your turn to demonstrate how I have "insisted it has nothing to do with Islam"

Be specific now, as in those exact words  or that exact meaning. NOT your extrapolation of some other unrelated point I have made.

Good luck now!

Quote:

You asked for examples of people slaughtering others, I have you the slaughters (more than one...) of Indigenous people of Australia as an example - you then claim it is out of context because it was not justified by a religion

I did not claim it was out of context. I used your example to prove my point.


Quote:

You denied their validity, that is denial....

I did not deny it's validity. That example is about as good as it gets. Those aborigines were threatening the establishment of a fledgling nation where none existed before, based on a different set of values, rule of law, etc. By Gandalf's logic, we should pick one of the slaughterers as our prophet. I'm sure we could find one who muttered some quaint philosophy, and say a sheep ate the rest of the words.


Quote:

Now, your turn to demonstrate how I have "insisted it has nothing to do with Islam"

How else should I interpret this?


Quote:

The point is, Muslims do bad things because they are human beings - if nothing else, history consistently demonstrates that humans can be both divine and devils at any given time, regardless of morals, religion, skin colour, social structures, social constructs, laws and the list goes on.

Do Muslims ever do bad things because of Islam?

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 9:37pm:

Can you come up with a similar example of such a slaughter of innocent people that you support? Can you give any other example of people being found guilty 'by default' and facing the death penalty?

ummm so did it happen a lot or not?

Did what happen a lot? People inventing religions to justify the slaughter of innocent people and build a nation that tries to conquer the world? I think that one only happened once Gandalf. God willing.

Gandalf do you think it is fair to be judged guilty and handed a death penalty by default because of your age and gender?

Can you come up with a similar example of such a slaughter of innocent people that you support?

Can you give any other example of people being found guilty 'by default' and facing the death penalty?

What happened to your "refusal to disown" justification for this slaughter?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 10:45am:

Did what happen a lot?

You need to clear that up yourself FD. See we went from:


freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 7:02pm:

Can you give some examples of people slaughtering large numbers of innocent, unarmed people because they feel threatened by them?

to now:


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 10:45am:

Can you come up with a similar example of such a slaughter of innocent people that you support? Can you give any other example of people being found guilty 'by default' and facing the death penalty?

This is what we call shifting the goal posts.

The board is all back to front - can you fix it please?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

I did not deny it's validity.

Yep you did.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

By Gandalf's logic, we should pick one of the slaughterers as our prophet.

Furphy alert... Nothing to do with Gandalf's application of logic here, this is all on you mate.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

Quote: Now, your turn to demonstrate how I have "insisted it has nothing to do with Islam" How else should I interpret this?

Nothing to interpret, you need to absolutely demonstrate where I have "insisted"....

If you spent more time dealing with what is said, less time interpreting (and thus building strawmen) perhaps you might make a bit more headway, I say perhaps advisedly though.

So, clearly, you have acknowledged that you cannot demonstrate the point you made... Apart from your misinterpretations.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

Do Muslims ever do bad things because of Islam?

That is not a black and white question?

There is no yes or no answer that resolves that, at best, doubtful but even that is not particularly accurate.

People always do bad things though and then use a wide range of causes, beliefs, lies and misdirection to justify them.... I think this is what you are not quite grasping.

People do bad things because of ALL organised religion, in effect. However, we also blame a whole range of other things.

It seems patently evident that people are generally not very responsible for their individual choices. Then other people support their irresponsibility by irresponsibly labeling entire groups - I am more than a bit bemused that this simple fact escapes you.

Quote:

This is what we call shifting the goal posts.

I call it asking for examples. I'll give you an example.

Can you come up with a similar example of such a slaughter of innocent people that you support?

Can you give any other example of people being found guilty 'by default' and facing the death penalty?

Here are some other questions. Be careful not to confuse them with me definitely saying something.

Do you think it is fair to be judged guilty and handed a death penalty by default because of your age and gender?

What happened to your "refusal to disown" justification for this slaughter?


Quote:

Yep you did.

Quote me.


Quote:

Furphy alert... Nothing to do with Gandalf's application of logic here, this is all on you mate.

Gandalf used (among various other excuses) the "threat to the fledgling nation" justification for genocide. When you think about it, it is remarkably similar, except for the religious dedication to making excuses for it.


Quote:

There is no yes or no answer that resolves that, at best, doubtful but even that is not particularly accurate.

What about the Muslims travelling to the middle east to participate in the festival of rape and pillage. What, other than Islam, do you think motivates them?


Quote:

People always do bad things though and then use a wide range of causes, beliefs, lies and misdirection to justify them.... I think this is what you are not quite grasping.

This reminds me of Gweg's argument that those Muslims would be raping and pillaging their way across western Sydney if they were not Muslims. How far do you take this nonsense?


Quote:

It seems patently evident that people are generally not very responsible for their individual choices.

The funny thing is, Gweg came to the same conclusion as you by arguing absolute responsibility. Between the various apologists, you desperately come up with anything other than Islam to blame.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 1:14pm:

Can you give any other example of people being found guilty 'by default' and facing the death penalty?

I can give you about a thousand examples of people being found guilty of nothing and slaughtered anyway - in far far greater numbers. Particularly women and children.

FD are you seriously scratching your head wondering what in history could possibly have been worse than what happened to the Banu Qurayza? Your line of questioning is completely bizarre. Especially when we give you the examples you deman, but its somehow not considered valid.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 1:14pm:

Can you come up with a similar example of such a slaughter of innocent people that you support?

Obviously I reject the premise. I don't support slaughtering anyone who is innocent. The men were guilty as soon as they refused to disown the treachery of their tribe and re-pledge their loyalty to the city that gave them protection - when given the opportunity. Yet those who trully were innocent - the women and children - were recognised as such and spared, and given protection by the state.

Mass killings of all of a tribe's men of military age by a victorious army is so common throughout history that its rarely ever worth mentioning. Moreover, indiscriminate mass killings of all - men women and children - is even more common. Have you made up your mind if you agree with me on that yet?

Quote:

I can give you about a thousand examples of people being found guilty of nothing and slaughtered anyway - in far far greater numbers. Particularly women and children.

Can you give an example of people being found guilty 'by default' and facing the death penalty?


Quote:

FD are you seriously scratching your head wondering what in history could possibly have been worse than what happened to the Banu Qurayza?

No, I am scratching my head at the excuses you are making up.


Quote:

The men were guilty as soon as they refused to disown the treachery

Can you quote the relevant bit about them refusing to disown it?


Quote:

Yet those who trully were innocent - the women and children

Why does gender and age determine guilt?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 1:14pm:

Quote me.

It was my interpretation of what you said though...

To be fair, once you quote me "insisting" I will go back and see if I can quote you.

Obviously then, we are both in the position to demonstrate responsibility and admit we got it wrong eh?


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 1:14pm:

What, other than Islam, do you think motivates them?

A little thing that I have frequently mentioned, abusive use of power and control. Islam is the excuse.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 1:14pm:

This reminds me of Gweg's argument

That's nice, but it isn't Greg's argument (by the way, do grow up - Gweg? Seriously?)...

Still, I note you appear to have significant difficulty in dealing what is right in front of you.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 1:14pm:

The funny thing is, Gweg came to the same conclusion as you by arguing absolute responsibility. Between the various apologists, you desperately come up with anything other than Islam to blame.

So, you do not support individuals being responsible for their own actions, decisions, words or errors?

OK, I am glad that I have cleared that up and gleaned that remarkable insight into your character.

It is kind of funny that, in arguing for individual responsibility I become the apologist...

You have a long way to go, good luck on your journey.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 2:42pm:

Can you give an example of people being found guilty 'by default' and facing the death penalty?

Sure, a good place to start would be to google some key words like "massacres in history".

Or if you are looking for the far milder equivalent of judging all men of military age being deemed guilty for the treachery of their leaders, off the top of my head, the Melos massacre by the Athenians during the Peloponnesian War. Though I'm pretty sure those men were not given the courtesy of having the option of re-pledging their loyalty like the Banu Qurayza were.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 2:42pm:

Can you quote the relevant bit about them refusing to disown it?

Its in the Ibn Ishaq account, and also the Sealed Nectar. You are most welcome to look it up. Some did repent, and were promptly pardoned.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 2:42pm:

Why does gender and age determine guilt?

Thats a pretty universally understood norm in pretty much all cultures FD. Today we distinguish between 'civilian' and 'military' - and rationalise that its far more moral to kill enemy military personnel and spare the civilians. In those days the harsh reality was that if you were a male of military age you were automatically considered military, and therefore far more of a target to the enemy than women and children. Though of course that didn't stop rampaging armies from routinely slaughtering men, women and children alike, indiscriminately - something which, incidentally, Islam put a stop to.

Quote:

A little thing that I have frequently mentioned, abusive use of power and control. Islam is the excuse.

Please explain how "abusive use of power and control" causes these people to travel halfway round the world to participate in a middle eastern rape and pillage festival. Perhaps you are referring to Muhammed and Islam but don't want to use those terms?


Quote:

So, you do not support individuals being responsible for their own actions, decisions, words or errors?

Of course. But unlike Gweg, I do not equate this with Islam having nothing to do with anything.


Quote:

Its in the Ibn Ishaq account, and also the Sealed Nectar. You are most welcome to look it up.

The Sealed Nectar was written in 1979 Gandalf. Do you expect me to read the whole book to save you the trouble of finding the relevant quote?


Quote:

Thats a pretty universally understood norm in pretty much all cultures FD.

Crap. Islam's concept of guilt is an alien concept rooted in the institutionalisation of injustice.

Do you personally believe that a person's age and gender ought to see them found guilty and executed for a crime they were not directly involved in?


Quote:

Today we distinguish between 'civilian' and 'military' - and rationalise that its far more moral to kill enemy military personnel and spare the civilians. In those days the harsh reality was that if you were a male of military age you were automatically considered military, and therefore far more of a target to the enemy than women and children.

This was not in the field of battle Gandalf. There was no ongoing war. They had surrendered unconditionally without a fight and were unarmed prisoners. We rightly condemn anyone who would slaughter people in that context.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 3:58pm:

The Sealed Nectar was written in 1979 Gandalf. Do you expect me to read the whole book to save you the trouble of finding the relevant quote?

I don't expect anything - you are free to do whatever you wish.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 3:58pm:

Crap. Islam's concept of guilt is an alien concept rooted in the institutionalisation of injustice.

You are only betraying your ignorance of history. The fact is until very recent times, a society's men of military age were indistinguishable from the military of that society - for the simple reason that all men of military age were obliged to serve in the military. This is obviously a very foreign notion for our modern society.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 3:58pm:

This was not in the field of battle Gandalf. There was no ongoing war.

Keep telling yourself that. The notion is a complete joke though.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 3:58pm:

Quote: So, you do not support individuals being responsible for their own actions, decisions, words or errors? Of course.

Thank you and good night.  ;)

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

The men were guilty as soon as they refused to disown the treachery of their tribe and re-pledge their loyalty to the city that gave them protection - when given the opportunity.

This is the bit that I struggle with Gandalf.

Unfortunately it seems that throughout history, it is the winners of violent engagements who dictate who was or was not acting treacherously.

For my part, slaughtering people is NEVER the right thing to do, it is never justifiable, excusable or acceptable. That is my personal world view. I am also cognizant that as a species we will continue to kill (slaughter) each other for as long as our species exists (well unless we actually do discover enlightenment one day - even then, who knows?), also, we the slaughterers will always try to excuse or justify their actions. Some will accept the justification others will reject it. As we see in the modern world we live in, others will also use their rejection of said justification to justify their own acts of barbarity.

In short, I could not, in good faith, not address that comment.

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 4:33pm:

his is the bit that I struggle with Gandalf. Unfortunately it seems that throughout history, it is the winners of violent engagements who dictate who was or was not acting treacherously. For my part, slaughtering people is NEVER the right thing to do, it is never justifiable, excusable or acceptable. That is my personal world view. I am also cognizant that as a species we will continue to kill (slaughter) each other for as long as our species exists (well unless we actually do discover enlightenment one day - even then, who knows?), also, we the slaughterers will always try to excuse or justify their actions. Some will accept the justification others will reject it. As we see in the modern world we live in, others will also use their rejection of said justification to justify their own acts of barbarity.

Phem I take all your points, and you are absolutely right to raise them. Its not a pleasant matter, no one is pretending it is. I'll admit that endless trolling by FD has baited me into some hyperbole at times about the matter - but the truth is I'm not happy with it, nor am I supportive of it - despite what he will claim.

I think what we can agree upon is that the episode is not in the least bit unique in the context of history - nor was it considered particularly remarkable throughout most of the years that followed. This will explain why it has rarely been used throughout history a) by Islam's critics to smear Islam or b) Islamists themselves to demonstrate how "bad-ass" Islam is.

You are also probably aware of the "example for muslims to follow" argument: that because muslims consider Muhammad's example the very best example to follow, we therefore must go around slaughtering jews and/or prisoners of war. The argument doesn't stack up to any sort of critical analysis. Firstly, none of the Islamic jurist's rulings on the matter of POWs follow this, but rather defer to the Quranic commands of humane treatment and exchange or freedom at the earliest opportunity. Then there's what I already mentioned about Islamists, to my knowledge, never citing this as a great inspiration for them as they carry out their atrocities. So how can this be - you might ask - how can the decisions made by The Prophet not be taken as part of Islamic doctrine - as many muslims consider other actions of The Prophet to be? The answer comes down to common sense - which apparently even the crazy Islamists seem to have grasped. And that is to understand the clear distinction between Muhammad the Holy Prophet, and Muhammad the ruler of a temporal society in a specific place and time. Put simply, what he did that he thought was necessary for the survival of his state, was for that place and time only - and was never intended to be a divine instruction for all muslims to follow in all places and all time. And please don't confuse that with the "don't judge people by today's standards" argument that I'm sure you hear ad-nauseum. This is separate to that. Its saying that Muhammad was a human ruler, and just like any other human ruler, he undoubtedly made mistakes (though as a muslim I will maintain that he was the best of men, and erred less than any other man). And whether or not this episode can be judged a mistake, the point is as a human ruler of a state under severe pressure - he made decisions he deemed appropriate to that situation, and should never be interpreted as doctrine for all muslims in all times and place.

Quote:

I don't expect anything - you are free to do whatever you wish.

The wikipedia articles mentions nothing of these "opportunities to disown" it, and if the first reference to it was in 1979, it is safe to conclude it was made up.


Quote:

You are only betraying your ignorance of history.

You said it is a universally undrstood norm. That's a bit different from something that happened in the past.


Quote:

Keep telling yourself that. The notion is a complete joke though.

The war was long over Gandalf. It never really began. Muhammed laid siege to the Jewish tribe in their own home. They surrendered unconditionally without a fight. They were already in Muhammed's custody. That is about as far from the field of battle as you can get. It was so far that Muhammed had no intention of slaughtering them until an 'angel' told him to.


Quote:

Unfortunately it seems that throughout history, it is the winners of violent engagements who dictate who was or was not acting treacherously.

This was hardly a violent engagement.


Quote:

I'll admit that endless trolling by FD has baited me into some hyperbole at times about the matter

Like this BS about Muhammed offering to let them go if the "re-pledged" allegiance to his new Islamic state?


Quote:

but the truth is I'm not happy with it, nor am I supportive of it - despite what he will claim

Of course you are not "happy." We can see you squirming, just as you can see me sneering.

Was Muhammed wrong to slaughter all those Jews? If it was wrong, why do you try so many angles to justify it?


Quote:

I think what we can agree upon is that the episode is not in the least bit unique in the context of history - nor was it considered particularly remarkable throughout most of the years that followed. This will explain why it has rarely been used throughout history a) by Islam's critics to smear Islam or b) Islamists themselves to demonstrate how "bad-ass" Islam is.

Crap. That was the whole point of it - to make people fear the new ruler and fall into line. It reads like a mob movie on a grander scale. The slaughter of these Jews was the birth of the first Islamic State.


Quote:

You are also probably aware of the "example for muslims to follow" argument: that because muslims consider Muhammad's example the very best example to follow, we therefore must go around slaughtering jews and/or prisoners of war.

It compels you to justify and support these attrocities. It causes you and your fellow Muslims to reject fundamental human rights on principle. It forces you to make the "Jew as borg" argument that in any non-Muslim context you would instantly recognise as evil.


Quote:

The argument doesn't stack up to any sort of critical analysis. Firstly, none of the Islamic jurist's rulings on the matter of POWs follow this, but rather defer to the Quranic commands of humane treatment and exchange or freedom at the earliest opportunity.

Right, they take the morally superior option of a choice between slavery, forced mass migration, or destitution - so long as Muslims end up with everything - land, goats, women.

Gandalf, you cannot honestly defend this sort of barbarity then act all surprised when modern Muslims do equally horrendous things in the name of Islam.


Quote:

Put simply, what he did that he thought was necessary for the survival of his state, was for that place and time only - and was never intended to be a divine instruction for all muslims to follow in all places and all time.

What if a similar situation was to arise today? Of course the historical jurists are going to focus on the other options, because they were part of a victorious ruling empire, and the last thing they wanted their enemies to do is fight to the death. That is just common sense. But Muhammed demonstrated for them that when the slaughter of innocents does have a practical purpose, it is justified.

It is a similar hypocrisy with robbery. Before his Islamic State, Muhammed was a thief. But as a ruler of a large state, suddenly thievery looks bad. It is a consistent demonstration of moral flexibility in the pursuit of Islamic rule.


Quote:

This is separate to that. Its saying that Muhammad was a human ruler, and just like any other human ruler, he undoubtedly made mistakes (though as a muslim I will maintain that he was the best of men, and erred less than any other man).

Erred less? You are starting to sound like a heretic Gandalf.


Quote:

And whether or not this episode can be judged a mistake

Keep tapdancing Gandalf.


Quote:

the point is as a human ruler of a state under severe pressure

He was not a ruler of a state under pressure. The state did not exist. He was trying to establish absolute rule over the city of Medina so he could continue using it to rob caravans going to and from Mecca, without those pesky Jews interfering. This is the act that sealed the deal for him.


Quote:

he made decisions he deemed appropriate to that situation, and should never be interpreted as doctrine for all muslims in all times and place

Does that mean that as a Muslim, if by some freak of circumstance you found yourself in a similar situation, you should follow the same course of action?

Gandalf chooses to ignore.

Funny, I find it rather liberating.

Take as much time as you want Gandalf. Think.

The answer is right in front of you FD.

Treacherous jews.

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 4:33pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 2:37pm: The men were guilty as soon as they refused to disown the treachery of their tribe and re-pledge their loyalty to the city that gave them protection - when given the opportunity. This is the bit that I struggle with Gandalf. Unfortunately it seems that throughout history, it is the winners of violent engagements who dictate who was or was not acting treacherously. For my part, slaughtering people is NEVER the right thing to do, it is never justifiable, excusable or acceptable. That is my personal world view. I am also cognizant that as a species we will continue to kill (slaughter) each other for as long as our species exists (well unless we actually do discover enlightenment one day - even then, who knows?), also, we the slaughterers will always try to excuse or justify their actions. Some will accept the justification others will reject it. As we see in the modern world we live in, others will also use their rejection of said justification to justify their own acts of barbarity.

Have you ever read the Bhagavad Gita? Arjuna says as much to Krishna (God).

Krishna replies, giving Arjuna his justification for war. It's probably the most quoted battle cry in history. In a nutshell, the justification is duty. This applies not only to war, of course, but to all actions. Sometimes hard things need to be done - even something as hard as killing members of your own family; something that will cause you regret for the rest of your life.

But when it's the right thing, it has to be done.

That's the justification, but I'm with you. I've always sided with Arjuna's (the pacifist's) view.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 5:56pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:33pm: his is the bit that I struggle with Gandalf. Unfortunately it seems that throughout history, it is the winners of violent engagements who dictate who was or was not acting treacherously. For my part, slaughtering people is NEVER the right thing to do, it is never justifiable, excusable or acceptable. That is my personal world view. I am also cognizant that as a species we will continue to kill (slaughter) each other for as long as our species exists (well unless we actually do discover enlightenment one day - even then, who knows?), also, we the slaughterers will always try to excuse or justify their actions. Some will accept the justification others will reject it. As we see in the modern world we live in, others will also use their rejection of said justification to justify their own acts of barbarity. Phem I take all your points, and you are absolutely right to raise them. Its not a pleasant matter, no one is pretending it is. I'll admit that endless trolling by FD has baited me into some hyperbole at times about the matter - but the truth is I'm not happy with it, nor am I supportive of it - despite what he will claim. I think what we can agree upon is that the episode is not in the least bit unique in the context of history - nor was it considered particularly remarkable throughout most of the years that followed. This will explain why it has rarely been used throughout history a) by Islam's critics to smear Islam or b) Islamists themselves to demonstrate how "bad-ass" Islam is. You are also probably aware of the "example for muslims to follow" argument: that because muslims consider Muhammad's example the very best example to follow, we therefore must go around slaughtering jews and/or prisoners of war. The argument doesn't stack up to any sort of critical analysis. Firstly, none of the Islamic jurist's rulings on the matter of POWs follow this, but rather defer to the Quranic commands of humane treatment and exchange or freedom at the earliest opportunity. Then there's what I already mentioned about Islamists, to my knowledge, never citing this as a great inspiration for them as they carry out their atrocities. So how can this be - you might ask - how can the decisions made by The Prophet not be taken as part of Islamic doctrine - as many muslims consider other actions of The Prophet to be? The answer comes down to common sense - which apparently even the crazy Islamists seem to have grasped. And that is to understand the clear distinction between Muhammad the Holy Prophet, and Muhammad the ruler of a temporal society in a specific place and time. Put simply, what he did that he thought was necessary for the survival of his state, was for that place and time only - and was never intended to be a divine instruction for all muslims to follow in all places and all time. And please don't confuse that with the "don't judge people by today's standards" argument that I'm sure you hear ad-nauseum. This is separate to that. Its saying that Muhammad was a human ruler, and just like any other human ruler, he undoubtedly made mistakes (though as a muslim I will maintain that he was the best of men, and erred less than any other man). And whether or not this episode can be judged a mistake, the point is as a human ruler of a state under severe pressure - he made decisions he deemed appropriate to that situation, and should never be interpreted as doctrine for all muslims in all times and place.

I honestly don't think there is any consistency in the way our species chooses to "follow" the ideas, words and actions of others...

Therein lieth the problem (in my mind at least) with blaming the idea rather than holding the individual to account.

Of course, as a committed opposer of all things organised in religion - it seems the argument will never end, because those from within any given faith will defend their beliefs. This does not surprise me though, it is part of the human condition and, arguably, I am simply defending my beliefs... Well, except I adamantly do not believe my idea, it is just an idea...

With regard to Muhummad though, I also have an idea that he would have acted barbarically - he lived in barbaric times after all. This does not justify the behaviour of our forebears, it would be brilliant if we had predecessors who genuinely acted benevolently, thoughtfully, honourably etc. The brief flashes of these behaviours being exhibited by any of our predecessors are overwhelmingly outmatched by the examples of  barbarity conducted by our species. Not only against each other, but against almost every other living species we encounter and even against the very environment that we rely on.

Yet, with all of that, we still manage to be seemingly intelligent as well. The longer I live, the more I am confirmed in my view that, as a species, we have the capacity for great intelligence, we just have to grow (as a species) out of our adolescents. Hopefully we survive the transition.

Respectfully, I accept that, based on your beliefs you see Muhummad as the best of men, I respectfully disagree and suggest, from where I look, he was a man - no better or worse than you or me. My apologies if that idea is offensive, however, it is my idea of how the world is.

Karnal wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:33pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 2:37pm: The men were guilty as soon as they refused to disown the treachery of their tribe and re-pledge their loyalty to the city that gave them protection - when given the opportunity. This is the bit that I struggle with Gandalf. Unfortunately it seems that throughout history, it is the winners of violent engagements who dictate who was or was not acting treacherously. For my part, slaughtering people is NEVER the right thing to do, it is never justifiable, excusable or acceptable. That is my personal world view. I am also cognizant that as a species we will continue to kill (slaughter) each other for as long as our species exists (well unless we actually do discover enlightenment one day - even then, who knows?), also, we the slaughterers will always try to excuse or justify their actions. Some will accept the justification others will reject it. As we see in the modern world we live in, others will also use their rejection of said justification to justify their own acts of barbarity. Have you ever read the Bhagavad Gita? Arjuna says as much to Krishna (God). Krishna replies, giving Arjuna his justification for war. It's probably the most quoted battle cry in history. In a nutshell, the justification is duty. This applies not only to war, of course, but to all actions. Sometimes hard things need to be done - even something as hard as killing members of your own family; something that will cause you regret for the rest of your life. But when it's the right thing, it has to be done. That's the justification, but I'm with you. I've always sided with Arjuna's (the pacifist's) view.

Still not justifiable, for my part, however, I have always acknowledged that it won't stop us from killing...

It seems to me that we, as an immature species, need to justify our most appalling behaviour for no other reason than to make it easier to live with our flawed selves.

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 1:19pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 9:58pm: Phemanderac wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:33pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 2:37pm: The men were guilty as soon as they refused to disown the treachery of their tribe and re-pledge their loyalty to the city that gave them protection - when given the opportunity. This is the bit that I struggle with Gandalf. Unfortunately it seems that throughout history, it is the winners of violent engagements who dictate who was or was not acting treacherously. For my part, slaughtering people is NEVER the right thing to do, it is never justifiable, excusable or acceptable. That is my personal world view. I am also cognizant that as a species we will continue to kill (slaughter) each other for as long as our species exists (well unless we actually do discover enlightenment one day - even then, who knows?), also, we the slaughterers will always try to excuse or justify their actions. Some will accept the justification others will reject it. As we see in the modern world we live in, others will also use their rejection of said justification to justify their own acts of barbarity. Have you ever read the Bhagavad Gita? Arjuna says as much to Krishna (God). Krishna replies, giving Arjuna his justification for war. It's probably the most quoted battle cry in history. In a nutshell, the justification is duty. This applies not only to war, of course, but to all actions. Sometimes hard things need to be done - even something as hard as killing members of your own family; something that will cause you regret for the rest of your life. But when it's the right thing, it has to be done. That's the justification, but I'm with you. I've always sided with Arjuna's (the pacifist's) view. Still not justifiable, for my part, however, I have always acknowledged that it won't stop us from killing... It seems to me that we, as an immature species, need to justify our most appalling behaviour for no other reason than to make it easier to live with our flawed selves.

Sure, but Krishna’s point is that sometimes we can deceive ourselves into the wrong decision using all the right answers. Sometimes, as hard as it is, you still need to stand up and fight - even if you will lose, which is also Krishna’s point.

Hindus have carried this message. It’s an important part of their culture.

Buddhists, on the other hand, have their origins in ending war. Ashoka, the Indian king who turned Buddhism from a small sect into a state religion, took up Buddhism after witnessing the suffering and futility of a war he won. You can visit the site where he saw the dead and the wounded and made his decision. It’s in.modern Odisha. Its one of the few Buddhist sites left in India.

But Buddhist rulers have made grave mistakes by not being prepared for war. Tibet crumbled after the Chinese invasion. If the kingdom had prepared its army - as it had in the past - it may have held out to protect many of its monks and religious texts. Tibet could not withstand the size of the Red Army, but it knew the mountains. It may have lasted long enough to broker a peace treaty.

As it says in Ecclesiastes, there is a time for peace and a time for war - a time for every purpose under heaven.The same applies in our lives. There is a time and a place to crack heads and use force. There is a time to fortify relationships and make connections.

For Krishna, the art of life is knowing when to use each and doing it without fear or attachment. Ultimately, we all die, whether in war or peace. There is no great heroism in either, just duty to your purpose. Rulers rule, soldiers fight, farmers farm, etc. We all have a responsibility to our path.

I’m aware that there is a grim fatalism to this, but that’s what life is. It has a beginning and an end. We get merit from our actions, not our beliefs.

Quote:

Therein lieth the problem (in my mind at least) with blaming the idea rather than holding the individual to account

.

False dichotomy. I thought only Brian and Gweg sprouted this idiotic nonsense. Have you ever seen someone criticising a violent ideology like Islam use it to avoid holding the individual to account? This is not an insanity defense Phem. A person is still responsible for their actions, and for whatever ideology they adopt to justify those actions to themselves.

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 5:57pm:

[quote]A person is still responsible for their actions, and for whatever ideology they adopt to justify those actions to themselves.

What about their words, FD? How does one justify the action of telling porkies to smear, discredit and stand over others? How should such an individual be held to account? I’m curious.

Should they plead the insanity defence, pretend it was all a terrible mistake, or apologize and promise never to do it again?

You always avoid this question. Would you care to stand by your righteous post above and give it a stab?