freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:


You trick yourself FD. I made it very clear in the OP what this thread is about -  you were the one that decided this must necessarily be a pointless debate about a meaningless definition, not me. You answering every argument of mine with the line "my argument is that he engaged in collective punishment" ad nausuem doesn't change this fact.

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:


But you certainly said it included the jews. You stated very clearly that all jews were ethnically cleansed, firstly out of Arabia, then you modified that to 'a significant area' of Arabia - or something similar. Now that bullshit claim is exposed for the lie that it is, your tactic is to respond by referring to non-jews that were allegedly ethnically cleansed. The thread is about jews, how about we stick to that?

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 8:16pm:


As I said before, I agree with the "tone", where it disputes the claim that the prophet singled out jews for special punishment merely because he was an anti-semite, and/or that he had a pre-planned agenda to wipe out the jews from Medina.

As religious historian Karen Armstrong states:

Quote:

http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/karen_arm/qurayzah.html

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 8:16pm:


Of course he engaged in 'collective punishment' - as defined by your arbitrary and meaningless definition of the word. A "collective" was "punished" - right? However it clearly doesn't fit the definition as we understand it today.

But what the thread is about, if it really needs to be spelled out to you again, is to point out that the punishment meted out to the 3 rebel tribes had a context, it was not a specific anti-semitic program, and it was not a planned program to wipe out the jews from Medina. It was anti-rebellion, not anti-semitic. This is important to point out as it refutes your silly "anti-semitism in islam goes back to the prophet" meme.

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 8:16pm:


Your bullshit claim that all jews were ethnically cleansed from Arabia is bullshit because not all jews were ethnically cleansed from Arabia.  Can I make it any clearer?

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 8:16pm:


It comes from you - for no other reason than to make an emotional appeal to a baseless smear on islam. Objective people though - and I am referring specifically to objective non-muslims - will look at the proper context and not make automatic leaps of logic that actions taken against enemies who happened to be jews - are necessarily religiously motivated anti-semitic actions.

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2013 at 10:29pm:


Still playing that game?

Here you go:

Quote:


Quote:


Or does "all non-Muslims" actually mean all non-muslims except jews?

Face it FD, you fell hook line and sinker for the lie that Muhammad booted out all jews from Arabia. He didn't. Unfortunately, you are now faced with the inconvenient fact that there is no basis to the malicious lie that Muhammad hated jews for being jews, or that he had a pre-meditated agenda to wipe them out of Arabia.

Shurely shome mishtakre, no?

Quote:


I have no idea what hair you are trying to split Gandalf.

Quote:


Can you explain your thread title?

Quote:


Why is it pointless? Because it cannot be spun to make Islam look good?

Quote:




Quote:


Yes, it is all these things, but I am struggling with your attempts at causation.

Quote:


When I throw the accusation of collective punishment, I mean that he engaged in collective punishment. If I want to accuse him of something else also, I am happy to do that too - eg ethnic cleansing. I do not use one to mean the other, as you appear to do.

Quote:


Why is it so hard to believe that when i say collective punishment I mean collective punishment?

Quote:


How far into the thread did you get before revealing what it was really about? 5 pages?

Quote:


You left out disrobing. Mustn't have any of that, especially from Jews. Even Muhammed confiscated a sex slave before the new owner got a chance to disrobe her and traded her. BTW, is disrobing a euphemism for rape?

Quote:


Did he offer the same generosity towards pagans?

freediver wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:


Yes, FD - I'm absolutely positive you just coined this emotive term and applied it to islam as a perfectly objective observation about the prophet and how islam developed. 

freediver wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:


Its not hard, its not hard at all. Perhaps thats the problem. Your prejudice is just all too transparent. For someone trying to paint islam in a particular light, who has preconceived prejudices about the prophet, using terms like 'collective punishment' - while completely ignoring the context, is exactly what I would expect. Even if you said "yes he practiced collective punishment, but there were defensive justifications for doing so..." would be a great advance on your current approach "garr islam is evil - the prophet engaged in (da da dummm...) *COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT* (gasp!)

freediver wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:


post 1 page 1 reveals it about as clearly as it can be revealed:

Quote:


and in the first sentence of the article:

Quote:


Since thats somehow not obvious enough for you FD, this thread is about challenging the charge that Muhammad, and therefore Islam has an anti-semitic agenda - it hates jews for being jews, and the prophet planned and organised a sinnister plot to ethnically cleanse the jews from Arabia.

freediver wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:


Well you tell me FD - you were the first to use the term in this thread. 

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 2:20pm:


Do you think its fair for all members of society to pay tax?

Members of the islamic community all pay tax - as far as I know it is all equal. Its just that the non-muslim tax is called jizya. Muslims pay another tax.

I've never understood this argument.