Quote:

Oh my God 
Why is this guy still walking free?

There is a reason they called the battle with the Jews
" battle of the trench".

They Muslim were sick of getting attacked so they resorted to building a trench around their city.

The Jews couldn't help it and still wanted to fight the Muslims even when the Muslims retreated

The Jews were hell bent on war and were defeated.simple really.

The battle of the trench was actually against the Quraysh (pagans) who ruled Mecca.

The Quraysh laid siege to Medina, as they couldn't assault it because Muhammad had built the trench. The Quraysh entered into negotiations with the Banu Quraysa, a jewish tribe who had signed a treaty with Muhammad. The prospect of a second front opening up against Medina presented a clear existential threat for the small islamic community. The mere act of agreeing to meet an enemy to discuss commencing hostilities with the people you were living under a treaty with, is high treason in anyone's book. As Karen Armstrong points out, not one of Muhammad's allies (without whose support Muhammad could never have carried out his sentence) objected or spoke out against it as it was perfectly understood what the sentence of such betrayal was. A dozen or so jewish tribes remained with Muhammad under the same treaty. It is said that Muhammad's last command before he died was to see that the jew that he was indebted to was paid in full.

wally1 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 3:22pm:


Absolutely. The entire community faced a direct threat of utter anhialation. The Quraysh sought to engage the help of the Banu Quraysa in opening up a second front against the city. The Quraysa agreed to discuss this, and by all accounts were willing to join the attack, but opted out at the last minute due to a dispute about the hostages that would be used as guarantees.

This is treason in its most serious form: the quraysa were living under a treaty with Muhammad, and then started negotiating with the people seeking to annihilate Muhammad's people to join in their attack. No one batted an eyelid regarding the sentence carried out against these traitors - not least of all the Quraysa themselves. Their only request was that they be sentenced by an old ally of theirs, which was granted.

FD apparently believes that faced with such dire treachery, Muhammad should have patted them on the back and happily replied "no harm done, lets all just forgive and forget", and let them go on their merry way. Muhammad had been burnt before by granting another traitorous tribe free passage to leave the city - upon which they immediately started plotting against Medina and instigating hostilities.

wally1 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 3:22pm:


The jews lent Mohammad tools to dig this treanch, the jews did not let the Meccans in, the Meccans went home without a fight.

Mohammad had put down his arms and was having a bath when a fairy (tales?) in the sky called Gabriel told him to attack the Banu Qurayza.

www.wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Genocide_of_Banu_Qurayza

Mohammad was a thief a highway robber who tried to pass himself off as a prophet in the jewish religion, he even fasted on the jewish day of atonement and adopted many dietry and dress rules from the Yahud.
The jews rejected Mohammad as a prophet in the jewish religion so he stole all their prophets to create his own bastardised death cult called Islam.
This is covered in the Sira of Ibn Hisham.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 5:49pm:


Lets see what your beloved Sealed Nectar says about these "innocent" jews:

Quote:


Interesting, this directly contradicts FD's repeated claims that they conducted no physical engagements against the muslims.

wally1 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 11:55am:


The battle of the trench preceded the siege in which the 800 or so Jewish POWs were captured. The Jews who were slaughtered did not actually participate in the battle of the trench, but had failed negotiations with the other party.

Are you attempting to justify the slaughter of POWs?

Quote:


No it didn't. The Meccans had withdrawn. The battle of the trench was over when Muhammed laid siege to the Banu Quraysa. Apparently an angel told Muhammed to slaughter them.

Quote:


In anyone's book it is high treason for the people who actually entered into negotiations. Not 800 of their relatives. Just because it is a 'civil' war does not mean you can execute every single one of your oponents after they surrender.

Quote:


More Bullshit from the Islamic apologist. The arbiter of their fate was from the Aws tribe, and his fellow Aws pleaded for mercy on behalf of the Banu Quraysa. Muhammed went to some length to distance himself from the slaughter for two reasons - it contradicted his earlier rulings, and because it risks alienating the Aws. He even forced the Aws to carry out the executions.

Quote:


No Gandalf. I have explained my position plenty of times. Do you approve of slaughtering POWs? It Hitler found treacherous Jews, would that somehow justify all the Jews he slaughtered? Why do you think that you can flip every standard of decency on it's head by providing a few details about Muhammed's motives? Can Muslims get away with absolutely anything if they feel threatened or undermined?

Quote:


Now this is funny. Muhammed reneged on his own treaty with this tribe over a fairly trivial incident. He basically engaged in forced mass migration. Of course the victims are going to be pissed off. It merely demonstrates how readily Muslims will slide down the moral slope. Muhammed openly preached anti-jewish propaganda. Within a few years of moving into Medina, he was forcing entire tribes of Jews out. When that did not work in bringing the Jews onside, he went one step further and slaughtered an entire tribe. Muslims delude themselves into believing that the other Jewish tribes were then loyal to Muhammed because they thought he was a great leader, when anyone with half a brain can see they were simply in fear for their life.