Muslims frequently trot out the excuse that something happened in the context of war to justify abandoning early every single moral principle they espouse. For example, Abu liked to tell us that Muslims may only lie in the context of war. He also insisted that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. Falah had an elaborate fantasy of glorious aboriginal military victories against Europeans, and lamented that they were not more violent, as their Muslim caretakers had instructed them to be.

When Muhammed and his early followers moved to Medina, they spent many years growing rich and powerful by robbing trade caravans traveling to and from Mecca. This was the period immediately prior to Muhammed stepping up to a career of rape and pillage. Most Muslims use the rather cynical justification that they were merely "stealing back" what the Meccans took from the first Muslims. Gandalf has recently started insisting that the years of robbery were actually warfare. TC often justifies it by insisting (without evidence) that the Meccans, or someone from Mecca, had declared war on the Muslims. This makes little sense, as you would not declare war on someone, then stand idly by over the years as they grow stronger by stealing from you at every opportunity. TC complains that they 'boycotted' the Muslims at the same time. The claim that the Meccans declared war has been justified by insisting that the Meccans sent armies against the Muslims (prior to the battle of the trench). In reality, this was the soldiers or mercenaries sent to accompany the trade caravans, due to the increasing problem of thieving Muslims stealing everything and killing traders. Gandalf has used the justification that the early Muslims were artisans and not farmers, and thus couldn't possibly be expected to support themselves through farming as everyone else in Medina apparently did. I am yet to see a rational explanation for why they could not take up farming or  practice their trade from Medina and participate in the trade route going right past them.

The consistent pattern is that Muslims use warfare to justify abandoning every moral principle they have. It was the only way Muslims could legally acquire slaves. They could steal everything and take the women as sex slaves, if it suited Muhammed.

However, there is one moral principle that Muslims could not abandon using the excuse of war - that it is wrong to execute prisoners of war. This is where they employ a particularly impressive form of moral contortionism. When they want to excuse the slaughter of POWs, they simply declare that it was not war, they were not POWs, and thus it is fine to slaughter every single one of them, without trial and without regard for the intentions or even the actions of the individual. Thus, POWs who had actually helped Muhammed's war effort - up until he laid siege to them - were also slaughtered for crimes they did not commit.

So Gandalf's position is basically that when Muhammed wanted to rob caravans to line his own pockets, this was war, and it was not Muhammed's fault because he had no choice. Later, the real wars began and the Muslims laid siege to the last big tribe of Jews from within Medina. Eventually they surrendered. In this context, Muhammed wanted to slaughter all the prisoners. Simple - just insist that the siege was not war. TC even insists that because the Jewish tribe was not another country, they could not possibly be POWs, even though Arabian society at that time was not organised into anything resembling nations. They even insist that because the Jews had violated a treaty, it was not war. Of course, the details of this treaty are not available. We must simply accept that it obliged the Jews to continue fighting on behalf of Muhammed - after he had kicked the other two powerful Jewish tribes out of Medina on weak pretexts - and after Muhammed had started openly mocking Jews in the street and threatening them with death if they did not convert.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about historical verification. FD believes in freedom. He prefers to think for himself.

He does a good line on moral contortionism though - something about your Muslim twisting things, telling fibs and making things up.

Gandalf is there a special Islamic historical verification technique that tells you it was warfare whenever Muhammed wanted to rob caravans and murder traders, but when he upgraded to slaughtering 800 Jews in one day, that was definitely not war?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 14^th, 2014 at 9:44pm:


Like through Islam's own books for example?

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."  (Book #59, Hadith #459)
http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=coitus&translator=1&search=1...

accidental post

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 10:55pm:


Would you also claim the German Jews were at war against Hitler and the Islamic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem?



http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm#hitler_and_the_m...

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 10:55pm:


Were the prisoners captured in this war POWs?

So you are arguing that the battle of the trench, in which there was no actual battle, was a war, but the siege that followed in which the 800 Jews were captured was not a war?