Like I said, enjoy your inane little semantic games FD - I've made my point.

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2014 at 5:56pm:


This is what happened when thousands of Meccan pagans and Nadir Jews attempted to invade the Islamic state in the Battle of the Trench:

The Battle of the Trench involved an unsuccessful siege against the Islamic state. While no large-scale battle ensued, there were minor skirmishes along the trench that the Muslims had constructed to defend their city. Volleys of arrows were fired, and the trench at one stage was crossed at which time a dual of champions was proposed. The Muslim champion Ali Ibn Talib dualed against the pagan champion Amr Bin Abdi-Wudd - and Amr was slain leaving the pagans in confusion and panic.

The pagans attempted to again cross the trench for a number of days, during which 10 pagans and 6 Muslims were killed by arrow fire.

During the siege, The Quraiza Jews of Madinah treacherously supplied the invading pagans with food and water from within the city, and then began attacking the women's Muslim women's garrison whilst the Muslim men were engaged in defending the city. The first Jewish traitor to be killed was killed by a woman as he tried to infiltrate the women's garrison.

What made the Qurayza Jews actions most treacherous was that prior to the commencement of hostilities they had promised to join with the Muslims to defend the city. They broke their promise and became a fifth column within the city - traitors who deserved the death penalty.

The pagan-jewish confederacy beseiging Madina eventually gave up hop of successfully breaching Muslim defences and broke up acrimoniously and then retreated from the city in failure.

The Nadir Jews who had been instrumental in stirring up the Meccan pagans to fight the Muslims, and then had incited the Qurayza Jews to revolt against the Islamic state, abandoned their Jewish brothers in Madina and fled back to Khaybar. The fate of the Qurayza Jews was sealed by the actions of the disloyal Nadir Jews who reneged on their promise to help the Qurayza Jews with their rebellion.

freediver wrote on Apr 21^st, 2014 at 6:42pm:


FD knows this from all the islamic history books he has never read.

Gandalf, was it warfare when Muhammed wanted to rob caravans and murder traders, but definitely not war when he upgraded to slaughtering 800 Jews in one day?

You are the one who excuses Muhammed robbing caravans and murdering traders on the grounds that it was war. You are the one who excuses Muhammed slaughtering 800 Jewish POWs in one day on the grounds that it was not war.

Who is playing semantics? Who is offering spineless hypocrisy?

It is not ignoring me if you respond. Responding with more spineless apologetics merely demonstrates your desperation to offer something, and your inability to come up with any more excuses. I don't blame you of course. You have painted yourself into a bit of a corner here.

May I suggest you divert with a poo joke? That always works for Karnal.

You're not very good at this ignoring business are you Gandalf? Do you feel compelled to defend the indefensible?

Quote:


So you murder person A, steal from person B, because person C was mean to you and was going to kill you all, if you wouldn't mind giving them 5 years to get round to it, seeing as they are a bit busy trying to get on with making an honest living?

Quote:


So Islam permits the mass execution of POWs?

Do Muslims who feel threatened have the moral authority to steal, murder and slaughter unarmed prisoners regardless of circumstance?

There was no Islamic state at the time. It wasn't until after Muhammed slaughtered the last powerful tribe of Jews that he gained genuine control over Medina. The caravan robbery and murder came before that.

Does any state have the right to execute 800 unarmed POWs without trial, including the ones who were on the side of the 'state' and who actually helped it?

It's a bit hypocritical for you to accuse me of semantic games while trotting out this garbage about a state executing traitors. Why was it a war when Muhammed wanted to murder and steal, but not a war when he wanted to execute 800 unarmed POWs?