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.
Forum
Pages: 1 
