I found a previous thread I started on collective punishment and would be happy to splice this onto that thread.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374026475Gandalf how is this different from collective punishment?
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 28
th, 2015 at 4:08pm:
The leaders conspired - yes.
The rest of them had the opportunity to disown their treachery. They declined. So tough titties- off with their heads.
Muhammad learned his lesson when he let the other tribe who attacked him leave in good will - who then recommenced their war with him from their new base. There are only so many options for a fledgling and militarily vulnerable 7th century arabian leader desperately trying to stave off annihilation both from within and without.
What do you think the Banu Qurayza would have done to the muslims if their planned back-stabbing assault on Medina had succeeded? Shook hands and said better luck next time? They had already tried to attack a part of the city where women and children had taken refuge - according to the Sealed Nectar. These were serious times FD - you don't play with kid gloves.
polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 4
th, 2013 at 3:48pm:
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.
polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5
th, 2013 at 3:11pm:
As I said, there was no real concept of individuality - your personality was literally defined by which tribe you belonged to. And the decisions that govern the tribe are very much decisions that are represented by all the individuals who make up the tribe. Thus there really is no question of collective guilt - no matter how abhorrent we find the term today.
polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5
th, 2013 at 10:27am:
freediver wrote on Dec 5
th, 2013 at 8:26am:
If you think these 800 people acted as some kind of mindless collective
Thats exactly what they were. Thats exactly how 7th arab society worked - your loyalty was with the tribe, far above anything else. They were of one mind - what the tribal leaders decided, every single member decided. No individual member of the tribe would even dream of taking a position that was at odds with the tribe. It sounds ridiculous to our western individualistic minds, but thats exactly how it was.
polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 6
th, 2013 at 9:43am:
freediver wrote on Dec 6
th, 2013 at 9:19am:
Most wars involve the breaking for some kind of agreement, particularly civil wars. By your reasoning this makes every POW captured in such a war guilty of treason. Basically, Islam allows the execution of POWs whenever they can cobble together some kind of excuse like a broken treaty.
If they stood up and openly and honestly said "sorry Muhammad, we've had a change of heart, we've decided to opt out of the treaty", then thats an entirely different matter. But when you pretend to remain loyal, then enter into negotiations with the enemy behind the muslims back, and then carry out sneak attacks against women and children, then that is a clear act of treason. But please, keep up your flip-flopping in insisting that it isn't - its quite amusing.
polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 6
th, 2013 at 2:05pm:
Like I keep saying, it is reasonable to accuse them of collective guilt, since at any time any individual had the opportunity to disassociate themselves from the decisions made on behalf of the tribe. The fact that there were only 700 in an entire tribe should be an indication of their unity of mind. It was not a disparate collection of far-flung communities. They chose to stick with the tribe, and therefore the treachery of the tribe.
polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8
th, 2013 at 7:38pm:
Also the treachery of the jews had nothing to do with them refusing to help the muslims.
Forum
Pages: 1 
Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering (Read 71522 times)
