freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:06pm:


Tell us, Effendi....what do you reckon actually happened?

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:13pm:


Oh I see.  Bit of angry War stuff of many centuries ago going on.   Wonder what would have happened to India if Alexander's mob had not got tired, homesick and in the schit there? 

We are still doing that to the Arabs Effendi, you know.

Gandalf, would it be fair to describe this as hypocritical?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 12:13pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 11:20am:


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2013 at 11:11pm:


Don't you think Muhammad's address to the first Jewish tribe in the market place might have violated any treaty they had?

Europe spent about 1000 years fighting of Muslim invaders and trying to stop Muslims depopulating the southern coastline of Europe by raiding it for slaves. Then they went in and coerced the various regimes to end slavery internally. I think 1981 was the last country to ban slavery. If you had any clue at all you would realise that "live and let live" is not how Muslims work. We have been interfering with the plans of Muslims since about a century after Muhammed was born, and it is a damn good thing we did. It's a shame we let them wipe out nearly every Jewish, Christian and pagan community in the middle east and north africa.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:06pm:


Please cite those historians FD. This should be interesting as there is no way Muhammad was in any position to impose anything. He had no standing army and had no authority over any of the natives in Medina. He was invited by the Medinan tribes to be their mediator. They could have crushed him, or at the very least rejected his treaty if they wanted.

Explain to me FD, if you can, how exactly the Medinan's didn't "sign up for it".

Notice too how your narrative is changing. You banged on for years about how the Medinans were basically tricked into signing a seemingly innocuous treaty by some sweet talker, and it was only after he consolidated his power was he able to intimidate and rule with an iron fist. Now you are trying to say he was somehow some all-powerful dictator from the very beginning - "imposing" his will on the powerless Medinans.

I guess this is the disadvantage of "not knowing the details" and just making up crap as you go.

Aussie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:15pm:


The only reason they are not currently doing it in Europe, and only to a small extent in the middle east, is because we have gone to such great efforts to stop them Aussie. Do you think that was a bad thing, or are you just desperate for something to whinge about?

Quote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina

Bernard Lewis claims that the charter was not a treaty in the modern sense, but a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad.

Now, where is your evidence that anyone, even the supposed parties to the treaty of Medina,  actually signed up for it, rather than having it imposed on them by Muhammed as some historians believe?

Quote:


He had already expelled two of the three large Jewish tribes from the city and slaughtered the third. You yourself have conceded that the treaty of Medina probably came from after this first round of ethnic cleansing.

Quote:


He did not antagonise the Pagans while he was not in a sufficiently powerful position to do so. He started with the Jews. Surely I don't have to explain the concept of divide and conquer to you? Muhammad was a master at it.

Quote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina

Bernard Lewis claims that the charter was not a treaty in the modern sense, but a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad.

Seems pretty straight forward to me Gandalf. Which word are you having trouble with?

Going by his outrageous efforts to antagonise the Jews, I doubt very much they were willing to agree to anything, except under force.

Quote:


Quote me. BTW, the treaty of Medina grants the pagans freedom of religion. Shortly after Muhammad's death Medina, Mecca and all the other cities in the Hijaz were ethnically cleansed of all non-Muslims, as per Muhammed's instruction.

Quote:


Only the Jews, one tribe at a time. Then on the Pagans. That is exactly how it happened Gandalf. Stop pretending you cannot udnerstand this argument.

Quote:


Do Muslims often change the terms of a peace agreement after it has been agreed to (or in Muhammed's case, imposed on people) and then insist it is actually the same agreement?

How does Muhammad's actions (eg publicly threatening Jews with violence and demanding they convert to Islam, prior to beginning his ethnic cleansing) fit in with your insistence that even the last of Medina's three large Jewish tribes were still bound by some kind of agreement with Muhammed? Can you dream up a set of terms that allows all this to happen that you also think the Jews would have signed up for? How does your position even make sense?

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:42pm:

Quote:


Not at all.  If those pesky sand niggery Arabians tried to invade some other parts centuries ago, I'm all for those parts defending themselves.