Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 25
Send Topic Print
Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering (Read 73232 times)
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #195 - Mar 13th, 2017 at 7:57pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2017 at 7:44pm:
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


The evidence that he was invited by all parties to mediate a long standing dispute, and was there but by the good grace of the people of Medina, and the fact that he had no standing army of his own, and therefore no power whatsoever to impose anything.

Where is your evidence it was "imposed" on the same people who invited him to mediate?

Will you acknowledge that you lied about multiple historians asserting that it was "imposed" - and in fact you cannot cite a single historian actually saying it was "imposed"?
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49586
At my desk.
Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #196 - Mar 13th, 2017 at 9:22pm
 
Quote:
The evidence that he was invited by all parties to mediate a long standing dispute, and was there but by the good grace of the people of Medina, and the fact that he had no standing army of his own, and therefore no power whatsoever to impose anything.


Muhammad started imposing himself as soon as he had military control. The incident in the marketplace occurred shortly after a significant victory in a battle against Meccan traders. He was invited in to mediate. He was not invited in to demand Jews convert to his religion and to threaten them with violence if they refused. He did that simply because he was able to, and one by one he picked off the Jewish tribes, then the pagans, until after a remarkably short period of time every single person who refused to convert to Islam was either dead or a long way away.

Again, stop pretending that you do not understand the concept of divide and conquer. At every step of the way, Muhammad was exactly as belligerent as his authority allowed him to be, ending with outright ethnic cleansing. His approach is reflected perfectly in modern Muslims, preaching peace, tolerance and victimhood when they are in a weak position, raping and pillaging when they are in a position of strength - all in the name of Islam.

Quote:
Will you acknowledge that you lied about multiple historians asserting that it was "imposed" - and in fact you cannot cite a single historian actually saying it was "imposed"?


There is not a single shred of evidence showing it was a treaty in the sense that the parties actually agree to it, which is why some historians believe it wasn't. I have demonstrated this for you. You have been claiming for years that it was a treaty. You have been pretending to know the content of the alleged treaty between Muhammad and the Jews. All of this was a lie, and a demonstration of your hypocrisy.

Do Muslims often change the terms of a peace agreement after it has been agreed to (or in Muhammad'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 Muhammad? 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?

Why are Muslims, despite the variety we have seen here, so consistent in their lies about this particular incident?

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:42pm:
Gandalf, would it be fair to describe this as hypocritical?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 3rd, 2013 at 12:13pm:
Don't deflect FD - how can you explain your previous claim that Muhammad definitely broke a treaty which you now admit you don't know the terms of?


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 3rd, 2013 at 11:20am:
You don't even know the terms of the treaty, but you are perfectly happy to claim with certainty that Muhammad broke them.  Cheesy


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2013 at 11:11pm:
No. Apologise and feel silly for thinking that Muhammad was somehow bound by a treaty that had already been broken - and not by him.


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

Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38881
Gender: male
Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #197 - Mar 13th, 2017 at 9:29pm
 
This:

Quote:
...he had no standing army of his own..


...catches my eye.  Do, you agree that (^^^) is correct, Effendi?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49586
At my desk.
Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #198 - Mar 13th, 2017 at 9:52pm
 
Shortly after his first significant military victory, Muhammed gathered one of the Jewish tribes in the marketplace and threatened them with violence if they did not convert to Islam. It was not an idle threat. Muhammed was gradually building up his military strength. As he did so, he turned it inwards against the three large Jewish tribes of Medina, as well as outwards against the Meccans and later the Jews he had kicked out of Medina.

Prior to that first open threat against the Jews, Muhammed was preaching peace and tolerance. By the time he dies, he was raping and pillaging his way across the Arabian peninsula. At every step of the way, Muhammad's belligerence and douchebaggery reflected the size of the army he had at his disposal.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38881
Gender: male
Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #199 - Mar 13th, 2017 at 10:03pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2017 at 9:52pm:
Shortly after his first significant military victory, Muhammed gathered one of the Jewish tribes in the marketplace and threatened them with violence if they did not convert to Islam. It was not an idle threat. Muhammed was gradually building up his military strength. As he did so, he turned it inwards against the three large Jewish tribes of Medina, as well as outwards against the Meccans and later the Jews he had kicked out of Medina.

Prior to that first open threat against the Jews, Muhammed was preaching peace and tolerance. By the time he dies, he was raping and pillaging his way across the Arabian peninsula. At every step of the way, Muhammad's belligerence and douchebaggery reflected the size of the army he had at his disposal.


You really have trouble with a simple question, don't you.

This:

Quote:
...he had no standing army of his own..



...catches my eye.  Do, you agree that (^^^) is correct, Effendi?

Further:

How did he have his "first significant military victory" without an 'army?'  Did he bash his foe into submission with just his own tongue?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49586
At my desk.
Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #200 - Mar 13th, 2017 at 10:07pm
 
He did not have a standing army up until the exact (or perhaps blurry) moment that he had once. After that time, he had a standing army.

I hope this clears things up for you Aussie. Got any more stupid question?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38881
Gender: male
Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #201 - Mar 13th, 2017 at 10:17pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2017 at 10:07pm:
He did not have a standing army up until the exact (or perhaps blurry) moment that he had once. After that time, he had a standing army.

I hope this clears things up for you Aussie. Got any more stupid question?



No such thing as a stupid question, Effendi.  You do excel, I have to concede, at stupid answers.

Would you like to try to answer that question again, leaving all the absurd 'blurry' bits out?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96973
Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #202 - Mar 13th, 2017 at 10:53pm
 
Sometimes an answer is just an answer.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #203 - Mar 14th, 2017 at 7:00am
 
I think I've got the sequence of events FD, stop me where I'm wrong:

- The Medinan tribes invite a destitute refugee to mediate over their historical disputes
- Muhammad somehow "imposes" some sort of agreement on the tribes of Medina, against their will, with his non-existent authority and his non-existent army
- Muhammad then gets the authority and the army he needs to slaughter/oppress the Medinese - because of the agreement he imposed on them when he had no authority.

freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2017 at 9:22pm:
There is not a single shred of evidence showing it was a treaty in the sense that the parties actually agree to it, which is why some historians believe it wasn't. I have demonstrated this for you.


You demonstrated Bernard Lewis being cited in wikipedia as saying it was a unilateral proclamation. Neither of us have seen the actual quote. Nowhere have you demonstrated that any historian said that not all parties agreed to it, and I doubt you could. Why? Because it makes absolutely no sense - the idea that someone with no authority, no standing army, mediating at the request of the Medinese - could himself "impose" an agreement that not all parties agreed to. Can you at least be man enough and acknowledge your lie about it being historians - plural?

freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2017 at 9:22pm:
publicly threatening Jews with violence


Now you're just making crap up.

Tell me FD, do you cringe just a little bit when you accuse me of lying at every opportunity? Is this some coping mechanism for the obvious cognitive dissonance?
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49586
At my desk.
Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #204 - Mar 14th, 2017 at 7:23pm
 
Gandalf you claimed the the Jews were bound by the treaty of Medina and that you know it's contents. This is a lie, told in an attempt to excuse Muhammad's genocide. The truth is we do not know what treaty they were bound by and it's very existence has only been theorised. Furthermore there is no evidence of any non-Muslims ever agreeing to any of Muhammad's supposed treaties. Instead of admitting there is no evidence, you want me to present the evidence that they do not exist. It is your claim, you back it up. In addition, Muhammed became openly belligerent towards the Jews, threatening them with violence if they refused to convert to Islam. You lie when you insist this did not happen. This happened prior to him expelling two tribes and slaughtering the third. The suggestion that the Jews had agreed to a treaty whose terms still bound them, despite Muhammad's actions, is frankly ludicrous, only to be outdone by your insistence that we must believe this despite the treaty no longer existing and despite the complete lack of evidence of Muhammad getting agreement to any of his treaties. You compound this lunacy by mocking me for making claims about the treaty without knowing it's contents. You used the treaty to justify genocide, so it is up to you to demonstrate that it existed and that it's contents justify genocide.

Every Muslim who has weighed into the debate here has told the same lie, despite the variety of nuttiness we have seen among the Muslim posters here. Why is that? Where do these lies come from?

When I started asking you about the details, you tried to bluster your way out of it, then insisted I had to go looking for your evidence for you, then changed your excuse to denying the genocide even took place, blaming it instead on a Jewish conspiracy. Would it be fair to conclude this was a deliberate strategy to conceal the lies that you and other Muslims have been spreading about the treaty?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #205 - Mar 14th, 2017 at 7:42pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2017 at 7:23pm:
, Muhammed became openly belligerent towards the Jews, threatening them with violence if they refused to convert to Islam. You lie when you insist this did not happen. This happened prior to him expelling two tribes and slaughtering the third.


Bullshit. Prove it.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49586
At my desk.
Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #206 - Mar 14th, 2017 at 7:48pm
 
http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Political_History_of_Islam#Hostili...

However, having been strengthened by a recent military victory over Meccan traders, Muhammad sought to consolidate his power. Muhammad gathered the tribe in the market and addressed them as follows:

"O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you."

The Quraysh were Muhammad's tribe from Mecca, and the retribution is a reference to his recent military victory over them.


So, where is your evidence of anyone agreeing to Muhammad's treaties? Or do you expect me to keep looking for more evidence that there is no evidence?

Have you figured out yet how a person might transition from a small amount of power to a large amount, one step at a time? Or do you still insist that the fact that he once had no power means he never gained any?

Do Muslims often change the terms of a peace agreement after it has been agreed to (or in Muhammad'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 Muhammad? 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?

Why are Muslims, despite the variety we have seen here, so consistent in their lies about this particular incident?

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

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 3rd, 2013 at 12:13pm:
Don't deflect FD - how can you explain your previous claim that Muhammad definitely broke a treaty which you now admit you don't know the terms of?


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 3rd, 2013 at 11:20am:
You don't even know the terms of the treaty, but you are perfectly happy to claim with certainty that Muhammad broke them.  Cheesy


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2013 at 11:11pm:
No. Apologise and feel silly for thinking that Muhammad was somehow bound by a treaty that had already been broken - and not by him.


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

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #207 - Mar 14th, 2017 at 7:55pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2017 at 7:23pm:
there is no evidence of any non-Muslims ever agreeing to any of Muhammad's supposed treaties. Instead of admitting there is no evidence, you want me to present the evidence that they do not exist. It is your claim, you back it up.


No, the only point I've been making here is that you are wrong to claim "historians" (plural) believe Muhammad "imposed" his treaty/agreement on the Medinese - when the only thing you can cite is a wikipedia citation of Bernard Lewis saying it was a unilateral proclamation. Moreover it makes no sense at all - the idea that a single mediator, invited by the Medinese, who had no authority, no standing army, could somehow impose his treaty/agreement against the will of the Medinese. Despite plenty of opportunities, you still haven't explained how that could happen.

It is your claim, and you have singularly failed to back it up.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #208 - Mar 14th, 2017 at 7:59pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2017 at 7:48pm:
However, having been strengthened by a recent military victory over Meccan traders, Muhammad sought to consolidate his power. Muhammad gathered the tribe in the market and addressed them as follows:

"O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you."

The Quraysh were Muhammad's tribe from Mecca, and the retribution is a reference to his recent military victory over them.


Check your sequence of events FD - it didn't happen " prior to him expelling two tribes and slaughtering the third".
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38881
Gender: male
Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #209 - Mar 14th, 2017 at 8:02pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 14th, 2017 at 7:55pm:
freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2017 at 7:23pm:
there is no evidence of any non-Muslims ever agreeing to any of Muhammad's supposed treaties. Instead of admitting there is no evidence, you want me to present the evidence that they do not exist. It is your claim, you back it up.


No, the only point I've been making here is that you are wrong to claim "historians" (plural) believe Muhammad "imposed" his treaty/agreement on the Medinese - when the only thing you can cite is a wikipedia citation of Bernard Lewis saying it was a unilateral proclamation. Moreover it makes no sense at all - the idea that a single mediator, invited by the Medinese, who had no authority, no standing army, could somehow impose his treaty/agreement against the will of the Medinese. Despite plenty of opportunities, you still haven't explained how that could happen.

It is your claim, and you have singularly failed to back it up.


As probably the only other person who reads these exchanges, I say that what Gandalf posted is quite accurate, even on 'facts' Effendi acknowledges.  Mo was a nobody with zero military muscle and yet it is claimed he somehow hoodwinked and belted into submission hundreds.

Makes no sense to me.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 25
Send Topic Print