Quote:


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:


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 12^th, 2017 at 9:42pm:

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.

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?

Sometimes an answer is just an answer.

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?

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 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?

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2017 at 7:48pm:


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