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 12
th, 2017 at 9:42pm:
Gandalf, would it be fair to describe this as hypocritical?
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 3
rd, 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 3
rd, 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.
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4
th, 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?