Quote:


Are you seriously suggesting only one historian on earth holds that view? Or is this just more obfuscation in an attempt to draw attention away from the lies in an attempt to justify Muhammad's genocide?

Quote:


Again, stop pretending you do not understand this. He did not become belligerant until after he had the numbers to back it up.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 14^th, 2017 at 7:59pm:


Again Gandalf, where do Muslims get this crap from?

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

624      Expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa

625      Banu Nadir expelled after Invasion

627      Invasion of Banu Qurayza, successful siege

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

In March 624, Muslims led by Muhammad defeated the Meccans of the Banu Quraish tribe in the Battle of Badr. Ibn Ishaq writes that a dispute broke out between the Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa (the allies of the Khazraj tribe) soon afterwards. When a Muslim woman visited a jeweler's shop in the Qaynuqa marketplace, she was molested. The goldsmith, a Jew, pinned her clothing such that, upon getting up, she was stripped naked. A Muslim man coming upon the resulting commotion killed the shopkeeper in retaliation. A mob of Jews from the Qaynuqa tribe then pounced on the Muslim man and killed him. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa.[2]

Traditional Muslim sources view these episodes as a violation of the Constitution of Medina.[2] Muhammad himself regarded this as casus belli.[3] Western historians, however, do not find in these events the underlying reason for Muhammad's attack on the Qaynuqa. According to F.E. Peters, the precise circumstances of the alleged violation of the Constitution of Medina are not specified in the sources.[10] According to Fred Donner, available sources do not elucidate the reasons for the expulsion of the Qaynuqa. Donner argues that Muhammad turned against the Qaynuqa because as artisans and traders, the latter were in close contact with Meccan merchants.[11]

Weinsinck views the episodes cited by the Muslim historians, like the story of the Jewish goldsmith, as having no more than anecdotal value. He writes that the Jews had assumed a contentious attitude towards Muhammad and as a group possessing substantial independent power, they posed a great danger. Wensinck thus concludes that Muhammad strengthened by the victory at Badr, soon resolved to eliminate the Jewish opposition to himself.[4] Norman Stillman also believes that Muhammad decided to move against the Jews of Medina after being strengthened in the wake of the Battle of Badr.[12]

Muhammad then approached the Banu Qaynuqa, gathering them in the market place and addressing 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.[13]
”

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2017 at 8:09pm:



So....if there is no 'direct' evidence of this Treaty, why are you rabbitting on about Mo getting pissed off that something which did not exist, was breached?

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2017 at 8:02pm:


Are you seriously suggesting that this primary school standard of debating is going to cut it? Yes FD - I am not only "seriously suggesting" there are not multiple historians saying it - but that not even one historian said it. But if its so absurd, you will have no problem showing me those multitudes of historians who hold that view - no?

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2017 at 8:02pm:


The treaty was signed before he had the numbers to back it up FD.

Quote:


Which one? The one that no longer exists and that we know nothing about? Again, where do Muslims get this crap from?

Quote:


Again Aussie, Gandalf used the alleged breach as a justification for Muhammad's genocide, not me.

Quote:


Treacherous Jews, according to Gandalf.



Gandalf, 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?

He slaughtered them because they stood in the way of his quest for power. There were three large tribes of Jews in Medina. Compared to the pagans, they were reluctant to support Muhammed. They also had closer ties with the Meccans, whose caravans Muhammad was making a lucrative career of raiding. Muhammed and the pagans he was recruiting had a shared animosity towards Mecca. Muhammad eventually used his absolute control in Medina to gain control of Mecca also.



freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2017 at 8:06pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2017 at 8:26pm:


wikipedia for a start...

Quote:


Quote:


freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2017 at 8:26pm:


The evidence that the Medinans went to him, before he even migrated to Medina - not the other way around. The evidence that if he was in a position to impose anything, he would have given himself and his tribe a prominent place in the treaty.

And stay on track FD - its your claim we're talking about - your BS claim that multiple historians believe he "imposed" his will on the Medinese - a refugee, who was invited to mediate a truce, who couldn't even proclaim his position of authority written into the treaty. Not only can you not produce any historians saying what you claim they say, it makes no sense.

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2017 at 9:25pm: