polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 14^th, 2017 at 10:00pm:


Did Muhammad have a treaty with the jews after he wanted to expel them that they could stay on the provision the jews did all the work and gave the muslims half the fruits of their Labor?

Did Umar violate this treaty by expelling the jews?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 14^th, 2017 at 10:00pm:


So we cannot possibly discuss your claim that it was a treaty and the Jews agreed with it, because we are too busy discussing my claim that they did not agree with it, and it is up to me to prove the absence of their agreement, and you inability to produce any evidence they agreed with it doesn't count?

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?

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2017 at 8:35pm:


Are you deliberately pretending this is about something other than your BS claim that multiple historians believe the treaty was "imposed" on the Medinese
?

Is it still your claim FD? Or is this elaborate deflection strategy your way of quietly running away from it?

Have you found any evidence for it apart from a single wikipedia citation of Bernard Lewis saying it as a unilateral proclamation?

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2017 at 8:35pm:


Again? How many times will I need to repeat this FD?

1. Muhammad was invited to mediate historic disputes between the Medinese tribes while he was still in Mecca - and therefore the Medinese were under no obligation to accept anything he proposed

2. Montgommery Watt says the treaty was concluded in the early Medinan period - ie before Muhammad had any authority - supported by the fact that the treaty gives no prominence to him (as you would expect if he was supreme leader) or his tribe.

In short, if an invited mediator with no authority and no standing army to enforce his will gets people to sign a treaty he came up with - common sense suggests that the signatories agreed to it.

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2017 at 12:25pm:


Oh dear...

Quote:


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

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2017 at 12:25pm:


Oh good - well here you go FD: evidence for version of events:

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

1. An invited mediator who had no authority over the Medinese, and wasn't even living with the Medinese: 

Quote:
(citations provided)

2. Concluded a treaty during the early Medinan period - ie a time when he had no power, and no standing army, and therefore had no way of enforcing his treaty:

Quote:


So FD, there is your evidence - are you going to concede it makes sense now?

One thing at a time FD - are you conceding you were wrong to accuse me of lying about the charter being written in the early Medinan period? Once we clear that up we can move on to the rest of your BS accusations about me making stuff up.

Just to remind you...

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2017 at 12:25pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 10:29am:


Its not a lie FD. I believe it, but more importantly Watt believes it. He even explains that the revised edition that exists today must have edited out the jews since they were no longer in the picture. Explain to me again where the lie is?

Its also not a lie to cite Watt claiming the treaty was written in the early Medinan period - ie when Muhammad had no power, and no possible way to "enforce" his treaty. You claimed this also was a lie, and I promptly provided you the citation from wikipedia. Naturally you have run away from your BS claim that "historians" (plural) claim that it was enforced on the Medinans - after producing a single citation of Bernard Lewis saying it was a 'unilateral declaration'.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 1:02pm:


Put it this way FD, it is indeed a lie to use those quotes to claim that I somehow lied about anything. It is also dishonest to flip from one bs claim to another as an evasion tactic whenever I pin you down on a particular accusation of yours.

Care to have another stab at how I could possibly be lying when I claim to believe the jews were bound by the treaty of Medina - especially when I cite Watt stating this very same things to back me up?