Australian Politics Forum - Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38881 Gender:	Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering Reply #240 - Mar 18^th, 2017 at 4:56pm So Effendi, tell us what actually did happen. No theory. Give us the eye witness accounts. Accounts written contemporaneous with the event, the alleged genocide by Mo.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49586
At my desk.

Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #241 - Mar 18^th, 2017 at 4:58pm

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

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

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 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".

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]
”

Gandalf are you conceding this point, or merely refusing to discuss it until I prove the absence of evidence?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #242 - Mar 18^th, 2017 at 5:10pm

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 4:45pm:

All you have from Watt is a claim that a different, earlier version of the charter probably existed

- that included the Qurayza. Why did you leave that bit out FD? Oh thats right because you don't want to admit you were wrong to accuse me of lying about that.

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 #243 - Mar 18^th, 2017 at 5:24pm

That was the whole point of his speculation of the existence of another treaty - because the actual treaty of Medina does not, as Muslims often insist, include the Jewish tribes.

If you limited your claim to the possibility of a different version including them I would not take issue. But you do not. You and every other Muslim invents an elaborate fantasy around Watts' claim in a desperate attempt to justify Muhammad's genocide.

Do you deny claiming knowledge of the content of the treaty that the Jews supposedly signed up for?

Do you deny using a treaty to justify Muhammad's genocide, despite not actually knowing for certain what the treaty stated, whether the Jews actually agreed to it, or that it even existed?

Why do all Muslims come out with the same elaborate fabrication?

Why are you afraid to address the issue of Muhammad's particularly obnoxious behaviour towards the Jews, threatening them with violence if they do not convert to Islam? And your strange denial that this occurred prior to his campaign of genocide? Would you feel better about Muhammad's behaviour if he attempted to coerce Jews into converting to Islam after he had slaughtered so many of them?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96969

Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #244 - Mar 18^th, 2017 at 5:43pm

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 5:24pm:

Do you deny using a treaty to justify Muhammad's genocide, despite not actually knowing for certain what the treaty stated, whether the Jews actually agreed to it, or that it even existed?

FD, are you:

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 4:58pm:

conceding this point, or merely refusing to discuss it until (G) prove(s) the absence of evidence?

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #245 - Mar 18^th, 2017 at 7:40pm

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 5:24pm:

Do you deny claiming knowledge of the content of the treaty that the Jews supposedly signed up for?

OK so what particular claim of knowledge about the treaty am I allegedly guilty of? Claiming that the Qurayza were included in it, and were bound by it? Then sure - guilty as charged.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 5:24pm:

You and every other Muslim invents an elaborate fantasy around Watts' claim

FD if it really is around Watts' claim, how exactly can it be an "elaborate fantasy"? I'm still not entirely sure if its me or Watt or both that you are accusing of lying.

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 #246 - Mar 18^th, 2017 at 8:35pm Maybe it isn't. I have been asking you where Muslims get this from. You won't say. The elaborate fantasy includes claiming that they were party to the actual treaty of Medina - the one we have copies of. It also includes knowing particular details about the treaty they were supposedly part of.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #247 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 5:14am

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 8:35pm:

The elaborate fantasy includes claiming that they were party to the actual treaty of Medina

You mean by trusting the word of such an eminent historian such as Watt? Still not sure how it amounts to an elaborate fantasy.

Quote:

It also includes knowing particular details about the treaty they were supposedly part of.

again, what details?

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 #248 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 9:45am

Gandalf, Watt did not say the things you said. All he did was speculate on the existence of a different treaty.

He did not say for example, that Muhammed spared those who agreed to 'disown their treachery'.

He did not pretend to know the content of the other treaty.

Nor did he pretend it was the actual treaty of Medina as we know it today.

He did not pretend that the Jews signed up for a treaty that still compelled them to assist Muhammad after he started threatening them with violence if they did not convert to Islam.

He certainly did not use it as a moral justification for Muhammad's genocide.

All of this is your fantasy based on a vague speculation by a historian. It also happens to be remarkably consistent with the story told by other Muslims. Why is that? Did they all read Watt and invent the same fantasy by coincidence?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #249 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 10:11am

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 9:45am:

Gandalf, Watt did not say the things you said. All he did was speculate on the existence of a different treaty.

He said everything I claimed he said, including:

- the Qurayza were included in the treaty
- the Qurayza violated the treaty by conspiring with the Quraysh
- the treaty was written in the early medinan period

Every single one of these you claimed he didn't say, and accused me of lying by claiming he did.

I have proved to you that he said every single one of them. Your response? Pretend its about some other BS like me claiming Watt said some could be spared for disowning their treachery (which no one is saying he did), or whatever other irrelevant crap you can use to deflect more.

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 #250 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 10:33am

Gandalf, here is a list of claims made by you that were not made by Watt:

He did not say for example, that Muhammed spared those who agreed to 'disown their treachery'.

He did not pretend to have the content of the other treaty.

Nor did he pretend it was the actual treaty of Medina as we know it today.

He did not pretend that the Jews signed up for a treaty that still compelled them to assist Muhammad after he started threatening them with violence if they did not convert to Islam.

He certainly did not use it as a moral justification for Muhammad's genocide.

All of this is your fantasy based on a vague speculation by a historian. It also happens to be remarkably consistent with the story told by other Muslims. Why is that? Did they all read Watt and invent the same fantasy by coincidence?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #251 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 2:09pm

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 10:33am:

Gandalf, here is a list of claims made by you that were not made by Watt:

Right, so I see you're quietly dropping all those accusations that I lied about what Watt had claimed. Here we have a feeble attempt to subtly change the charge against me from "stuff gandalf made up about Watt" to "stuff gandalf claimed that isn't supported by Watt".

But sorry to say FD, I'm not forgetting those outrageous accusations you made saying that I lied about what Watt said - especially...

Quote:

Quote:
2. Montgommery Watt says the treaty was concluded in the early Medinan period

Gandalf I have explained to you already that this is a lie. You have even conceded it is incorrect. Watt said nothing of the sort. He merely suggested the possibility of an earlier treaty existing, or a completely different treaty.

and here's Watt apparently "saying nothing of the sort"...

Quote:

Montgomery Watt states that the charter must have been written in the early Medinan period. He supports his view by arguing that had the document been drafted later, it would have had a favorable attitude towards Quraysh, and given Muhammad a prominent place

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

and then...

Quote:

You and every other Muslim here told an elaborate lie about the Jews being bound by the treaty of Medina

an 'elaborate lie' that even Watt has bought into...

Quote:

Watt holds that the Qurayza and Nadir were probably mentioned in an earlier version of the Constitution requiring the parties not to support an enemy against each other.

And Watt's actual words justifying the treatment of the Qurayza on the grounds they had been treasonous...

Quote:

Muhammad issued a fresh summons to the
Muslims just as they were beginning to relax. They were to
meet him before evening in front of the strongholds of the
Jewish clan of Qurayzah, The Muslims responded to the
summons and a siege was instituted which lasted twenty-five
days. The reason, of course, was that, while the outward
acts of the clan had been correct, they had been intriguing
with Muhammad's enemies and at one point had been on the
verge of attacking Muhammad in his rear. They had thus
been guilty of treasonable activities against the Medinan community.

Such a sentiment FD believes is simply an elaborate lie concocted by sinister muslims.

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 #252 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 3:19pm

Quote:

and here's Watt apparently "saying nothing of the sort"...

Gandalf, this is another lie. This is Watt talking about the actual constitution of Medina - the one that does not mention the Jews. You are deliberately misleading people by conflating two different treaties - the one that actually exists and does not mention the Jews, and the one that has been speculated to have existed and to have included the Jews.

Here is a list of claims made by you that were not made by Watt:

He did not say for example, that Muhammed spared those who agreed to 'disown their treachery'.

He did not pretend to have the content of the other treaty - the one that actually mentions the Jews.

Nor did he pretend it was the actual treaty of Medina as we know it today, or that this treaty includes the Jews of Medina.

He did not pretend that the Jews signed up for a treaty that still compelled them to assist Muhammad after he started threatening them with violence if they did not convert to Islam.

He certainly did not use it as a moral justification for Muhammad's genocide.

All of this is your fantasy based on a vague speculation by a historian. It also happens to be remarkably consistent with the story told by other Muslims. Why is that? Did they all read Watt and invent the same fantasy by coincidence?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #253 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 3:39pm

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 3:19pm:

Gandalf, this is another lie. This is Watt talking about the actual constitution of Medina - the one that does not mention the Jews. You are deliberately misleading people by conflating two different treaties - the one that actually exists and does not mention the Jews, and the one that has been speculated to have existed and to have included the Jews.

No, it is the same treaty. I even gave you the quote of Watt claiming that the treaty must have been written in the early Medinan period. The fact that that same treaty was updated (according to Watt) and the only copy we have today is a later, post-Qurayza version - doesn't mean we are talking about separate treaties.

Again, its far better examing what Watt actually said - from Muhammad Prophet and Statesman:

Quote:

A document has been preserved which is commonly known
as the Constitution of Medina. It appears to be authentic,
but there is uncertainty about its date. Some scholars place
it near the beginning of the Medinan period, which would be
its natural place. On the other hand, there are signs that in
the document as we have it there are articles from different
sources. One group of articles deals with the same topics as
another group, and one article is actually repeated. Again,
though several Jewish groups are mentioned, there is no
explicit reference to the three main Jewish clans, and they do
not seem to be included by implication. They could hardly
have been omitted altogether. The third of these Jewish
clans was liquidated in summer 627. The document would
therefore seem to have taken its present form after that date.
Many of the articles, however, are presumably older, perhaps
belonging to the agreement between Muhammad and
the Medinans made while he was still at Mecca. The document
may therefore be accepted as evidence for the political
situation in Medina at the beginning of Muhammad's residence there

Clearly Watt is not referring to multiple treaties, but different version of the same one.

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 #254 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 4:32pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 3:39pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 3:19pm:

Gandalf, this is another lie. This is Watt talking about the actual constitution of Medina - the one that does not mention the Jews. You are deliberately misleading people by conflating two different treaties - the one that actually exists and does not mention the Jews, and the one that has been speculated to have existed and to have included the Jews.

No, it is the same treaty. I even gave you the quote of Watt claiming that the treaty must have been written in the early Medinan period. The fact that that same treaty was updated (according to Watt) and the only copy we have today is a later, post-Qurayza version - doesn't mean we are talking about separate treaties.

Again, its far better examing what Watt actually said - from Muhammad Prophet and Statesman:

Quote:

A document has been preserved which is commonly known
as the Constitution of Medina. It appears to be authentic,
but there is uncertainty about its date. Some scholars place
it near the beginning of the Medinan period, which would be
its natural place. On the other hand, there are signs that in
the document as we have it there are articles from different
sources. One group of articles deals with the same topics as
another group, and one article is actually repeated.

Again,
though several Jewish groups are mentioned, there is no
explicit reference to the three main Jewish clans, and they do
not seem to be included by implication.

They could hardly
have been omitted altogether. The third of these Jewish
clans was liquidated in summer 627. The document would
therefore seem to have taken its present form after that date.
Many of the articles, however, are presumably older, perhaps
belonging to the agreement between Muhammad and
the Medinans made while he was still at Mecca. The document
may therefore be accepted as evidence for the political
situation in Medina at the beginning of Muhammad's residence there

Clearly Watt is not referring to multiple treaties, but different version of the same one.

See the red text Gandalf. Thanks for presenting the evidence to prove me correct. The treaty of Medina does not mention the three Jewish clans that became victims of Muhammad's genocide. Despite this, you used that treaty to justify the genocide. You lied. You told the exact same lie as every other Muslim here before you. You will not say where you got this from and why every Muslim tells the same story.

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? Or is this trick just for special cases like genocide? For someone who considers these treaties important enough to slaughter thousands of innocent people, you are remarkably loose with your interpretation of them.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged