FD is this you retracting your claim that Watt says there were at least two separate treaties? Do you concede now that he is talking about different versions of the same treaty?

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 4:32pm:


We've been over this so many times FD - no these jews were not mentioned in the later version - no one is disputing that. But I have provided the wikipedia quotes citing Watt as believing they were included in the original, and taken out of the later version (because they no longer existed - obviously).

But here it is once again:

Quote:


I have also most recently provided the quote from Watt asserting that the Qurayza were punished for "treasonable activities against the Medinan community."

Quote:


Are you disputing that you told a very different story previously?

Quote:


You quoted someone saying that Watt holds that they were "probably mentioned" in the original. It's right there in front of you, but you still feel compelled to misrepresent it. That is about as far as it gets from the fantasy you built Gandalf. You did not build that fantasy from Watt's quote alone and coincidentally come up with the same story as every other Muslim here. So where did you actually get it from?

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 8:16pm:


Is this you changing your tune about the veracity of wikipedia?

Says the guy who quotes someone citing Bernard Lewis saying the treaty was a 'unilateral proclomation' and uses that to assert "historians" (plural) believe Muhammad "imposed" his treaty on the Medinese. And says the guy who says anything that is wrong on wikipedia gets corrected "within an hour".

You set the wikipedia citation standards FD, don't complain when I simply apply your own standards.

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 8:16pm:


This is the only fall-back you have when proven wrong. Pretend we're debating something else.

Will you at least acknowledge you were wrong to claim Watt was talking about separate treaties?

Grendel, according to the Islamic precedent set by Muhammad and supported unquestioningly by Gandalf, if Israel ever reneged on or violated any treaty with a Muslim, that is carte blanch for Muslims to slaughter the lot of them - even a treaty that does not exist, does not mention them, does not compel anything from them, or that they never even agreed to, and even if their alleged violation of the treaty occurs after the Muslims threaten them with violence if they do not convert to Islam. If Muhammad is anything to go by, putting a Muslim in charge of anything is a recipe for disaster.

Gandalf I am not disputing what is on wikipedia. I am disputing the things you say that are not on there. For example, you quoted wikipedia saying that Watt thinks this other treaty that may or may not have existed "probably mentions" the Jewish clans. You changed this to Watt "believes" they were a party to the treaty. You tried to back up your position by quoting a passage that explicitly states the Jews were not mentioned in the treaty. You have told a string of elaborate lies whose only justification appears to be Watt's "probably mentions". These include:

You claimed that Muhammad spared those who agreed to 'disown their treachery'. This is a lie. The truth is that Muhammad spared a very small number who agreed to convert to Islam. This is you trying to put a positive spin on forced conversion.

You pretended to have the content of the other treaty - the one that actually mentions the Jews. This is another lie.

You pretended the Jews of Medina were party to the actual treaty of Medina as we know it today. Another lie.

You pretended 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. You are afraid to address this point, because it puts in concrete the inescapable absurdity of your efforts to excuse Muhammad's genocide. You have ducked and weaved on this for 10 pages. You did however, try to argue very recently that I got the timeline wrong on this. Another lie of course, and now you run away from that to.

You used the alleged treaty as a moral justification for Muhammad's genocide. No legitimate non-Muslim historian would say this.

All of this is your fantasy based on (or more likely, merely justified by) 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? I find this just as ludicrous as your argument that the Jews should have supported Muhammad after he threatened them with violence if they do not convert to Islam. So, in addition to running away from a string of lies, you are also afraid to say where you actually got all this crap from. What is your actual source?

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.

Freediver must be shoveling a lot of shekels with this string.

Freediver is earning shekels for race hate.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 8:10pm:


Hah!   Is there anything, Effendi, a Jew can say that would make you question your automatic support for them?

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 8:21pm:


Assuming you are referring to the 300/800 'genocide' ~ I guess they followed someone's lead.  I dunno, and neither do you.

Quote:


Again....dunno, and neither do you.  It would be odd that some Arab wanker nobody could, without serious military muscle, do that.......unless the Jews were willing.  Without 'willingness' why else would they do it.

Ergo, you will say....the Arab wanker nobody had serious military muscle, and forced them to sign using it.

Nobody knows, and nobody will....ever.

This whole discussion is esoteric bullshit.