Australian Politics Forum - Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering

Karnal

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 96966

Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #300 - Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 11:22pm

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 6:04pm:

Here you go Gandalf. You made this claim a few posts back.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 9:40pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 9:29pm:

Were the Jews of Medina party to the actual treaty of Medina as we know it today?

According to Watt - "probably".

Is this me " having the content of the other treaty"?

Sometimes a question is just a question.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49586
At my desk.

Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #301 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 1:14pm

Aussie wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 7:09pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 6:26pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 6:21pm:

soooo... apparently what we have here is - simply citing the historian Montgommery Watt saying the Qurayza were probably in the treaty - is me "pretending to have the content of the other treaty"

Could you confirm that FD?

OK Gandalf, give us your honest opinion then, instead of lying about what other historians think.

Were the three large Jewish tribes of Medina party to the actual treaty of Medina as we know it today?

No, Effendi. You have dug your own hole well and truly, and moving goal posts with defective questions will not work.

https://images.rapgenius.com/9a2145a106adb585dc136ceb13ce5999.350x207x14.gif

Are you pretending you have a clue what is going on now Aussie?

Gandalf has spent years banging on about how the Jews deserved to die for violating this treaty. Now that we know everything he said is complete BS, he is afraid to have an opinion on it. The best he can do is misunderstand some vague references by Watt.

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 #302 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:36pm

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 6:26pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 6:21pm:

soooo... apparently what we have here is - simply citing the historian Montgommery Watt saying the Qurayza were probably in the treaty - is me "pretending to have the content of the other treaty"

Could you confirm that FD?

OK Gandalf, give us your honest opinion then, instead of lying about what other historians think.

Were the three large Jewish tribes of Medina party to the actual treaty of Medina as we know it today?

Before we get to that, lets address this "lying about what other historians think" allegation. I think I deserve an actual explanation for such an attack don't you think? Because the last time you tried it turned out you wrongly believed Watt to be talking about 2 entirely different treaties - but as I proved to you, he is actually referring to different versions of the same treaty.

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 #303 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:41pm

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.

You misrepresent Watt constantly. You found someone on wikipedia who "holds" that Watt thinks the tribes were "probably mentioned" in the other treaty and turned that into Watt "believes" they were a party to the same treaty. Obviously he is not going to say it was the same treaty if he has never set his eyes upon it. It is pure speculation, and you have invented an elaborate fantasy around that speculation and try to attribute it to Watt rather than your own imagination.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:46pm by freediver »

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 #304 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:46pm

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 6:25pm:

Is that why it is so funny?

This is whats funny FD - thinking that this is me somehow " "pretending to have the content of the other treaty":

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 6:04pm:

Here you go Gandalf. You made this claim a few posts back.

gandalf wrote on Mar 22nd, 2017 at 9:40pm:
freediver wrote on Mar 22nd, 2017 at 9:29pm:
Were the Jews of Medina party to the actual treaty of Medina as we know it today?

According to Watt - "probably".

Is this me " having the content of the other treaty"?

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

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #305 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:47pm

freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

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.

The terms of the treaty were not changed - as far as I'm aware. Methinks someone has badly misinterpreted something...

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 #306 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:49pm Every time you quote Watt's actual work it is either nothing like what you claimed, or it directly contradicts you. that is why I keep telling you that you are lying about what he said.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49586
At my desk.

Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #307 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:50pm

Quote:

The terms of the treaty were not changed - as far as I'm aware.

But you are completely unaware Gandalf, because we only have the one version. You are either clueless or deliberately misrepresenting the situation.

That is why Watt used the word "probably". This is unusual for a historian. It reflects his efforts to grasp something that is difficult to explain.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49586
At my desk.

Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #308 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:54pm

Quote:

This is whats funny FD - thinking that this is me somehow " "pretending to have the content of the other treaty":

Would it be fair to describe this as you pretending to have the content? This is from the middle of a discussion where you were telling us the tribe deserved to die for violating the treaty. You said this after I highlighted the implausibility of the Jews signing up for a treaty that allowed Muhammad to publicly threaten them with violence if they did not convert, but still compelled them to support Muhammad.

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 8:12am:

Gandalf, when you made the following posts, were you aware that you were justifying Muhammad's genocide based on a treaty whose contents you cannot know?

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. Cheesy

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.

Or should we simply expect by now for your posts to be dripping with hypocrisy?

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 #309 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:58pm

freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

You misrepresent Watt constantly. You found someone on wikipedia who "holds" that Watt thinks the tribes were "probably mentioned" in the other treaty and turned that into Watt "believes" they were a party to the same treaty. Obviously he is not going to say it was the same treaty if he has never set his eyes upon it. It is pure speculation, and you have invented an elaborate fantasy around that speculation and try to attribute it to Watt rather than your own imagination.

- behold FD's spectacular mental gymnastics in a desperate attempt to sustain the smear that I somehow "lied about what other historians think"

FD if thats "misrepresentation" - what do you call stating that historians (plural) believe Muhammad "imposed" the treaty on the Medinese - with no other evidence than "finding someone on Wikipedia who 'holds'" that Bernard Lewis (and no one else) thinks that the treaty was a a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad"?

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 #310 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 7:03pm That is still correct Gandalf. I just can't be bothered tracking down a second historian for you. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach, given the evidence and Muhammad's behaviour. If Lewis was literally the only historian in the world to hold that view, it would not be on wikipedia.
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 #311 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 7:08pm

freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:54pm:

Quote:

This is whats funny FD - thinking that this is me somehow " "pretending to have the content of the other treaty":

Would it be fair to describe this as you pretending to have the content? This is from the middle of a discussion where you were telling us the tribe deserved to die for violating the treaty. You said this after I highlighted the implausibility of the Jews signing up for a treaty that allowed Muhammad to publicly threaten them with violence if they did not convert, but still compelled them to support Muhammad.

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 8:12am:

Gandalf, when you made the following posts, were you aware that you were justifying Muhammad's genocide based on a treaty whose contents you cannot know?

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. Cheesy

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.

Um no FD... it would not be fair... or logical, or even remotely true.

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

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering
Reply #312 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 7:11pm

freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 7:03pm:

I just can't be bothered tracking down a second historian for you.

- so you would need to track it down? Does that mean you stated as fact that historians (plural) said what you claimed without actually finding out first?

Evidently there's a lot you 'can't be bothered' with on these historical matters. Like, for example, actually reading real history - as opposed to cherry picking wikipedia.

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 #313 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 7:15pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 7:08pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:54pm:

Quote:

This is whats funny FD - thinking that this is me somehow " "pretending to have the content of the other treaty":

Would it be fair to describe this as you pretending to have the content? This is from the middle of a discussion where you were telling us the tribe deserved to die for violating the treaty. You said this after I highlighted the implausibility of the Jews signing up for a treaty that allowed Muhammad to publicly threaten them with violence if they did not convert, but still compelled them to support Muhammad.

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 8:12am:

Gandalf, when you made the following posts, were you aware that you were justifying Muhammad's genocide based on a treaty whose contents you cannot know?

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. Cheesy

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.

Um no FD... it would not be fair... or logical, or even remotely true.

Should we simply expect by now for your posts to be dripping with hypocrisy?

Did you know at the time of posting that they are not mentioned in the treaty of Medina as we know it today - the treaty you were insisting is a justification for their slaughter?

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 #314 - Mar 24^th, 2017 at 7:19pm

freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 6:50pm:

Quote:

The terms of the treaty were not changed - as far as I'm aware.

But you are completely unaware Gandalf, because we only have the one version. You are either clueless or deliberately misrepresenting the situation.

That is why Watt used the word "probably". This is unusual for a historian. It reflects his efforts to grasp something that is difficult to explain.

That doesn't answer why you would possibly state that the terms of the treaty had been changed. Can you at least explain that one FD - instead of getting all righteous about my hypocrisy and lies?

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