freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2023 at 8:01am:


I'm simply stating facts. It is biased because it's owned and run by Zionist Jews. Just look at Mr. Lindsay's experience, shown earlier.

And to claim that historian Stanley Lane-Poole's account is an 'insidious excuse' is beyond laughable. Muhammad had nothing to do with the massacre, other than agreeing to let an ally to the Banu Quraizah arbitrate between them, and to bind himself to that arbiter’s decision.

Quote:


Straw man argument. Muhammad did not genocide Jews.

The Banu Quraizah agreed to a constitution, the Charter of Medina, and that constitution explicitly required loyalty to the state of Medina, particularly in case of attack from an external army. After committing to Medina, the Banu Quraizah violated that loyalty with a treasonous act in the heat of battle. The execution that followed was the result of their choice to commit treason, per the judgment of a judge they demanded. Muhammad, far from being responsible for any deaths, interceded and even forgave those Jews who asked his forgiveness. To place even the slightest responsibility on anyone but the Banu Quraizah is nothing less than ridiculous. See Dr. Barakat Ahmad, author of “Muhammad and the Jews”.

Had Islam endorsed the destruction of Jews, why did Jews flourish under Muslim rule, while Christians were busy persecuting them?