Muslims Promote Genocide

From Australian Politics Wiki
Revision as of 04:58, 15 December 2018 by Freediver (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Islam

Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine

Islam compels Muslims to support genocide, because Muhammad and the 'rightly guided' Caliphs who followed him used genocide and ethnic cleansing to establish the first Islamic state. [1]

Muslims have offered an extraordinary range of implausible and amoral arguments in an attempt to justify and support Muhammad's genocide of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe of Medina, the expulsion of the other two large Jewish tribes from Medina, and the broader ethnic cleansing that followed shortly after Muhammad's death, under Muhammad's instructions. Some examples from a single Muslim on the forum, probably the most progressive of them all and a self described 'reformer', are provided below. Other Muslims on the forum have produced remarkably consistent arguments. There is little or no historical support for most of these arguments, and historical sources are often provided that do not actually support the claims made. It is unclear where this misinformation actually comes from.

Efforts by Muslims to justify the genocide, forced mass migration, enslavement, forced conversion, murder and oppression of non-Mulims by Muhammad and the early Caliphs will inevitably influence how Muslims perceive and respond to modern conflicts. If they manage to make Muslims out to be victims even while they were establishing the largest empire the world had ever seen, and doing so at an unprecedented speed, then it should come as no surprise that the victimhood narrative is a key part of the modern Muslim story, and a desire for broad and disproportionate violent retribution for real and perceived attacks on Islam shapes modern geopolitics.

Background

See Political_History_of_Islam#Timeline for a more detailed timeline of the political history of Islam.

Muhammad had his first revelation in AD 607. 15 years later, he was forced to flee his home city of Mecca. He was invited to nearby Medina by pagans who shared his animosity towards Mecca (many were apparently jealous of Mecca being a centre pf pagan ritual). There were many Jews in Medina, including three large and powerful tribes. Muhammad spent the first decade or so in Medina robbing Meccan trade caravans. His success strengthened him politically and his initially small band of thieves gradually turned into a significant army. The three large Jewish tribes stood between Muhammad and absolute power in Medina. They also had close trade ties with Mecca. They thus posed a potential threat to Muhammad. In 624, following Muhammad's first significant victory over the Meccans in battle, Muhammad gathered one of the large tribes (Banu Qaynuqa) in the market place. He 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."

Prior to this, Muhammad had been preaching a more tolerant version of Islam, insisting there should be no compulsion in religion. This is the first example of Muhammad attempting to coerce people to convert to Islam, and reflects his success on the battle field. Later that same year, Muhammad expelled the entire tribe from Medina. The traditional 'cause' of this was an incident in which a Jewish merchant caused a Muslim woman to be disrobed. A mob of Muslims killed the Jew. The Jews retaliated by killing a Muslim, and the Muslims escalated further. Although Muslims insist Muhammad was invited to Medina to resolve these sorts of inter-clan disputes without escalation, he used the incident as an opportunity to expel the entire tribe.

Two years later, in 626, Muhammad expelled another of the large tribes of Jews, the Banu Nadir. Only one large tribe, the Banu Qurayza, remained for Muhammad to get rid of in order to cement his power. However, he faced a problem in that he was creating a significant group of exiled enemies in Mecca and nearby Kaybar. Previously the Jewish tribes had been as indifferent and occasionally hostile towards each other as they were towards the other large tribes in Medina. Now they had a reason to cooperate. So, instead of expelling the third large tribe, Muhammad slaughtered them, citing treason as justification. Although some of the Banu Qurayza assisted the Muslims, it is alleged that the leaders entered (failed) negotiations with the Meccans when, fed up with being robbed, they tried to lay siege to Medina with a large army. The siege failed and the Meccans left without a fight. Muhammad was then instructed by an angel to lay siege to the Banu Qurayza, who eventually surrendered without a fight. Despite no-one being killed in either battle, Muhammad had every adult male (any with signs of puberty) executed - approximately 800 of them. The women and children were enslaved, which largely meant becoming sex slaves. Muhammad had a recent convert to Islam from the Aws tribe, who was near death and eager to please him, pass the judgement. Muhammad did not want to pass the judgement himself as it went against the precedent he had set with the other two tribes, however described this judgement as being "similar to God's judgement". Many historians conclude that Muhammad had decided the outcome prior to the surrender negotiations. He also had each clan of the Aws tribe conduct many of the executions, in order to spread the blame among them, as they were previously allied with the Jewish tribe.

There is a surviving document from the time, known as the treaty of Medina. It is an agreement between Muhammad's Muslim immigrants to Medina and the pagans. It does not mention the three large Jewish tribes. Nor are they included by implication. Some historians have speculated that the treaty was modified over time and that the surviving version was either written or rewritten after Muhammad had gotten rid of the Jewish tribes. Muslims tend to base their support for Muhammad's genocide of the Jews by citing their violation of the treaty, either insisting the Jews were in fact party to the version we have today, or by conflating an alternative treaty or a different version of the treaty with the surviving document. In any case, there is no historical evidence that the Jews were bound to Muhammad in treaty. Historians also question whether any of Muhammad's treaties were genuine in the sense that all parties signed up to it, speculating that they were a unilateral declaration by Muhammad.

Muhammad eventually used his base in Medina to capture Mecca. He turned the Kaaba, a central monument and gathering place for annual pagan rituals, into the focal point of Islamic worship. Until this point Muhammad had sought to peacefully recruit Arabian pagans and make Islam out to be an Arabian religion. After seizing Mecca and the Kaaba he directed his violence towards pagans, slaughtering them and destroying any religious monuments that might compete with the Kaaba. In his final victory, Muhammad gave his victims a choice between death and conversion. Muhammad voiced his intention to ethnically cleanse the entire Arabian peninsula of all nonMuslims, however he died having merely consolidated the peninsula into a single state. Soon after, the rightly guided Caliphs partly fulfilled his prophecy by killing or expelling all non-Muslims from the Hijaz region, covering the western side of the peninsula. The Caliphs also issued explicit instructions to force communities to convert to Islam by the sword. See Political_History_of_Islam for more information.

Excuses

The excuses and justifications offered for this event range from misrepresenting the historical facts to the implausible and fanciful. Muslims will attempt to attribute these outlandish claims to genuine historians. When the claims are proven to be false, they tend to rapidly alter the argument being made, eventually falling back on denying it happened at all and insisting that it is a Jewish conspiracy, or that because some of the contemporary documentation comes from Jews it must automatically be discounted. In the sections below are a few examples, all from the same Muslim.

Some examples from (mostly) other Muslims:

Genocide of the Banu Qurayza

It is possible for Muslims to have a 'different perspective' on Muhammad's slaughter of the Jewish tribe that is "compatible with peace and tolerance". [2] [3] [4] Bombing Hiroshima can be justified because it brought us closer to peace, therefor it is possible for seemingly incompatible views to be compatible with peace and tolerance. [5] [6] However, Muhammad did not seek peace. All that was required for peace was for Muhammad to stop robbing Meccan trade caravans. Rather, the slaughter of the Jews gave him free licence to continue raiding trade caravans and absolute power over Medina, which he then used to attack Mecca, which he then used to slaughter his way across the Arabian Peninsula.

Criticism of Muhammad for slaughtering Jews and of modern Muslims for excusing the slaughter is "nothing but an emotional tool that has no other purpose than to eliminate any historical context, and reduce the issue to a simplistic "evil muslim" meme." [7] Slaughtering 800 innocent people and enslaving the rest in order to wipe out a tribe for political gain is not evidence of genocide. Denying Muhammad's genocide is completely different from denying Hitler's genocide. Also a vague suggestion that only 200 people were killed, as well as casting doubt (again, vaguely) on the fact that most historians believe it happened, and criticism on the basis that there is only one contemporary source. [8] Criticising Muslims for supporting Muhammad's genocide is "sinister propaganda". [9]

Resorting to censorship of 'quote bombs' - ie series of quotes showing support for genocide by Muslims in order to expose the hypocrisy and contradictions. [10] Some of the 'quote bombs':

The remainder of the examples presented here come mostly from these threads:

Denialism

Denying the genocide happened altogether, or suggesting the numbers have been overstated by Jews, is generally a fallback option after the flaws in the other excuses put forward have been highlighted. The criticism that it is based on a single proven unreliable source is also rather ironic, as the elaborate fabrication regarding the treaty of Medina and details of what the Jews are accused of doing, is also allegedly that same source (the exact source is never given). Note that there are in fact several other sources, including the Quran itself. For example, Abu Dawood (a Persian scholar of prophetic hadith who compiled the third of the six "canonical" hadith collections recognized by Sunni Muslims) quotes a member of the Jewish tribe (Atiyyah al-Qurazi) as follows: "I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair." Sunan Abu Dawood, 38:4390. The event is also mentioned several times in Sahih Bukhari. The early Muslim jurists Tabari and Ibn Hisham also mention this event stating 600-900 were killed.

The massacre is a "fairy tale". Almost all historians, including Muslim ones, accept that it happened. [11] Almost certainly didn't happen. [12] [13] [14] [15] Always believed it didn't happen (despite going to elaborate lengths to justify it, and even providing evidence as to the number killed). [16] "probably didn't occur" [17] In a 'new twist,' the Jews made it all up. [18] [19] [20] There is only one contemporary source for the slaughter - Ibn Ishaq. [21] "The Quran makes one passing reference to the Qurayza incident - and all it says is (paraphrasing) - 'some you killed and some you took prisoner - then later freed' - or in other words directly contradicting the Ishaq story that all adult males were killed." In this case, the Quran was paraphrased rather than quoted because the actual passage in the Quran does not mention freeing them - just killing them and taking them as POWs, which is entirely consistent with other accounts. Here is one translation of the relevant verse (33.26): "And He brought down those of the People of the Scripture, namely, the [Banu] Qurayza, who had supported them from their strongholds (sayasi is the plural of sisa, and is that in which one fortifies himself [against an enemy]) and He cast terror into their hearts, [so that] some, of them, you slew, and these were the combatants, and some, of them, you took captive, namely, their children." [22] [23] "the reality was that a few of the leaders who were responsible for the treachery were executed, and the rest were freed - as stated in the Quran" [24] "the alleged Banu Qurayza massacre - which relies on a single proven unreliable source, and is directly contradicted by other sources" [25] "the fact that he is the sole source of the story, and how all Islamic scholars either dismiss the story outright and dismiss the author as a fraud (Malik), or merely repeat the account without giving any sort of vote of confidence in the source" [26] Calling it genocide is dishonest becuase it was a time of war. Apparently genocide only happens in times of peace. [27] Did in fact happen. [28] [29] [30]

Mindless Collective

Apparently, the Jews that Muhammad slaughtered in Medina were literally a borg-like mindless collective, and thus collective punishment was both necessary and appropriate. This is a central argument, necessary in order to justify the collective punishment, but also the least plausible arguments put forward.

"Thats exactly what they were. Thats exactly how 7th arab society worked - your loyalty was with the tribe, far above anything else. They were of one mind - what the tribal leaders decided, every single member decided. No individual member of the tribe would even dream of taking a position that was at odds with the tribe. It sounds ridiculous to our western individualistic minds, but thats exactly how it was." [31] "As I said, there was no real concept of individuality - your personality was literally defined by which tribe you belonged to. And the decisions that govern the tribe are very much decisions that are represented by all the individuals who make up the tribe. Thus there really is no question of collective guilt - no matter how abhorrent we find the term today." [32] [33] This justification for slaughtering Jews is "firmly rooted in historical fact". [34] "There were a few hundred members of the Banu Qurayza, and saying that they were 'of one mind' is not at all unreasonable or implausible given the size and the predominant tribal culture. Particularly in a time of war. Thats how pre-Islamic arab tribal society worked - you submitted your individuality to the will of the tribe. This is not some racist, bigoted slur, it is historical fact." The truth is that Muhammad slaughtered approximately 800 adult men, not that this would make a difference to the plausibility of the mindless collective argument. [35] Mocking the suggestion that there were a few thousand members of the tribe, which is well-established, even among Muslim scholars. [36] [37] An appeal to scientific racism: "Social psychologists don't believe in individual personality. They argue that individual minds cannot exist outside the social constructs they exist in. If this theory is correct, then nowhere is it more applicable than in the pre-Islamic arab tribes of the 7th century. Whether or not they had their own 'personality' is really neither here nor there - the pertinent point is that they subordinated their individual traits to the will of the tribe - or more correctly, their individual traits stemmed from the will of the tribe." [38] It is OK to describe them as a mindless collective of warrior traitors, so long as you don't use terms like 'schemeing Jew' that remind people of Nazi propaganda, because to do so is to blame Muslims for the holocaust. [39] [40] [41] Denying that he described the Jews as a mindless collective. [42] Denying describing them as a mindless collective, treacherous Jews etc. [43] Women and children were not part of the mindless collective. Boys lost their individuality and personality at puberty when they became part of the mindless collective (perhaps during their Bar Mitzvah?). [44] Everyone was a mindless collective back then, including Muslims. [45] [46] [47] [48] Denying that he used the 'mindless collective' and the treacherous Jews argument. [49] Hypocrisy: "Their treachery was a function of their actions, not their ethnicity or religion." [50] [51] They "owned" the treachery by virtue of the tribe they belonged to. [52]

This excuse is particularly hypocritical, coming from a person who constantly accuses others of portraying Muslims as a 'hive mind' or collective. "But more importantly, its the same old 'othering' process, of lumping any outgroup (in this case muslims) as a monolith with a hive mind. And as long as people like you insist on seeing the world in this way, there is no hope of you understanding or accepting muslims in your community. And certainly no hope of you allowing yourselves to appreciate the existence of muslims who genuinely promote a progressive and humanist version of Islam that is perfectly compatible with western culture. As you say, our only hope of redemption "is to get rid of the whole religion". In your narrow-minded world view, muslims are deprived of their individuality, deprived of agency and deprived of their human rights." [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] Asking muslims where rorted funds from islamic schools went is actually accusing them of being a mindless collective. [68]

Collective Punishment

Collective punishment is "a meaningless slogan that seeks to remove any historical context and simplify the situation into a silly 'good vs evil' dichotomy." [69] [70] Using "emotive terms" like collective punishment is a "silly semantic game", a "nonsense debate over meaningless terms", a "pointless debate about a meaningless definition", "arbitrary and meaningless", "an emotional appeal to a baseless smear on islam", "meaningless and pointless", has a completely different meaning such as "Islam is evil". [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] Collective punishment refers to intimidating tactics used against a civilian population. Muhammad's slaughter of the Jewish tribe is completely different. [76] It is not collective punishment, even when a collective is punished. [77] [78] Slaughtering all the men was not collective punishment. [79] Islam does not support collective punishment, despite compelling Muslims to support collective punishment. [80] "The fact that there were only 700 in an entire tribe should be an indication of their unity of mind. It was not a disparate collection of far-flung communities. They chose to stick with the tribe, and therefore the treachery of the tribe" and "it is reasonable to accuse them of collective guilt". The truth is roughly 800 adult men were executed. The tribe itself was far larger. [81] "600-900 able bodied men is extremely small - even in 7th century Arabia" [82] Arguing for collective guilt is not the same as arguing for collective punishment (this appears to be a reference to them literally being a mindless collective). It is only collective punishment if it is done as a means to an end (eg establishing an Islamic state or for the purpose of power politics). [83] They were not punished collectively but for their own actions. [84] Conceding they were not punished on an individual basis. [85] Conceding that it was in fact collective punishment. [86] Being punished for the crime of the leader of the tribe is "perfectly consistent" with being punished for your own actions. This was followed by a refusal to explain how this is possible. [87] Going on to say it is not in fact consistent, but there is nothing more to explain. [88] [89] Mass execution is a "just punishment". [90] The entire menfolk were executed. [91]

Sex Slaves

Muhammad slaughtered all the men and took the women and children as slaves. For most of the women and girls, this meant becoming sex slaves. Muslim men consider sex with wives and sex slaves to be their right, and a woman's responsibility. The women and children are postulated as not being part of the mindless collective. Thus, an alternative spin is necessary to justify their treatment. This essentially boils down to "freedom through slavery" and "protection through rape". Only converts to Islam had the possibility of regaining their freedom. This choice was largely directed at the children of sex slaves, who inevitably had a Muslim father, and was a key strategy in converting people to Islam.

Enslaving the women and children was not punishment but "protective custody" and did not mean serial rape, and meant the possibility of emancipation. Enslavement under Islam actually means protective custody. [92] [93] Muslims will insist that Islamic concubinage does not involve rape, despite the context of slavery, coupled with Muslims considering it their right to have sex with women they own, and the woman's responsibility, as well as the absence of legal punishment for rape of concubines. This is justified with a dictionary definition of concubinage, as well as a Quranic verse that initially appears to forbid rape. However the following verses make it clear that it only forbids compelling concubines into prostitution. They will also argue that the absence of punishment for raping slaves is actually evidence that slaves were not raped. [94] [95] [96] Islam only condones rape if it speficially instructs Muslims to rape. [97]

Muhammad's offer of a pardon

A recurring lie is that Muhammad generously gave every single Jew he slaughtered "the opportunity to disown the betrayal and repledge their loyalty to their city". Somehow, not a single one accepted the offer and they all chose death instead. There is no evidence at all for this claim and it has never been explained, although it has been repeated many times. It may be a reference to Muhammad pardoning three boys who escaped prior to the surrender and converted to Islam. That is, Muhammad turned the genocide into another opportunity for forced conversion. [98] [99] [100] "The leaders conspired - yes. The rest of them had the opportunity to disown their treachery. They declined. So tough titties- off with their heads." The 'tough titties off with their heads' phrase is also a recurring theme. [101] Each individual "had the opportunity to disassociate themselves from the decisions made on behalf of the tribe". [102] "By re-pledging their loyalty to the treaty they broke. Feel free to look it up." [103] Claiming that the story comes from a contemporary biography of Muhammad, but refusing to quote the relevant section. [104] [105] [106]

Muhammad was Too Generous

Muhammad was too generous to the previous two Jewish tribes he had allowed to leave their home city of Medina. He had learned his lesson when it came to Jews. [107] [108] [109] Jews cannot be trusted. [110] Their "actual assistance" of Muhammad (for which there is evidence, as opposed to the "actual hostilities" against Muhammad which appear to be entirely fabricated) was merely a ploy by the treacherous Jews, "as a way of hedging their bets, and to go about their treachery with the least amount of suspicion". [111] [112] [113]

The treaty

There was a 'treaty of Medina.' Copies of it are available today. However, the Jewish tribe slaughtered by Muhammad was not a party to the treaty. Some historians speculate on the existence of another treaty, or a general agreement, or an earlier version of the treaty of Medina that did include the Jews. Having a copy of the treaty of Medina means that historians can speak with certainty about it's contents, though there remains uncertainty regarding the date and also speculation that the document was assembled from various fragments. The "other" agreement to which the Jews were a party has merely been speculated to have existed. This agreement, though it does not and may never have existed, is central to the justification of Muhammad's genocide. In order to give the justification undue credibility, Muslims deliberately confuse the actual treaty and the agreement. For example, they assign the certainty ascribed by historians to the content of the existing treaty to the other agreement, as well as specific statements about the existing treaty. They rephrase what is obviously speculation by historians about the existence, timing, or contents of the other agreement as being firmly held beliefs by the historians involved. Finally, they insist that the actual treaty and the speculated agreement were actually identical, while also arguing the need for the treaty to change over time as it was an active legal document. They then demand that their critics prove the two documents were different, despite one of them not existing, and declare that failure to produce the evidence demonstrates that they were in fact identical, and thus the Jews can be held accountable to a treaty they did not sign.

Many historians also speculate that Muhammad's treaties were actually unilateral declarations, as there is no evidence of any of the parties agreeing to the. Again, Muslims cite the absence of evidence as a demonstration that they did in fact sign up, and demand that their critics provide evidence of them not signing in.

The reason for this elaborate and implausible deception is a desperate need for a moral justification for Muhammad's genocide. Thus the treaty must be transformed from a speculated agreement into historical, factual, written agreement whose contents we can read today.

Even if an agreement with the Jews did exist, it still leaves the implausible scenario of the Jews being bound to Muhammad by a treaty despite him publicly threatening them with violence if they do not convert to Islam, and Muhammad expelling one Jewish tribe, then a second, the slaughtering the third, all the while demanding that the Jews are his allies and must support him. This is eventually taken to the extreme stance of acknowledging two different treaties (only one of which we have a copy of), covering two different sets of parties, written at different times under different circumstances, but insisting they must have identical content.

The Jews broke the terms of the treaty of Medina (that they were not actually party to). [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] The charter of Medina can be read today and granted the Jewish tribe 'freedom and equality'. [138] "Historical accounts overwhelmingly suggest that the covenant was broken by the Jews". [139] The Jews had 'pledged loyalty' to the city of Medina, and were thus guilty of treachery for their conspiracy. [140]

Treason

The term treason is thrown out as often as the term treaty. This is an attempt to morally equate Muhammad's genocide with the death penalty that some modern countries have for treason. The truth is that this was an alien concept at the time, as treason requires the existence of a state with a central authority. Yet Muhammad was originally invited into Medina because of the lack of such a central authority, and his slaughter of the Jews was his way of turing the city into the foundation of his Islamic state. Thus the Jews were effectively slaughtered for treason against a state that did not yet exist.

The tribe committed treason. [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] The Jews and Muslims were allies and the Jews deserved to die for turning on their allies. The truth is that Muhammad had already expelled two large tribes of Jews from Medina and prior to that had started publicly threatening the Jews with violence if they do not convert. To suggest they were still genuine allies, even after Muhammad's first acts of belligerence, is implausible. [154] Muhammad was merely acting against "rebellion and treachery". [155] The charter of Medina is "not exactly a portent to expulsion." [156] The Jews had pledged loyalty to "the state," even though the state did not actually exist. At the time, Muhammad was still trying to gain control over Medina. This is from the same person who insists that Muhammad was not in a position of authority to do the things attributed to him. [157] [158] The treachery of the Jews is no less of a crime on account of them not actually killing anyone. [159] Muhammad's actions were not a violation of the treaty. [160] Not all 800 of them were actually guilty of treachery, signed the treaty, or were responsible for violating the treaty. They were killed instead for "not disowning" the treachery of their leaders. [161]

Misrepresenting Historians

Historian Montgomery Watt believes the slaughter of the Jews is morally justified. This is no different so someone claiming a historian who speculates on Hitler's motivation for slaughtering Jews is actually saying the holocaust is justified. [162]

Quoting Watt suggesting that they "seem to have had a treaty with Muhammad". Including in the quote is Watt pointing out that the tribe actually assisted Muhammad against the attempted Meccan attack, that by eliminating the tribe there were no important Jewish tribes left in Medina, that Muhammad changed his day-to-day actions in accordance with changing circumstance and his long term plans. Also included is a suggestion that an underlying cause of Muhammad's hostility was the Jews criticism of Quranic revelation. [163] Claiming it is misrepresenting Watt to say he claimed that the Jewish tribe was not included in the treaty of Medina. [164] [165] "Watt makes it clear in several separate occassions that he believes the Qurayza were bound in treaty to Muhammad" [166] [167] "I have no idea" what the 'general agreement' attributed to Watt is. [168]

Whether they were bound by the Medina treaty or a separate treaty (that no longer exists) doesn't make much difference. [169] Back to claiming the Jews were bound by the treaty of Medina. Watt (and every other historian) specifically states that they were not included. [170] [171] Quoting someone suggesting that Watt holds that they were "probably mentioned in an earlier version" of the treaty. [172] First acknowledgement of the difference between "probably mentioned" and "believes they were a party to it". [173]

"Watt and others said the original does mention it. They must be liars too I guess. Accepting the word of the most pre-eminent historians on this matter as plausible evidence is not lying." The 'original' version is an earlier version that has only been speculated to have existed. The suggestion that historians are telling us what it contained is ludicrous. Also, the treaty was revised after Muhammad got rid of the large Jewish tribes because "circumstances had changed". [174] The treaty needed to be updated because it was a "contemporary legal document that needed to accurately reflect the reality on the ground" [175] Refusing to produce evidence that any of Muhammad's treaties were genuine in the modern sense that the parties actually signed up for them. Many historians argue that they were in fact unilateral declarations by Muhammad. Insisting instead that they could have crushed Muhammad or rejected his treaty had they wanted. Demanding and explanation of how a group didn't sign up for the treaty. [176] From a "unilateral declaration" to a "universal proclamation", and feigned confusion over how you get from this to imposing it on people. Also, assuming that because only one hisotrian was quoted, it is a lie to suggest more than one historian holds that position. [177] The fact that Muhammad was originally invited to Medina is evidence that people later agreed to his treaties. Not a single historian believes it was imposed (this was immediately after quoting a historian describing his treaties as "universal declarations". [178] [179] The treaty could not possibly be a unilateral declaration if, as some historians suggest, it was made in the early Medinan period when Muhammad was weaker. [180]

They must have agreed to it because they signed up to it. There is no evidence of any group signing up or agreeing to any of Muhammad's treaties. [181] Citing Watt's claims about the actual treaty of Medina (which Watt and others state did not include the Jewish tribes) as evidence for a treaty that did include the Jewish tribes. [182] [183] [184] [185] Demanding evidence of the number of historians who consider Muhammad's treaties to be unilateral declarations, at the same time as refusing to provide evidence that any group ever agreed to them. [186] Denying that any historian made the claim regarding unilateral declarations. Also inventing a timeline regarding the signing of the treaty by the Jewish tribes. [187] [188] [189]

Quoting Watt pointing out that the treaty of Medina in it's current form excludes the Jewish tribes. Also quoting Watt stating that the treaty of Medina "would therefore seem to have taken its present form after that date [the genocide of the Banu Qurazyza]." Watt speculates that parts of the treaty as we have it today may have come from earlier. This has been misrepresented as Watt saying the entire treaty came from an earlier time and included the Jewish tribes. [190] Insisting it is the same treaty, despite not actually knowing what the contents of the earlier agreement were, and the earlier agreement necessarily being between different parties. [191] Misrepresenting Watt as "believing" a certain version of events, when it is clearly speculation, with terms like "probably mentioned" (not Watt's), "seem", "presumably", "perhaps belonging" etc. [192] [193]

Denying pretending that the Jews were bound by the treaty of Medina as we know it today (despite, for example, suggesting we go and read the treaty to see that it granted them 'freedom and equality'). [194] Denying pretending that the Jews were bound by a treaty that we have the content of, and insisting that the claim that the Jews were bound by the treaty of Medina as we know it today is attributable to Watt. This was shortly after quoting Watt stating specifically that the Jewish tribes of Medina were not bound by the treaty as we know it today. [195] [196] [197] It is "splitting hairs" to suggest it is not the same treaty if the parties to the treaty change as well as the content, and we do not even know the content of one of them. [198] [199] Denying that he claimed to have the content of the other agreement. [200] [201] [202] Insisting that the terms of the treaty were not changed - ie that the treaty of Medina as we know it today and which excludes the Jews is identical to another agreement whose existence has only been speculated and which does include the Jews. [203] [204] Mocking others for pointing out the implausibility of a treaty that permits Muhammad to publicly threaten the Jews with violence for not converting to Islam, and insisting this mockery is not pretending to know the contents of the speculated agreement that supposedly bound the Jews to Muhammad and was used to justify the genocide of the Jews. [205] Insisting that the alleged agreement that included the Jews has identical content to the treaty of Medina that we have today is not the same as claiming to know the content of the alleged agreement. [206]

Conspiring Jews

The Jews were conspiring against Muslims. [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215]

Forced Conversion

Threatening Jews with violence if they do not convert to Islam is not evidence of a religious reason for the persecution. [216] Muhammad "had set up the first multi-faith society in Medina, where muslims, christians and jews lived as equals". The truth is that it was a multifaith society before Muhammad came along, with Jews, Christians and pagans living as equals without the need for centralised city government. Muhammad expelled and slaughtered the Jewish tribes whose size made them a political obstacle in his quest for power, and instructed his successors to follow through by ethnically cleansing the broader area of non-Muslims. [217] Denying that Muhammad threatened the Jews with violence if they did not convert to Islam. [218] Denying the accepted timeline of events, as documented by Muslims themselves ie Muhammad's first significant military victory over the Meccans, followed by his public threats against Jews if they do not convert to Islam, followed by his expulsion of two large tribes, followed by his slaughter of the last remaining large tribe of Jews. [219] Refusing to discuss whether Muhammad violated the alleged treaty with the Jews by threatening them with violence if they do not convert to Islam. [220]

Actual Hostilities

The entire menfolk were executed, [221] but the only people executed were those actively partaking in fighting against the muslims. The truth is that not a single Muslim was killed. The Jews were slaughtered after surrendering to Muhammad without a fight. Some of them had actually been assisting the Muslims. [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] The Jews "had actually commenced hostilities against the muslim garrison". There is no evidence of this. [227] "Banu Quraiza then started to launch war operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the women and children of the Muslims." [228] [229] An apparent concession that the "actual hostilities" did not involve violence. [230] "commencing hostilities" [231] "war operations" [232] The only evidence presented for the claim of "actual hostilities" is a reference to a 2002 book. [233] [234] "the treachery of the jews had nothing to do with them refusing to help the muslims" [235] All non-combatants were spared. The alleged evidence for this is that only "military aged males" were executed. The truth is that all adult men were killed - including the old and frail, as well as young boys who had just reached puberty (the Muslims actually inspected them physically to decide who would die and who would merely become a slave). [236] [237] Only "actual military aged warriors who actually took up arms against the state they pledged loyalty to" were executed. [238] [239] Pointing out that no Muslims were actually killed by 800 actual warriors who actually took up arms against them is "not an argument". [240] They had been "on the verge" of attacking Muhammad. [241] The Jews were not POWs (and by implication, not subject to our abhorrence at slaughtering POWs) because they did not officially reneg on the treaty (the one that does not actually exist) and declare their succession from the Islamic state (ie their own city, that Muhammad was trying to gain control of by slaughtering them). [242] Hypocrisy: When Muhammad was a victim of mistreatment by his own family in Mecca, this constituted a declaration of war by the city of Mecca against Muslims, which justified Muhammad's lengthy career robbing Meccan caravans and murdering Meccan traders. [243]

Jews Intended Genocide

Jews conspiring genocide of Muslims

Another recurring theme is that the Jews and their allies intended genocide of the Muslims. There is absolutely no evidence for this claim and it would be out of character for the people and the time period. It is a complete fabrication. The Meccans, with whom the Jews are accused of conspiring, went home after one earlier battle, despite being in a position to press their advantage, because they believed Muhammad had been killed and that this would be sufficient to stop Muhammad raiding their caravans. Until Muhammad came along, the Arabian Peninsula was literally a multicultural and multireligious society, with complex 'blood money' and 'eye for an eye' style customs for resolving disputes between tribes and avoiding the sort of slaughter Muhammad engaged in.

The Jews posed an "existential threat" to Muslims. The Jews intended to commit genocide of the Muslims. [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] They intended to "annihilate" their own city. [257] It was self defence on the part of the Muslims. [258] [259] It does not matter whether the Jews were actually to blame for the situation, because their very existence was threatening. [260] [261] Jews declared war. Genocide is the normal response from a head of state. [262] It would be acceptable for Jews to slaughter a tribe of Muslims if they broke an agreement. [263] [264] Slaughtering people is not OK today, but was OK for Muhammad. [265]

Muhammad's Islamic State

Slaughtering Jews was "practically necessary" for Muhammad to establish his Islamic state. [266] [267] [268] [269] [270] [271] It was unacceptable to have hostile Jews in Muhammad's Islamic state, even if Muhammad himself was responsbile for their hostility. [272] [273] Muhammad's actions differ from those of Hitler because slaughtering Jews assisted Muhammad in establishing his Islamic state, whereas the Nazi war machine was undermined by the diversion of resources towards slaughtering Jews. They also differ because the Nazis were driven by ideology and the Muslims were not. [274] The Meccans were "attempting to over-run" Medina. In truth Muhammad and his Muslims over-ran Medina and kicked out anyone who did not bow down for them. [275]

Power Politics

This claim actually has a ring of truth to it, and is a view held by many historians. The argument was put forward as the 'lesser of two evils,' as an attempt to differentiate Muhammad from Hitler by pointing out that Muhammad did not have an ideological hatred of Jews, but instead slaughtered them out of convenience, or for entirely rational reasons, or for the pursuit of power.

"The actions of Muhammad were driven by power politics and practical necessity" to establish the Islamic state. [276] [277] [278] "The myth that Muhammad hated jews and engaged in collective punishment, and worked to ethnically cleanse the jews from Arabia." In truth, Muhammad specifically instructed that the Arabian Peninsula be ethnically cleansed of all non-Muslims. [279] Jews continued to live in Khaybar and Yemen and Jews live in Yemen to this day. In truth almost all of the few remaining Jews were expelled from Yemen shortly after Israel was created. [280] Muhammad did not teach his followers to hate or exterminate Jews. The truth is that Muhammad left instructions to ethnically cleanse the Arabian Peninsula. Shortly after his death, the Hijaz region (western side of Arabian peninsula) was ethnically cleansed of all non-Muslims. Muhammad himself oversaw the slaughter of many of them himself prior to his death. After WWII, Yemen expelled the few remaining Jews. [281] Muhammad did not plan ethnic cleansing. [282] The incident occured in front of a backdrop of religious coexistence. The truth is that Muhammad had started publicly threatening Jews with violence if they do not convert to Islam about three years earlier, and had already expelled the other two large Jewish tribes. [283] Tough titties, shit happens in war. The truth is there was no war and the Jews were prisoners who had surrendered without a fight. [284] [285] Not motivated by the Jews' religion. [286] Muhammad was less rabid in his hatred of Jews than Hitler was. [287] It was merely a perceived injustice and has nothing to do with Islam. [288] Muhammad slaughtered the Jews because he had not reached a peace agreement with the Quraysh (Muhammad's own familial tribe from Mecca who were attacking Medina to try to force Muhammad to stop raiding trade caravans) and they thus posed an ongoing threat. [289] [290] [291] The war "continued through Quraysh proxies, infiltrators, informers etc". Banning Muslims from Mecca (a pagan religious centre) was a declaration of war. In truth, Muhammad had preached hostility towards paganism for a long time and his first act when he later gained control of Mecca was to destroy all pagan artifacts except for the Kaaba itself, then use Mecca as a base from which to slaughter pagans. [292] "muslims and jews had no real ideological/religious hostility, and that atrocities committed by both sides essentially come down to secular political issuess" [293]

Muhammad had no Power

This is essentially arguing the opposite to what was claimed above - that Muhammad was engaging in power politics rather than anti-Semitic racism. Here, Muslims insist that Muhammad did not have the political authority to carry out the actions attributed to him, on account of him being invited to Medina merely as some kind of negotiator. The truth is that Muhammad's power grew rapidly, and his belligerence to the Jews did not begin until after he had a significant and victorious militia behind him. In a similar trend, Muhammad became outright hostile to the pagans when he later gained control of Mecca and ironically ended up treating them worse than the Jews.

This argument also relies on feigned inability to understand a simple timeline - that Muhammad's battlefield victory against Mecca (with the assistance of Medinese pagans) came first, then his public threats of violence against Jews if they do not convert to Islam, then his expulsion of the first to tribes, then his genocide of the third. That is, they pretend they cannot comprehend how someone who was initially invited to Medina did everything he did over the next decade while still holding the low level of authority he had initially. Muslims will also insist that the timeline provided above is incorrect.

Muhammad needed the support of his allies to slaughter the tribe, and not a single one of those allies spoke out against the slaughter. [294] The truth is that at least one group - the Aws - are recorded as speaking out against the punishment and pleading for a more lenient sentence. It was actually the Aws that the Banu Qurayza agreed to be judged by, and the Aws who pleaded for lenience, but the one member of the Aws chosen by Muhammad to pass judgement, a convert to Islam, went against the wishes of his tribe. Furthermore Muhammad had already expelled the other two large Jewish tribes and the last tribe was now his prisoner, a clear demonstration of his authority. He owned the previous punishments and was in a far stronger position now. The slaughter was for strategic reasons, and only chose to distance himself from the punishment politically (he still explicitly supported it) because it could have otherwise turned people against him, the Aws in particular. He also demanded the Aws participate in the executions.

"Notice too how your narrative is changing. You banged on for years about how the Medinans were basically tricked into signing a seemingly innocuous treaty by some sweet talker, and it was only after he consolidated his power was he able to intimidate and rule with an iron fist. Now you are trying to say he was somehow some all-powerful dictator from the very beginning - "imposing" his will on the powerless Medinans." The truth is that Muhammad's belligerence towards the Jews always reflected his military power. He began threatening Jews for not converting them and expelling them from Medina very shortly after his first military victory against the Meccans with the aid of his growing Medina-based army. He did not commit genocide until there was only one tribe left and no-one willing to stand up for them. [295] "And you haven't answered the question - how did Muhammad - a refugee with no standing army, acting as mediator at the good grace of the rulers of Medina (which included the Jews) "impose" his treaty against the will of the people?" [296] [297] Muhammad was a "destitute refugee". Feigned confusion over the process by which Muhammad gained military strength by robbing Meccan caravans prior to his genocide of the Jews. [298] [299] Muhammad agreed to the slaughter for the sake of a speedy resolution. [300] Denying that a swift resolution and the interests of Muhammad Islamic state were used as a justification. [301] Muhammad's robbery of Meccan caravans (which started several years earlier) was an act of "retaliating against the initial Meccan aggression" - ie Muhammad was in a position to take vengeance on a far larger city many years earlier, but not did not have any authority within Medina. [302]

Not motivated by anti-semitism

Slaughtering Jews is not evidence of animosity towards Jews. [303] Refusing to say whether they were 'scheming Jews' [304] [305] It is the terminology (scheming Jews) that is racist. Arguing that they were actually a mindless collective of scheming Jews is not racist because it is true, so long as you don't use that particular phrase. [306] [307] [308] [309] [310] [311] [312] [313] [314] [315] "- calling people 'jewish' and 'treacherous' is not necessarily irrational/racist - the term "treacherous jew" is unquestionably irrational/racist" [316] It's not racist because it is true. [317] "Racist comments aren't necessarily factually incorrect" [318] The truth matters - that is, not the truth about what actually happened, but the 'truth' whether it is truly racist propaganda. [319] It's not racist because being a mindless collective is a trait of the Arabs, not the Jews. [320] The tribe cannot be both cunning as well as a mindless collective. [321] [322] "As I've said about a thousand times, 'treacherous jews' - as in the two words together, is a notorious phrase with clear racist connotations. It clearly has a far more sinister meaning than say 'traitors who happened to be jewish'. Which is why I deliberately avoid the term." [323] Joking about how fun it is to slaughter Jews. [324] "we call them scheming jews" [325] Calling them treacherous Jews. [326] Denying calling them treacherous Jews. [327] [328] [329] "make it all about da joooos, and thereby making a seamless and utterly shameless invocation of Godwin's law" [330] [331] [332] Variations in the estimated death toll from the holocaust are "quite possibly" evidence it did not happen "and we know now that many of the estimates that were accepted for years were inflated". [333] "You're no better than the Israeli victim industry" [334] People only criticise Islam over Muhammad's slaughter because it is racist to slaughter Jews. [335] Pointing out that Muhammad ordered the Jews previous allies to participate in the slaughter is an appeal to Hitler's Sonderkammandos. [336]

Jewish Law

This argument is consistent with Muhammad's actions and his apparent intent. This argument also ties in with the argument that Muhammad did not have the authority on his own to carry out the genocide. Muhammad tried to distance himself from the ruling because it went against the precedent he set when he 'leniently' expelled the other two tribes of Jews rather than slaughtering them. Muhammad negotiated the surrender of the Jews by promising they would be judged by their allies, the Aws. However, Muhammad selected one member of the Aws who chose genocide as the punishment, despite the remainder of the Aws pleading for lenience. The idea that the Jews were judged according to Jewish law however was not explicitly recorded, and is most likely a later fabrication to justify Muhammad's genocide. No contemporaneous source says explicitly that the judgment was based on the Torah. Moreover, the respective verses of the Torah make no mention of treason or breach of faith, and the Jewish law as it existed at the time and as it is still understood today applies these Torah verses only to the situation of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, and not to any other period of history.

The Jews did not object to their punishment (being slaughtered). [337] [338] The Jewish tribe chose a specific person to pass judgement on them. [339] The truth is that Muhammad chose someone who had recently converted to Islam, was near death, having suffered a wound in a battle he fought for Muhammad, and was hoping to please Muhammad and protect the Muslim community. There was no immediate political need for Muhammad to relinquish authority, as he had already expelled the other two large Jewish tribes and cemented his authority when he captured the third. Rather, it was an effort to avoid blame himself and spread blame among other Medinans. "they asked for a jewish arbiter to judge them according to jewish law. Jewish law states that the treason they committed is punishable by death." The truth is that they appear to have agreed to be judged by a pagan tribe they were allied with, that there is no evidence that they asked for Jewish law, or that Jewish law was applied. Furthermore Jewish law does not state that treason is punishable by death. The tribe they agreed to be judged by actually campaigned for leniency on their behalf. [340] [341] The Jews were judged under Jewish law. [342] The Jews agreed to be judged under Jewish law. [343]

Context

The idea that the 'context' renders Muhammad's actions morally acceptable is effectively an effort to drown the issue in details, and also to blatantly misrepresent those historical details in a large number of ways in order to make it appear that Muhammad had no choice. In reality, all Muhammad had to do to stop the Meccans attacking him was to stop robbing their trade caravans. The real context is that Muhamamd was on a quest for political power and did whatever it took to gain it.

You have to consider the historical context of Muhammad's genocide. [344] [345] [346] [347] [348] [349] [350] [351] [352] [353]

Conceding that the 'state of war' was entirely attributable to Muhammad robbing Meccan caravans. [354]

Moral Equivalence

Slaughtering Jews who were already captive and who had surrendered without a fight, following a war that never actually happend and whose 'imminent threat' had long passed, as well as holding up the person responsible for the genocide as an eternal moral example for all mankind, is morally equivalent to collateral damage in modern warfare. [355] Muhammad slaughtered innocent, imprisoned Jews to save lives. [356] Killing captured POWs after the battle is over is actually better from a moral perspective than collateral damage during a modern war. [357] If you remove the fact they were Jews and Muslim, the slaughter would be morally acceptable. [358] Old Testament presents slaughters as "right and just". [359]

All Three Tribes

The justifications offered for the expulsion (and followed up alter with slaughter and further expulsion from the Hijaz region) are similar, and often identical and interchangeable with the justification offered for the genocide of the Banu Qurayza. It is presented separately so as not to confuse the historical facts.

Blame the Jews

The Jews were to blame for every instance of a breakdown in relations between Jews and Muslims. [360]

Treason

All three tribes committed either acts of war or treason. [361]

Jews Planned Genocide

Jews conspiring genocide of Muslims

All three tribes planned genocide. [362] When Muhammad expelled the second tribe, this amounted to Muslims "fighting a war for their very existence, which they just barely survived after the battle of the trench". The truth is that the battle of the trench happened after the expulsion, and again not a single Muslim was killed. Muhammad expelled the second tribe after a series of revenge killings resulting from a Jew allegedly disrobing a Muslim woman. [363] Muslims cannot "afford to have a tribe living amongst you who is plotting to kill you." [364]

Jews Declared War

It was not punishment and does not matter whether the Jews were to blame, because the incident was a declaration of war by the Jews. [365] [366] Muhammad was forced to attack Jews for strategic/defensive reasons, despite his sincere intention to coexist peacefully. In truth, Muhammad began threatening the Jews with violence for not converting as soon as he was in a position to do so. [367] The three tribes were in "rebellion". [368] "The evidence shows that he only expelled those who broke the covenant." The truth is that Muhammad used expulsion and slaughter as collective punishment. Furthermore, the covenant would not have demanded that no crimes are committed, and that such drastic action would result if they were, but rather that they be resolved fairly and without violence. [369]

Broad Jewish Conspiracy

"The three jewish tribes in question were clearly conspiring with Muhammad's enemies." [370] The absence of evidence against a broad Jewish conspiracy spanning multiple large tribes to eradicate the Muslims is evidence of that conspiracy. [371] The entire tribe was in on the conspiracy to assassinate Muhammad. [372]

Collective Punishment

Only those who actually committed various crimes were punished. [373] Expelling the tribe over the disrobing incident would be collective punishment, but expelling them for the series of revenge killings that resulted was not. [374]

Ethnic Clansing

There was no ethnic cleansing in Arabia. [375] [376] [377] [378] Muhammad's expressed intention to ethnically cleanse the Arabian peninsula was not a 'command' and it was not achieved during his lifetime. "If the prophet did resolve to remove all non-muslims from the Hijaz, its only because his hand was forced. Non-muslims were certainly given every opportunity to live in peace with the muslims." There was nothing forcing Muhammad to conduct ethnic cleansing or express an intention to do so, other than resistance to his already established program of ethnic cleansing. Muhammad slaughtered both Jews and Pagans for both religious and political/strategic reasons. [379] Muhammad's expressed intention to ethnically cleanse the Arabian peninsula was merely a 'prophecy'. [380] [381] Muhammad did not plan ethnic cleansing of the Arabian Peninsula, despite stating his intention to do so. [382] [383] [384]

Religious Motivation

Muhammad publicly threatening Jews with violence if they do not convert to islam is actually "appealing to the common ground between what he preaches and judaism" and is the opposite of anti-semitism. [385] [386] It is not "anti-Jewish" propaganda. The threats of violence directed at Jews for not converting to Islam are no different to old testament criticisms of Jews for not sticking to their religion. The Quran is not "anti-semitic" because the Jews are Muslims, they just don't realise it yet. This does actually reflect Muhammad's own view - that he was the religious leader of the Jews and Christians. Muhammad seems to have been genuinely bewildered and taken by surprise when the Jews took offence to his proclamations. [387] There was no religious motivation or anti-semitism. [388] [389] [390] [391] [392] The truth: Islams two most canonical Hadith collections, Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, both show Muhammad saying: "You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me) ; kill him." Also, from the Quran (5.82) "Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly." The Jews of Medina were "not bona fide hebrew Jews" and thus Muhammad's hostility towards them cannot be itnerpretted as anti-semitism. [393] [394] [395] [396] Nothing to do with Islam. [397]

Power Politics

Muhammad's slaughter and expulsion of the Jews was a "mundane political feud" and "power-politics" rather than anti-semitism. [398] [399] Muhammad's treatment of the three tribes was a matter of power-politics, not religious persecution. [400] Seven other Jewish tribes were not kicked out of Medina by Muhammad. This is technically true. The smaller tribes who did not get in the way of Muhammad's quest for power were allowed to remain. However, they were kicked out shortly after Muhammad's death, under instructions left by Muhammad. [401] [402] Coexistence between Muslims and Jews was simply impossible after Muslims killed a Jew who was accused of disrobing a Muslim woman. The same Muslim argues that the whole point of Muhammad being invited to Medina was to resolve such conflicts without escalation. [403]

The Caliphate

Jews and Christians "enjoyed full religious liberty in the Islamic empires". The truth is that Shariah law imposes second class status on them, including an infinite variety of restrictions on religious freedom. For example, converting from Islam to Judaism or Christianity is punishable by death. The testimony of non-Muslims in court is considered inferior to that of Muslims, effectively institutionalising injustice, and there were many restrictions on building and repairing churches and synagogs. It even went as far as Christians and Jews not being allowed to ride horses. [404] Muslims and non-Muslims pay equal tax. In truth, Muhammad once taxed 100% of a community's land and 50% of the produce from it. North African Berbers once revolted over the high taxes imposed by Muslims. Muslims impose entirely different tax systems on non-Muslims. The same Muslim argued that the higher taxes on non-Muslims provided an economic incentive not to kill them. [405]

Forced Conversion

Islam spread so quickly because of mass conversion. The truth is that it was literally spread by the sword on the back of Muhammad's Islamic state. Muhammad and the 'rightly guided' Caliphs had explicit policies of forced conversion. [Political_History_of_Islam#Forced_Conversions] [406]

Relevence to modern Israel

Jews conspiring genocide of Muslims

Modern Israel has the same genocidal agenda against Muslims as the tribe slaughtered by Muhammad. [407] [408] [409] [410] [411]

However, when Arabs invaded Israel, they were not motivated by Muhammad's example. [412] The absence of evidence for Muslims being motivated by Islam and Muhammad's example is evidence of this. [413] It is reasonable for Muslims to attack Jews if they are "feeling threatened by the presense of a new and hostile imperial power," but when Jews were put in the same position by Muhammad, itwas is a moral Justification to slaughter them en masse. [414] Muslims can tell that a person is not "normal or natural" and that they support attrocities based on things they do not say. [415]

Pagans

The Quraysh broke their treaty with Muhammad. [416] The truth is that Muhammad actually negotiated with them to rescind the treaty. They regretted this pretty much immediately, when they realised Muhammad's intentions, and tried to renegotiate a treaty, but by this stage Muhammad was prepared to attack Mecca directly.

Retrieved from ‘https://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide&oldid=490’