freediver wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2013 at 9:34pm:
What about the tribe that was expelled over the sexual assault of a Muslim woman? Was that not collective punishment, because the Jews had it coming?
As usual, I'll do your research for you:
Quote: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 pestered to uncover her hair. 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_QaynuqaClearly it was not one incident of molestation that led to expulsion. The muslims were fighting a war for their very existence, which they just barely survived after the battle of the trench. The three jewish tribes in question were clearly conspiring with Muhammad's enemies, who were on the verge of overrunning them. I mean come on FD, you've just recently made a lengthy and impassioned case for justifying Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians - are desperate self-defence measures to stave off genocide only acceptable when its jews that are under threat?
The other problem you have is you don't seem to understand the proper meaning of collective punishment. Would you, for example, be willing to label the actions by the Israelis to the Palestinians on the eve of the arab invasion as "collective punishment" - and if not why not?