Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 
Send Topic Print
chapter 9 (Read 50130 times)
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #285 - Sep 4th, 2017 at 3:27pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 2:20pm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca

After the incident, Quraysh sent a delegation to Muhammad, petitioning to maintain the treaty with the Muslims and offering material compensation.

...

Meanwhile, Abu Sufyan ibn Harb travelled back and forth between Muhammad and Mecca, still trying to reach a settlement in order to avoid conquest.


Here's the rest of that extract - which you chose not to include in your quote:

Quote:
According to the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the Arab tribes were given the option of joining either of the parties, the Muslims or Quraysh. Should any of these tribes face aggression, the party to which it was allied would have the right to retaliate. As a consequence, Banu Bakr joined Quraysh, and Khuza'ah joined Muhammad. They thus lived in peace for some time; but ulterior motives stretching back to the pre-Islamic period, ignited by unabated fire of revenge, triggered fresh hostilities. Banu Bakr, without concern for the provisions of the treaty, attacked Banu Khuza'a in a place called Al-Wateer in Sha'ban, in 8 AH. Quraysh helped Banu Bakr with men and arms, taking advantage of the dark night. Pressed by their enemies, the tribesmen of Khuza'ah sought the Holy Sanctuary, but here too, their lives were not spared, and, contrary to all accepted traditions, Nawfal, the chief of Banu Bakr, chased them in the sanctified area — where no blood should be shed — and massacred his adversaries. Khuza'ah at once sent a delegation to Medina to inform Muhammad, of this breach of truce and to seek help from Muslims of Medina being their allies.

After the incident, Quraysh sent a delegation to Muhammad, petitioning to maintain the treaty with the Muslims and offering material compensation. The Muslim forces had gathered in strength to settle account with Quraysh and for the final attack and the opening of Mecca


So, after making considerable concessions, and despite being in an overwhelming position of strength, Muhammad in all good faith forged a peace deal with the Quraysh. The Quraysh then repay that good faith offered to them by providing men and arms to their ally as they brazenly broke the treaty, and committed a massacre of a tribe allied to the muslims.

And you seriously expect us to believe it was unreasonable of Muhammad to not give them yet another chance? Just imagine if it was Muhammad who broke the treaty. Hilarious.
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
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91866
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #286 - Sep 4th, 2017 at 4:08pm
 
Yes, G, but FD's never trusted Wikipedia, you know that.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #287 - Sep 4th, 2017 at 7:13pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 3:27pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 2:20pm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca

After the incident, Quraysh sent a delegation to Muhammad, petitioning to maintain the treaty with the Muslims and offering material compensation.

...

Meanwhile, Abu Sufyan ibn Harb travelled back and forth between Muhammad and Mecca, still trying to reach a settlement in order to avoid conquest.


Here's the rest of that extract - which you chose not to include in your quote:

Quote:
According to the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the Arab tribes were given the option of joining either of the parties, the Muslims or Quraysh. Should any of these tribes face aggression, the party to which it was allied would have the right to retaliate. As a consequence, Banu Bakr joined Quraysh, and Khuza'ah joined Muhammad. They thus lived in peace for some time; but ulterior motives stretching back to the pre-Islamic period, ignited by unabated fire of revenge, triggered fresh hostilities. Banu Bakr, without concern for the provisions of the treaty, attacked Banu Khuza'a in a place called Al-Wateer in Sha'ban, in 8 AH. Quraysh helped Banu Bakr with men and arms, taking advantage of the dark night. Pressed by their enemies, the tribesmen of Khuza'ah sought the Holy Sanctuary, but here too, their lives were not spared, and, contrary to all accepted traditions, Nawfal, the chief of Banu Bakr, chased them in the sanctified area — where no blood should be shed — and massacred his adversaries. Khuza'ah at once sent a delegation to Medina to inform Muhammad, of this breach of truce and to seek help from Muslims of Medina being their allies.

After the incident, Quraysh sent a delegation to Muhammad, petitioning to maintain the treaty with the Muslims and offering material compensation. The Muslim forces had gathered in strength to settle account with Quraysh and for the final attack and the opening of Mecca


So, after making considerable concessions, and despite being in an overwhelming position of strength, Muhammad in all good faith forged a peace deal with the Quraysh. The Quraysh then repay that good faith offered to them by providing men and arms to their ally as they brazenly broke the treaty, and committed a massacre of a tribe allied to the muslims.

And you seriously expect us to believe it was unreasonable of Muhammad to not give them yet another chance? Just imagine if it was Muhammad who broke the treaty. Hilarious.


Perhaps if you did not concoct such absurdly rose-tinted versions of Islam, you would not have to shift the goal posts so frantically. How many times to I have to remind you why I think Muhammad's behaviour is inconsistent with what you posted? Here it is again Gandalf:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".

Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #288 - Sep 4th, 2017 at 7:48pm
 
FD, you just described the story of Muhammad's attack on Mecca as an event that consisted of nothing more than the poor Meccan's desperately wanting to revive the peace treaty, and Muhammad the warmonger relentlessly marching on. You literally skipped the entire bit about why the treaty was broken in the first place - which, just to recap, was because those poor "peace loving" Meccans armed an ally and provided men to mount a sneak treaty-violating attack against a muslim tribe, and massacred them. This after Muhammad was the one who initiated peace - making great concessions in a position of overwhelming strength.

And you accuse me of concocting 'rose tinted' versions of history. Hillarious.

freediver wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 7:13pm:
How many times to I have to remind you why I think Muhammad's behaviour is inconsistent with what you posted?


I think the problem occurs when you try and "prove" Muhammad's behaviour with such a farcically skewed and cherry picked version of history. Like for example completely omitting the bit about him retaliating against treaty breakers, and pretend its just Muhammad attacking for no other reason that he's an appalling warmonger.
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: 47067
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #289 - Sep 4th, 2017 at 9:08pm
 
Let's try again Gandalf. It's a simple question. Not sure why you have such trouble understanding it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Is this consistent with Muhammad's attack on Mecca?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91866
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #290 - Sep 4th, 2017 at 10:50pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 9:08pm:
Let's try again Gandalf. It's a simple question. Not sure why you have such trouble understanding it.


Classic FD methodology. When they show you up, ask them the question again in an attempt to get the answer you want. Ignore their entire argument and pretend they have trouble understanding. Quote them, deleting the parts where they answer the question. Ignore all their questions. Refuse all attempts to discuss a topic rationally. If they insist, quote Wikipedia and delete everything that proves the opposite of your argument (as if they won't look). And when all that fails, just repeat the same questions robotically:

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they Jewish?

Were they treacherous?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #291 - Sep 5th, 2017 at 2:30pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 9:08pm:
Let's try again Gandalf. It's a simple question. Not sure why you have such trouble understanding it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Is this consistent with Muhammad's attack on Mecca?


You probably never noticed that I already answered that. Yes it is consistent - as explained in great detail. Including pointing out the contexts of the attack on Mecca and the circumstances surrounding chapter 9 revelation (coming after Mecca was conquered) were very different.

But I absolutely agree it doesn't look consistent at all with your blatantly dishonest, cherry picked "rose tinted" version of the facts.
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: 47067
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #292 - Sep 5th, 2017 at 5:49pm
 
Quote:
But I absolutely agree it doesn't look consistent at all with your blatantly dishonest, cherry picked "rose tinted" version of the facts.


Is that a reference to your quote? Are you saying this:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


does not apply to people who have broken their treaties?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #293 - Sep 6th, 2017 at 1:38pm
 
I'm not sure you fully understand the context FD. Chapter 9 came after the conquest of Mecca. It obviously isn't referring to, nor is it relevant to that event. It was a special one-off amnesty given to treaty breakers in a particular circumstance. It is not a general rule that every time treaties are violated, the violators must be given a 4 month amnesty and a second chance. That would be both unreasonable and impractical.

The "general rules" that are generally applicable from Chapter 9 are those related to not harming those who stay true to their treaties, and that fighting in self defence (yes, including retaliation against treaty breakers) is permitted and right.
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: 47067
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #294 - Sep 6th, 2017 at 1:55pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Is this consistent with Muhammad's attack on Mecca?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #295 - Sep 6th, 2017 at 1:57pm
 
try read what I say for once FD. You might actually find your answer.
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: 47067
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #296 - Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:08pm
 
I read what you posted. You have offered all sorts of excuses, apparently for why this is inconsistent with Muhammad's actions. But despite your apparent belief in those excuses, you still cannot bring yourself to give a straight answer. Are you confused by the question Gandalf?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Is this consistent with Muhammad's attack on Mecca?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #297 - Sep 6th, 2017 at 7:13pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:08pm:
Are you confused by the question Gandalf?


I am indeed FD. Your cryptic talk of "consistency" is stupid and makes no sense - as I've been pointing out. I've already asked you to clarify it, and you answered by giving me a cherry picked version of the attack on Mecca - and not answering my question.

Try rewording your question into something that makes sense. That is, if you're not going to clarify for me what you mean by consistency, as I've already asked you to.
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: 47067
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #298 - Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:26pm
 
Quote:
I am indeed FD. Your cryptic talk of "consistency" is stupid and makes no sense - as I've been pointing out. I've already asked you to clarify it, and you answered by giving me a cherry picked version of the attack on Mecca


Have I tried to stop you using your own version of Muhammad's attack on Mecca Gandalf? Use whatever version you want. But offering endless excuses for Muhammad's warmongering is not the same as actually answering this very simple question.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Is this consistent with Muhammad's attack on Mecca?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #299 - Sep 7th, 2017 at 7:35am
 
Really not getting through am I FD.

Try again.
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
 
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 
Send Topic Print