Muhammad committed genocide against the three large tribes of Jews in Medina. Muslims have invented an elaborate and detailed fairy tail justification for this genocide, which centers on the treaty of Medina and how each of the 3 tribes successively violated it. Every Muslim who has posted here has given us the same story. I am not sure where it comes from, as it is not 'traditional' and has no historical basis. Gandalf goes into evasion mode every time I ask where it came from.

There is a surviving copy of what some people call the treaty of Medina. It lists the tribes who are party to it. The list does not include the Jews. There is no evidence that it was even a treaty in the conventional sense. Some historians conclude it was merely a unilateral declaration by Muhammad. The details that Muslims attach to the story about the Jews being bound by this treaty are all fabricated, based on speculation that a different version once existed to which the Jews were bound.

Historical events contradict the story. For example, after Muhammad's first serious military style victory, which was part of his growing campaign of highway robbery of Meccan traders, he openly threatened the Jews of Medina with a similar fate to his recent victims if they did not convert to Islam.

The suggestion that the Jews would have willingly agreed to a treaty that permitted Muhammad to openly issue a "convert to Islam or die" threat, but still bound them to defend Muhammad, is nothing short of ludicrous. As is the expectation that we should take seriously an elaborate and detailed fantasy to justify Muhammad's genocide which is entirely fabricated. Yet that is what Muslims expect us to believe.

Quote:

"some historians" = blatant lie.

FD have you figured out if the Banu Qurayza acted in good faith and were betrayed by Muhammad, or that it was actually the Banu Qurayza who rightfully broke their agreement as some heroic defenders of humanity? Because you've argued both previously.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2018 at 12:11pm:


Lets see the citation of those "historians" (plural) concluding that it was a unilateral declaration FD. Or are you going to come clean and concede that the only citation you've ever seen is that of Bernard Lewis paraphrased in a wikipedia article?

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2018 at 11:55am:


That is self evident in what I posted.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2018 at 9:24pm:


I've dedicated about 100 posts saying something about it FD. Something along the lines of 'you lied when you said there were a plurality of historians - given that we all know you have seen but a single citation - Bernard Lewis.' Did you suffer amnesia while you were away?

Interesting too that you now choose to reply to my first post and bizarrely claim that I have nothing to say - as if post# 4, 6 and 7 don't even exist.

Quote:


Oh....I know who you will assert did that FD.

Read my PM....more doxxing.

Quote:


How could you possible even know this Gandalf?

Is this something to do with the special Islamic method for determining the reliability of historical claims?