Just making sure what im reading is right...

[Mooks]

I was reading this book "The everlasting hatred ; roots of jihad"

Anyway, the author describes where Muhammed's followers in Medina fought off the 10,000 strong force with a trench, which was sopposedly innovative at the time (if this is true, then military tacticians in Arabia were idiots at the time). Anyway, Muhammed formed a 10-year peace treaty with Mecca.

"By Ad 630. Less than a year later, Muhammed had built up his army. He stormed meccaby suprise and conquered it, thus making himself ruler of the city of his birth.

....

Muslims have quoted the "Quraysh Model" as justification for many deceptive treaties. It means, "Negotiate 'peace' with your enemy until you become strong enough to annihilate him" "

But it goes on... "Mohammad and his disciples treated the jews more severely than any other "ubeleivers". Why? "They had irratated him by their refusal to recongize him as a prophet, by ridicule, and by argument" Explains Guillaume. "And of course their economic supremacy was a standing irratant". Guillaume continues, "Their leaders opposed his claim to be an apostle sent by god, and though they doubtless drew some satisfaction from his acceptance of the divine mission of abaraham,moses and the prophets, they could hardly be expected to welcome to inclusion of jesus among his chosen messagers" Mohammad decided these non-beleivers, these skeptics of his homeland,had to be eliminated if he was going to fulfill his imperial ambitions. So he orderd and islamic law :"Two religions may not dwell together on the arabian peninsula".

Going on.... "After issuing this decree, mohammad wasted no time in eforcing it. He went after the jewish communites of northern arabia, systematically slaughtereing them all. First the quraiza tribe was exterminated. Then mohammand sent messagers to the jewish community at the oasis of Khaibar "inviting" Usayr, their war cheif, to visit medina for peace negotiations.

Usayr set off with 30 companions and a muslim escort, " writes historian Norman Stillman "Suspecting no foul play, the jews went unarmed. On the way the muslims turned upon the defenseless delagation, killing all but one who managed to escape" Mohammed attacked and destroeyd their entire community.

Mohommed justified this treachers saying "War is deception" "

And it goes on and on. The point is, is what the author say is true? It blows my mind how 1.3 billion people can worship a man, who completely disregarded a peace treaty and a invatation for peace negotitions, backstabbing them both. A man who breaks his honor like this, is worthless crap in my eyes, not worthy of any praise. No honor = Scum

I just wanted to make sure that this is true, iv never read the koran, not sure. The author is a pious christrian who obviosly views Islam as false.

[Del Arroyo]

I can tell you the answers that you seek are not in the Qur'aan, as this book does not chronicle the life of Mohammed (s.a.3.w.s.), but rather is a collection of what are considered to be his "revelations". As to the veracity of this author's claims, I am skeptical, as I have not heard this argument before elsewhere.

I do know that Mohammed (s.a.3.w.s) took revenge on certain Jewish tribes because they initially allied themselves with him, only to betray him and join the Meccan coalition. At least this is the way it is normally told.

As far as attacking Mecca, it is worth saying, for balance, that the conquest of that city is normally held up as an example of Mohammed's (s.a.3.w.s) mercy, because he did not slaughter the populace and burn it to the ground.

I know there are references available on the internet, perhaps you could check some of those.

[Mooks]

I can tell you the answers that you seek are not in the Qur'aan, as this book does not chronicle the life of Mohammed (s.a.3.w.s.), but rather is a collection of what are considered to be his "revelations". As to the veracity of this author's claims, I am skeptical, as I have not heard this argument before elsewhere.

I do know that Mohammed (s.a.3.w.s) took revenge on certain Jewish tribes because they initially allied themselves with him, only to betray him and join the Meccan coalition. At least this is the way it is normally told.

As far as attacking Mecca, it is worth saying, for balance, that the conquest of that city is normally held up as an example of Mohammed's (s.a.3.w.s) mercy, because he did not slaughter the populace and burn it to the ground.

I know there are references available on the internet, perhaps you could check some of those.

I have no clue where to start researching something like this.

The author usually describes muslims in a very very bad way. But im confused, if he spared mecca and was called merciful, but slaughtered numerous jewish tribes. How can he be called merciful?

[Major Robert Dump]

Everytime his people started to doubt he was the prophet or get restless, he would fire up a campaign against jews, kill and loot their treasure, and placate the folks with riches and comfort.

[Mooks]

I just noticed, this belongs in a diffrent thread section.




"I dont think your a prophet muhammed....."

"Whats that? What are you saying to me god? Go steal some jew gold? Of course we will!"

"Praise allah"

[Scurvy]

"I dont think your a prophet muhammed....."

"Whats that? What are you saying to me god? Go steal some jew gold? Of course we will!"

"Praise allah"

It worked brilliantly

[Watchman]

I've read he ran into some scriptural disputes with a fair few of those Jews (seeing as how Islam comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition, but interpretations differing) which duly led to a falling out and sorting out the theological differences the old-fashioned way well liked by everyone with an army.

Which is about everyone on the Arabian peninsula those days, since around every tribe and community almost by definition also constituted a military power.

There's also the raw Realpolitik angle - Mohammed and his burgeoning Muslim community were fighting for their survival and jockeying for power in a rather complicated and fluid political scene where communitarian warfare and raiding was regarded as perfectly normal, and not a few of his allies were such for purely opportunistic reasons. Those obviously didn't actually care a jack about the sectarian issues but rather more about good old standbys like power, loot and glory, or siding with the apparent winning side (a few later champions of the Muslim conquests were originally some of the Prophet's most troublesome and bitter foes...). Plus sorting out old grudges if the opportunity presented itself.

So he orderd and islamic law :"Two religions may not dwell together on the arabian peninsula".

This sounds rather more like that one decree one of the first Caliphs made, IMO. And it has been pointed out in some sources that may well have been but an excuse to relocate certain non-Muslim communities of skilled armourers closer to the front line in the Levant and Mesopotamia.

[Pannonian]

The author is quite interesting. Perhaps he can explain jihad in the context of his endtime theories.

Question: do religious fundies really have a mainstream audience on the west side of the pond?

[macsen rufus]

Mr Lindsey sounds like a total fruitbat with an agenda to fulfill, IMHO, and a serial failed prophet to boot. Not much of a platform to go dissing other prophets from....

I would take anything you read in that book with a pillar of salt.

[Spetulhu]

I wouldn't be surprised if the youngest Abrahamic tradition had something of a turbulent start. It isn't alone with this. The Jews were given ten commandments, but slaughtering everyone in the holy land and taking their stuff was obviously not against these. Jesus said to love your neighbor and in the next breath he tells you all non-christians should be regarded as enemies.

[Pannonian]

I wouldn't be surprised if the youngest Abrahamic tradition had something of a turbulent start. It isn't alone with this. The Jews were given ten commandments, but slaughtering everyone in the holy land and taking their stuff was obviously not against these. Jesus said to love your neighbor and in the next breath he tells you all non-christians should be regarded as enemies.

Whatever the start the Muslims had, they were regarded as non-threatening enough for the Jerusalemite Jews to help them take the city, and for Jews in Muslim-held territories to remain loyal for the next 1300 years, preferring them to any other rulers. Certainly anti-semitism is a primarily European and specifically Christian tradition, using the excuse of blood guilt to periodically squeeze and even eradicate the Jews in their midst (eg. Edward Longshanks). Christianity has a long and dishonourable history of maltreating Jews.

[Randarkmaan]

As for slaughtering the jewish clans systematically I've read something a bit different, which was more along the lines of: After they dismissed him and ridiculed him he fought them and all the male members (warriors) of one clan were killed while the others who foughth him were exiled.
PS: Not a direct quote, just roughly what I recall reading.
Anyway I share the views of many that what this books says should not be taken seriously as he's just trying to inspire hatred against muslims, the very same thing he's blaming Mohammed for doing against the jews.

[Watchman]

I seem to recall reading the Jews in most places (or within the Byzantine sphere of influence and in Visigoth Spain anyway) usually hailed the Muslim conquerors as liberators. For pretty damn good reasons too. As for that matter did assorted Christian sects at loggerheads with whatever interpretation of the faith their overlords ascribed to...

[Del Arroyo]

The Copts in Egypt have a very nasty memory of Muslim conquest which remains strong to this day. The new rulers gave the population three choices-- pay a large fine, or convert to Islam, or die.

The rich Christians opted for the fine and the rest... fell into one of the other two categories.

[Randarkmaan]

This maltreatment of the Coptic majority (at the time) in Egypt wasn't that under the so called "Mad Caliph" rather than immdiately after the Arab conquest? Because before the Abbassid Caliphate Islam was largely viewed, by Arabs, as the religion of the Arab ruling class rather than as the religion of the masses. And regarding the Copts in Egypt they only really started to become a minority in Egypt after the so called "Mad Caliph" who wanted to forcefully convert all christians and jews in his realm, and they did not become a minority in Egypt until the late 12th century, 400 years after they were conquered by the Arabs.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Jesus said to love your neighbor and in the next breath he tells you all non-christians should be regarded as enemies.

Care to share the verse(s) on that last bit?

[Pannonian]

This maltreatment of the Coptic majority (at the time) in Egypt wasn't that under the so called "Mad Caliph" rather than immdiately after the Arab conquest? Because before the Abbassid Caliphate Islam was largely viewed, by Arabs, as the religion of the Arab ruling class rather than as the religion of the masses. And regarding the Copts in Egypt they only really started to become a minority in Egypt after the so called "Mad Caliph" who wanted to forcefully convert all christians and jews in his realm, and they did not become a minority in Egypt until the late 12th century, 400 years after they were conquered by the Arabs.

Was that the chap who scolded Muhammad for being lax in his observance of the religion?

[Kanamori]

Those people believe muhammed???? It's no wonder I think that they should all die and are all scumbags.

[Randarkmaan]

Was that the chap who scolded Muhammad for being lax in his observance of the religion?

I don't think so, the "mad caliph" (Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah) was just a little mad... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Caliph Here's his wikipedia entry.
He was not very nice towards christians, he for an example made them wear black hats and they had to wear one meter-long crosses on their backs.

[Orb]

On the first post.

Didn't the Jews also try to assassinate Muhammed?

I don't agree with Islam, but that writer seems fairly biased.

[Spetulhu]

Jesus said to love your neighbor and in the next breath he tells you all non-christians should be regarded as enemies.

Care to share the verse(s) on that last bit?

Try Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for starters.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I don't remember the "all non-christians should be regarded as enemies" bit - though I haven't really read my Bible at all.

I do remember Jesus being big on the whole "love your neighbor" thing though.

[Spetulhu]

I don't remember the "all non-christians should be regarded as enemies" bit - though I haven't really read my Bible at all.

I do remember Jesus being big on the whole "love your neighbor" thing though.

Reading the bible is a good cure for christianity. Reasonable people bash cultish churches for the way they freeze out even family members who don't bow to Jesus, but they're only following the example set by the same.

The church wants people to join and stay. These days it's Love Thy Neighbor that sells, at least better than Kill All Non-believers.

[Ser Clegane]

Try Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for starters

I do not want to be picky, but I think you should provide a bit more to back up your previous statement, as I personally do not recall the "non-Christians should be regarded as enemies" part either ... of course I am open to being educated

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Still vague and unhelpful, Spetulhu!

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Those people believe muhammed???? It's no wonder I think that they should all die and are all scumbags.

Every religion had/has violence. Christianity: Crusades, killing Muslims in the name of God. Jews: Destroying the walls of Jericho and continuing fighting tribes for unity. Muslims: Mohammeds coquest of Mecca, and today's terrorist bombings.

But, I hope you don't think all Muslims are terrorists.

[BDC]

Muslims have quoted the "Quraysh Model" as justification for many deceptive treaties. It means, "Negotiate 'peace' with your enemy until you become strong enough to annihilate him"

That's hardly exactly a Muslim thing. Pretty sure that's how most of the world was conquered by Europeans.

[Spetulhu]

Still vague and unhelpful, Spetulhu!

He does call people enemies for not believing. Or rather for not bowing to him.

Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.


As for shunning unbelievers he leaves his own mother outside when she comes calling!
Matthew:
12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Nope, this is not the kind of example I'd wish to follow.

[Pannonian]

quote=holybandit
Muslims have quoted the "Quraysh Model" as justification for many deceptive treaties. It means, "Negotiate 'peace' with your enemy until you become strong enough to annihilate him"

That's hardly exactly a Muslim thing. Pretty sure that's how most of the world was conquered by Europeans.

Most notably America. The conquest of the American wilds is possibly the most sustained campaign of treachery and broken promises in recorded history. Even the Mongols tended only to break their oaths to open a campaign, not repeatedly make, ignore and void treaties.

[Kanamori]

Every religion had/has violence. Christianity: Crusades, killing Muslims in the name of God. Jews: Destroying the walls of Jericho and continuing fighting tribes for unity. Muslims: Mohammeds coquest of Mecca, and today's terrorist bombings.

But, I hope you don't think all Muslims are terrorists.

I don't actually hate or love muslims for being muslims. It was a statement on the ridiculousness of implying anything about modern day muslims based on what mohammed did; first, they are not him and haven't done any of those things; second, his teachings are separate from his supposed actions, and many people interpret his teachings differently; fourth, the sequence of interpreting islamic history tends to go: I already dislike muslims -----> look at these (vague interpretations of) events in history, mohammed was a bastard (conclusion reached because of hasty interpretation based on previous hatred)-----> muslims beleive in mohammed, and think these evil things are OK -----> Aha, muslims really are scum... not many people actually invest the time to get many sources of information or construct a clear idea of all that actually happened -- eg of imporance Jill shot Jack in the face ---> ah, Jill is bad ... but actually, Jack first attacked Jill with a machete... people leave out, or miss out of ignorance, vital information for making a correct judgment... You can usually tell the sources are biased off their rockers when they are harsh and vague about things that are important for judgment.

They go into the whole thing with an incredibly colored perception of reality, use it to justify some conclusion based on way too little information, and then from that justify their twisted idea of things that they always had.

But yes, most every religion has its violent adherents: people, even common murderers and rapists, tend to think that they are justified, ie based on some personal belief, in harming others when they do it.