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

[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.