Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

As I was doing a little research on the war crimes carried out by the Muhammad and the early Muslims, I came across this quote from Tabari:

p22 from Tabari's ninth volume:

While he was in Liyyah, the Messenger of God ordered that the fortress of Malik b 'Awf be demolished. He then followed a road called Dayqah. As he was passing through it he inquired about its name. When he was told that it was al-Dayqah, he said, "No, rather it is al-Yusra." Then he went by Nakhb and halted under a lote tree called al-Sadirah near the property of a man of Thaquif. The Messenger of God sent word to him either to come out or else his walled garden would be destroyed. He refused to come out, so the Messenger of God ordered the walled garden to be destroyed.

It's also interesting to take Ibn Ishaq's account of the destruction of Ta'if's orchards into account when assessing the argument that referring to the destruction of communal property as 'collective punishment' is an example of 'Orientalist spin':

on p589, Ibn Ishaq writes:

The apostle besieged them and fought them bitterly and the two sides exchanged arrows, untilwhen the day of storming came at the wall of al-Ta'if a number of his companions went under a testudo and advanced up to the wall to breach it. Thaqif let loose on them scraps of hot iron so they came out from under it and Thaqif shot them with arrows and killed some of them. The apostle ordered that the vineyards of Thaqif should be cut down and the men fell upon them cutting them down.

However, destroying the produce of two cities does not seem to have been enough for the early Muslims. During the battle of Hunayn, before the siege of Ta'if, the Muslims fought and defeated a coalition of pagan tribes. After their routing, the Muslims captured 6,000 women and children who were brought along on the battle and used them as bargaining chips to force the hands of the pagans into surrendering.

Montgomery Watt writes on page of 73 of his biography of the prophet:

The booty had been left at al-Jai'ranah, not far from Hunayn, under the charge of Mas'ud b. 'Amr al-Ghifari. The prisoners were there also except that a few of the women had been given to the leading Companions. There was sufficient booty to give every man in the Muslim army four camels or the equivalent.

The 'women' that are said to have been kept as concubines probably refers to Ibn Ishaq's (and other biographers) narration on pg 593:

Abu Wajza told me that the apostle gave 'Ali a girl called Rayta Hilal; and he bave Umar a girl called Zaynab d. Hayyan; and he gave 'umar a girl whom Umar gave to his son Abdullah.

While I know it does sound awfully generous to just give back the women and children the early Muslims used as ransom to force a tribe to surrender - save a few unlucky 'girls' who were passed off as party favors to the leading companions, it should be noted that Muhammad and the Muslims did not ride home empty handed.

According to Ibn Ishaq (p 592), Muhammad forced the men to make a choice in what they wanted to keep - their families or their livestock and additional booty. Needless to say, the Muslims made off with quite a bit of booty that day and, I guess, everyone was happy the Muslims returned to Mecca.

Well, I agree you believe Muhammad, pbuh, actions consituted war crimes and collective punishments. I've quoted historians who disagree with your interpretations of events (eg calling what you term massacres as 'clement punishments). So the disagreements we may have are actually over your interpretations of events, and I tend to agree with the historians on the matter and disagree with your spin.

What is interesting is that you felt the need to start a new thread to talk about the same subject - the supposed collective punishment of cutting down of some vines of the Thaqif tribe. You stop the quotes before they go on to describe that the tribe came out to negotiate and that the siege was lifted by the Muslims. But I guess it was easier for you to start a new thread than address the full account in the other thread.

I've also agreed with you that if they were even half as bad as Israeli collective punishments - then they too should be condemned.

I've also pointed out that the actions of Moses described in the Bible constitute even greater crimes against humanity - there Moses massacred women, children, and animals - as well as the men - of captured villages.

You will be aware that the Bible says that God will send a Prophet 'like unto Moses' - so in this aspect - being accused of war crimes - Muhammad, pbuh, is indeed 'like unto Moses', and this aspect of Prophethood cannot be applied to Jesus.



As for calling cutting and pasting from Islamphobic websites 'research' - I think that is stretching it a bit. However, given your funny comments that Goldstein was influenced by Islam (and yet you still don't condemn him as a religiously based terrorist) - I guess your research is really a search for quotes that agree with your Orientalist views of Islam. Why let facts get in the way of prejudice - eh?

Cheers,
Shafique

As for calling cutting and pasting from Islamphobic websites 'research'

All accusations and no evidence, I see.

But it is ironic that you, of all people, should complain about copying-pasting from missionary websites.

Have you forgotten you were caught copying-pasting NT verses taken out of context from an Ahmadiyya missionary website?

I'm more than happy to re-post the article if you don't mind. It seems that you needed to run to websites when having a discussion about the Bible - missionary websites for the purpose of giving 'Muslims' talking points' in debates with Christians, no less.

Perhaps that would explain the reason you were making so many basic errors on the New Testament that someone with even a basic handle on Christian theology would not make. But hey, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and agree that you were doing serious research before coming to your 'conclusions' on Christianity.

In any event, I see that you missed three out of the four allegations of collective punishment - instead choosing to focus on a quote from Ibn Ishaq that describes Muhammad's destruction of Ta'if's vineyards (and trees) similarly to how Haykal described the incident, which if you recall, you claimed Haykal was an orientalist for his passage.

As for the rest of the quote, you're free to provide the following paragraph on the next page. Perhaps you can also explain to me who the players quoted in the passage are, etc,?

Regardless, my quote from Ibn Ishaq is clear - Muhammad ordered the destruction of Ta'if's fields and the Muslims set upon destroying them, according to Ishaq. What is to not understand that the destruction of fields in retaliation for the Muslims losing a few men is an example of collective punishment?

I've quoted historians who disagree with your interpretations of events

Eh?

I refer to your own thread on naiive empiricism:

Naïve empiricism:

..I call this overload of examples naïve empiricism – selections of anecdotes selected to fit a story do not constitute evidence. Anyone looking for confirmation will find enough of it to deceive himself - and no doubt his peers.

It is also naïve empiricism to provide, in support of some argument, series of eloquent confirmatory quotes by dead authorities. By searching, you can always find someone who made a well-sounding statement that confirms your point of view – and, on every topic, it is possible to find a dead thinker that said the exact opposite.

As I said, it is interesting that you started a new thread on exactly the same topic. Did you think I would not notice or that I would suddenly forget that I posted a fuller account of the incident to counter your selective quotes and Orientalist interpretation/spin?

I understand you may not have understood/accepted the full account and explanation in the previous thread, but I would have thought you would at least acknowledge that I agree that had Muhammad, pbuh, committed the crimes you allege, he would be as guilty as the Israelis and also 'like unto Moses'.

Cheers,
Shafique

My bad - I forgot to include the definitions of collective punishment I came across on the web.

I promise I didn't quote them off of "oriental' websites, so you don't have to worry about any spin:

Collective Punishment

No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.

Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907, Article 50

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons, Section I : Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories, Article 33

Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons, Section III: Occupied Territories, Article 53

International law also prohibits an occupying power from imposing collective punishment on the occupied population.

To me, it sounds like Muhammad clearly meets the definition as someone who carried out collective punishment. But what do you think?

shafique wrote:As I said, it is interesting that you started a new thread on exactly the same topic. Did you think I would not notice or that I would suddenly forget that I posted a fuller account of the incident to counter your selective quotes and Orientalist interpretation/spin?

I understand you may not have understood/accepted the full account and explanation in the previous thread, but I would have thought you would at least acknowledge that I agree that had Muhammad, pbuh, committed the crimes you allege, he would be as guilty as the Israelis and also 'like unto Moses'.

I take it we agree Muhammad, pbuh, was a prophet 'like unto Moses' then.

Excellent.

Cheers,
Shafique

Cool - then we agree that since Muhammad was a war criminal, the passages in the Koran which say to emulate Muhammad should be ignored.

Thanks for confirming that you don't disagree with me then - Muhammad, pbuh, was a prophet 'like unto Moses' - both accused of war crimes.

Cheers,
Shafique

You're absolutely right. I view the kidnapping of women and children - holding them hostage until the their fathers and husbands surrendered, then taking a great amount of spoils of war that day, including some concubines for the leading companions, to be war crimes/collective punishment.

Thank you for acknowledging that you see concubinage/theft on a massive scale as a practice to be followed by Muslims to this very day.

As I said, al-Qaeda, who follow the Quran when it says to emulate the prophet, are very good Muslims.

Just to make the point that allegations of war crimes have been made before and dealt with - and to make the point that I conceded if war crimes were committed they should be condemned (I highlight that below).

By contrast, event horizon, refuses to condemn the slaughter of civilians where he thinks God told the Israelites to do so.

Does that make eh a religious extremist/fanatic?

shafique wrote:Well, I agree you believe Muhammad, pbuh, actions consituted war crimes and collective punishments. I've quoted historians who disagree with your interpretations of events (eg calling what you term massacres as 'clement punishments). So the disagreements we may have are actually over your interpretations of events, and I tend to agree with the historians on the matter and disagree with your spin.

What is interesting is that you felt the need to start a new thread to talk about the same subject - the supposed collective punishment of cutting down of some vines of the Thaqif tribe. You stop the quotes before they go on to describe that the tribe came out to negotiate and that the siege was lifted by the Muslims. But I guess it was easier for you to start a new thread than address the full account in the other thread.

I've also agreed with you that if they were even half as bad as Israeli collective punishments - then they too should be condemned.

I've also pointed out that the actions of Moses described in the Bible constitute even greater crimes against humanity - there Moses massacred women, children, and animals - as well as the men - of captured villages.

You will be aware that the Bible says that God will send a Prophet 'like unto Moses' - so in this aspect - being accused of war crimes - Muhammad, pbuh, is indeed 'like unto Moses', and this aspect of Prophethood cannot be applied to Jesus.



As for calling cutting and pasting from Islamphobic websites 'research' - I think that is stretching it a bit. However, given your funny comments that Goldstein was influenced by Islam (and yet you still don't condemn him as a religiously based terrorist) - I guess your research is really a search for quotes that agree with your Orientalist views of Islam. Why let facts get in the way of prejudice - eh?

Cheers,
Shafique

Of course, one of the major loopholes is that you would first have to view something to be a war crime for you to condemn it.

Very smart shafique, very smart.

Just like Muhammad's statutory rape of Aisha. No doubt that union was statutory rape (the Koran allows said union in any event), but you don't call it statutory rape (for whatever sick and twisted excuse you can concoct). So, Aisha's rape is not something to be condemned by you.

Really, shafique condemns war crimes just as he condemns statutory rape.


But, uhm, yeah, I'm the religious fanatic. And the sky is green........

Well, we are still waiting for you to condemn the butchering of women, men and babies and the enslavement of 32,000 virgins.

Doesn't your justification of this make you a religious extremist (not to mention a hypocrite to boot)?

I totally condemn Allah's collective punishment of numerous cities - civilians were slaughtered by Allah because the inhabitants were unbelievers and rejected Allah's message.