[Slonopotam845]

Well I don't think there is much argument that Jews were living in Medina when Muhammad (SAW) arrived there. What we may dispute is the actions and motivations of those Jews. Guillaume's source for his biography was Ibn Ishaq. And I seriously doubt that Ishaq paints the Prophet as a land hungry tyrant. I don't believe that he was. But I can understand how the Meccans and the Medinans perceived him as a threat both economically and politically. As soon as people stop worshipping the almighty dollar and start to look at the fragile power structure, they become a danger to the status quo. This was the case in his time and it is still the case today.

But the life of Muhammad, like the life of Abraham to the Jews and the life of Jesus to the Christians is more than just history. We use it as a constructive example. If I conceived of the Prophet as you conceive of him, I could never build a constructive life. My interpretation of events guides me in my decisions. In this case, I specify very carefully THOSE Jews of Medina. That way, I am free to interpret the verses in the Qur'an relating to THOSE Jews independantly of any other Jews. According to that reading, the revelations that came were instructive and protective of the then struggling Muslim ummah.

But that reading is justified when we come to the example of the Jews of Mecca. They are treated altogether differently from the Jews of Medina. I'm sure that you have some explanation for the amnesty of the Jews of Mecca. I'd be interested to know what it is. The Qur'an demands that Muslims stop fighting at the point when their enemies stop fighting them. And the Jews of Mecca did not fight the Muslims and were given amnesty.

[brraverishhh]

Originally posted by andak01
The situation continued to deteriorate until, by the Battle of the Trench, the Banu Quraiza were actually fighting against the Muslims. The question is, when are we going to start the peace process on Medina and get our so long and so brutally occupied territories back? Add to this compensations to the refugees in the n-th generation and proceeds from the oil sales.

[Drugmachine]

So you and other Muslims are willing to drop the idea that the Pal Arabs can come flooding back into present day Israel.

Until you do, you will be rightly seen as the intellectual frauds that you are.

Gosh, let me get together with all the Pals and we'll form a quorum! Do you have any other rules that I must conform to in order not to be an intellectual fraud?

That's my own opinion. Getting land isn't the only way to resolve this. Right of return is one possibility of many and if it's not leading anywhere, it should be dropped. I don't have any control over what Palestinians think, nor; it would appear, does the Quran. Terrorism is, and this opinion is shared by a multitude of Sharia scholars who have issued fatwas against it both in America, in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, contrary to Islam.

And the fact that there are no Jews in the Arabian Peninula today says how much peace and amnesty the Jews there have endured. If you bothered to read my posts, you'd know that numerous times I've suggested that, since there were Jews living in Arabia at the time of the Prophet's death, there can be no Sunna to forbid them from being there. If anyone had power to wipe them out, he did. They were in fact, still there for decades and possibly centuries after his death.

The problem is that Muslim logic works like this: Is it good for the Ummah? Then it must be good. It doesn't work like it does in the rest of the world where people say is it good? Then in must be good for me. And how does it work with lovers of Israel or for that matter lovers of France? Diplomacy was created for the very reason that the peoples of the world are a set of intersecting, self-interested groups. The trick is to cause us to interact in ways that are mutually beneficial instead of destructive.

What is so sad about your points is that they are so easily refuted by sources you use as sources. This can be found at the USC-MSA Conpendium of Muslim Texts: What's so sad about you is you want any proof of Islamic militancy to be true so badly you can taste it. There's no room or use in your worldview for a moderate interpretation of Islam any more than in Bin Laden's.

No it doesn't say "Two religions may not dwell together on the Arabian Peninsula" but it does quote Mohammed as explicitly stating that only one religion, Islam, can remain. If that ain't specific and directed ethnic cleansing that nothing is. That's also what Christianity says. On the Day of Christian Judgement, according to them, you are going to get your marching orders from Jesus. You'll be bowing and scraping to him. Don't take it from me. There's a couple of thousand years of Jews being forced to convert or expelled from their land by Christians. Have you considered when you are going to reclaim Prague or Vienna? What about all the Jewish property that was seized during the middle ages in Britain?

[doctorzlo]

Wow, that is brutal. Whatever happened to "no compulsion in religion"? I told you, Andak, Mohammad was a hypocrite. How can you believe this guy's empty promises? He was a charlatan, man.
Aw your comparison just sucks. Cant you see the difference? In christianity they leave the ethnic cleansing to God. So this is practically meaningless and harmless if you are not a christian.
In Islam however it was your bogus Prophet and his Caliphs who did the horrendous deeds. And non-muslims get to suffer for it.

man i think this is too much
Arabs or sunnis, Shiites believe in different way.

[softy54534]

are you trying to say that Mohammad did not follow his own Quran?

Hadith study is not about cherry picking a hadith, leaving behind its context and then making general assumptions from there. Before we even get to how well translated it was or not, we'd need to know who related it, what context it was related under and how other scholars have interpreted it.

Jerusalem isnt part of the Arabian Peninsula. No. But Jews were living in Mecca until the death of Prophet Muhammad. Do you dispute that??? He had the force to drive them out or kill every last one of them if that was his intention. It wasn't and he didn't.


Isnt this radical to you???...

"I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" - Mohammad Religiously it has no meaning to me at all. It's translated, unattributed and taken out of all context. I don't even know if Muhammad said it, much less what he would have meant by such a statement. If that was his intention, he wasn't very effective. There were Jews living in Mecca until after he died.

Your comparison still sucks. We are talking about Mohammad. Keep comparing him to another religious founder. You just cant do it with Jesus. I doubt can too with Joseph Smith. Not even with L Ron Hubbard. If the only attribute that counts with founders is whether they are peaceful or not, I can't do it with Moses or Henry VIII (founder of the Church of England). Besides, come back in 14 centuries and let's count the number of Scientologists. Back to Moses, I suppose you would prefer that the Pharoah captured the Jews at the Red Sea? Some Prophets were peaceful, some weren't. Where would the Jews be if it weren't for David. He was supposed to shake hands with Goliath?