Bharat Rakshak

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... lling.html

Excerpts:

Suspected Mossad agent arrested over Dubai killing
Polish authorities have arrested a suspected Mossad agent thought to have played a role in the Dubai assassination of a Hamas commander.

Uri Brodsky was arrested in early June on arrival at Warsaw's airport on suspicions that he helped a member of the hit squad get a German passport in June 2009.

"He was arrested in Warsaw and is suspected of being involved in illegally obtaining a (German) passport," a spokesman for German federal prosecution said.


Related Articles
US drone attack kills 45 militants in Pakistan, officials say
Pakistan admits Mumbai attacks planned inside its borders

"It's now up to the Poles to decide if they are going to hand him over to Germany."

Mahmud al-Mabhuh, a founder of the military wing of the Islamist Hamas movement which controls Gaza, was found dead in his room in the Al Bustan Rotana hotel near Dubai airport on January 20.

Dubai police have released extensive surveillance camera footage they say shows the team of suspects from the hit squad they have linked to the Mossad. The Hamas man had been drugged and then suffocated.

Twelve British, six Irish, four French, one German and three Australian passports were used by 26 people believed linked to the murder, according to Dubai police.

Shyamd,
yes we are going back in circles.

Problem was you were most reluctant to acknowledge at the very beginning - when you loudly and faithfully requoted details of torure, genocide by Romans, Persians and Christians - but never ever could bring yourself up to mentioning any such activity by Muslims. When I debated, with you - then you managed just one line of "massacres" and "social and economic discrimination".

Look back at your own posts : how much of that describes in great details repeatedly about atrocities from Romans et al, and how much do you devote to Muslims? Only when I saw that you were not going to mention the continuous genocidic behaviour by Muslims - while occupying Palestine and lording it over the Jews and Christians over the last very last 500 years of occupation you mention - that I began to write about Islamic atrocities.

I have not yet given details of Islamic atrocities while occupying Palestine to the depth of details you repeated again and again by non-Muslims. I have started by giving only one short post with a glimpse on the treatment of Jews in Palestine and Arab domination under non-war conditions.

You have little or no exposure to how official and academic history is manufactured. I gave you a hint in trying to point you out to Josephus (he is not an exception) as to how certain of Jewish elite collaborated with anti-Semites against their own and denied or suppressed trauma. Surely you have noted a similar tendency in Hindu elite like the Thaparites. But this phenomena in the Jews is mostly limited to politically sensitive public dissemination of historical reconstructions. This does not mean that academic studies of anti-Semitism among Muslims, its continuance in the 19th to the 20th century even at the same time when European dominant opinion began to change - is not documented. The records and studies exist.

I didn't deem it necessary to add to the Roman or Christian atrocities because you were doing it exceptionally well. I was simply waiting and prodding you repeatedly to see if you would describe in such details about Islamic atrocities in the Levant.

After a long wait, I began with a small post showing that contrary to the impression you sought to create [remember "some freedoms - therefore more returned" etc?] the conditions under Muslims were similar at least compared to the Christians and according to some contemporay Jews even worse. You failed to notice the significance of my point that in spite of such torture and atrocities by "Christians" there were many more Jews in Europe compared to the excellent tolerant and milk and honey land of Palestine. You yourself mentioned this withouit realizing that this severely undermined your thesis of Christians being equally or more atrocious than muslims.

Now I will post on what happened under Jihadi conditions or Jihadi excuses. Continuously - under each and every Muslim regime in the general area we are discussing now. I will also shows that there were some important differences and that the islamic treatment was more Sadistic compared to the "others" in certain respects.

Moreover, the Arabs or muslims cannot be absolved because they continued doing what they were doing right up to the 1948 creation of Israel. They never really stopped.

Before mocking Herodotus [yes and then you will say - oh I simply quoted someone else's comments!] do read up on modern assessments of Herodotus. it still remains an important source text for many items of contemporary history. There are aspects of his narratives that are found to be fantastic, but this does not trash each and every thing he wrote down. Herodotus was one of the closest in time to the incident we were talking about and a non-Jew and a non-Babylonian - satisfying some of the important criteria of the modern historical method.

You have desperately tried to show an equal equal between Christian and Muslim atrocities by focusing on Christian atrocities only. So far I have not even gone into the gory details of Muslim atrocities compared to what you have given for Christians. I guess only then it would be equal equal. Similarly you have not found the time to mention even a single instance of Christians or Romans also extending "encouragement" to the Jews, or giving them "some freedoms" (which was primarily responsible for the large settlements of Jews in Europes you yourself mention). No doing that would not have shown the Muslims doing a comparatively favourable job from the PR viewpoint!

The fact is that while Europeans had no control over Palestine for the better part 700 years until the first world war, it was the Muslim occupation that carried on the genocidic and repressive treatment of the Jews in the Levant, and therefore, even if they had the wish the Christians could not maintain the murderous and sadistic implementation of anti-Semitism that the islamics could. when you are repeatedly trying to draw an equal equal you are deliberately subverting this continuity aspect that persisted even under British protectorate in the interwar years.

The Europeans or Christians or Persians had no access to the region regime wise to continue the repression - while Islamics had - for 700 years before WWII. Placing an equal equal is fallacious and only justifying the cause of Islamism.

Shyamd;

I dont know whats so difficult about my simple question

20 of 22 Arab league nations accept Israel, accept its passport, accept its citizen for free travel, allow trade, set up Diplomatic missions?

Yes or no?

Palestine != Saudi Arabia for example, no reason Saudi A cant accept Israel right, after all SA has no land issues with Israel?

Its as simple as that. Gerard had made a post about 10 basic facts about Israel -- you should read that, your basics are totally messed up.

Let me tell this to you in nut shell

1) Jews buy land in Levant to make a new home land
2) Arabs sell land then dont let Jews use it, lot of riots et al
3) Jews use the end of WW II and the sympathy in their favor (for once) to make a state from the purchased land
4) Arabs attack -- overwhelming so -- the miserable people get their asses handed back to them by the Jews
5) Point 4 repeats about 3-4 times, Arabs attack Israel in their great confidence and each time Israel wins and also takes more territory. Territory which was promised to them.
6) Arabs are in funk, they have no idea what to do so they support terrorist activities and play the victim, which no one who is not a Arab or a Arab-phile buys into, the world knows who is what.

7) The Arabs still dont accept Israel or Jews, but want to talk to them to return what they lost when they tried to kill the Jews.

Some talk...

Time for Arabs to start making amends for their genocidal ways, accepting Israel would be a good start.

Suppiah wrote: So the point is to defeat the likes of Hamas so that sensible heads can sit down and sort this mess out. Or it can be like trying to talk peace with Prabakaran.

Except that in this case Prabhakaran is not one person, it is all of Arab council, none of them would ever remotely accept Israels right of existence -- they never have since 1930s in a continuous manner irrespective of what ever spin Shyamd puts out.

They are very similar to Pakistan -- they want peace on their terms -- which basically means the end of other party.

Jinaah was also peace loving -- he wanted a united India where he could lord over everything in perpetuity.
(10 point program of Muslim League)

The Arab peace plan (AKA why dont all you Jews die and/or leave Levant and if any remain, say a reasonable number like 50000 can serve as Dhimmi slaves and we promise no further war) is a very similar approach.

The only silver lining is Israel is fully aware of the *piss* plan and knows it lives purely because it has the force of arms and the Arabs can do diddly squat, they are under no delusions like some Indians.

I am starting with the record of "enocuragement" by Muslims to the Jews living around the Levant and Near East. This may appear to be "too much history" - but pause to think that what effect this can have on the collective social consciousness of the Jews towards the Muslims who continued in the longest most recent occupation of their homeland until 1948.

[1] The Ethnic Cleansing of Banu Quaynuqa Jews from Medina by Muhammad-July, 624CE

After the decisive victory at Badr II and after assassinating intellectual critics at Medina, like a talented mother who lampooned his claims (Asma bnt Marwan) and a 120 year old Jewish critique, Muhammad moved against the Jews who were successful agriculturists, artisans, craftsmen, jewelers and merchants. The three important Jewish clans, the Banu Quaynuqa, Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza made a covenant with Muhammad when he migrated to Medina "to live in tranquility and harmony and to aid him, should any attack fell on him." So, Gabriel brought the decree (Quaran 8:58) from Allah that Muhammad was free to break the treaty with the Jews. Muhammad selected the B. Qaynuqa Jews as the target because they were the weakest of the three, and declared to the B. Qaynuqa Jews in their market:

“O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God’s covenant with you.”

The B. Qaynuqa Jews retaliated by ignoring his plea for Islam and challenged Muhammad to face them militarily, replying
“Muhammad, do you think that we are like your people? Do not be deluded by the fact that you met a people with no knowledge of war and that you made good use of your opportunity. By God, if you fight us you will know that we are real men!”
Then Muhammad demanded Jizya from the Jews but the Jews disparaged Muhammad by saying that His Allah was poor. An angry Allah, (Quaran 3:181), immediately promised His retribution to the Jews. Allah also revealed verse 3:12, 13, assuring Muhammad of his victory against the Jews. In addition, the Muslims also complained of sowing discord between the B. Aws and B. Khazraj by the Jews by narrating the battle of Buath, in which these two tribes had fought. It was during this time that Allah forbade, in verse 5:57, to engage in friendship by the Muslims with the Jews and the Christians.

An Arab girl, married to a Muslim convert of Medina went to the Jewish shop of a goldsmith in the market place of Qaynuqa. While waiting for some ornaments, she sat down. A flirtatious neighbor secretly pinned the lower hem of her skirt. When she arose, the awkward expose made everyone laugh. She screamed with shame. A passing Muslim witnessed the incident and killed the offending Jew. The brother of the Jew then killed the Muslim. The family of the murdered Muslim then appealed to the converts of Medina to take revenge.

The skirmish now became general and Muhammad made no attempt to mitigate the situation, nor did he try to bring the offending parties to justice. He immediately gathered his followers under the white banner in the hand of Hamzah and marched forward to attack the Jewish tribe. The Jews took shelter in their fortified apartments. So, Muhammad laid a siege and a full blockade was imposed. The siege lasted for fifteen days. The Jews were expecting help from their Khazarj allies. But the help did not come. So, the desperate B. Qaynuqa Jews had no choice but to surrender to Muhammad. Their hands were tied behind their backs and preparations were made for their execution. At this time, Abd Allah ibn Ubayy, the Khazarite and a new convert to Islam (he was the nemesis of Muhammad at Medina, Muhammad calling him a hypocrite) intervened. He could not stand that his old faithful allies would be massacred in cold blood. He begged Muhammad for mercy, but Muhammad turned his face away. Abd Allah persisted. Finally, Muhammad yielded and let the prisoners escape execution. He then cursed the Jews and Abd Allah ibn Ubay with Allah’s punishment. Then Muhammad ordered the Jews of B. Qaynuqa to leave Medina within three days. They were led to exile by Ubadah b. al-Samit ibn Samit, one of the Khazarite leaders to as far as Dhubab. Then the Jews proceeded to Wadi al-Qura. There they got assistance from the Jewish inhabitants with carriage until they reached Adriat, a territory in Syria where they settled permanently.

Thus, the B. Qaynuqa Jews surrendered their arms and jewel-making machinery and were exiled from Medina. In this connection, Tabari writes: “Allah gave their property as booty to his Messenger and the Muslims. The Banu Qaynuqa did not have any land, as they were goldsmiths. The messenger of God took many weapons belonging to them and the tools of their trade”

Post 2 on the "encouragement" provide by Muslims towards Jews:

[2] The Murder of Ibn Sunyanah at Medina by Muhayyish b. Masud -July, 624CE

Ibn Sunyanah was a Jewish merchant who was friendly and helpful to many Muslim converts. In the morning after the murder of Ka’b b. Ashraf, [a Medinite poet of Jewish descent who criticized Muhammad - who was assassinated in a deceptive night meeting] Muhammad gave a general permission to his followers to kill any Jew whom they might chance to meet. Tabari describes this ordinance:

The messenger of God said, “Whoever of the Jews falls into your hands, kill him.” So Muhayyish b. Masud fell upon Ibn Sunaynah, one of the Jewish merchants who was in close terms with them and used to trade with them, and killed him. Huwayyish b. Masud (his brother) at that time had not accepted Islam; he was older than Muhayysih, and when (the latter) killed (the Jew), he began beating him saying, “O enemy of God, have you killed him? By God you have made much fat in your belly from his wealth.” Muhayyish said, “I said to him, ‘By God, if he who commanded me to kill him had commanded me to kill you, I would have cut off your head.’” And, by God, that was the beginning of Huwayyish’s acceptance of Islam. He said, “If Muhammad had ordered you to kill me. You would have killed me?” and I replied, “Yes, by God, if he had ordered me to kill you I would have cut off your head.” “By God,” he said, “a faith which has brought you to this is indeed a marvel.” Then Huwayyisah accepted Islam.

From the Sahih Hadith of Sunaan Abu Dawud: (Book 19, Number 2996):
Narrated Muhayyisah:
The Apostle of Allah (PBUH) said: If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him. At that time Huwayyisah (brother of Muhayyisah) had not embraced Islam. He was older than Muhayyisah. When he killed him, Huwayyisah beat him and said: O enemy of Allah, I swear by Allah, you have a good deal of fat in your belly from his property.

Post 3 on the "encouragement" provide by the Muslims towards the Jews

[3] The Ethnic Cleansing of B. Nadir Jews from Medina by Muhammad-July, 625CE

Bani Nadir Jews were the second of three tribes in the vicinity of Medina to be targeted. They were prosperous landowners with huge orchards of date palms. They were close to the B. Amir people. Muhammad went to the Bani Nadir Jews to raise the blood money to be paid for the killing of two men of B. Amir, whom the professional assassin, Amr b. Umayya al-Damri, employed by Muhammad, had killed by mistake.

Muhammad, accompanied, Abu Bakr, Ali and Umar visited the village of B. Nadir, and requested the chief of B. Nadir to refund the blood money that he had already paid. The B. Nadir Jews received Muhammad courteously, asked him to sit down while they attentively listened to his demand and agreed to honor Muhammad’s request. After agreeing to Muhammad’s demand for blood money, the B. Nadir Jews went for a private discussion among themselves. This unnerved Muhammad. He was sitting by the siude of the house, and he claimed that B. Nadir Jews wanted to kill him by dropping a stone from top of the house as informed by "Gabriel". So, he suddenly stood up and left the place, as if to answer the call of nature asking others, including Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali not to leave the place until he returned. When his companions found that Muhammad’s return was very much delayed, they went out looking for him. On their way to Medina they met a man who told them he saw Muhammad was headed for Medina. When they met Muhammad at Medina, he told them of his perception of treachery by B. Nadir and asked the Muslims to prepare to fight the B. Nadir.

Muhammad asked another of his professional assassins, Muhammad ibn Maslamah (murderer of Ka’b b. Ashraf), to go to the Banu Nadir Jews to announce to them the ultimatum to leave Medina within 10 days, and if after this deadline any Jew was seen in the area, he would be killed. Maslamah, on friendly terms with the Jews who expressed their dismay at the action of Muhammad, said, “ Hearts have changed, and Islam has wiped out the old covenants.”

When Abd Allah ibn Ubayy learned about the precarious situation of the B. Nadir Jews, he sent the message to them that he himself would be coming to their assistance with two thousand Jewish and Arab fighters. But the Banu Nadir Jews recalled that the same person promised to help the Banu Qaynuqa Jews, but in the end, betrayed. So, the Banu Nadir Jews, at first, decided towards removing themselves to Khaybar or nearby. They thought that they could still come to Yathrib (Medina) to harvest their crops and then return to their fortresses at Khaybar. Huyayy ibn Akhtab, their leader finally resolved against this view. He decided to send a message to Muhammad, declining his order of expulsion,. entered in their fortified fortresses, stocked them with enough supplies to last up to a year and got ready to defend themselves. So, no Jew left Medina after the expiry of the ten days ultimatum.

Accordingly, when Muhammad ibn Maslamah returned to Medina with the news of the Jews, Muhammad, the Prophet immediately gave order to his Jihadists in his mosque to arm themselves and march forward to lay a siege on the fortresses of B. Nadir Jews. A band of Muslims, with Muhammad as their leader started marching against B. Nadir who had already taken shelter in their formidable fortresses. In the beginning, the Jews attacked the Muslim besiegers with arrows and stones and held out gallantly. Although not unexpected, they were greatly disappointed when no help came from Abd Allah ibn Ubayy, nor from any other previously trusted sources. The siege lasted for fifteen or twenty days, and Muhammad became very impatient. At last, to hasten their surrender, Muhammad, in contravention of the revered laws of Arab warfare, cut down the surrounding date trees and burned them. When the Jews protested about the breaking of sacrosanct Arab laws on warfare, he demanded a special revelation from Allah (59:4) that was promptly sent down, sanctioning the destruction of enemy’s palm trees. In this verse Allah gave generous permission to the Muslims to cut down the palm trees: it was not a destruction but the vengeance from Allah, and to humble the evil doers that is to say, it is alright to cut down cultivated land and burn crops in a war. The Muslim poet Hassan b. Thabit enjoyed this destruction of the livelihood of the B. Nadir Jews and composed lyrics on this :

Sahih Bukhari :Volume 3, Book 39, Number 519:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

The Prophet got the date palm trees of the tribe of Bani-An-Nadir burnt and the trees cut down at a place called Al-Buwaira . Hassan bin Thabit said in a poetic verse: "The chiefs of Bani Lu'ai found it easy to watch fire spreading at Al-Buwaira."

After Muhammad destroyed their only source of livelihood, the B. Nadir decided to surrender and abandon their lands. In exchange for this, they wanted Muhammad to spare their lives, on which he agreed, on condition that they could only take those of their property that they could carry on their camels. He stipulated that the Jews must surrender their arms. They were allowed to carry whatever they could stock upon their camels. The Jews agreed to comply with those humiliating conditions, loaded six hundred camels with their goods and departed from their ancestral land. Some of them, with their chiefs Huyey, Sallam and Kinana went to Khaybar. The rest of them went to Jericho and the highlands of south Syria. Only two of them embraced Islam. They were given back their land and all of their properties. (The Sharia says: It is permissible in Jihad to cut down the enemy trees and destroy their dwellings).

Once the expulsion of B. Nadir Jews was complete, Muhammad took over the ownership of their property making it his personal chattel that he could dispose of as he wished. He claimed that the spoils of B. Nadir belonged to Allah and to him exempting the land from the usual law of distribution of booty because it was gained without actually fighting. He divided the land according to his discretion, choosing the best lots for himself. With the exception of two Medina citizens (Ansar) the whole of B. Nadir lands were distributed among the refugees (Muhajirs). In this way the refugees became independent and affluent. Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Zubayr and the other chief companions of Muhammad acquired valuable estates. The other booty consisted of fifty armors coats, fifty stand of armor and three hundred and fifty swords. An entire sura (Sura 59:al- Hashr) relates to the affair of B. Nadir, where Allah says that the B. Nadir Jews were subdued by the striking of terror in their hearts.

On the success of this terror and plunder, Hussain Haykal writes that this was the biggest prize to the Muslims. These booties were not divided among the Muslims as war booty. They were all considered as a trust which Muhammad divided among the early emigrants. Hussain Haykal comments:

After the expulsion of the B. Nadir Jews, Muhammad distributed their lands to the Mohajirs and with this, they were quite satisfied with their new lands. The Ansars were equally happy that they no longer had to support the Mohajirs. Muhammad claimed that B. Nadir property was a special gift from Allah to him. He sold B. Nadir booty to purchase arms, horses, provision for his wives and used the B. Nadir property to support his wives.

Sahih Bukahri: Volume 6, Book 60, Number 407:

Narrated Umar:

The properties of Bam An-Nadir were among the booty that Allah gave to His Apostle such Booty were not obtained by any expedition on the part of Muslims, neither with cavalry, nor with camelry. So those properties were for Allah's Apostle only, and he used to provide thereof the yearly expenditure for his wives, and dedicate the rest of its revenues for purchasing arms and horses as war material to be used in Allah's Cause.

Sunaan Abu Dawud : Book 19, Number 2961:

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

Malik ibn Aws al-Hadthan said: One of the arguments put forward by Umar was that he said that the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) received three things exclusively to himself: Banu an-Nadir, Khaybar and Fadak. The Banu an-Nadir property was kept wholly for his emergent needs, Fadak for travellers, and Khaybar was divided by the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) into three sections: two for Muslims, and one as a contribution for his family. If anything remained after making the contribution of his family, he divided it among the poor Emigrants.

Sanku wrote: Except that in this case Prabhakaran is not one person, it is all of Arab council, none of them would ever remotely accept Israels right of existence -- they never have since 1930s in a continuous manner irrespective of what ever spin Shyamd puts out.

Which is precisely why I left the question of 'return right' open. When Arabs talk about injustice to Palestinians, point is not that they are wrong, they are in fact right, but the injustices fade into insignificance when you consider what they did to jews. Do they talk about right of return of Jews to Iraq, Iran, non-Israeli portions of Palestine and other Arab territories and live with complete religious freedom?

Having said that, if US makes it clear that it will defend Israel, I thinks Arabs will be okay with a peace plan along 67 lines, even if they do that reluctantly. They have no love lost for Palestinians who they don't consider 'upper class arabs' (you got to read about Emir Feisal and his interactions with Zionists pre-48, that attitude continues even today). But that would require constant US military support for next 100+ years, if not forever unless oil era ends and ME goes back to 12th century in other ways as well not just culturally and thinking-wise..

Even if peace deal is signed sealed and delivered, even if KSA, Iraq, etc., has embassy in Tel Aviv and free trade pacts, the only way Israel can truly live in peace is to have capability to vaporise all of ME backed up by strong US/EU. Same goes for India...

When enemity is entirely based on what you are and not what you do, there is little chance of genuine peace...to the ME barbarians you are an enemy if you dont worship same god. If you do, you may still be enemy for other reasons....but that is the starting point, a minimum condition you need to meet first. For practical reasons they may choose to do nothing about it, but that does not mean they have accepted you for what you are...

Post 4 on the "encouragement" provided by the Muslims towards the Jews
[4] The Genocide of Bani Qurayzah Jews by Muhammad-February-March, 627

After Muhammad escaped from the Battle of the Trench [a particularly bad setback for the Jihadis against the Qureysh] to Medina, and while he was washing his head in the house of Umm Salamah, one of his wives, "Gabriel" visited him at noon and informed him that the battle was not over yet, and that Allah commanded him (Muhammad) to besiege the B. Qurayzah. After listening to the instruction of Gabriel, Muhammad abandoned the noon (Asr) prayer and ordered the Muslims to march against B. Qurayzah, Ali being sent ahead of the rest. Muhammad informed his followers that during war, prayer can be omitted, as fighting during this time was more incumbent than praying On his way, Ali heard people talking foul about Muhammad and hurling insults at him. A disturbed Ali hastened back to Muhammad and informed him of what he had heard but Muhammad assured him that his personal presence would silence this. In the evening, the Muslim soldiers marched toward the fortress of Bani Qurayza that lay two or three miles to the south-east of Medina. Muhammad rode an ass, while an army of three thousand Muslims, with thirty-six horses followed him. A tent in the compound of the mosque in Medina was also pitched where Sa’d b. Muadh took shelter to recuperate from his painful wound.

When Muhammad was near the fortress of the B. Qurayzah Jews, he called them by yelling, ‘you brothers of apes.’ This is elucidated in the Qur’an in verses 2:65, 5:60 and 7:166, where Allah says that He turned the Jews in to apes : it is a decree by Allah, and Muhammad had confirmed this “O brothers of monkeys and pigs! Fear me, fear me.” and asked his poet friend Hassan b. Thabit to make verbal abuse of the Jews through poems.

Sahih Bukhari : Volume 5, Book 59, Number 449:

Narrated Al-Bara:

The Prophet said to Hassan, "Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e, supports you)." (Through another group of sub narrators) Al-Bara bin Azib said, "On the day of Quraiza's (besiege), Allah's Apostle said to Hassan bin Thabit, 'Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e. supports you).' "

Despite extreme provocation by Muhammad B. Qurayzah Jews were patient and courteous with Muhammad, and addressed him as Abu al-Qasim (father of Qasim, Muhammad’s dead son). This is the conversation that took place as written by Tabari:

‘When the Messenger of God had approached their fortresses, he said: “You brothers of apes! Has God shamed you and sent down his retribution on you?” they said, “Abu al-Qasim, you have never been one to act impetuously.”’

The Muslims then attacked the Jews with archery but to no avail. One Muslim approached the fortress carelessly and was killed by a Jewess by casting down a millstone on him. Muhammad kept the siege on causing a great distress among the besieged Jews. Nonetheless, Muhammad was bent on a bloody revenge and refused to negotiate with the Jews. After twenty-five days of siege, the Jews were on the verge of starvation. Among the Jews was Huyayy b. Akhtab who, as a fulfillment of his pledge to be with B. Qurayzah through thick and thin, did not escape with the Quraysh and the Ghatafan, but stayed with the B. Qurayzah Jews. Unable to bear the desperate situation of the Jewish women and children, the B. Qurayzah leader, Ka’b b.Asad proposed that the Jews should accept Islam to save their lives but the Jews refused. Ka’b proposed that they should kill their women and children, then, all the men could go out and fight Muhammad without any impediment. But the Jews did not want to kill their dearest ones with their own hands. Ka’b then proposed an attack on Muhammad the next day which was a Jewish Sabbath day (ie Saturday). The Jews flatly declined to engage in any warfare during the Sabbath.

When the Jews could not decide on their fate themselves, they sent a message to Muhammad, asking that Abu Lubabah b. Abd al-Mundhir, their confidante from B. Aws, be sent to them for a discussion and advice. As soon as Lubabah arrived in the Jewish quarter, the weeping women and children of the Jews rushed out and grabbed him hoping that he could plead for mercy for them. Abu Lubabah was filled with pity and compassion for them. When asked what Muhammad would do with them should they decide to surrender, Abu Lubabah indicated through sign language that Muhammad had slaughter in mind and that he (Abu Lubabah) could do nothing about it.

Tabari writes:

‘When they saw him (i.e Abu Lubabah), the men rose to meet him, and the women and children rushed to grab hold of him, weeping before him, so that he felt pity for them. They said to him, “Abu Lubabah, do you think that we should submit to Muhammad’s judgment”? “Yes”, he said, but he pointed with his hand to his throat, that it would be slaughter.”’

Haykal writes that the Jews thought that the former allies from al-Aws tribe would give them some protection and if they were to remove themselves, to Adhriat in al Sham, Muhammad would have no objection to letting them go. So, the Banu Qurayzah sent the proposal to evacuate their territory and to remove themselves to Adhriat. Muhammad flatly rejected their proposal and insisted on their abiding by his judgment. Having indicated by sign language what Muhammad had in mind for the Jews, Abu Lubabah felt guilty that he had broken his promise of secrecy with Muhammad. To atone for his ‘misdeed’ he went straight to the mosque and bound himself with ropes to one of the pillars. This pillar is known as the ‘pillar of repentance’ or the ‘pillars of Abu Lubabah’. Allah expressed His displeasure with Abu Lubabah’s conduct through verse 8:27.

Finding no choice, in the morning, the B. Qurayzah Jews surrendered to Muhammad for his judgment. The male Jews were chained and kept in the fortress till a decision was made about their fate. The B. Aws people were on good terms with the B. Qurayzah Jews. They pleaded with Muhammad for mercy and a fair judgment for their Jewish allies. On this, Muhammad proposed that the judgment be passed by Sa’d b Muadh who was the B. Aws leader, recuperating from his wound in a tent nearby Medina. B. Aws and the B. Qurayzah both agreed on this proposal of Muhammad, hoping to have some mercy from Sa’d b. Muadh. Muhammad dispatched some B. Aws men to bring Sa’d to deliver his judgment. Riding a donkey Sa’d arrived at the site where all the seven or eight hundred Jewish men and many B. Aws people were standing to listen to his judgment. Many B. Aws people requested Sa’d to deal with the Jews with leniency and mercy.

Sa’d then asked his people if they would accept whatever judgment he pronounced. The crowd agreed.

Then Muhammad asked Sa’d b. Muadh to pass his judgment. Sa’d replied, “I pass judgment on them that the men shall be killed, the property divided, and the children and women made captives.” Muhammad praised Sa’d for proclaiming a solemn judgment of the Almighty. “You have passed judgment on them with the judgment of God and the judgment of His Messenger.” Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 148:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."

[this is usually omitted in the "public face" versions of Shahi Bukhari : the full text of Sahih Al-Bukhari contains it]

The women and children were then separated from their husbands and fathers, others were put under the care of Abdullah, a renegade Jew. All the goods and possessions of the B. Qurayzah Jews, their camels and flocks were all brought as spoils of war to be distributed amongst the Muslims.

After Sa’d b. Muadh passed the judgment of slaughter, the B. Qurayzah Jews were brought down from their dwellings; the men were handcuffed behind their backs with their women and children having already been separated. They were placed under the charge of Mohammad ibn Maslama, the assassin of Ka’b ibn Ashraf, to be despatched to Medina to the compound of the daughter of another Muslim, al-Harith before their execution in batches. A long trench was dug in the marketplace of Medina. The Prisoners were then taken there, made to kneel down and beheaded in groups of five or six. Muhammad was personally present to witness this slaughter. Ali and Zubayr cut off the heads of the Jews in front of Muhammad. Sourcing from Al-Waqidi, Tabari writes:

“…the messenger of God commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the B. Qurayzah. Then he sat down, and Ali and al-Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence.” Ibn Ishaq writes that they were taken in groups to Muhammad for beheading in front of him.

Tabari further writes:

‘The messenger of God went out into the marketplace of Medina and had trenches dug in it; then he sent for them and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in groups. Among them were the enemy of God, Huyayy b. Akhtab, and Ka’b b. Asad, the head of the tribe. They numbered 600 or 700-the largest estimate says they were between 800 and 900. As they were being taken in groups to the Messenger of God, they said to Ka’b b. Asad, “Ka’b, what do you understand. Do you not see that the summoner does not discharge [anyone] and that those of you who are taken away do not come back? By God, it is death!” the affair continued until the Messenger of God had finished with them.’

Sir William Muir:

‘The men were penned up in a closed yard, while graves or trenches were being dug for them in the chief marketplace of the city. When these were ready, Mahomet, himself a spectator of the tragedy, gave command that the captives should be brought forth in companies of five or six at a time. Each company was made to sit down by the brink of the trench destined for its grave, and there beheaded. Party by party they were thus led out, and butchered in cold blood, till the whole were slain. One woman alone was put to death; it was she who threw the millstone from the battlements.’

Huyayy b. Akhtab, the banished B. Nadir Jewish leader was taken to the execution field. Tabari describes his execution this way:

‘Huyayy b. Akhtab, the enemy of God, was brought. He was wearing a rose-colored suit of clothes that had torn all over with fingertip-sized holes so that it would not be taken as booty from him, and his hands were bound to his neck with a rope. When he looked at the Messenger of God, he said, “By God, I do not blame myself for being hostile to you, but whomever God forsakes is forsaken.” Then he turned to the people and said: “People, there is no injury in God’s command. It is the book of God, His decree, and a battlefield of great slaughter ordained against the Children of Israel. Then he sat down and was beheaded.’

Only one woman of the B. Qurayzah was killed. She was the wife of Hasan al-Qurazi and was friendly with Aisha. Aisha narrated her story of beheading thus:

‘Only one of their women was killed. By God, she was by me, talking with me and laughing unrestraintedly while the Messenger of God was killing their men in the marketplace, when suddenly a mysterious voice called out her name, saying, “Where is so and so?” She said, “I shall be killed.” “Why?” I asked. She said, A misdeed that I committed.” She was taken away and beheaded. (Aisha used to say: I shall never forget my wonder at her cheerfulness and much laughter, even when she knew that she would be killed.).’

This incident is also recorded in a Sahi Hadith of Abu Dawud:

Book 14, Number 2665:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.


A very old Jewish man named Az-Zabir saved the life of a Muslim convert, Thabit b. Qays in the Bu’ath war. Now, when Az-Zabir was about to be beheaded Thabit requested Muhammad to save the life of this old man and his family as a return to his favor. Muhammad reluctantly agreed to spare this Jewish man and his family members. Az-Zabir then asked Thabit b. Qays about the fate of the Jewish leaders such as Ka’b b. Asad and Huayy b. Akhtab, aND he preferred to die rather than to live without them. Az-Zabir said, “Then I ask you for the sake of the favor I once did for you to join me to my kinsmen, for by God there is no good in living after them. I will not wait patiently for God, not even [the time needed] to take the bucket of a watering trough, until I meet my dear ones.” So Thabit brought him forward, and he was beheaded. When Abu Bakr heard what that old man said just before his execution, he said, “He will meet them, by God, in the Gehenna, there to dwell forever and forever.”

Muhammad commanded that all those Jewish men with pubIC hair were to be killed. One Jewish boy took refuge with a Muslim woman, Salma bt. Qays. She requested Muhammad that mercy be shown to this Jewish boy. It is said that Muhammad spared his life. Here is a Hadith from Sunaan Abu Dawud on this:

Book 38, Number 4390:

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:

I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

Having beheaded all the adult males of the B. Qurayzah Jews, Muhammad now busied himself with the distribution of the Jewish booty. He divided the wealth, the wives and the children of the B. Qrayzah Jews among his followers. The booty rules were changed slightly. A horseman received three shares: two shares for the horse and one share for the rider. A foot Jihadist, who had no horse, received one share. It was the first booty in which shares were allotted and from which the Khums was deducted. This simplified rule on booty (fai) was followed in the later plunders.

There were thirty-six cavalry in this raid. If a man had more than two horses he could claim shares only for two horses.

After executing all the adult male Jews, Muhammad sent Sa’d b. Zayd al-Ansari with some captives (women and children) from the B. Qurayzah to Najd to sell them in the slave market. Ibn Sa’d writes that Khadijah, Muhammad’s first wife, bought her slave, Zayd b. Haritha, for four hundred (400) Dirhams at the slave market of Ukaz, Mecca. In Sunaan Abu Dawud we read that the price of young slave (male or female) varied from five hundred dirhams to eight hundred (800) dirhams. According to some estimates this would be approximately US$ 2,500 in current rates. With the money raised through this slave-trading Muhammad bought more horses and arms. Among the captive women, he found a very pretty, young Jewess called Rayhanh bt. ‘Amr b. Khunafah and took her as his concubine. It is said that when Muhammad offered to make her his wife by embracing Islam, she declined. She preferred to remain a concubine slave to becoming a Muslim.

“Messenger of God, rather leave me in your possession [as a concubine], for it is easier for me and for you.”

Sir Willima Muir thus:

‘Having sated his revenge, and drenched the market-place with the blood of eight hundred victims, and having given command for the earth to be smoothed over their remains, Mahomet returned from the horrid spectacle to solace himself with the charms of Rihana, whose husband and all whose male relatives had just perished in the massacre. He invited her to be his wife, but she declined; and chose to remain (as indeed, having refused marriage, she had no alternative) his slave or concubine. She also declined the summons to conversion, and continued in the Jewish faith, at which the Prophet was much concerned. It is said, however, that she afterwards embraced Islam. She lived with Mahomet till his death.’

Obviously Israel isn't going to accept piece-wise "peace deals" on a country-by-country basis, because then the "peaceful" Arab countries will simply transfer their means of aggression to the "still at war" Arab countries. This would be a means of Arabs having their cake and eating it too, so that they can enjoy the fruits of peace through the nations that have signed the peace deals, but can still continue to make war through the nations that have not. Only a fully comprehensive peace can work.

Well, in a way they have, if you look at Egypt and Jordan. That should tell us something interesting...Israel manages to have some level of peace & business relation with nearest neighbours (excl. Syria/Lebanon which is basically controlled by Syria both influenced by Iran) but not with distant Arabs...

Sanku wrote:Shyamd;

I dont know whats so difficult about my simple question

20 of 22 Arab league nations accept Israel, accept its passport, accept its citizen for free travel, allow trade, set up Diplomatic missions?

Yes or no?

Palestine != Saudi Arabia for example, no reason Saudi A cant accept Israel right, after all SA has no land issues with Israel?

Yawn... So long as Israel doesn't recognise the right of Palestine to exist, then its going to be the same from the arabs - the arabs actually comprehensively said it recognises Israel under 1967 borders, but Israel spurned the deal despite talking positively. Besides, read what Peres and Livni said in response of the deal. She just repeated exactly what I said, that it will need to be negotiated bilaterally - particularly on the right of return issue- the rest she said she was happy with. But instead, the israeli's chose to illegally annexe land as per the UN and International Courts of Justice - which in the word of the Israeli govt is "Illegal outposts" lol.

Its as simple as that. Gerard had made a post about 10 basic facts about Israel -- you should read that, your basics are totally messed up.

Your facts aren't up to date.

Let me tell this to you in nut shell

1) Jews buy land in Levant to make a new home land
2) Arabs sell land then dont let Jews use it, lot of riots et al
3) Jews use the end of WW II and the sympathy in their favor (for once) to make a state from the purchased land
4) Arabs attack -- overwhelming so -- the miserable people get their asses handed back to them by the Jews
5) Point 4 repeats about 3-4 times, Arabs attack Israel in their great confidence and each time Israel wins and also takes more territory. Territory which was promised to them.
6) Arabs are in funk, they have no idea what to do so they support terrorist activities and play the victim, which no one who is not a Arab or a Arab-phile buys into, the world knows who is what.

7) The Arabs still dont accept Israel or Jews, but want to talk to them to return what they lost when they tried to kill the Jews.

Okay, so lets take a look at your comments:
Point 1 & 2 - Of course things were just as simple as that. lol!!
Point 3 - Make a state from purchased land??? Did you even bother reading the debates. Do tell us, how much land they purchased. Little research would have given you an answer on who's purchased land they wanted to make a state in.
Point 4 - Aahh yes, arabs attack in response to Ben Gurion deciding to setup the state of Israel in a country, where majority of the people are arabs.
Point 5 - Territory which was promised to them? By who? (EJ credentials coming out a little bit?)

Some talk...

Time for Arabs to start making amends for their genocidal ways, accepting Israel would be a good start.

Yawn.... done in 2002. Perhaps, Israel should also recognise Palestine. That would be a good start or response to 2002.

Post 5 on the "encouragement" provided by the Muslims towards the Jews
[5]The Raid on Bani al-Mustaliq by Muhammad-December, 627CE

Bani al-Mustaliq was aJewish tribe. Two months after Muhammad returned from Dhu Qarad campaign, Allah suddenly revealed that B. al-Mustaliq, under the leadership of Haritha b. Abi Dirar was mobilizing forces against him. So far, B. al-Mustaliq were friendly to Muhammad, but he spread the rumour that B. al-Mustaliq were now joining with the Quraysh to launch an attack against the Muslims. The Muslims killed a man from B. al-Mustaliq accusing him of spying and Muhammad rallied all the fighting men around him to assail the B. al- Mustaliq. After the genocide of Medinese Jews, B. al-Mustaliq Jews took all precautionary measures to prevent such an invasion on them. Naturally, they sought help from other clans as well. Muhammad gave no opportunity to this clan to embrace Islam before facing genocide unlike previous occasions, when he had given a three days reprieve to decide whether to accept Islam or face liquidation.

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4292:

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717:

Narrated Ibn Aun:

I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.

Muhammad gave Abu Bakr the flag for this attack. Curiously, Abdullah ibn Ubay, Muhammad’s nemesis (and a hypocrite, as per Muhammad) was also made one of the leaders of this strike team. The Muslim forces then started marching with thirty horses. After eight days of marching they encamped at the wells of Muraysi near the seashore, close to Mecca. Muhammad pitched tents for himself, Aisha and Umm Salma, two of his wives who accompanied him. When the B. al-Mustaliq people heard the arrival of Muhammad’s soldiers, they were dismayed, but fought gallantly. After exchanging arrows for a brief period, the Muslim forces advanced and quickly surrounded the B. al-Mustaliq, and soon B. al-Mustaliq’s ranks fell in disarray and they were vanquished, having lost some of their men. Ali b. Talib killed a few wounded B. al-Mustaliq people; among them were Malik and his son. Muhammad seized their cattle herd, took many as captives and divided them among the Jihadists. Two hundred families were taken as captives, two thousand camels and five thousand sheep and goats, as well as a huge quantity of household goods were taken as booty. Juwayriah, the young, beautiful and vivacious daughter of B. al-Mutaliq chief was one of the captives. The household goods were sold in an auction to the highest bidders. During the battle a Muslim was mortally wounded by another Muslim by accident.

Here is the "encouragement" provided to the Jewish B. Mustaliq women captives.
Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."

After having sex (rape) with his captive-girl, Said al-Khudri took this young girl to the nearest slave market for a quick sale. Here is the continuation of the above story, as told by al-Waqidi (vol.i, p.413) and excerpted by Rodinson:

“A Jew said to me: ‘Abu Said, no doubt you want to sell her as she has in her belly a baby by you.’ I said: ‘No; I used the ‘azl.’ To which he replied [sarcastically]: ‘Then it was lesser child-murder!’ When I repeated this story to the Prophet he said: ‘The Jews lie. The Jews lie.’”

[Sharia Law: Law 9.13
Where a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact that of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.]

The captives of the B. al-Mustaliq were carried to Medina. Among the captives were two hundred women. Men from B. al-Mustaliq soon arrived to make terms for their release. At first, unknown to Muhammad, the pretty Juwayriah fell in the hands of Thabit b. Qays, an Ansar and one of his cousins. Juwayrah was a young woman, the daughter of B. al-Mustaliq chief and married to Musab b. Safwan. As soon as she became a captive, her marriage was immediately cancelled-as per Islamic rule and she was handed over to those two Jihadists [why two at the same time?] to do with her whatever they liked. Because of Juwayriah’s rank, her captor/s put a ransom of nine ounces of gold. She could not raise that large sum of gold. So, she approached Muhammad while he was resting in Aisha’s apartment and pleaded for some remission for the heavy price demanded for her release. As soon as Aisha saw Juwayriah she was filled with jealousy. Muhammad gently replied that he would pay her ransom and marry her. Juwayriah agreed on this suggestion. The ransom was paid and Muhammad immediately married her and built a seventh quarter to house her. She was only twenty and Muhammad fifty-eight when he married her. Aisha was thirteen at that time. [From Sunaan Abu Dawud, Book 29, Number 3920: (Narrated by Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin)]

This consistent enslavement, rape and concubinage of Jewish women should be noted. It is rarely matched in Christian "atrocities". Moreover this entire description occurs in Islamic narratives - outlined with unabashed glee and pride. There are more to come.

Post 6 on the "encouragement" provided by the Muslims towards the Jews
[6] Assassination of Al-Yusayr b. Rizam and a party of Khaybar Jews at al-Qarqara-February, 628CE

Even with the assassination of Abu Rafi (also known as Sallam ibn Abul-Huqayq), the chief of Khaybar Jews in December, 624 Muhammad did not feel safe from the Jews of Khaybar. The new chief of the Khaybar Jews was Al-Yusayr b. Rizam. He maintained the good relation with the B. Ghatafan, the tribe that Muhammad was scared of. Muhammad dispatched Abdallah ibn Rawaha, a leader of the B. Khazraj to Khaybar, to gather intelligence to eliminate Al-Yusayr clandestinely. But Abd Allah ibn Rawaha found the Jews to be very alert and returned to Medina. Muhammad sent him back with thirty men mounted on camels to persuade al-Yusayr b. Rizam to visit Medina. When the Muslims arrived at Khaybar the Jews treated them well. Abd Allah ibn Rawaha pretended to be friendly with the Jews and invited al-Yusayr b. Rizam to visit Medina with them. He assured al-Yusayr b. Rizam that Muhammad would make him the ruler of Khaybar, giving al-Yusayr b. Rizam a solemn guarantee of his safety. At first, al-Yusayr declined. But due to the persistence of the Muslim delegation he finally relented and went with them with a number of Jews. One of the Muslim delegates, Abd Allah b. Unays mounted al-Yusayr on his beast and rode behind him. When they arrived at al-Qarqarat, about six miles from Khaybar, al-Yusayr suspected the motive of the Muslims and changed his mind about going to meet Muhammad. He dismounted from the beast he was riding with Abd Allah Unays. Abd Allah b. Unays claimed that he perceived al-Yusayr was drawing his sword so he rushed at him and cut off his leg. Al-Yusayr hit Abd Allah b. Unays with a piece of wood and wounded his head. Ibn Ishak claims that later, God killed al-Yusayr. The Muslims killed all other Jews except one who escaped on his feet. When Abd Allah b. Unays came to Muhammad, Muhammad spat on his wound in his head and it healed immediately. Muhammad praised Allah when he heard the news of assassination of al-Yusayr b. Rizam and the killing of the Jews.

This is one in the long line pf precedence in Islamo-Jewish relationship about deceptive guarantees of safety/peace/non-aggression from the Muslim side towards the Jews - each of which was made when the Muslims side was not strong enough to kill off the Jews - but each of which was broken as soon as it was convenient to do so.

brihaspati wrote:Shyamd,
yes we are going back in circles.

Problem was you were most reluctant to acknowledge at the very beginning - when you loudly and faithfully requoted details of torure, genocide by Romans, Persians and Christians - but never ever could bring yourself up to mentioning any such activity by Muslims. When I debated, with you - then you managed just one line of "massacres" and "social and economic discrimination".

Thats cos I was trying to show the others were just as responsible.

Look back at your own posts : how much of that describes in great details repeatedly about atrocities from Romans et al, and how much do you devote to Muslims? Only when I saw that you were not going to mention the continuous genocidic behaviour by Muslims - while occupying Palestine and lording it over the Jews and Christians over the last very last 500 years of occupation you mention - that I began to write about Islamic atrocities.

Because I accepted that there was abuse by muslims, but there were others who made a bigger impact as well.

I have not yet given details of Islamic atrocities while occupying Palestine to the depth of details you repeated again and again by non-Muslims. I have started by giving only one short post with a glimpse on the treatment of Jews in Palestine and Arab domination under non-war conditions.

Ok. Do post the islamic atrocities on jews. So far your posts highlighted the social and economic discrimination.

I didn't deem it necessary to add to the Roman or Christian atrocities because you were doing it exceptionally well. I was simply waiting and prodding you repeatedly to see if you would describe in such details about Islamic atrocities in the Levant.

I accepted it, but I was trying to show the others were just as responsible.

You failed to notice the significance of my point that in spite of such torture and atrocities by "Christians" there were many more Jews in Europe compared to the excellent tolerant and milk and honey land of Palestine. You yourself mentioned this withouit realizing that this severely undermined your thesis of Christians being equally or more atrocious than muslims.

There were more jews living in Israel during Roman rule, but at the end, they were expelled to other parts of the world and became a minority. That was the single greatest reason why they moved to Europe and other locations. So how does that disprove my point that others (which I have consistently mentioned as being christian, roman) were just as involved in persecuting/killing jews. If anything it justifies what I have been saying all along - muslims were not the only ones to blame, and the jews were expelled to other parts of the world by Romans, jewish diaspora were greater in number than jews living in Islamic Israel/Palestine. The fact that more jews lived in europe/Africa and elsewhere just before islamic rule or the start of islamic rule suggests that muslims were not the chief leaders of a pack to expel jews from their homeland as there was a greater jewish diaspora at the time.

Moreover, the Arabs or muslims cannot be absolved because they continued doing what they were doing right up to the 1948 creation of Israel. They never really stopped.

Do explain about massacres during the Ottoman period. And, Jews were still abused by christians upto that point too. Even in the 19th century jews were forcefully converted by christians. Theodore Herzl wanted to create a zionist state because of anti-semitism in france.

You have desperately tried to show an equal equal between Christian and Muslim atrocities by focusing on Christian atrocities only. So far I have not even gone into the gory details of Muslim atrocities compared to what you have given for Christians. I guess only then it would be equal equal.

Thats because I accepted the muslims committed attrocities, in order to show that the christians and the romans were just as responsible for the exile of jews and not just the muslims. Call that a crime if you wish.

Similarly you have not found the time to mention even a single instance of Christians or Romans also extending "encouragement" to the Jews, or giving them "some freedoms" (which was primarily responsible for the large settlements of Jews in Europes you yourself mention). No doing that would not have shown the Muslims doing a comparatively favourable job from the PR viewpoint!

They were forcefully dispersed throughout the Roman empire as I have mentioned, not because they were given "some freedoms" as you suggest, otherwise they would have taken advantage of those freedoms by staying in Israel. Only Poland was where there was some tolerance. I can see that you seem to be backing the christian position all the way through.

The fact is that while Europeans had no control over Palestine for the better part 700 years until the first world war, it was the Muslim occupation that carried on the genocidic and repressive treatment of the Jews in the Levant, and therefore, even if they had the wish the Christians could not maintain the murderous and sadistic implementation of anti-Semitism that the islamics could.

lol! Really! Now that is a shocking statement!! Herzl became pro-zionist after the dreyfus affair - which exposed anti-semitism in France, it was this event that made Herzl pro zionist. The numerous massacres under the crusades were not enough for you. Entire jewish villages in the Rhines were destroyed. Considering in 19th century they were still debating whether to give jews full rights of citizenship in some countries in europe. Jewish emancipation didn't start until the end of the 18th century - even then Napoleon was changing laws with jews (one of them was restricting where they could live) and then freeing them up again. Jews were forced to live in designated areas or "ghetto's" in Europe. Thousands of jews were expelled from France, and Austria. They blamed the plague on jews, so europeans decided to burn them collectively - destroy their property.

In the Papal States, which existed until 1870, Jews were required to live only in specified neighborhoods called ghettos. Until the 1840s, they were required to regularly attend sermons urging their conversion to Christianity. Only Jews were taxed to support state boarding schools for Jewish converts to Christianity. It was illegal to convert from Christianity to Judaism. Sometimes Jews were baptized involuntarily, and, even when such baptisms were illegal, forced to practice the Christian religion.

It wasn't until 1848 that in Germany, jews were given full rights - needless to mention the riots and anti jewish acts before that. These I am sure are just 1% of anti semitic activity by christians in europe - who blamed jews for the murder of Jesus Christ.

To say that christians did not persecute/kill jews while living in europe as bad as the muslims did in Palestine is simply shocking and it just exposes the fact you have EJ traits.

when you are repeatedly trying to draw an equal equal you are deliberately subverting this continuity aspect that persisted even under British protectorate in the interwar years.

Wonder why jews left from europe in the early 1900's to anti-semetic palestine? The continuity aspect did occur though.

The Europeans or Christians or Persians had no access to the region regime wise to continue the repression

Hence why they are not complaining about the right to create a jewish state in that location.


About your posts on muslim attitude toward jews - why are you posting the genocidical activities outside Israel/Palestine. We are keeping this debate in context, which is Israel/Palestine. Please post genocidical activities against jews in Palestine/Israel.

Post 7 on the "encouragement" provided by the Muslims towards the Jews:

http://artiea.newsvine.com/_news/2010/0 ... -martyrdom

On the day before the Gaza flotilla confronted the Israeli navy, Al-Jazeera TV documented the pre-battle atmosphere created by men on board the flotilla, who chanted a well-known Islamic battle cry invoking the killing and defeat of Jews in battle:"[Remember] Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!"

[7]The Raid on Khaybar and Fadak by Muhammad-May, 628CE

After the famous Hudaibiya pact, with dissent mounting among his followers, in the backdrop of a severe drought at Medina, Muhammad decided to plunder and loot the remaining Jews at Khaybar. Haykal writes that the the Jews living at Khaybar were the strongest, the richest and the best equipped for war of all the peoples of Arabia (Hykal, Ch. Khaybar expedition).To assure and to please Muhammad in this plunder, Allah revealed Sura al-Fath (Victory, Sura 48) forgiving his past and future sins (48:2) and guaranteeing him triumph (48:21) through His (Allah’s) help. In verses 48:16, 20 Allah promised further booty for joining in Jihad; this was to improve the material life of the Jihadists. Mubarakpuri insists that this promise of booty meant the loot of Khaybar.

al-Tabari:

During the prevailing draught at Medina at that time, a group of B. Aslam who had embraced Islam came to Muhammad for assistance. But Muhammad had nothing to assist them. So he prayed to Allah so that they could plunder the richly laden fortresses of the Khyabar Jews including their luscious green agricultural lands. He said, “O God, Thou knowest their condition-that they have no strength and that I have nothing to give them. Open to them [for conquest] the greatest of the fortresses of Khaybar, the one most abounding in food and fat meat.”

The next morning, Muhammad plundered the fortress of al-Sa’b b. Muadh (a Jewish chief) that had the most abundance in food.

Sahih Bukhari : Volume 5, Book 59, Number 547:
Narrated 'Aisha:
When Khaibar was conquered, we said, "Now we will eat our fill of dates!"

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 548:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
We did not eat our fill except after we had conquered Khaibar.

Muhammad’s army started marching against the Khaybar Jews with a force of around fourteen hundred with around 100-200 cavalry, covered the distance of about one hundred miles from Medina in about four or five days. Ibn Sa’d writes that it was a fasting month; some Muslims fasted, some did not. Before attacking the Khaybar Jews, Muhammad stopped at a valley named al-Rajii encamping between the people of Ghatafan and the people of Khaybar to prevent the people of Ghatafan to come to the aid of the Khaybar Jews when he attacked them.

When the Ghatafan heard of Muhammad’s advance they assembled their men and marched forward to help the Khaybar Jews. After marching for a day they heard from planted spies that Muhammad had attacked their families left behind. So they hastened back to protect their families. This opened the way to Khaybar and Muhammad made an early morning attack on Khaybar claiming that early morning times were miserable times for the infidels (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 4, book 52, number 195). The attack was so sudden that the farmers of Khaybar were completely taken by surprise when they were just preparing to go to their plantations.

Ibn Ishak writes that the war cry of the Muslims at Khaybar was, ‘O victorious one slay, slay!’ It is the Islamic custom to raid a place early in the morning invoking the name of Allah. Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 11, Number 584:

Narrated Humaid:

Anas bin Malik said, "Whenever the Prophet went out with us to fight (in Allah's cause) against any nation, he never allowed us to attack till morning and he would wait and see: if he heard Adhan he would postpone the attack and if he did not hear Adhan he would attack them." Anas added, "We reached Khaibar at night and in the morning when he did not hear the Adhan for the prayer, he (the Prophet ) rode and I rode behind Abi Talha and my foot was touching that of the Prophet.

The inhabitants of Khaibar came out with their baskets and spades and when they saw the Prophet they shouted 'Muhammad! By Allah, Muhammad and his army.' When Allah's Apostle saw them, he said, "Allahu-Akbar! Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned."

Initially shocked, the Khaybar Jews returned to rally around their new leader, Abul Huqayq and posted themselves in front of their citadel, Qamus. Previously, Muhammad had assassinated Sallam ibn Abul-Huqayq (Abu Rafi) and another Jewish leader, Al-Yusayr b. Rizam just a few months earlier. In the beginning, Muhammad made a few unsuccessful attempts to dislodge them from their formidable fortress.

Then one of the Jews, Marhab challenged the Muslims in a single combat. So, a Jihadist, Amir, confronted Marhab. Unfortunately, while attacking Marhab, Amir accidentally cut his vein by himself and died. Many Muslims thought that Amir had committed suicide and sought Muhammad’s clarification about those who commit suicide while fighting the infidels. Muhammad assured them that Amir will receive double reward for his (suicidal) action. Sourcing authentic chain of narrators, Ibn Sa’d writes: ‘ Salamah ibn Akwa said: “ I came across the Companions of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, who declared: All the good deeds of ‘Amir were lost, as he had committed suicide. Salamah said: Then I approached the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him weeping and asked : ‘Were the deeds of ‘Amir vain? He said: And who said this? I said some of your Companions (said this). The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him said: He who said this uttered a lie. His reward has been doubled.”’

Sahih Bukhari on "suicide attacks": Volume 5, Book 59, Number 515:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

We witnessed (the battle of) Khaibar. Allah's Apostle said about one of those who were with him and who claimed to be a Muslim. "This (man) is from the dwellers of the Hell-Fire." When the battle started, that fellow fought so violently and bravely that he received plenty of wounds. Some of the people were about to doubt (the Prophet's statement), but the man, feeling the pain of his wounds, put his hand into his quiver and took out of it, some arrows with which he slaughtered himself (i.e. committed suicide). Then some men amongst the Muslims came hurriedly and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Allah has made your statement true so-and-so has committed suicide. "The Prophet said, "O so-and-so! Get up and make an announcement that none but a believer will enter Paradise and that Allah may support the religion with an unchaste (evil) wicked man.

After the death (suicide) of Amir, Muhammad b. Maslamah (the professional killer) went to fight with Marhab and in a grueling duel he killed Marhab. Then Marhab’s brother, Yasir rushed forward to avenge his brother’s death. Then al-Zubayr went forward to meet him in a single combat. After a short fighting, al-Zubayr killed Yasir.


A general battle now ensued and the Muslims were able to make a good advance. The situation of the Jews became desperate. Muhammad started appropriating Khaybar property piece by piece, fortress by fortress. He captured the first fortress that belonged to Na’im. Muhammad’s comrade Mahmud b Maslama (Muhammad b. Maslama’s brother) was killed here when a millstone was hurled at him. The next fortress to fall was Qamus, which belonged to Abul Huqayq. Then Muhammad besieged the last two of the fortresses, the fortress of al-Watih and al-Sulalim for thirteen and nineteen days respectively. The Jewish leader, Sallam ibn Mishkam was killed and al Harith ibn Abu Zaynab took over the leadership of the Jewish forces. Many Jews, after being defeated at other locations had taken sanctuary at these two fortresses that Muhammad found difficult to penetrate. So he, as per Islamic rule, cut off their water supply. The Jews then had no choice but to submit to the invading Muslim army. Muhammad continued with his plunder until he finished capturing all the property that he could lay his hands on. He agreed to spare the lives of the surrendered Jews by expelling them from their ancestral homes on condition that they must hand over all their yellow and white metals (i.e. gold and silver). The Jews were permitted to take with them all their belongings that they could load on their beasts (camels and donkeys) except for gold and silver. Failure to comply with this stipulation meant a certain death-Muhammad warned. There was a severe shortage of provision for the Muslim soldiers and many of them became very hungry. Unable to find provision easily, Muhammad asked them to eat horse meat but forbade them to eat donkey meat. Other prohibitions imposed were: the eating of garlic (raw) and the ‘muta’ (contract) marriage. However, the Shias claims that no such ban on ‘muta’ marriage was imposed. [This and the source of dynastic religious heritage are the primary examples of the grand differences between the Sunnis and the Shias that many non-Muslims refer to vaguely when they talk about the non-monolithic nature of Islam ]

The Jews lost ninety-three men while the loss on the Muslim side apparently only nineteen men. Muhammad took some Khaybar Jews as captives, including Safiyyah bt. Huyayy b. Akhtab, an exquisitely pretty young newly married bride of Kinanah b. al-Rabi b. al-Huqayq. She was the daughter of B. Nadir chief, Huayy b. Akhtab who was beheaded by Muhammad in the slaughtering of B. Qurayzah (Muhammad had already expelled B. Nadir Jews from Medina. Kinanah had recently married Safiyyah, and had received a good treasure trove as gift. Muhammad also took two daughters of Safiyaah’s paternal uncle. At first Dihyah al-Kalbi, a Muslim Jihadists asked for Safiyyah. But when Muhammad saw her, he chose her for himself and gave her two cousin sisters to Dihyah.

Tabari writes:

“After the Messenger of God conquered al-Qamus, the fortress of Ibn Abi al-Huqyaq, Safiyyah bt. Huyayy b. Akhtab was brought to him, and another woman with her. Bilal, who was the one who brought them, led them pat some of the slain Jews. When the woman who was with Safiyyah saw them, she cried out, struck her face, and poured dust on her head. When the Messenger of God saw her, he said, “Take this she-devil away from me!” she commanded that Safiyyah should be kept behind him and that the Messenger of God had chosen her for himself.”

Muhammad then accused Safiyyah’s husband, Kinanah and his cousin of hiding some of their properties in contravention of the terms of surrender. He was especially angered that Kinanah had hidden the wealth (worth about ten thousad Dinars) that he received from his marriage to Safiyyah. A renegade Jew divulged the secret of Kinanah’s hidden gold treasures. That Jew went and fetched the hidden treasures. Kinanah and his cousin were promptly arrested by the Muslims and brought to Muhammad. Muhammad charged him of hiding his wealth in some underground storage. When Kinanah denied this allegation, Muhammad ordered to inflict torture on him. He was tormented by branding his chest with a heated stake and then he was beheaded.

Quoting Ibn Ishak, Tabari writes:

‘Kinanah b. al-Rabi b. al-Huqyaq who had the treasure of B. Nadir was brought to the Messenger of God, who questioned him; but he denied knowing where it was. Then the messenger of God was brought a Jew who said to him, “I have seen Kinanah walk around this ruin every morning.” The Messenger of God said to Kinanah: “What do you say? If we find it in your possession, I will kill you.” “All right,” he answered. The Messenger of God commanded that the ruin should be dug up, and some of the treasure was extracted from it. Then he asked him for the rest of it. Kinanah refused to surrender it; so the Messenger of God gave orders concerning him to al-Zubayr b. al-‘Awwam, saying, “torture him until you root out what he has.” Al-Zubayr kept twirling his firestick in his breast until Kinanah almost expired; then the Messenger of God gave him to Muhammad b. Maslamah, who beheaded him to avenge his brother Mahmud b. Maslamah.”’

Muir writes that then the heads of the two chiefs (Kinana and his cousin) were cut off. Citing the so-called treachery by the Jews for allegedly hiding their treasures, Muhammad now ordered the Muslims to take possession of the women and children of the Jews of Khaybar. Muhammad sent Bilal to bring Safiyyah, Kinana’s wife (real name Zaynab and was allotted to Dhiya al-Kalbi. But Muhammad chose her as his Safi - special selection by Muhammad before the khums and distribution of booty to the Muslims). So when Zaynab became Muhammad’s Safi she became to be known as Safiyyah (Muhammad’s special selection).

Sunan Abu Dawud: Kitab al-Kharaj Book 19; number 2988

‘A’isha said: Safiyyah was called after the word safi (a special portion of the Prophet).

Sunan Abu Dawud: Kitab al-Kharaj : Book 19; number 2992

Anas said: Captives were gathered at Khaibar. Dihyah came and said: Apostle of Allah, give me a slave-girl from the captives. He said : Go and take a slave-girl. He took Safiyaah daughter of Huyayy. A man then came to the Prophet (may peace be upon him) and said: You gave Safiyaah daughter of Huyayy, chief lady of Quraizah and al-Nadir to Dihyah? This is according to the version of Ya’qub. Then the version goes: She is worthy of you. He said: Call him along with her. When the Prophet (may peace be upon him) looked at her, he said to him: Take another slave-girl from the captives. The Prophet (may peace be upon him) then set her free and married her.

Bilal brought Safiyyah and her cousin straight across the battlefield strewn with the dead and close by the corpses of Kinana and his cousin. The two cousin sisters of Safiyyah shrieked in terror when they witnessed the grotesque scene of the slain dead bodies of their dearest relatives that they had to cross over. They tremulously begged a stone-hearted Bilal for mercy but to no avail. When they were brought to Muhammad, he cursed the panic-stricken cousins as devilish and cast his mantle around Safiyyah indicating that she was to be his own. Muhammad consoled a frustrated Dhiya by giving him Safiyyah’s cousin sisters. Ibn Sa’d says that Muhammad purchased Safiyyah from Dhiyah for seven camels and consummated his possession the same night.

Ibn Sa’d writes:

: “….when it was night, he entered a tent and she entered with him. Abu Ayyub came there and passed the nigh by the tent by the tent with a sword keeping his head at the tent. When it was morning and the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, perceived (some body) moving, he asked: Who is there? He replied: I am Abu Ayub. He asked: Why are you here? He replied: O Apostle of Allah! There is a young lass newly wedded (to you) with whose late husband you have done what you have done. I was not sure of safety, so I wanted to be close to you. Thereupon the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said twice: O Abu Ayyub! May Allah show you mercy.” Note that the 3 month Iddat period was not followed.



During the time of negotiation with the Khaybar Jews, Muhammad sent a message to the Jews of Fadak asking them to surrender their properties and wealth or be attacked. When the Fadak Jews heard of Khaybar they requested Muhammad to take over their property and banish them. Muhammad did exactly that. After the Khaybar Jews surrendered to Muhammad and having lost their only source of livelihood, they requested him to employ them back on their properties for half the share of the crop. Muhammad found it much more convenient to re-employ them, as the Jews were already very experienced with their land, whereas the Muslims had no experience with agriculture and cultivation. So Muhammad made some conciliation to the Khaybar Jews by re-engaging them in their lost land, but on condition that he reserved the right to banish them at anytime he wished. Same terms were applied to the Fadak Jews. Later, when Umar became the Caliph of Islam, he expelled all the Jews from Kahybar and Fadak.

Khaybar became the booty of the Muslims, but Fadak became Muhammad’s private property (a Fai), as there was no fighting involved in Fadak. This provision was sanctioned by Allah in verse 17:64, 59:6-7


A fifth of the booty was set apart for Muhammad. The remaining four-fifths were then divided into 1,800 shares. One share went for a foot soldier and three for a horseman. One half of Khaybar land was reserved for Muhammad and his family and the remaining land was divided using the same rule as for the personal booty.

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 3, Book 39, Number 531:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Umar expelled the Jews and the Christians from Hijaz. When Allah's Apostle had conquered Khaibar, he wanted to expel the Jews from it as its land became the property of Allah, His Apostle, and the Muslims. Allah's Apostle intended to expel the Jews but they requested him to let them stay there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits. Allah's Apostle told them, "We will let you stay on thus condition, as long as we wish." So, they kept on living there until 'Umar forced them to go towards Taima' and Ariha'.

Muhammad used the annexed land of the Jews of Khaybar to support his increasing Harem. Sahih Muslim, Book 010, Number 3759:

Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) handed over the land of Khaibar (on the condition) of the share of produce of fruits and harvest, and he also gave to his wives every year one hundred wasqs: eighty wasqs of dates and twenty wasqs of barley. When 'Umar became the caliph he distributed the (lands and trees) of Khaibar, and gave option to the wives of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) to earmark for themselves the land and water or stick to the wasqs (that they got) every year. They differed in this matter. Some of them opted for land and water, and some of them opted for wasqs every year. 'A'isha and Hafsa were among those who opted for land and water.

shyamd,
I thought you did not want to bring in Europe!

lol! Really! Now that is a shocking statement!! Herzl became pro-zionist after the dreyfus affair - which exposed anti-semitism in France, it was this event that made Herzl pro zionist. The numerous massacres under the crusades were not enough for you. Entire jewish villages in the Rhines were destroyed. Considering in 19th century they were still debating whether to give jews full rights of citizenship in some countries in europe. Jewish emancipation didn't start until the end of the 18th century - even then Napoleon was changing laws with jews (one of them was restricting where they could live) and then freeing them up again. Jews were forced to live in designated areas or "ghetto's" in Europe. Thousands of jews were expelled from France, and Austria. They blamed the plague on jews, so europeans decided to burn them collectively - destroy their property.

My statement was in the context of Palestine which I was discussing as being under Islamist occupation for the previous 700 years leading to 1948!!!

I have not gone as far as France - and I am much closer to Palestine compared to the Papal states. Each of my posts show that Muslims targeted the Jews right from the beginning - not even on religious excuses given by the Christians - but directly for genocide. Medina, Fadak, Khyber is the hinterland of Levant and much closer to the Jewish heartland compared to Spain or France or Vienna or Italy.

Moreover I have not yet finished - its only the foundation years of Islam. Each of my posts show the actual attitudes of Muslims right from the beginning, and has remained so until the modern period. This in a region intimately connected to Palestine. At the stage I am describing Muslim armies had not yet reached Palestine for good but heading that way.

When the Romans first "dispersed Jews" "forcibly" did Poland exist?!!! Anyway since you will never find how "Christians" also "encouraged" Jews like the Ottomans "did" I will post those references too!

shyamd,
this is where the cat comes out of the bag : at last you declare,

Because I accepted that there was abuse by muslims, but there were others who made a bigger impact as well.

So you are not really trying to do an equal-equal but showing that "others" were "more responsible" than the muslims!

brihaspati wrote:shyamd,
I thought you did not want to bring in Europe! I have not gone as far as France - and I am much closer to Palestine compared to the Papal states. Each of my posts show that Muslims targeted the Jews right from the beginning - not even on religious excuses given by the Christians - but directly for genocide. Medina, Fadak, Khyber is the hinterland of Levant and much closer to the Jewish heartland compared to Spain or France or Vienna or Italy.

Jews were targeted by christians from the beginning (the whole blaming jews for jesus's death and also the apparently suffering from anti-christian behaviour by jews at the time of jesus) too.

When the Romans first "dispersed Jews" "forcibly" did Poland exist?!!! Anyway since you will never find how "Christians" also "encouraged" Jews like the Ottomans "did" I will post those references too!

Another example of your mixing and matching. I said the dispersed jews went to other parts of the roman empire. The poland thing came in much later - in the 1700's.

brihaspati wrote:shyamd,
this is where the cat comes out of the bag : at last you declare,

Because I accepted that there was abuse by muslims, but there were others who made a bigger impact as well.

So you are not really trying to do an equal-equal but showing that "others" were "more responsible" than the muslims!

LoL! I said that repeatedly over the last 2 or 3 posts!! I said that muslims weren't the only one's responsible but also the other's. In fact, it just turns out that in this case, muslims were less responsible (not to say they didn't contribute as you would love to twist my words). Roman's dispersing the jews were the single greatest affect.

Equal - Equal? No, they all contributed. Just some more or less than the other. You said that muslims were responsible in the beginning, now you acknowledge that there were others responsible for the expulsion of jews.

No problem! I will also take up your supposed "forced dispersal" claims under Romans! (After I finish with the Muslim role). You know, anti-Semites of modern European scholarship have provided substantial material in this regard to be used to treat your claims!

shyamd,
maybe you would like to ask some academics if possible at this stage - for the Roman dispersal would be very hard to prove in the way you are claiming compared to the effect of Muslims! just suggesting an escape route when the time is still there. I did not deny that others had a role. You did not say anything about Islamic role until I started chasing you up. You started this claim of non-Muslim responsibility - so I had to follow it up with the Muslim role.

In your own most recent statement you claim "bigger impact" by non-Muslims - so it is not about just "also"!

brihaspati wrote:shyamd,
maybe you would like to ask some academics if possible at this stage - for the Roman dispersal would be very hard to prove in the way you are claiming compared to the effect of Muslims! just suggesting an escape route when the time is still there. I did not deny that others had a role. You did not say anything about Islamic role until I started chasing you up. You started this claim of non-Muslim responsibility - so I had to follow it up with the Muslim role.

In your own most recent statement you claim "bigger impact" by non-Muslims - so it is not about just "also"!

The whole point of this discussion imo was that others had a role. Which you did not seem to consider - your point was that muslims had the main role. Which of course isn't true ( not to say they weren't involved in expulsion).

Do post genocide of jews living in Palestine by arab rulers and other muslim rulers later.

shyamd,
why is it you refuse to accept the fact that you did not post anything about the role of Muslims in genocide or even policy that could have "dispersed" Jews - when you started talking about the role of Romans, Persians and Christians? You in fact wrote rather favourably of their role - in your very first post on this you had no negative role assigned to Muslims although you did it explicitly in your list for non-Muslims. When I challenged you repeatedly you looked up wiki and quoted just one line of "social discrimination" and "massacre" without going into details while at the same time you wrote line after line describing atrocities by non-Muslims. I waited for a long time, repeatedly probing you to get you to post something negative about the Islamic role at the range you were posting about non-Muslims. Nothing -absolutely no gory details - just a repeated protestation that you have already said everything - which amounted to all of "social and economic discrimination" and "massacre" - just five words!

The main debate was not about genocide but because initially you tried to show that the Jews were "kicked out" of Palestine BEFORE Muslims came in. I can understand why you needed to insist on this because it then absolves the Muslims of the role in the dispersal of the Jews from their homeland. Therefore I had to brush your history up on the "returns" of the Jews which you conveneiently forgot to mention - that happened after each such "kicking out". Eevn then you were sarcastic, and still ignored important phases. Right at the very beginning of the mention of the crusades - I agreed straightaway that there are narratives of Crusader atrocities on the Jews - but you never mentioned anything about Crusader atrocities on Muslims and Christians too - because that would have wakened your focus.

Finally when you were forced to acknowledge continuous occupation of their homeland by the Jews - in spite of your claims of pre-Islamic "kicking out" you started on harping about the "greater role" of non-Muslims in dispersal. This brought up the question of who committed what sort of genocide. It was clear that you will never find the details of Islamic genocide while you find evidence galore for non-Muslim atrocities. So I began to post right from the advent of Islam.

The region where the genocidic carrer of islamists started is not very far from the Jewish heartland. Obviously you will try to now draw a strict "border" between Jews and Arabs of the Levant of the period and say - oh Muhammads genocidic campaign was happening across the border - and so Muslims had no role in Jewish dispersal in the region! Unfortunately this border region was actually a frontier region where both settled Arab, Bedouin nomads and Jewish settlements mixed.

In any case, the campaign should be seen as a continuous one ranging from the Khyber around late 620's to the conquest of Palestine proper (Roman Palestina on the coast only and not the only region to which Jewsish heartland was confined to) in 630's. Jihad and displacement of Jews went on continuously as part of this campaign after the death of Muhammad.

Don't worry - I will come to these! Caesaria will be a good case!

shyamd wrote: Yawn... So long as Israel doesn't recognise the right of Palestine to exist, then its going to be the same from the arabs - the arabs actually comprehensively said it recognises Israel under 1967 borders, but Israel spurned the deal despite talking positively.

That is a *piss* deal, and any secular & neutral observer would not link Arab nations to Palestine? After all why should it? What is their connection, as Suppiah correctly pointed out, the Pali's are inferior Arabs at best.

So based upon you kind of *logic* we should not accept any country, you think we should de-recognize China to start with? and how about Pakistan?

And if the Pali question is moral conviction for not accepting Israel, why does Jordan and Egypt accept Israel?


Egyptians and Jordanians are immoral no doubt and Jihad should immediately be declared.


Your single statement on forcing acceptance of entire Israel on the issue of a set of people who themselves dont accept Israel speaks a lot.

They want to put a 1967 map and a right of return, the morality says that Jews should have right to return and trade in Mecca and Medina and go back to 1000 BCE map.

So much for morality from countries like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, about human rights from countries which dont even have human rights for their women.

It would be funny if it was not sick.

The real deal is simple -- Israel knows the morality which keeps it around is the force of arms, and so do the Arabs.

For real *peace* and not the *piss* deal, Arabs have to give up their false sense of being greater than they really are, and accept that they owe it to Israel to give them, equality, respect and remove the sense of constant threat.

BJi,

Many thanks for posting those excerpts about the Islamic invasion and genocide of Jews. For me, it brings forth the structural issues which dog Islam - their history from very beginning is sordid saga of loot, rape, plunder and genocide - which has been elevated to a pedestal in fron of which everyone is expected to bow. If this is how Prophet of religion conducts himself, there is not much I can expect from mango Abdul. He is after all, following in the glorious traditions of his Holy Prophet, his hero, the ultimate of all Muslims.

To me personally, these account of war, loot, plunder and rape are disgusting.

I don't think Islamic accounts of "war, loot, plunder, and rape" are any more "disgusting" than any other medieval or pre-medieval group of people. I may have missed the accounts of nonviolent, peaceful conquest by the Vikings, Romans, Mongols, Huns...

Aha...tell this story of "violent Vikings" to some of the modern archcaeologists and historians of Britain! It would be illuminating to hear of the aftermath!

Carl_T wrote:I don't think Islamic accounts of "war, loot, plunder, and rape" are any more "disgusting" than any other medieval or pre-medieval group of people. I may have missed the accounts of nonviolent, peaceful conquest by the Vikings, Romans, Mongols, Huns...

Vikings, Romans, Mongols, Huns do not have religious sanction for "war, loot, plunder and rape and even genocide," and the present generation of their respective sect/race are not gloating on those historical time lines. But on the other hand, these have been embedded in Islamic religious texts, namely Quran and Hadits, which lesser pious and more pious revere like their long past brethren and want to continue this on pagan/kaffirs and not only Islam supports this, but also encourages it. The scheme does not fit modern day humanity.

kmkraoind wrote:
Vikings, Romans, Mongols, Huns do not have religious sanction for "war, loot, plunder and rape and even genocide,"

Interesting point, it hurts less to be killed by secular violence?

kmkraoind wrote: and the present generation of their respective sect/race are not gloating on those historical time lines. But on the other hand, these have been embedded in Islamic religious texts, namely Quran and Hadits, which lesser pious and more pious revere like their long past brethren and want to continue this on pagan/kaffirs and not only Islam supports this, but also encourages it. The scheme does not fit modern day humanity.

Firstly, my response was about violence in the past tense, aka "Muslims killed and raped and enslaved zillion people" whether Muslims today commit violence justified by their religion is another totally different question.

As for gloating...Mongolians today love Genghis Khan just like Uzbeks and Turks (ironically) love Timur...westerners admire the Vikings and Alexander just as well... precisely what brihaspati was pointing at. This is SPARTA!

The question is not whether the Islamics were violent and brutal, they openly proclaimed to be just that. Timur in fact used to send people everywhere to proclaim this. Were they more violent and brutal than other people in the medieval and pre-medieval timeframe? That would be a more relevant question.

Carl_T wrote: The question is not whether the Islamics were violent and brutal, they openly proclaimed to be just that. Timur in fact used to send people everywhere to proclaim this. Were they more violent and brutal than other people in the medieval and pre-medieval timeframe? That would be a more relevant question.

No the relevant question is whether those patterns carry over as glorious today to be put into practice again as the opportunity strikes.

In context of west asia the question is whether those behavior patterns still valid against Israel and a preferred template for dealing with them.

IMO (and not humble) the answer to both is yes. (right from chanting of Slogans which espouse such behavior on a *peace* ship to daniel pearl and much much more)

"As for gloating...Mongolians today love Genghis Khan just like Uzbeks and Turks (ironically) love Timur...westerners admire the Vikings and Alexander just as well"

That's really disgusting; nothing good can be said about these sentiments. One hopes that if it ever comes to light that the Cholas committed atrocities in SE Asia during their brief presence there in the 11th century, that Indians would want to distance themselves from those acts, and denounce them as well. As of now, we know of no serious crimes or vandalism, and the people of Sumatra, Java and the Malay peninsula have no historical memories of any Indian wrongdoing ( i.e mass killings, forced conversions etc) in those parts.

^^^^
[\OT]
VS, DO NOT fall into the trap of Chola empire argument etc. Western historians and sociologists try to cover their societies' past guilt by saying "hey guys you guys were there as well...and therefore....". It is a tactic to put the Indic on the backfoot.
[OT]

Hi Abhi_G,

I am not making any assumptions about what the Cholas did in SE Asia. In the context of Genghis Khan and Alexander being glorified by their respective nationalities, I was just saying that IF( and for now, it's a big if) any discovery is made about atrocities committed by the Cholas in SE Asia, that modern Indians would have the moral fortitude not to mindlessly glorify the Cholas in the way some people glorify other conquerors in history. And if the people of SE Asia feel some historical hurt over these (putative) atrocities, that Indians at least be aware of their sentiments, and denounce, and distance themselves from the violations.

^^^
My intention was to show you a trap!!

Its tragically funny that how many indians keep worldwide perpective on killing by Viking, Huns etc and the experience of Indics is so far from their mind. Just a meaure of How far deep indic have fallen and how much they have to climb up just to be on even keel and remove the mental, xhimminess colonization. No doubt Swami Vivekananda cried every night he spent in US, a bitter constant reminder to him about the downfall of indics. Guess ,we in BR cry to just like him and doubling the resolve to fix the weakness. Must be nature's way of teaching patience to us Indians. Islamists have killed our ancestors and indulged in rape and mayhem on the level unknown to human race and all we can discuss is that it also happened to others and no expression of anguish , no remorse but understanding only. This attutude is nothing but incentive to the cycle will be repeated again. May be Bajwa Sahib ought to post link to how the religious principles and precedences guided the torture of Banda Bahadur and his companions in full public view.

Prem wrote:Its tragically funny that how many indians keep worldwide perpective on killing by Viking, Huns etc and the experience of Indics is so far from their mind. Just a meaure of How far deep indic have fallen and how much they have to climb up just to be on even keel and remove the mental, xhimminess colonization.

Deep impact of the colonized mind.

Islamists have killed our ancestors and indulged in rape and mayhem on the level unknown to human race and all we can discuss is that it also happened to others and no expression of anguish , no remorse but understanding only. This attutude is nothing but incentive to the cycle will be repeated again. May be Bajwa Sahib ought to post link to how the religious principles and precedences guided the torture of Banda Bahadur and his companions in full public view.

We need stories of the past to be discussed to understand the deep wounds in our civilization.
This internalization of other nations history but not own history is unique to Indians.

I shudder to think that this is the kind of core our Oxymoronic Nehruvian Nationalistic , PSers are buzy protecting . This aint worth , this is dead, fake,pseudo India and not the one based on Eternal Truth ,alive in spirit and soul. We do need old stories to be told to new generation so they Know and knowing they dont make the same Chauhani mistake to the detriment of their children.

Carl_T wrote:I don't think Islamic accounts of "war, loot, plunder, and rape" are any more "disgusting" than any other medieval or pre-medieval group of people. I may have missed the accounts of nonviolent, peaceful conquest by the Vikings, Romans, Mongols, Huns...

And those Vikings, Romans, Mongols and Huns have Prophet(s) whom they eulogise and worship and who is considered messenger of God? And these actions of their Prophet(s) are considered to be worthy of emulation in letter and spirit?

Are these medieval or pre-medieval group of people, treated in same manner as is Prophet Muhammad?

rohitvats wrote:

Carl_T wrote:I don't think Islamic accounts of "war, loot, plunder, and rape" are any more "disgusting" than any other medieval or pre-medieval group of people. I may have missed the accounts of nonviolent, peaceful conquest by the Vikings, Romans, Mongols, Huns...

And those Vikings, Romans, Mongols and Huns have Prophet(s) whom they eulogise and worship and who is considered messenger of God? And these actions of their Prophet(s) are considered to be worthy of emulation in letter and spirit?

Are these medieval or pre-medieval group of people, treated in same manner as is Prophet Muhammad?

Now if you go back and read your post which I responded to, you were saying "historical accounts of rape/genocide/murder are disgusting",this discussion started by brihaspati focused on accounts of historical narratives of violence and brutality. Who emulates them is a totally different story.