An interesting quote

event horizon I came across this page while searching for references of Muhammad's destruction ('collective punishment') of Banu Nadir's date trees and the orchards Muhammad destroyed after he laid siege to the city of Ta'if.
This looks like a pretty good source, so maybe I can also find a reference of Muhammad refusing food to one of the other Jewish tribes he laid siege to - I believe it was the Banu Qaynuqa tribe if memory serves.

Bombardment of al Ta'if by Catapult
The Muslims encamped and waited for new orders. Some tribesmen spoke to the Prophet in favor of a prolonged siege, claiming that nothing the Muslims had would help them scale Ta'if's fortifications. Time alone, they argued, would eventually force Ta'if's people out of their safe foxholes. Muhammad, however, found it difficult to return without having achieved a victory over Ta'if. Banu Daws, one of the tribes living to the south of Makkah, were fully acquainted with the use of the catapult and had experience in tank-led assaults upon high fortifications. A1Tufayl, one of its leaders, who had accompanied Muhammad ever since the conquest of Khaybar, stood at the Prophet's side always on the ready to fulfill his wishes. At Muhammad's command, al Tufayl speeded to his tribe with a request for their assistance, and they responded by bringing with them their tools of war. Reaching al Ta'if four days after the Muslim siege began, they put their catapult to immediate use. They also brought their tanks into the battlefield, and sent a number of their men under their cover to the fortified walls. The soldiers of Ta'if, however, were clever enough to force the men of Banu Daws to flee. Having heated pieces of iron to red hot temperatures, they threw these missiles onto the tanks and put them to flame. The Muslim soldiers which the tanks were covering had to flee or be burnt alive. As they emerged from under their tanks, they were shot at with arrows and a number of them were killed. Having failed at this new effort, the Muslims became convinced that there was no way to storm the fortresses of Ta'if.

Destruction of al Ta'if's Orchards
What was left for them to do? Muhammad pondered this question for a long while. Suddenly, the thought occurred to him that he had achieved victory over Banu al Nadir and forced their evacuation simply by destroying their orchards. The vineyards of Ta'if were far more important than the orchards of Banu al Nadir and were known throughout Arabia for their produce. It was due to them that the city of al Ta'if acquired the reputation of being a little paradise in the desert. Without further ado, Muhammad gave the order, and the Muslims began systematically to cut down and burn the orchards. Upon discovering this destruction and realizing that Muhammad really meant to spare none of their vineyards, the Ta'if tribesmen sent to him pleading that they would rather give away their vineyards to Muhammad, or to those citizens of al Ta'if-and there were large numbers of them who were bound to Muhammad in blood relationships. Muhammad stopped his men temporarily and called out to the besieged city that he would set free any man who surrendered to him. Twenty people responded to his appeal. From them he learned that enough ammunition and provisions were available that the city could withstand the siege for a very long time. Considering that his own men were anxious to return home and enjoy the fruits of their victory over Hawazin-indeed, that their patience would be at an end if the siege were prolonged-Muhammad ordered the Muslims to withdraw. With the arrival of the new moon (the month of Dhu al Qi'dah) the siege had become one month old, and the holy season during which no war was permitted had begun. Muhammad returned to Makkah with his army, visiting the holy places and performing the lesser pilgrimage or `umrah. He announced that he would resume the war against al Ta'if at the expiration of the holy months.

shafique I see that you are keeping yourself busy not answering the awkward question about the contradictions in the NT :)
The alleged war crimes of the Prophet, pbuh, have been dealt with at length in earlier threads - just do a search and you'll find references to what historians say etc.
Just cutting and pasting links from Orientalist/Islamphobic web sites is just exposing yourself to the oft-made accusation of quoting stuff out of context. But hey - why change now, eh? I presume you didn't read all the history of early muslim campaigns when you found the quotes above?
At least it appears that you seem to condemn collective punishments and therefore should agree with my condemnation of Israeli actions which violate international codes in relation to collective punishments (eg bulldozing of houses and orchards - let alone the colonisation).
But then again, you continue to acknowledge that Baruch Goldstein was a religiously motivated terrorist and that you are not one of those who venerate his actions.
Strange that - I had you down as a Christian, not a zionist supporter (but hey, perhaps you're one of those Yanks who are both??)
Edit: But here's a fuller explanation of the account which you can clarify from primary sources (especially the part about only 6 date palms being cut down) - and the fact that the tribe were allowed to leave, that they destroyed their own houses', lintels etc - and if you are really interested in the truth, you can read what the crimes of Banu Nadhir were (a long-shot, I know... but hey - hope springs eternal etc.. ) :

The confidence of Banu Nadhir appeared to be justified and though the siege continued for several days, it produced no change in their attitude. At last the Holy Prophet directed that some of the date trees of Banu Nadhir, which were outside their fortifications, may be cut down. These trees were of an inferior kind, the fruit of which was generally fed to animals and was not used for human consumption.
The purpose of the Holy Prophet’s direction was that Banu Nadhir, apprehending a large-scale destruction of their fruit trees, might become inclined to make terms, and thus a large number of human lives might be saved and peace and order might be restored at the sacrifice of a few inferior type of fruit trees. This served its purpose and by the time six date trees had been cut down Banu Nadhir, fearing large-scale damage, offered, after a siege lasting a fortnight, to open their gates on condition that they should be permitted to depart together with all their movables.
This was what the Holy Prophet had himself offered them in the beginning, and as his sole purpose was the restoration of peace and security he accepted the offer, subject only to the condition that Banu Nadhir would not be permitted to take away their arms. This was agreed to, and the Holy Prophet appointed Muhammad bin Maslamah to supervise the departure of Banu Nadhir from Medina. Accordingly they departed with great pomp and show, with music playing and their camels loaded with all their movables.
They had demolished their houses and carried away with them even the doors and lintels, which were made of wood. Their arms and immovable properties, land and gardens, fell into the hands of Muslims, but as there had been little or no fighting these were not treated as spoils and the greater part of them were distributed among the poorer section of Emigrants who had hitherto been supported by their brethren of Ansar and thus, indirectly, Ansar also shared in these properties.

Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Wow. I see shafique has resorted to attacking the messenger. Surely if he clicked on the link he would have known that the website I quoted from is a Muslim website and the book was written by an Egyptian lawyer (I had actually read the book previously a couple of years ago) It's interesting to see shafique accuse others of 'long' copy-pastes. Perhaps he's just upset that I link back to websites if I post their content. In any event, I am not aware of where shafique has discussed this previous issue. I know that this was brought up before, but shafique never got around to addressing this and my quote from Rodinson where the professor said Muhammad had deprived one of the Jewish tribes of food for a number of days until they surrendered. It is worth repeating my comment about shafique's obsession with 'orientalist' sites. Jeez, maybe I would find his insistence of using unbiased sources (apparently a Muslim lawyer is biased against Muhammad, ok) a little more convincing if I had not caught him lifting his talking points from a Muslim missionary website. In any event, I see that shafique has so far ignored the quotes (posted in full and not out of context) from the Muslim author. Disappointed but not surprised. shafique Please see the edit to the post above where I give a quote explaining the siege and the cutting down of the palms. As I said, a little learning is a dangerous thing... But, still waiting to hear about whether eh agrees with me about condemning Israeli collective punishments as crimes against humanity.... I won't hold my breath. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Hmmm, I think I may have found a passing reference to what I was looking for previously.
I also checked what Haykal had written about the Banu Qurayza tribe Muhammad subsequently slaughtered and noted that that tribe was also blockaded for 25 days, rather than fifteen for the Banu Qaynuqa tribe.
Perhaps Muhammad starved both tribes, then?

Blockade of Banu Qaynuqa`
For fifteen consecutive days, the Muslims blockaded Banu Qaynuqa` within their quarters, preventing any exit or entry. The Jews had no alternative but to surrender and yield themselves to Muhammad's judgment. After consulting the Muslim leaders, Muhammad decided to kill his captives. `Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul, allied to both Jews and Muslims, asked Muhammad to be merciful toward his allies. When the Prophet declined, `Abdullah repeated his request, and the Prophet declined again. `Abdullah then seized the Prophet by his shield and would not let him go. At this, the Prophet seemed rather angry and said with a loud voice, "Leave me; hands off !" Ibn Ubayy replied, "No, by God, I shall not let you go until you give mercy to my proteges. Three hundred armed and four hundred unarmed men have so far protected me against every sort of people. Would you kill them all at once? By God, I will never agree to such a judgment, for I fear the turns of fortune." `Abdulla was still a man of great power, having command of the associationists of the Aws and Khazraj tribes, although this power had largely waned with the growth of Muslim power. His insistence caused the Prophet to regain his good temper and patience, especially since `Ubadah~ ibn al Samit had joined ibn Ubayy in making the same plea. He therefore decided to stretch his hand to `Abdullah, to all his proteges, whether associationists or Jews, and to grant them all his mercy and benevolence. He decreed only that the Banu Qaynuqa' should evacuate Madinah in punishment for their misdeeds. Once more, ibn Ubayy tried to plead with Muhammad on behalf of his proteges that they be allowed to remain in Madinah. One of the Muslims, however, prevented ibn Ubayy from reaching the Prophet and forced him to remove himself.

shafique I'll wait for you to deal with the Banu Nadhir incident first and explain away the quote I gave above. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Hmmm, your quote so far is only a collection claims lacking citation.
But ok, I'll play your game.

that they destroyed their own houses'

Gee, I wonder why they would have done that? Perhaps because their houses were taken from them???
In any event, what does this useless tidbit have to do with Muhammad's cutting down and burning of their date trees?

you can read what the crimes of Banu Nadhir were

Wow. Did you type this post or did someone sneak on to your computer and have some fun? You just said you condemn any form of collective punishment:

I just condemn all acts of human rights abuses - and this is one of them. Collective punishment as defined by the conventions is inviolable in my opinion - but hey, some people support the bulldozing of houses and orchards, but only if it is done selectively.

Surely the destruction of the Banu Nadir tribe's date trees and Ta'if's vineyards are examples of collective punishment?
Oh, I see. Muhammad is the exception to the rule. Supposedly he cut down 'only' six date trees that were supposedly only used to feed animals these dates (ignoring the fact that dates were the primary source of food for Arabs living at the time). Plus, they were kind of withered and scrawny looking, so it doesn't really count, right?
In addition, there were the really bad, awful crimes of the Nadir tribe. I mean, they must be vilified to the most extreme prejudice. I think they also grew horns out of their forehead and sacrificed their infants.
Not sure? Hey, just say something to justify Muhammad's actions. I mean, their crimes, which I assume were based on something more than speculation, must have been really awful. Not something some 'numpties' would do either.
Anyways...the OP was about Muhammad's destruction of Taif's vineyards. We can discuss Muhammad's collective punishment of the Banu Nadhir tribe in another thread. I'll allow you the time to provide the sources that these date trees were dying when they were cut down and were only used to feed their animals. Also, I kind of need to see how the author came to the conclusion that 'only' six date trees were cut/burnt. That's of course ignoring the fact that collective punishment is still collective punishment - no matter how many or how little date trees are cut down. shafique Cool, I'm glad you don't dispute the facts as per the quote I provided - I'll let you refer to primary sources, I've given you where I got the quote from and you are free to look into who the author was and his credentials. But just note that his account is not contradicting the quotes you gave - just giving the full context and more detail. See why I keep reminding you that 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'? And, no - I don't see the destruction of 6 date palms and the expulsion of a tribe guilty of treason as a crime against humanity, but rather as a clement punishment for the crime committed. Would you have just the men imprisoned or killed, instead? When diplomats are expelled from countries today, their families tend to go with them. I guess I'll have to wait and ask again whether you agree with me that Israeli crimes against humanity are to be condemned (when they bulldoze orchards - more than 6 trees I'd hazard - and homes as punishment). Cheers, Shafique event horizon What was the 'crime against humanity' the Banu Nadhir tribe were guilty of? As I said, I need the actual references your author took his account from when he claimed the Banu Nadhir tribe's date trees which were cut down only numbered six and they were withered and used primarily to feed animals. I'm not going to look that up since it was you who provided the account. Until then, I have to ignore the evidence. You know, it's only fair. I wouldn't expect you to scour the internet verifying Rodinson's claims that Muhammad prevented the Banu Qaynuqa tribe from accessing food...Oh, that's right, you didn't. It's also an interesting (false) analogy you brought up with a tribe that lived in Medina for centuries and a guy who just moved in a year or two ago. Perhaps you were referring to Muhammad as the diplomat? shafique Eh, really - you must try and read what is posted and stop your over-active imagination. ;) The link I gave you gives you the details of the crimes of Banu Nadhir that the punishment was for. It is not surprising that you don't know the background - but now there is no excuse. This is your thread and it is entitled 'an interesting quote'. The quote is indeed interesting and shows how a little knowledge can be manipulated to portray something that wasn't the case. I gave you the reference for my quote - it is up to you now to show why we shouldn't believe this fuller account over the ones you linked to. I'm sure that you will have to go to the original references (perhaps in Arabic) to get to the truth - as the author was a fluent Arabic scholar and also translated the Quran and Hadith into English. He was also a respected diplomat and Judge - holding such posts as President of the General Assembly of the UN (IIRC) and a Judge at the Hague. But then again, if his accounts are fabricated - I'm sure that some of your Orientalist buddies would have accused him of lying and given the references to back them up. His account shows that the siege was actually humane and his intention was to avoid bloodshed - and that the tribe left Medina in a procession. It looks like you've got some homework to do - that and answering unanswered questions (which are piling up now) - eg. who Paul was addressing in the fabricated verses, whether you agree Goldstein was a religiously motivated terrorist etc etc Cheers, Shafique

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
event horizon Must have missed your answer, maybe I'll scan your post again. What 'crimes against humanity' were the Banu Nadir tribe 'convicted' of??? And of course, I am not going to take the time to verify *your* author's unreferenced claims. You presented the evidence and you should back these claims up from the primary sources. I recall you rejecting Rodinson's claim about Muhammad starving out the Banu Qaynuqa tribe because he did not cite his source. Now, suddenly the shoe is on the other foot and you want me to do the heavy lifting. Won't work, must try harder. As for your author, I had already shown him to be prone to exaggeration after he claimed the 30 diplomats the Muslims massacred took out their weapons and charged the Muslims. Funny thing is, this account of events was not recorded in either Tabari or Ibn Ishaq or the four Western historians I quoted from - Watt, Rodinson, Stillman and Gabriel. It should also speak volumes that your argument for a siege and collective punishment is parroted from the Israelis themselves - it's humane or it saves the lives (of the Israelis). I hope you're not claiming Muhammad wanted to save the lives of the Jews, are you? Cuz, after starving the Banu Qaynuqa tribe (and initially wanting their men beheaded) and successfully slaughtering the Banu Qurayza tribe, that would be a tad bit laughable. event horizon Anyways, the collective punishment meted out to the Banu Nadir tribe can be discussed on another thread. This thread is first and foremost about Muhammad's collective punishment against the city of Ta'if, which included the destruction of the city's vineyards. shafique As the quote and historical record shows, the siege of Taif was just that - a siege. The siege was not a military success and the Muslims raised (i.e. stopped) the siege - because the encampment was well fortified and well-provisioned. The catapaults etc were used against the battlements and were partly successful in making holes in them, but the defenders of Taif fought off the Muslims. The incident of some of the grape vines being destroyed is in some of the historical accounts, but they don't say that the orchards were raised - on the contrary, it caused the Thaqif to send out a negotiating team and the destruction was stopped. The Muslims raised the siege and the inhabitants of Taif were left alone, and later most embraced Islam. Taif continued to be known for its fine orchards - including those of Banu Thaqif, but to read some accounts you would think that it was turned into a wasteland by the Muslims. I understand that many Islamophobic websites are painting this incident as an example of Muslim terrorism - the wanton destruction of whole orchards etc. Looking for agreement - I applaud their view that had this occurred as they descibe it would be totally wrong and therefore would expect they would join me in condemning the Israeli collective punishments against Palestinians. So eh, do we agree that the Israelis are guilty of the same crimes that you believe Muhammad, pbuh, inflicted on the Thaqif of Taif? And that both should be condemned as collective punishments? Cheers, Shafique event horizon Ah, I see shafique has been doing some furious googling.
Just reading Rodinson's version, it sounds like you checked out his account of the event since he also uses the phrase "raised the siege". But I'm sure it's a pure coincidence. What do you think?
In any event, it seems like you're arguing that Muhammad's action of only destroying some of the fields to force the hands of the inhabitants to surrender does not constitute as collective punishment.
Strange, I thought that was the dictionary definition of collective punishment, and in Muhammad's case, destroying the livelihood and a food source of a people would have been an extreme example of collective punishment.
But it's good to see you defending blatant war crimes - destroying fields to punish the inhabitants of a city, are 'ok' to you because the inhabitants surrendered before all of their fields were destroyed, even though Haykal is clear that the Muslims did indeed burn and destroy a significant portion of the fields:

What was left for them to do? Muhammad pondered this question for a long while. Suddenly, the thought occurred to him that he had achieved victory over Banu al Nadir and forced their evacuation simply by destroying their orchards. The vineyards of Ta'if were far more important than the orchards of Banu al Nadir and were known throughout Arabia for their produce. It was due to them that the city of al Ta'if acquired the reputation of being a little paradise in the desert. Without further ado, Muhammad gave the order, and the Muslims began systematically to cut down and burn the orchards. Upon discovering this destruction and realizing that Muhammad really meant to spare none of their vineyards

I think shafique's justification for the war crimes speaks volumes of the dangers of religious nutters. It's also interesting that shafique is still rattling off on those 'orientalist' websites.
Shafique, have you already forgotten that you were caught copy-pasting your arguments on Christianity from a Muslim missionary website?
What did that quote of Jesus you posted say about seeing a speck in your brother's eye? shafique

shafique wrote:

So eh, do we agree that the Israelis are guilty of the same crimes that you believe Muhammad, pbuh, inflicted on the Thaqif of Taif? And that both should be condemned as collective punishments?

I guess you overlooked this question?
As for whether there was wholesale destruction of Taif's orchards etc - I couldn't see where you were getting this info from. The inhabitants were being beseiged and the Muslims left them alone before the siege caused any hardship to the inhabitants.
The Taif residents eventually joined Islam and their orchards continued to yield fruit. I understand the desire to believe that 'shock and awe' was used and that 'significant portions' of the Thaqif orchards were destroyed - but the facts speak for themselves, Muslims beseiged the Thaqif, Muslims lifted the siege when it did not yield fruit.
It is indeed interesting that you find the reference to 'Orientalist' websites amusing - but I'm just giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't the one doing the selective quoting and are just lifting arguments off these sites. It takes a special kind of myopia to read a historical account and deliberately extract distorting bits of information. But given that you didn't know who Gibbon was, and had to spend 2 minutes looking up wrong information about him - I inferred that your knowledge of historians comes from Islamophobic websites (also the fact you quoted Kennedy out of context and quoted Kung when he disagreed with your main argument - also led me to believe you don't read full books, but just cut and paste)
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon The quote said systematic destruction. The Muslims were destroying the fields and only the surrender of the city prevented all of the fields from being destroyed.
Similarly, the women and children the Muslims held in captive forced the men after the battle of Hunayn to surrender - if the men had not surrendered, their wives and children would have been taken as concubines by the Muslims. Nice choice, eh?
It's interesting that you are avoiding the question. Is destroying fields to force a people to surrender a form of collective punishment?
To me, that sounds like what Israel is doing (on a lighter scale than Muhammad) to the Gazans to force Hamas out, but maybe the analogies are false?
What do you think?

selective quoting and are just lifting arguments off these sites

Sorry, didn't find your response. Were you caught lifting material from a missionary Muslim website in a debate about the Bible? shafique

event horizon wrote:
The quote said systematic destruction. The Muslims were destroying the fields and only the surrender of the city prevented all of the fields from being destroyed.

Yes, I did say that your Orientalist tactics relies on selective quotes of translations and ignores the fuller picture - in this case that the tribe in question came out to negotiate and the siege was lifted/raised by the Muslims before civilians suffered and that eventually the town's inhabitants chose to join Islam - and their orchards continued to flourish.
I understand you want to equate this incident with the carpet bombing of Dresden, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the bombing of Gaza or rural Afghanistan - but these latter cases +were+ war crimes which killed women and children, whilst the former is an account of a few vines being destroyed.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon

Yes, I did say that your Orientalist tactics relies on selective quotes of translations and ignores the fuller picture

Sorry, you must have me confused for someone else. I take the time to rent books from the library and read them. I also noticed that you avoided my previous question - were you caught trawling a Muslim missionary website and lifting Bible passages from it? Just curious.

in this case that the tribe in question came out to negotiate and the siege was lifted/raised by the Muslims before civilians suffered and that eventually the town's inhabitants chose to join Islam

Ok, so we agree with the facts:
The Muslims laid siege to a well fortified city and, as a result of being unable to take the city, the Muslims began to 'systematically' destroy the city's fields in which the residents of Ta'if depended on.
Cool, so we both agree that Muhammad carried out 'collective punishment' - a crime against humanity by forcing the inhabitants of a city to surrender before their crops, all of them, went up in smoke.
Do you agree that this is a collective punishment? To me, it doesn't sound any different to Israel's actions but, perhaps you could explain the difference between bulldozing a few date trees and Muhammad's actions? shafique "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" springs to mind! Why is it hard to stick to the topic? You quote from a web site and then profess an in-depth erudition of all things historical, and yet were unaware of who Gibbon was and embarrassed yourself with a self-proclaimed 2 min Google search - which completely missed the point. But hey, let's not get too personal. ;) (And for the record, I don't see why quoting verbatim a list of quotes from the Bible causes you so much angst - I told the most convienient list remains the skeptics annotated bible - and Memon's book that you mention is another handy source of references.) Ok - back to this thread now... Yes, I agree with the facts - this incident wasn't a Dresden, Hiroshima or a Kabul or Gaza - a pre-Medieval siege in which the Muslims did not prevail. You quite rightly point out that Israel carries out collective punishments - by bulldozing houses and orchards (usually not date palms) - and I trust that you join me in condemning these (but I suspect you are an Israeli fanboi and won't actually admit to this fact). Cheers, Shafique

event horizon

Why is it hard to stick to the topic? You quote from a web site and then profess an in-depth erudition of all things historical, and yet were unaware of who Gibbon was and embarrassed yourself with a self-proclaimed 2 min Google search.

Hey, you pontificate about the New Testament but were unaware of, among other things, the council of Jerusalem, claimed that Paul changed Jesus' mission by preaching to Gentiles, incorrectly stated the events of Peter's conversion of Cornelius and lift Bible verses (some of them out of context, eg, Jesus' conversion of a Samaritan town in John 4) from a Muslim missionary website.
Although I now see that you have no problem with you quoting from a Muslim missionary website. So, why would you worry with others from quoting extracts from 'orientalist' websites - although you have failed to produce any evidence?

You quite rightly point out that Israel carries out collective punishments - by bulldozing houses and orchards (usually not date palms) - and I trust that you join me in condemning these (but I suspect you are an Israeli fanboi and won't actually admit to this fact).

Sorry, but what's the difference between Israel's collective punishment and Muhammad's, again?
Also, do you agree that Muhammad engaged in collective punishment and, therefore, carried out a crime against humanity? shafique

event horizon wrote:
- Why is it hard to stick to the topic? You quote from a web site and then profess an in-depth erudition of all things historical, and yet were unaware of who Gibbon was and embarrassed yourself with a self-proclaimed 2 min Google search.
Hey, you pontificate about the New Testament but were unaware of, among other things, the council of Jerusalem, claimed that Paul changed Jesus' mission by preaching to Gentiles, incorrectly stated the events of Peter's conversion of Cornelius and lift Bible verses (some of them out of context, eg, Jesus' conversion of a Samaritan town in John 4) from a Muslim missionary website.

Yes, my pontifications that Gibbon showed that the Bible contained forged verses was proved right -but hey, we all make mistakes and start threads not knowing how silly we'll look (NT historicity thread you started).
But note that I try and keep to the topic of the threads.

event horizon wrote:

Although I now see that you have no problem with you quoting from a Muslim missionary website.

Hey, I quote from atheist websites all the time - did you miss all my quotes from sceptics' annotated bible?
When someone is right, they are right.
Orientalists I'm sure believe they are right, just like the flat earth society does (although I suspect the latter have a sense of humour).

event horizon wrote:

So, why would you worry with others from quoting extracts from 'orientalist' websites - although you have failed to produce any evidence?

I don't worry about you quoting from Orientalist websites - it's just that it exposes you to the danger of finding egg on your face when you discover the quotes are selective and sometimes just fraudulent.
But you choose your line of argument and we'll tackle it with the the facts.

event horizon wrote:
- You quite rightly point out that Israel carries out collective punishments - by bulldozing houses and orchards (usually not date palms) - and I trust that you join me in condemning these (but I suspect you are an Israeli fanboi and won't actually admit to this fact).
Sorry, but what's the difference between Israel's collective punishment and Muhammad's, again?

One is factual and one is imagined. I condemn the factual one - it appears you are reluctant to condemn Israel's crimes. Interesting that.
Cheers,
Shafique
\ event horizon

Yes, my pontifications that Gibbon showed that the Bible contained forged verses was proved right -but hey, we all make mistakes and start threads not knowing how silly we'll look (NT historicity thread you started).

Actually, I asked for which *contemporary sources* (sources outside of the New Testament which were written at or around the same time as the events of the New Testament were said to take place).
But good job for the laugh. I couldn't imagine you were that daft, but thank you for proving me wrong (yet again). It seems that you still do not understand what I was asking for.
Basic reading comprehension anyone?

Orientalists I'm sure believe they are right, just like the flat earth society does (although I suspect the latter have a sense of humour).

Great, I'll happily quote the correct passages from Orientalist sites. Although, I fail to see how the Muslim website was 'right' when they cited Jesus' conversion of a Samaritan town in John 4 as an example of Jesus prohibiting the conversion of non-Jews.

One is factual and one is imagined. I condemn the factual one - it appears you are reluctant to condemn Israel's crimes. Interesting that.

Sorry, didn't quite catch that. How is Israel's demolition of some date trees different from Muhammad's demolition of the food source of a city to force the inhabitants to surrender? Do you see that as collective punishment?
Simple question. Is demolishing the food sources to force inhabitants to surrender collective punishment?
Is preventing people from accessing food collective punishment? shafique I agree that if Muhammad had destroyed orchards etc as described by your orientalist friends, then this would indeed be as contemptible as the Israeli destruction of orchards today. I ask again, do you join me in condemning the crimes against humanity that are carried out by the Israelis? (or are you a fanboi?) Cheers, Shafique event horizon Great, I'll wait for your condemnation:

The vineyards of Ta'if were far more important than the orchards of Banu al Nadir and were known throughout Arabia for their produce. It was due to them that the city of al Ta'if acquired the reputation of being a little paradise in the desert. Without further ado, Muhammad gave the order, and the Muslims began systematically to cut down and burn the orchards. Upon discovering this destruction and realizing that Muhammad really meant to spare none of their vineyards

We can then move onto Muhammad preventing the Banu Qaynuqa tribe from accessing food during Muhammad's siege of their tribe when you join me in condemning Muhammad as a war criminal. shafique

shafique wrote:
I agree that if Muhammad had destroyed orchards etc as described by your orientalist friends, then this would indeed be as contemptible as the Israeli destruction of orchards today.
I ask again, do you join me in condemning the crimes against humanity that are carried out by the Israelis? (or are you a fanboi?)

Was the question difficult?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Cool - we agree that Muhammad carried out collective punishment and was a war criminal. Therefore, the passages in the Koran which say to emulate the prophet should be ignored since statutory rape, collective punishment, torture, mass beheadings, the slave trade, pillaging, polygamy, political assassinations, incest and highway banditry should not be followed in this day and age. shafique

event horizon wrote:
Cool - we agree that Muhammad carried out collective punishment and was a war criminal.

Happy for you to think this. This is not the strangest belief you've written about here.
But it is a strange response to my question about whether you join me in condemning the Israeli war crimes/crimes against humanity?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon I am not aware of any forms of collective punishment the Israelis have engaged in. Do you know of what the Israelis have done, say in the past fifteen years, that you believe constitutes as a form of collective punishment? shafique

event horizon wrote:
I am not aware of any forms of collective punishment the Israelis have engaged in.
Do you know of what the Israelis have done, say in the past fifteen years, that you believe constitutes as a form of collective punishment?

Let's get this clear - you believe that Israel hasn't committed any forms of collective punishment! :)
Explains a lot.
May I suggest you just Google 'collective punishment' and look at, say, the Amnesty International reports on the subject -
Eg:

Gaza Blockade: 'collective punishment' condemned
Posted: 21 January 2008
Warning of public health emergency in territory as even aid is cut off
Israel's blocking of all fuel supplies to Gaza was condemned as collective punishment today as Amnesty International warned of an emerging public health emergency in the territory.

"In numerous instances where the Israeli army have blown up the houses of relatives of suicide bombers it has committed a flagrant form of collective punishment, explicitly forbidden under international law.
" Israel's collective punishments have extended to buildings only tenously linked to Palestinian armed attackers and in many instances to buildings without any apparent connection to suspected attackers.

But then again, perhaps you think AI is also a Muslim organisation - like you think Baruch Goldstein was a Muslim terrorist! ;)
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Sorry shafique, but you already said that you do not believe blockades and sieges are forms of collective punishment. While we have not discussed Muhammad's destruction of buildings used by 'mischief makers', such as the mosque Muhammad burned down, I am sure you will also condone that act as well. So, we cannot say Israel engaged in collective punishment because the same tactics the Israelis employ were used by Muhammad et al a few centuries back. At least with the Israelis, they never, to my knowledge, starved the Palestinians into submission. Obviously the same cannot be said of Muhammad's seizure of food during his siege of the Banu Qaynuqa tribe - an incident you refuse to condemn. shafique I see that you need to ring up your school teacher again and berate her over your English lessons!
What I said was that I agree that if the early Muslims had committed the acts of collective punishment that the Israelis had (as listed above), then they deserve the same condemnation that the Israelis deserve.
To be precise, I said:

I agree that if Muhammad had destroyed orchards etc as described by your orientalist friends, then this would indeed be as contemptible as the Israeli destruction of orchards today.
I ask again, do you join me in condemning the crimes against humanity that are carried out by the Israelis? (or are you a fanboi?)

(Perhaps you didn't understand the word 'contemptible'?)
So - make up your mind, either the Israelis have committed acts of crimes against humanity, or they haven't. If they have, do you condemn them - or do you support them?
You refuse to condemn Goldstein for what he is - a religiously motivated terrorist - so perhaps you also agree with Israeli crimes against humanity?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon I'm not sure, what 'if' is there to discuss? The sources say Muhammad sytematically destroyed the orchards of Ta'if to force the civilian population to surrender. Muhammad starved the Banu Qaynuqa tribe into submission - the Muslims prevented the tribe from accessing food and then laid a total blockade of the tribe and prevented anyone to enter or exit during the siege. Your argument seems to be that Muhammad did not destroy all of the fields of Ta'if and Muhammad did not destroy all of the date trees of the Banu Nadir tribe - so, this was not a form of collective punishment. A strange argument to make. I was not aware that collective punishment was an all or nothing sort of deal. Do you have any human rights organizations that side with your belief that if only some fields are destroyed before the inhabitants of a city surrender, then this isn't collective punishment, by any chance? Anyways, the quotes in this thread by a Muslim lawyer and another thread by scholars of Islam are clear. You are free to disregared the written word and perform mental gymnastics to exonerate the early Muslims - perhaps you'll manage to convince someone you know what you're talking about. shafique The question was:

So - make up your mind, either the Israelis have committed acts of crimes against humanity, or they haven't. If they have, do you condemn them - or do you support them?
You refuse to condemn Goldstein for what he is - a religiously motivated terrorist - so perhaps you also agree with Israeli crimes against humanity?

If it is unclear, let me know.
I concede you are certain that Muhammad, pbuh, committed war crimes and that these should be condemned. I agree that had he done so, then I would condemn them as strongly as any other war criminal.
So - why the reluctance to condemn actual war crimes etc of the Israelis?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon shafique oh! - what a strange response - changing the subject to Israel when asked if you condemn the actions carried out by Muhammad as described by historians. I assume you are either trying to be funny or if this is another demonstration of 'all mouth and no trousers'. shafique Indeed - it is strange that you won't answer the direct question:

So - make up your mind, either the Israelis have committed acts of crimes against humanity, or they haven't. If they have, do you condemn them - or do you support them?
You refuse to condemn Goldstein for what he is - a religiously motivated terrorist - so perhaps you also agree with Israeli crimes against humanity?

Why is that?
And did I confuse when I said I DO agree that Muhammad, pbuh, should be condemned if he had committed the crimes the Israelis are definitely guilty of?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon I agree that if the Israelis have committed the crimes Muhammad carried out - according to Muslim historians, such as starving the Banu Qaynuqa tribe of food, then they should be condemned, along with Muhammad. Now, what is confusing you that this thread is about Muhammad and not Israel? shafique Cool, so we have agreement then. If the crimes described by Amnesty International are true, then we both condemn Israel. I was only using Israel as an example of a verifiable act of crimes against humanity which you seem to be reluctant to acknowledge and contrasted with your certainty that your Orientalist views are true concerning early Muslim military actions. At least we now agree that Israel's verifiable actions are crimes which we both condemn. See - those who say you can't change your mind will not be laughing quite as hard now!! ;) Cheers, Shafique event horizon Eh? Probably not as hard as the other members you killed off whilst you were a moderator of another forum. But I agree - the actions of Muhammad as recorded by Muslim historians should be condemned and which meet the definition of collective punishment. I'm glad we agree that Muhammad was a war criminal and the passages in the Koran which say for Muslims to emulate him should be ignored. shafique

event horizon wrote:

But I agree - the actions of Muhammad as recorded by Muslim historians should be condemned and which meet the definition of collective punishment.

Cool, we have agreement - if your view of history is correct, then indeed Muhammad, pbuh, should indeed be condemned.

event horizon wrote:

I'm glad we agree that Muhammad was a war criminal and the passages in the Koran which say for Muslims to emulate him should be ignored.

As I said before, I'm happy for you to think this - despite the quotes I gave for the fuller accounts of the incidents you selectively quoted. Why let facts get in the way of fantasies, I say.
But let us not get away from the momentous meeting of minds - Israeli crimes are condemned by both of us! Bravo - eh, oh!
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Cool - I'm glad you'll now take the alleged Israeli war crimes to another thread where it belongs. Anyway, can you clarify if you consider Muhammad's 'systematic' destruction of the vineyards of Ta'if as an example of collective punishment or not? Could you also explain to me the differences between the sieges Muhammad laid on the inhabitants of the Banu Qaynuqa tribe and the blockade Israel has placed on Gaza - with the major exception that Israel does not block food (starve) to the Gazans and allows restricted access in and out of Gaza (where Muhammad allowed no access at all)? shafique ^There is no difference in your mind, and I agree that both should be condemned, the imagined and the real. I'm so glad that we agree that Israeli and imagined Muslim war crimes should both be condemned. Cheers, Shafique event horizon What part of the destruction of vineyards to force a civilian population to surrender is imagined??? Or is that *you* don't consider this a war crime/collective punishment and, therefore, the accusation that it is a war crime/collective punishment is an imagined charge? As I said, it should speak volumes that you condemn Israel for carrying out what you consider to be war crimes/collective punishment but rationalize the much harsher crimes of Muhammad. Anyways, I wasn't expecting you to correctly condemn Muhammad as a war criminal. Your programming does not allow you to.. shafique

event horizon wrote:
What part of the destruction of vineyards to force a civilian population to surrender is imagined???

Umm, the part that isn't true and explained in the fuller explanations of the historical events (which you don't want to read, understandably).
But hey - I have already conceded that you think everyone else is confused and I know you read my quote about naive empiricism - but the message seems to have gone above your head.
Let me quote it again:

Naïve empiricism:
..I call this overload of examples naïve empiricism – selections of anecdotes selected to fit a story do not constitute evidence. Anyone looking for confirmation will find enough of it to deceive himself - and no doubt his peers.
It is also naïve empiricism to provide, in support of some argument, series of eloquent confirmatory quotes by dead authorities. By searching, you can always find someone who made a well-sounding statement that confirms your point of view – and, on every topic, it is possible to find a dead thinker that said the exact opposite.

Let me know if there are any difficult words you'd like help with. ;)
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon

Umm, the part that isn't true and explained in the fuller explanations of the historical events (which you don't want to read, understandably).

Well, the quote from the Muslim author does say that some of the vineyards were destroyed. Does this not meet the definition of collective punishment?
Perhaps you have a quote that I missed which says that Muhammad did not destroy *any* of Ta'if's fields to force the citizens of that city to surrender?
If that is the case, I'll be happy to agree with you that no war crime took place. shafique I agree you want to believe this spin of events - and hey, I've conceded that I'd condemn this if it had happened. You're the one who refuses to condemn Israeli actions - but hey, why let that bother you? Cheers, Shafique event horizon Here's the quote from the Muslim author:

Destruction of al Ta'if's Orchards
What was left for them to do? Muhammad pondered this question for a long while. Suddenly, the thought occurred to him that he had achieved victory over Banu al Nadir and forced their evacuation simply by destroying their orchards. The vineyards of Ta'if were far more important than the orchards of Banu al Nadir and were known throughout Arabia for their produce. It was due to them that the city of al Ta'if acquired the reputation of being a little paradise in the desert. Without further ado, Muhammad gave the order, and the Muslims began systematically to cut down and burn the orchards. Upon discovering this destruction and realizing that Muhammad really meant to spare none of their vineyards, the Ta'if tribesmen sent to him pleading that they would rather give away their vineyards to Muhammad, or to those citizens of al Ta'if-and there were large numbers of them who were bound to Muhammad in blood relationships. Muhammad stopped his men temporarily and called out to the besieged city that he would set free any man who surrendered to him. Twenty people responded to his appeal. From them he learned that enough ammunition and provisions were available that the city could withstand the siege for a very long time. Considering that his own men were anxious to return home and enjoy the fruits of their victory over Hawazin-indeed, that their patience would be at an end if the siege were prolonged-Muhammad ordered the Muslims to withdraw. With the arrival of the new moon (the month of Dhu al Qi'dah) the siege had become one month old, and the holy season during which no war was permitted had begun. Muhammad returned to Makkah with his army, visiting the holy places and performing the lesser pilgrimage or `umrah. He announced that he would resume the war against al Ta'if at the expiration of the holy months.

Happy to address what you consider to be spin. shafique I refer you to my post on naive empiricism. Let me know if you can't see the relevance. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Let me know when you have evidence that Muhammad did not destroy (some) of Ta'if's vineyards. shafique Sorry, apart from my previous posts and quotes, I don't have anything more to add. No war crimes is the conclusion I also arrive at too - but hey, perhaps all the scholars/historians and I are totally wrong and eh is right. As I said, I refer you to the post about naive empiricism. Cheers, Shafique event horizon

shafique wrote:
Sorry, apart from my previous posts and quotes, I don't have anything more to add.
No war crimes is the conclusion I also arrive at too - but hey, perhaps all the scholars/historians and I are totally wrong and eh is right.
As I said, I refer you to the post about naive empiricism.
Cheers,
Shafique

Woah - which quote of yours addressed the destruction of Ta'if's vineyards?
I must have missed that one.
In any event, are you now claiming that Muhammad *didn't* destroy (some) of Ta'if's vineyards to force the civilian population to surrender?
It also should speak volumes that you're now referring to the opinions of 'scholars' and 'historians'. Oh well, I won't let the irony hit you on the head.
In any event, to reiterate:
Do you consider the destruction of a city's crops to force the inhabitants to surrender as an act of collective punishment? shafique Which part of 'I have nothing more to add' confused you? ;) Cheers, Shafique event horizon Which part of:
Do you consider the destruction of a city's crops to force the inhabitants to surrender as an act of collective punishment?
Confused you? shafique

shafique wrote:
As the quote and historical record shows, the siege of Taif was just that - a siege.
The siege was not a military success and the Muslims raised (i.e. stopped) the siege - because the encampment was well fortified and well-provisioned. The catapaults etc were used against the battlements and were partly successful in making holes in them, but the defenders of Taif fought off the Muslims.
The incident of some of the grape vines being destroyed is in some of the historical accounts, but they don't say that the orchards were raised - on the contrary, it caused the Thaqif to send out a negotiating team and the destruction was stopped.
The Muslims raised the siege and the inhabitants of Taif were left alone, and later most embraced Islam. Taif continued to be known for its fine orchards - including those of Banu Thaqif, but to read some accounts you would think that it was turned into a wasteland by the Muslims.
I understand that many Islamophobic websites are painting this incident as an example of Muslim terrorism - the wanton destruction of whole orchards etc. Looking for agreement - I applaud their view that had this occurred as they descibe it would be totally wrong and therefore would expect they would join me in condemning the Israeli collective punishments against Palestinians.
So eh, do we agree that the Israelis are guilty of the same crimes that you believe Muhammad, pbuh, inflicted on the Thaqif of Taif? And that both should be condemned as collective punishments?
Cheers,
Shafique

Was I unclear? event horizon Well, I sent off two emails asking if 'collective' punishment is ever acceptable in times of war and what their definition of collective punishment was, exactly.
Hopefully Professor Finkelstein and HRW will respond in the coming days lifting any confusion someone here might be having on the definition of collective punishment and seeing if, according to the historical record, Muhammad carried out collective punishment.
In the meantime, perhaps shafique can confirm if he agree with these definitions of collective punishment:
No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.
...............
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
......................
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Shafique, could you please tell me if you agree with the following definitions of collective punishment, including the pillaging part?
Thanks in advance. event horizon

The incident of some of the grape vines being destroyed is in some of the historical accounts, but they don't say that the orchards were raised - on the contrary, it caused the Thaqif to send out a negotiating team and the destruction was stopped.

Cool - so we agree that the Muslims, under orders from Muhammad, destroyed at least some of the vines and this action was carried out to force the inhabitants of the city to surrender.
I don't see what the problem is, exactly. You just said that some of the vineyards were destroyed and the reason for this was to force the inhabitants to surrender.
Do you agree that this tactic, similar to brutally beating someone to reveal information, ie, torture, is a form of collective punishment? shafique :roll: Some vines destroyed vs Orientalist spin of Israeli-style destruction of orchards. No difference, you say. :wink: The inhabitants of Taif didn't surrender and the Muslims lifted the siege. Do try and read your own quotations eh, you'll be less confused. Cheers, Shafique