For shafique - massacre @ Bahnasa

event horizon On another thread shafique claimed that my contention of a massacre carried out on a garrison town called Bahnasa was a mistake and, apparently, there instead was only a skirmish between the Romans and Muslim forces and civilians were never cut down by Muslim swords:

You mistakenly thought a small skirmish was a 'massacre ' - but hey, the moral is that one shouldn't really trust what one reads on these Orientalist sites!

I was referring to your mistake of saying Amr 'massacred' 7000 in a Garrison town. This turned out to be a minor skirmish in the wider war - and there was only one reference, IIRC -from AJ Butler's book, and this was quoted in Kennedy as well - so it shouldn't be hard to look up again. You say it was a massacre - let's see the source of the confusion .

Unfortunately, however, historians disagree that there was never a massacre at the garrison town of Bahnasa. In reality, it was common practice for the Muslims to deal harshly to those population centers which did not peacefully and unconditionally surrender to Muslim invaders who were following the general commands in the Koran to wage war against unbelievers - 9:29, which says to fight unbelievers, including Jews and Christians, until they submit to Muslim military forces and feel themselves subdued.
Caliph Umar clarified the meaning of this verse when he gave the greenlight for Muslims to kill unbelievers as a last choice if they do not either convert to Islam or surrender to Muslim invaders - unconditionally and feel themselves 'subdued'.
It should also be mentioned that according to Middle Eastern historian, Montgomery Watt, Muhammad himself followed the Koranic revelation to wage unprovoked warfare against unbelievers, on page 116 of his book, Muhammad at Medina, Watt writes:

It is clear, then, that by the late autumn of 630 Muhammad has adopted the policy suggested by a verse of the Qur'an (9.29) : 'Fight against those who . . . do not practise the religion of truth, of those who have been given the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the jizyah. . .'

and

By this new policy non-Muslim tribes were given a choice between accepting Islam and paying annual tribute. In either case they became members of the Islamic security system. If they refused that, they were killed or enslaved .

The early Muslim war criminals 'adopted' the teachings of the Koran as Muhammad had and this now leads us back to the 'non-existent' massacre at Bahnasa. While shafique acknowledges that the Muslims were the aggressors in Egypt (apparently oblivious to the fact that Muslims were correctly following the teachings in the Koran to wage war against unbelievers), he has strangely claimed that at the garrison town of Bahnasa, as well as at numerous other towns and cities which held out against Muslim hostilities, only a small skirmish took place and no massacre is said to have occurred.
According to John of Nikiu, a Christian historian whose accounts of the Muslim conquests and subsequent rule of Egypt are considered accurate by historians, and who viewed Amr ibn al-'As very favorably, reports on the massacre of the garrison town of Bahnasa:

And the general Theodosius, hearing of the arrival of the Ishmaelites, proceeded from place to place in order to see what was likely to befall from these enemies. 10. And these Ishmaelites came and slew without mercy the commander of the troops and all his companions. And forthwith they compelled the city to open its gates, and they put to the sword all that surrendered, and they spared none, whether old men, babe, or woman. 11. And they proceeded against the general John. And he282 took all the horses : and they hid themselves in the enclosures and plantations lest their enemies should discover them. Then they arose by night and marched to the great river of Egypt, to Abūīt, in order to secure their safety. Now this matter was from God.
And the chief of the faction who was with Jeremiah informed the Moslem troops of the Roman soldiers who were hidden. And so these took them prisoners and put them to death.

Well, that sounds like a massacre to me. Perhaps shafique can clarify if he believes the killing of non-Muslims (unbelievers - who the Koran orders Muslims to strike terror into their hearts because they are unbelievers) is a massacre or if that word can only be used for when Muslim civilians are murdered?
And as always, I strongly condemn the war crimes carried out by the earliest Muslims. Unfortunately, Muhammad et al set a bad precedent for Muslims today to follow. It would also appear that the early Muslims - who were all converts, were as militant to the clear teachings of their new religion as many Muslim converts are today who become terrorists after following the texts and teachings of Islam.

shafique Ahh, I remember now. This stems from John of Nikiou (sp?) account from his work 'Chronicles'. Yes, I agree - killing women and children is a massacre and I condemn any such account and condemn this. We previously discussed the fact that this account is only found in this Christian Monk's account, and that he also maintained in the same document that the Arab invasion was God's punishment on his Christian brethren for straying away from the true teachings of Jesus (he was a Monophysite monk). We also noted that A J Butler commented that this was a part of war in those days and is not surprising. I did recall correctly that you had said 7000 were massacred, and now we both agree that this figure isn't to be found in any history book. Scanning through John of Nikiou's Chronicles - he lists quite a few massacres, predomninantly by non-Arabs though. So, eh, how many civilian villagers killed constitutes a massacre - say over 50? More, less? Cheers, Shafique event horizon Yes, I agree with you that the armies of the rightly guided caliphs carried out many massacres and war crimes as they were aggressively expanding from Arabia - launching offensive wars of aggression as per 9:29, which scholar Montgomery Watt contends Muhammad himself must have adopted as policy vis-a-vis unbelieving tribes.
What I learned from this was that there was a second massacre carried out against captured Roman soldiers after the initial massacre of civilians at Bahnasa.
But, I am glad you have chosen to condemn the war crimes carried out by the early Muslims. Did that condemnation cover Muhammad's policy to wage war (9:29) against unbelieving tribes in Arabia by any chance?

It is clear, then , that by the late autumn of 630 Muhammad has adopted the policy suggested by a verse of the Qur'an (9.29): 'Fight against those who . . . do not practise the religion of truth, of those who have been given the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the jizyah. . .'

By this new policy non-Muslim tribes were given a choice between accepting Islam and paying annual tribute. In either case they became members of the Islamic security system. If they refused that, they were killed or enslaved.

I have no problem condemning the war crimes carried out by Muhammad.
Hopefully Muslims will join me in condemning Muhammad as a war criminal and reject the teachings of the Koran to wage war against unbelievers (all non-Muslims) because they are not under the 'security' system of an Islamic state, i.e., they are not 'subdued'. shafique I'm happy to condemn any killing of women and children in warfare, and any massacres that happened (whether real or just reported by Christian monks). If Muslims carried out the massacres, they are to be condemned - the religion of those carrying out the massacres is irrelevant in terms of whether they deserve condemnation. The Bahnasa 'massacre' is also referenced by Kennedy in his book - Great Arab Conquests, and he quotes from AJ Butler. Butler says this particular 'massacre' was a normal part of war, but Kennedy's book detailing the early Muslim conquests concludes: 'massacres, whilst they did occur, were not the norm'. Therefore, I'm not sure why you are surprised that practicing Muslims will condemn killings of innocent civilians in war because they contradict both general morals and specifically the ethics of war laid out by God in the Quran. Of course, if history did take place according to your I-spy book about Islam, then you would be right to condemn Islam for the imagined teachings of violence. But that is your Alice-in-Wonderland reality - the rest of us have to live in the real world and respect the conclusions of scholars and historians who know what they are talking about, rather than believing Fox News or anti-Islamic websites. Cheers, Shafique event horizon It's interesting that quoting Montgomery Watt is now considered part of the great Islamophobic alliance. Perhaps shafique is projecting a tiny bit (and still bruised from when I found him gleaning talking points from a 'Muslim' missionary website)? In any event, I noticed that shafique must have missed my question. If that is the case, I have no problem repeating my previous question, does your condemnation of Muslim war crimes cover Muhammad's wars of aggression (as per (9:29) in which unbelieving tribes that refused to convert to Islam 'were killed or enslaved'? shafique It's the quoting out of context that gets you every time - but hey, this must be normal in the Alice-in-Wonderland world where Muslims are instructed to fight all non-believers - :) But hey - as I said, I'm happy to condemn all massacres of civilians. We've seen your reluctance to condemn Goldstein's massacre as an act of a relgiously motivated terrorist. Compare and contrast. Cheers, Shafique event horizon 9:29 :

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Geez...Why would I think that Muslims are to fight all unbelievers...because the Koran clearly says to attack unbelievers if they
1) Do not believe in Allah or
2) Do not believe in the Last Day or
3) Do not follow Islamic Law or
4) Do not acknowledge Islam (believe in Islam)
Nah, that couldn't be the reason. Anyways, you're free to believe the Koran does not call for attacking all unbelievers, despite what Watt and other scholars and theologians of Islam have shown.
And before I forget, do you join me in condemning Muhammad for waging war against unbelievers, as per 9:29, because they are unbelievers, according to the passage I quoted from Islamic scholar Montgomery Watt? shafique Yawn - change the record eh. Chill and enjoy the Eid - or are you worried that the wild eyed Muslims are all out to get you? ;) Cheers, event horizon 'nuff said. event horizon bump to remind myself to provide the passages from Watt - including Muhammad's raids against the southern Christian tribes.

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai