Why I never trust Moslems - the case of Banu Quraisa

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Jul 26, 2007 at 16:41

Dear Chris, you write :

> The Jews in Medina by the way were wiped out (actually most were exiled while the men were executed) because they betrayed the early Muslims who had a peace agreement with them in which they were supposed to have been allies. Its understandable that Mohammed was a bit miffed at them.

I wonder how your otherwise so brilliant and critical thinking can be reconciled with that unexpected lack of any criticism and imagination ?

What you are doing , dear Chris, here is repeating the Moslem version of the events with a hidden intent to make the readers accept it as true. I ask and challenge you solemnly : "By Jove, why shall anyone in his senses believe that Moslem version"? There is not a slightest reason and probability to do that. Least of all the fact that is the official Muslim version.

You know that the Jewish version of the events has not been preserved as if it had never existed. The publically decapitated Jews and the women and children sold into slavery by the so called "prophet" were not given any right to speak up on their own behalf. They had no impartial judge. They were not asked to submit their documentary evidence, lawyers, to argue with the accusers. The judges were not only the executors. They were also the historians of the trial. The "prophet" staged a classical macabre show trial.

Now don't you think that if the evidence from the Jewish side could be used against the accused, it would have been well preserved ? One doesn't obliterate the traces so carefully unless one is very afraid of them, does one? And here? Not a slightest hint that there might have been any contrary evidence. Just a show trial and the collective death sentence to corroborate the collective guilt charges made by the accuser and executor ...

Now look at the whole affair from a common sense point of view. A Jewish community in Yatrib invites someone who tells he's been sent by God. They hope the man might be the expected Messiah. Who knows? Alas, he turns out to be an illiterate, vulgar, lewd boaster and impostor. The Jews get disappointed. They make jokes about him. But what is worse, he has a group of notorious thugs with him who have no work , no profession other than banditism. They do no useful work at all but make claims on everything that doesn't belong to them. They always refer to Allah's will. They provoke the Jews, loiter around, steal, offend Jewish women. They need food, shelter, clothes. But how can they get all of it without useful work? Their prophet knows how. They start a campaign of robbery , killings and mass stealing of caravans of the merchants from a nearby city. What should the Jews think of all it? They are fearful. Today he attacks and kills Meccans . Whom will he rob and kill tomorrow? What will happen to them if one day this man takes full control of the city? Who will protect them from him? He is a cruel robber and kills anyone who tells him what all really think of him , including women with children at their breast.

At first the opinion prevails that peace must be preserved with this dangerous parasite cost what it may. But they see that the two other smaller Jewish tribes were dispossessed of their property under different sham pretexts. Shall they wait until the same happens to them? His banditism provokes at last a violent reaction of the Meccans. They counterattack , besiege Yatrib and now the last remaing Jews (Banu Quraisa) decide to act and get rid of this self-proclaimed "prophet" who threatens to ruin and expell them comepletely from their ancestral possessions. They turn for help... You know how it all ended.

And still you seem to dismiss all of that to announce loudly that the truth - as always in full accordance with the Moslem law and habits - was on the Moslem side. The Moslems were right. The Jews were wrong. How could the Jews be right against the "prophet" (PBUH)?

Repeating uncritically the Moslem version you subscribe to the most incredible and irrational expanation. I wonder why ? Does it have something to do with the word I so often find in your posts - "manipulate" ?

Best,

Jan

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".