9 ms·
No they weren't? There was no conquest on Medina. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
by mkaziz 10y ago
No they weren't? There was no conquest on Medina. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
- LeifCarrotson 10y agoI think they are trying to parody the fears of some citizens of host nations who fear problems from accepting refugees?
- mkaziz 10y agoOh. That went completely over my head. Thank you!
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- leereeves 10y agoI've heard various stories. The claim that the people and rulers of Medina voluntarily submitted to Muhammad seems unbelievable to me, given Islam's history of "coerced" conversions, but what's beyond dispute is that Muhammad became the ruler of Medina. Whether that was completely voluntary...well, history is written by the victors.
- mkaziz 10y ago... you can say that about any historical event ever and massage it to fit your narrative. The commandment for Muslims to fight wasn't sent down till a year or two after the emigration, so they were quite literally not allowed to fight or "subdue" or "coerce" anyone. There's a /tonne/ of evidence that the emigration was peaceful (though there were certainly subgroups opposed to it politically and ideologically). It is quite literally one of the least contentious pieces of Islamic history.
- leesalminen 10y agoBecause neither of you cited any material to substantiate your claims, I did some Googling. As someone with little bias on this topic and no prior knowledge of the "Hijrah" from Mecca to Medina, page 1 of Google for multiple queries returned both versions of the story; a peaceful one and a violent one. > It is quite literally one of the least contentious pieces of Islamic history. That doesn't appear to be true.
- mkaziz 10y agoI referred to the act of emigration and the pact of brotherhood, not the subsequent conflicts with the Jews. There was no "conquest" of Medina. Conquest implies an invading army subjugating a native population, which didn't happen because there was no army - only refugees.
- leereeves 10y agoConquer, among other definitions, means "to overcome by force; subdue". It's not limited to invading armies.
- mkaziz 10y agoConquest: https://www.google.com/search?q=conquest&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#spf=1 https://www.google.com/search?q=conquest&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#s... con·quest/ˈkänˌkwest/ noun the subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force.
- leereeves 10y ago> though there were certainly subgroups opposed to it politically and ideologically What happened to those subgroups, in the version of history you learned?
- jmaygarden 10y agoThe two Jewish tribes were expelled. http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml
- genieyclo 10y agoYeah, Khaybar and the massacre of the Jewish tribes of Qurayza, Qaynuqa and Nadir never happened. Medina/Yathrib was all hunky dory kumbaya tabarakallah.
- mkaziz 10y agoNadir and Qaynuqa were evicted , not massacred. Qurayza was killed after they betrayed the Muslims in the middle of a seige that Nadir (which had resettled in Khaybar) helped instigate. Khaybar was attacked as a result of that same seige, and after the Muslim victory, they were allowed to keep to their lands in exchange for tribute. So yeah, not a kumbaya story, but it's sure better than your one-line, sarcastic comment.
- genieyclo 10y agoallah ya'izzak ya akhi, alf thawaabik. Thank you for explaining why the genocide of thousands of Jews was necessary.
- dang 10y agoThat sounds like something we would instantly ban an account for if you mean what you're saying. Since intent is hard to read, I'll assume you don't, but please don't post anything like this to HN again. We don't need religious, nationalist, or racial flamewars here, among the many kinds of flamewars we don't need.