Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "Ant colony raids a rival nest | Natural World - Empire of the Desert Ants - BBC" video.

  1. +Jerky .Murky Yes, that is him.
    1
  2. +Hyder Noori Neither did the Muslim army in Mohammad age.
    1
  3. Hyder Noori There's a lot of debate about the nature of raids which lead to the Badr Battle.Considering that corsair and privateering were a part any many nations military strategy(Sir Francis Drake e.g) well into the late part of last milennium, I don't see why those were more noteworthy than others.  The earlier Muslim army did set out certain rules of engagement in which non combatants(women and children) were spared from harm, outlawing the desecration of other faith's house of worship during siege and conquest and preventing looting outside of battelfied booty.Heck, there's even a clause where they( Muslim soldiers) were forbidden from harming  plants and animals . What I am sure is Alexander burned down Persepolis( among others) , the Allies have the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo( and other Japanese population centers) under their belt and lets not even talk about what the Nazis( that one scene in the Patriot where  villager were locked down and burned inside their church, that actually happened in WW2) and Stalin did before and after the war.That not counting other acts that were commited during WW2 by both sides.
    1
  4. Hyder Noori The Hudaibiya Accord(not sure about the spelling) practically put the end to the state of hostility which in which those raids( which the sides  opposing him also commits) occurs.After that the raids only happened during times of war.Considering the improvement that Islam brought onto the Arabic culture( check out how barbaric the Arabs were pre-Islam) it wasn't hard to see why pagan worship quickly went out of style once they gain control of Mecca. Yes, the aftermath of the Siege of Medina (in which the Banu Qurayza sided with the attacking Quraisy forces).You need to remember that: a)That was an act of reprisal against the Banu Qurayza for breaking the earlier oath that states that they would stand with Medina in the war.The other Jewish tribes which didn't break that oath were left alone (Muslims actualy held Jews and Christians rather positively for being "People Of The Book"). b)Mohammed himself wasn't present/in charge of the Medina forces during that incident as he was still recovering from injuries suffered uring the Siege.There are debates among historian about his culpability. If we want to go with WW2 analogies then Medina would have turned into an irradiated wasteland(Mecca had an upper hand in the war  during the majority of the period of conflict) and the early Muslim converts would be rounded up in extermination camps,the Quraishy were already torturing, murdering and sacking them so that would be a logical escalation.If we want to compare them we should do it with their contemporaries.In many ways the Islamic armies of that age were improving batte ethics( check the liberation of Mecca). Ths style of Islamic governance changed a lot  during its thousand year old history( the early Caliphates weren't supposed to be hereditary e.g).There are discrepancies in style and interpretation between all Muslim kingdoms( which often went to war with each other) .This continues to this day with many of those so called  "Islamist" are at war  (Al Qaeda's hostility towards ISIS e.g) among themselves,that's even before we go into the sectarian divide.Not that more peaceful,pragmatic Islamist don't exist,mind you.
    1
  5. On further note, I think we should refrain from having ridculously out of topic argument about  things that have absolutelyly have nothing to do with the video itself.
    1
  6. Perhaps you should research the Battle of the Trench (the leads ups, significance and aftermath) and understand the enormity of the Qurayza's action.Also read up on the treatment of other Jewish tribes that opposed the Muslims in comparison the Qurayza.You would note that the sentencing of the Qurayza was based on the Torah and Jewish traditions rather than Islamic teachings,hence why  the events is more outlier instead of the norm
    1
  7. Hyder Noori "So here we seem to agree that the Muslim armies didn't hold those "rules of engagement" in certain occasions. Which is what I claimed early in the discussion. Done with that part.  " Considering that Muslim amy structure and M.O is as varied  as from the times of Mohammed (which you seem sto imply set the precedent fo those infringement, a false statement in itself) to the Ottomans then yes, violation of warfare conduct bound to happen.The fact that I outline is that every military forces have faild to live up to their own code of conduct on occasions, this even aplied to the current  military factions (such as the US's armed forces wings).
    1
  8. Hyder Noori The Siege of Medina was Mecca's ultimate attempt at destroying the fledgling Muslim state.Should the confederate forces break through the defences there'll be no where else to run for the them and the fate that befell the Qurayza would have been borne by the Muslims instead .Considering the brutal attempt by the Quraishy to thwart the Muslims in Mecca , this was  pretty much a safe bet. The Qurayza were obligated (under oath) to help defend Medina against aggression,instead they witheld aid and decided to align with the besiegers.Should besiegers managed to break through the defences ,then the Qurayza would join them in arms against Medina ,pretty much trapping their opponent between them.The fact that  it didn't came to pass were due to: a)The failure of the besieging forces to overcome the trench warfare employed by the defenders(hence the name Battle of the Trench). b)The successful use of diplomacy by Mohammad  to stall and disrupt the alliance among the besieging confederacy and the Qurayza themselves. In the aftermath of the battle the Qurayza requested that the abitation be delivered by members of the  Bani Aws( again ,can't be sure about the spelling)  who were strongly allied with the Qurayza,this task fell upon Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, a Jew  that have converted to Islam(Ironically this may lead to the sentencing based on Torah and Jewish tradition ).  This and the  the fact that Mohammad have been dispensing relatively lenient sentence towards previous tribes that went againsts him gave them hope that they might somewhat survive this. It was noted that even before their surrender the Qurayza leadership themselves were comtemplating murdering all they women and children of their tribe and then launcing a suicidal charge against the Muslims.
    1
  9. Hyder Noori Numbers.The reason why they (the Qurayza) decided not to took arms immediately instead of waiting for the Quraisy to break through was they never had the sufficient manpower to  take Medina in a straight fight. Any troop movement on the besieger or the Qurayza's part would have clued in on their intentions. Nobody knew of the Qurayza treachery right until the point where Mohammed sent emisary to them requesting aid.
    1
  10. Hyder Noori " Am I missing something here? “  Yes ,you are . Check the map of the siege.The Qurayza's postion were quite a distance away from both the battle lines and the city of Medina itself, enough that Mohammed were forced  to allocate a  cavalry division as rearguard against them once he got knowldge of their treachery. They  Confederate were bogged  down  by the trench defense( which completely caught them off guard )and the counter diplomacy  deployed by Muhammed.They soon lost trust of  of the Qurayza ( not that they trust them that much to begin with) and  would't want to risk walking into an ambush .
    1