Conspiracies: Denialism or Scepticism?

[Zafran]

^^ Jews had an 800~1000 year oral tradition that wasn't written down (which has actually been discussed before) but it is getting tedious to reply back to this guy as he insists on bringing up points that have been addressed amply as if to hammer in a point will erase it from history and doesn't seem to register anything else but his personal convictions as ludicrous as they are!

I'd recommend you quit replying maybe he'll get the hint?

salaam

After reading his last tangent I think he likes to going in circles - I believe he knows that he cant realy back his opinion up through "the secular outlook" so he takes the hypocritical position - he believes what he wants and ommits and what he likes from the sources. I'll take your advice.

peace

 

[Hugo]

After reading his last tangent I think he likes to going in circles - I believe he knows that he cant realy back his opinion up through "the secular outlook" so he takes the hypocritical position - he believes what he wants and ommits and what he likes from the sources. I'll take your advice.

Fine by me, I have tried to discuss the topic with you and given many many sources, you in contrast offered nothing, not a single reference or comment worthy of the name - is it because you cannot bring yourself to admit that Ibn Ishaq is a very well know and used but unreliable Muslim source? So I leave it to others to look through the posts and see which of us has seriously engaged in the discussion.

 

[Zafran]

Fine by me, I have tried to discuss the topic with you and given many many sources, you in contrast offered nothing, not a single reference or comment worthy of the name - is it because you cannot bring yourself to admit that Ibn Ishaq is a very well know and used but unreliable Muslim source? So I leave it to others to look through the posts and see which of us has seriously engaged in the discussion.

Yes I will remember the wikipedia part, Ibn Warraq and then the picking and choosing of Ibn Ishaq - I'm sure others will see how my questions have not realy been answerd or any serious proof been given to make this even a fact in the secular outlook. I'm sure they will be confused how you make it into one with your pseudo secular approach.

 

[Hugo]

Yes I will remember the wikipedia part, Ibn Warraq and then the picking and choosing of Ibn Ishaq - I'm sure others will see how my questions have not realy been answerd or any serious proof been given to make this even a fact in the secular outlook. I'm sure they will be confused how you make it into one with your pseudo secular approach.

As I have said you have offered nothing. I supplied over 150 reference sources, a suggested you look at an article written by a Muslim which itself contained references (I can give you many others). I also asked you questions but no answer of any kind was offered. I don't care if you don't like Ibn Warraq or Wikipedia or Hamza Hashem but if so suggest something or someone else. Your comment on Ibn Ishaq is the most telling because every article uses him and they pick and choose also or dismiss him altogether as I indicated. So you tell me how we pick and choose with Ibn Ishaq and if you do how you reconcile it with claims he was a liar and imposter. I doubt we can go any further as you seem to have nothing to say. What difference does it or can it make to truth what outlook you use - well only in your case an Islamic outlook would accept the supernatural as proof but no respectable historian would or could do that.

 

[Zafran]

As I have said you have offered nothing. I supplied over 150 reference sources, a suggested you look at an article written by a Muslim which itself contained references (I can give you many others). I also asked you questions but no answer of any kind was offered. I don't care if you don't like Ibn Warraq or Wikipedia or Hamza Hashem but if so suggest something or someone else. Your comment on Ibn Ishaq is the most telling because every article uses him and they pick and choose also or dismiss him altogether as I indicated. So you tell me how we pick and choose with Ibn Ishaq and if you do how you reconcile it with claims he was a liar and imposter. I doubt we can go any further as you seem to have nothing to say. What difference does it or can it make to truth what outlook you use - well only in your case an Islamic outlook would accept the supernatural as proof but no respectable historian would or could do that.

The problem is very simple. I never stated you had to reconcile it with Ibn Ishaq was a liar or an imposter. but why do you regard Ibn Ishaq as factual? or any muslim source for that matter (on the issue of bani querza and the Jews being in medina)? simple as that - you just cant realy answer it - so what you did do was give me wikipedia and then Ibn warraq and then you said its the most detailed account but all this goes against the secular view - it cant be regarded as a fact just because one source is the most detailed? it doesnt work like that in the secular criteria. You also talked about corroborations but the fact is you cant find any? so its still odd how you call this a fact and still believe your using the secular approach - more like pseduo secular approach.

 

[جوري]

I made this post as it is because I am trying to establish what Zafran might regard as a reliable source so I have given him several.

No, you didn't give him several, what you've done is take a pure source and pervert it..

We all know that and isad is and all it does is trace a saying or description of an action back to its source - no one but an idiot would think that would make what was said or done true or worth remembering.

The way we see it, is that you are the only idiot here. Not only have you perverted what was recorded with secondary opinions, but you haven't offered a viable alternative recorded from that same period that offers a hint of the gross perversion that you are hinting to. Intellectual dishonesty and bullying must be the christian way, I mean how else could the church have had its strong ignorant grip on the masses save for those exact two methods, Perversion of the truth, dispersion of lies and bullying of those who stand opposed.. You are indeed a poster boy of your ancestry!~

Indeed there are many instances where what is said cannot be shown it to be true and one must ask how could they possibly know it.

generalized statements of nonsense serve as filler I understand, but what is its purpose here? If you don't want to subscribe to the original account, then any account thereafter can as well be equally dismissed!

The point here though is that yet again you have not suggested a single source, you have rubbished the ones I have suggested without even the taking the trouble to look at them - you have it seem nothing but invective to offer.

I am familiar with the crap you post and where you get it from, the sad fact of the matter is that you are unwilling to subscribe to history as recorded in favor or opinions, you can keep your opinion and those of like minded twits, but don't come pose it here as if you are an authority figure or as if you have the slightest clue as to what it is you are talking about..

I'd reconcile all the biblical nonsense you subscribe to first before I extend myself to real time events as only recorded by Muslims!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

The problem is very simple. I never stated you had to reconcile it with Ibn Ishaq was a liar or an imposter. but why do you regard Ibn Ishaq as factual? or any muslim source for that matter (on the issue of bani querza and the Jews being in medina)? simple as that - you just cant realy answer it - so what you did do was give me wikipedia and then Ibn warraq and then you said its the most detailed account but all this goes against the secular view - it cant be regarded as a fact just because one source is the most detailed? it doesnt work like that in the secular criteria. You also talked about corroborations but the fact is you cant find any? so its still odd how you call this a fact and still believe your using the secular approach - more like pseduo secular approach.

Well I am not quite sure but we seem to be agreeing. Firstly, it was Muslim commentators who had trouble with Ibn Ishaq not me and his trustworthiness or otherwise was commonly used in their arguments. In terms of knowing if he is factual we cannot simply just consider the Banu Querza incident we have to, when judging him, consider his work in general. Is he known to be careful, is he known to make mistakes, is he biased, is what he says always corroborated and so on. There are lots of biographers of the prophets so are they all untrustworthy because they were not as strict as the "traditionalists"?

Secondly, I did not say it was true because it was detailed, I only said, and all the commentators agree was that it is the most detailed. So we are back to where we started, we have an event which I think everyone agrees happened and as I have said before we have to make a judgement about the accounts we have. I have read many Muslim and secular accounts and if we assume these authors are competent and honest then it is up to us to weight what they have said and come to our own conclusions.

One final word, if an account is the only one that records certain details then it is obviously problematic because we lack certainty and then we fall back on the integrity of the author and that is why most Muslim authors attack Ibn Ishaq - do you disregard with him in every case or just this one?

What I find difficult to understand in the Muslim position is that that there are so many other things that cannot be corroborated but you express no scepticism about them - no corroboration for the Qu'ran, no first hand accounts by the prophet, every account we know of is of the form "the prophet said or did..", Aisha reporting on angels and so on. Now because I am sceptical does not mean they are untrue but they are often impossible to corroborate - so why the difference in outlook?

 

[Zafran]

Well I am not quite sure but we seem to be agreeing. Firstly, it was Muslim commentators who had trouble with Ibn Ishaq not me and his trustworthiness or otherwise was commonly used in their arguments. In terms of knowing if he is factual we cannot simply just consider the Banu Querza incident we have to, when judging him, consider his work in general. Is he known to be careful, is he known to make mistakes, is he biased, is what he says always corroborated and so on. There are lots of biographers of the prophets so are they all untrustworthy because they were not as strict as the "traditionalists"?

Just tell me how you come up with the fact of Bani querza and the Jews being in medina - its not point of telling me what we have to do - I want to know how you actually came to the conclusion is it because wikipedia told you so? or Ibn Warraq and his expalnation of Ibn Ishaq? If so what methodalogy do they use for it to be a fact? I want to know how you intellectually in your secular mind can call this a fact? So far they are the only reasons you have stated - not very scholarly or secular. You also havent provided any non muslims sources or corrobarated evedince - non, zero, nul. For this reason it simply cannot be seen as a fact in your secular outlook.

Secondly, I did not say it was true because it was detailed, I only said, and all the commentators agree was that it is the most detailed. So we are back to where we started, we have an event which I think everyone agrees happend and as I have said before we have to make a judgement about the accounts we have. I have read many Muslim and secular accounts and if we assume these authors are competent and honest then it is up to us to weight what they have said and come to our own conclusions.

like who? wikipedia and and Ibn warraq - thats not ALL commentators? How do they agree it happend? Just because wikipedia and Ibn Warraq say so? or Ibn Ishaq and muslim sources say so? As you have shown this event only comes from muslim sources (which is the ultimate source) - the main point is that that this isnt a strong secular approach - its very fake approach as you provide no non muslim sources or corroborated accounts - wont work in the secular outlook.

Your main argument is weak and very unsecular - its right because muslims sources say so? whys that beause Ibn Warraq and wikipedia say so? very unscholarly approach. The circle goes on. No corrborated evedince no non muslim sources - not a a secular approach. How do you make this a fact in your secular mind?????

What I find difficult to understand in the Muslim position is that that there are so many other things that cannot be corroborated but you express no scepticism about them - no corroboration for the Qu'ran, no first hand accounts by the prophet, every account we know of is of the form "the prophet said or did..", Aisha reporting on angels and so on. Now because I am sceptical does not mean they are untrue but they are often impossible to corroborate - so why the difference in outlook?

This is just heavily incorrect - it also shows that although you rely on muslims sources for Bani querza - you realy dont understand how the sources are viewed or why they are strong or not? If you dont know that then your in trouble - in simple terms your comparing a muttawatir source with a weaker account!

 

[Hugo]

Just tell me how you come up with the fact of Bani querza and the Jews being in medina - its not point of telling me what we have to do - I want to know how you actually came to the conclusion is it because wikipedia told you so? or Ibn Warraq and his expalnation of Ibn Ishaq?

I am not sure quite what you are asking here and I have quoted Ebn Warraq, Ibn Ishaq, Hamza Hashem, W N Arafat, the Qu'ran, Sahih Muslim and so on - why don't you tell us who you have cited, it will not take long will it? Let us deal with this point, there seems no doubt from Muslim sources alone that there were Jews in Medina. Can I just check with you; do you agree:

1. There are numerous written accounts of Muhammad having contact with Jews from tribes living in and around Medina. His relationship with Jews includes his theological teaching of them as People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab); his description of them as earlier receivers of Abrahamic revelation; and the failed political alliances between the Muslim and Jewish communities.

2. After the hijra to Medina from his home-town of Mecca, he established an agreement known as the Constitution of Medina between the major Medinan factions, including the Jewish tribes of Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza that secured equal rights for both Jews and Muslims as long as Jews remained politically supportive. Muhammad later fought battles with these tribes on the basis of violations of the constitution.

3. Muhammad married two Jewish women, Safiyya bint Huyayy, a captive from the Banu Nadir, and Rayhana bint Zayd.

So is it still you view that therefore there were no Jews there as that is what you seem to be implying? So if it pleases you I know there were Jews there because a large number of Muslim sources say so. Obviously, it is impossible to prove that they were not there and I assume you know why

 

[Hugo]

Your main argument is weak and very unsecular - its right because muslims sources say so? whys that beause Ibn Warraq and wikipedia say so? very unscholarly approach. The circle goes on. No corrborated evedince no non muslim sources - not a a secular approach. How do you make this a fact in your secular mind?????

I think you are just refusing to hear what is being said. Always it is nice to have non-Muslim sources as corroboration but if they don't exist we must look at what we do have. In general if we are diligent we get our information from original sources if we can get access to them, scholarly articles, books and so on and invariably we will come to different conclusions. That is a perfectly scholarly and reasonable way to proceed for anyone. For example I can go to the Royal Asiatic Society, I can get a copy of Ibn Ishaq's biography of the prophet, I can study Hadith, I can look at Islamic sciences and so on. We all bring baggage with us when we do that and there is almost nothing we can do about it other that be aware of it.

The difficulty with Islamic accounts from an historical perspective is that they are more often that not mixed up with the supernatural and therefore outside of any possible corroboration. So if Ibn Ishaq says Mohamed led a battle or went to this or that place then there may well be eye witness accounts and even an aesthetic person can subscribe to the notion that it occurred.

So to me the mistake you make is to say we have a solid chain of reliable narrators and they report that Mohammed told someone for example that he saw how many women were in hell. Now I might perfectly be willing to accept that Mohammed said that but not believe that the event he describes to be true. Notice I am not saying that his is untrue just that I don't have to believe it, its is just hearsay and cannot be corroborated. So you say I am 'heavily incorrect' because you in my view take the hopeless position of saying a messenger of God, being necessarily free from error, receives continuous and permanent guidance from God but how can this be proved when one cannot even prove God exists?

So I do understand how the sources are viewed but cannot subscribe to the notion on perfection or automatically accepting the supernatural and this I think is where we differ. A question, do you ever feel ANY scepticism about the authentic hadith sources in the sense I described above? For example I consider the idea in the following extract to be implausible and absurd. Sahih Bukhari, Book 60: Volume 6, Number 2: Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "When the Imam says: 'Ghair-il-Maghdubi 'Alaihim Walad-Dallin (i.e. not the path of those who earn Your Anger, nor the path of those who went astray (1.7)), then you must say, 'Ameen', for if one's utterance of 'Ameen' coincides with that of the angels, then his past sins will be forgiven."

 

[Hugo]

Kinda feels weird that why did not the Sahaaba write down the history of Prophet pbuh right after his passing.

Good point but you have to be aware that books were rare, very rare things and it is likely that most things had not been written down and only existed as oral accounts and given the Muslim empire was growing rapidly it is not all that surprising that some might have thought the equivalent of 'we can do that later'

 

[syed_z]

Kinda feels weird that why did not the Sahaaba write down the history of Prophet pbuh right after his passing.

The Words of Muhammad (saw) were being written at the time of prophet Muhammad (Saw), while he was alive... this has been proven many times during the History of Muslims... also prophet Muhammad (Saw) was a Teacher, and his teachings were more important for the Companions to preserve rather than his events of child hood.... but even his early life was recorded some years after he passed away, May Peace and Blessings of Allah Be Upon him...

 

[جوري]

The Words of Muhammad (saw) were being written at the time of prophet Muhammad (Saw), while he was alive... this has been proven many times during the History of Muslims... also prophet Muhammad (Saw) was a Teacher, and his teachings were more important for the Companions to preserve rather than his events of child hood.... but even his early life was recorded some years after he passed away, May Peace and Blessings of Allah Be Upon him...

It is a grand day when an ignorant kaffir (or one who chooses ignorance in spite of literature to the contrary) to bank on the ignorance of uneducated Muslims!

 

[Zafran]

I am not sure quite what you are asking here and I have quoted Ebn Warraq, Ibn Ishaq, Hamza Hashem, W N Arafat, the Qu'ran, Sahih Muslim and so on - why don't you tell us who you have cited, it will not take long will it? Let us deal with this point, there seems no doubt from Muslim sources alone that there were Jews in Medina. Can I just check with you; do you agree:

1. There are numerous written accounts of Muhammad having contact with Jews from tribes living in and around Medina. His relationship with Jews includes his theological teaching of them as People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab); his description of them as earlier receivers of Abrahamic revelation; and the failed political alliances between the Muslim and Jewish communities.

2. After the hijra to Medina from his home-town of Mecca, he established an agreement known as the Constitution of Medina between the major Medinan factions, including the Jewish tribes of Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza that secured equal rights for both Jews and Muslims as long as Jews remained politically supportive. Muhammad later fought battles with these tribes on the basis of violations of the constitution.

3. Muhammad married two Jewish women, Safiyya bint Huyayy, a captive from the Banu Nadir, and Rayhana bint Zayd.

So is it still you view that therefore there were no Jews there as that is what you seem to be implying? So if it pleases you I know there were Jews there because a large number of Muslim sources say so. Obviously, it is impossible to prove that they were not there and I assume you know why

we need to know how you came to the conclusion by ultimatly relying on muslims sources (and ofcourse wikipedia and the ibn warraqs spin) and how this will be accpted as a secular approach - ofcourse with zero non muslim sources as well. The question is still open how can this actually work in your so called secular approach as a fact????

Why dont you just admit that your not taking a secular approach here and that you are very bias in your approach. eg you'll accept that the Jews were in medina, You'll also accpet that the bani Querza incident happend ultimatley because Islamic sources say it happend? Its just not a secular approach. Its the Hugo approach that only works for you - so dont call it a secular approach.

 

[Zafran]

I think you are just refusing to hear what is being said. Always it is nice to have non-Muslim sources as corroboration but if they don't exist we must look at what we do have. In general if we are diligent we get our information from original sources if we can get access to them, scholarly articles, books and so on and invariably we will come to different conclusions. That is a perfectly scholarly and reasonable way to proceed for anyone. For example I can go to the Royal Asiatic Society, I can get a copy of Ibn Ishaq's biography of the prophet, I can study Hadith, I can look at Islamic sciences and so on. We all bring baggage with us when we do that and there is almost nothing we can do about it other that be aware of it.

You can do alot of things But Hugo Your the one who said that the bani querza incident is a fact and the Jews were in medina is also a fact - why ultimatley because muslim sources say so - Your method is very simple. How is this a secular approach - its heavily one sided and it only seems that wikipedia, Hugo and few other guys will actaully call this a secular approach which it clearly isnt. So are you ready to take your words back and now admit that you were wrong, Its just a hugo appraoch and not a secular approach.

 

[Hugo]

we need to know how you came to the conclusion by ultimatly relying on muslims sources (and ofcourse wikipedia and the ibn warraqs spin) and how this will be accpted as a secular approach - ofcourse with zero non muslim sources as well. The question is still open how can this actually work in your so called secular approach as a fact???? Why dont you just admit that your not taking a secular approach here and that you are very bias in your approach. eg you'll accept that the Jews were in medina, You'll also accpet that the bani Querza incident happend ultimatley because Islamic sources say it happend? Its just not a secular approach. Its the Hugo approach that only works for you - so dont call it a secular approach.

Could you please explain what a secular approach is supposed to be according to you?

 

[Hugo]

You can do alot of things But Hugo Your the one who said that the bani querza incident is a fact and the Jews were in medina is also a fact - why ultimatley because muslim sources say so - Your method is very simple. How is this a secular approach - its heavily one sided and it only seems that wikipedia, Hugo and few other guys will actaully call this a secular approach which it clearly isnt. So are you ready to take your words back and now admit that you were wrong, Its just a hugo appraoch and not a secular approach.

It is true I think the incident is a fact based on Muslim historical sources and if its one sided its because there are only written Muslim sources and they can be judged just like any other historical document by anyone. Your method is very simple, you know nothing, you say nothing, you add nothing, you admit nothing.

 

[جوري]

It is true I think the incident is a fact based on Muslim historical sources and if its one sided its because there are only written Muslim sources and they can be judged just like any other historical document by anyone. Your method is very simple, you know nothing, you say nothing, you add nothing, you admit nothing.

we can't help it if the Muslim world was flourishing while your neck of the wood was in the thick of cultural, economic, artistic and religious meltdowns. History is meant to chronicle events as they unravel and be free of bias, your political or religious spin is neither merited nor accurate. I believe you only create it to help increase the hatred and doubt that is weaved in your very cells and an excellent reflection on a bankrupted society who rather than dealing with its own shortcomings prefers to create one for others!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

we can't help it if the Muslim world was flourishing while your neck of the wood was in the thick of cultural, economic, artistic and religious meltdowns. History is meant to chronicle events as they unravel and be free of bias, your political or religious spin is neither merited nor accurate. I believe you only create it to help increase the hatred and doubt that is weaved in your very cells and an excellent reflection on a bankrupted society who rather than dealing with its own shortcomings prefers to create one for others!

And it did all this by invasion and subjugation as history reveals all too clearly.

 

[جوري]

And it did all this by invasion and subjugation as history reveals all too clearly.

not at all, as evinced by the history that repeats itself in modern day trends of folks flocking to Islam by the thousands in spite of you and folks like you! Your massive effort fizzles into the smarmy smoke and mirrors of fraudulent deception that it is.

all the best