Conspiracies: Denialism or Scepticism?

[syed_z]

Well I mentioned Afghanistan and Kazakhstan and the first is clearly not secular and the second perhaps is or might be regarded that way. Frankly, I have no idea what this pure Islam is though one sees the idea every where and sadly usually as a way of avoiding facing up to Islamic failures. So what do you mean by it, Wahhabism for instanced?

Nope not even , the 2nd one is NOT even closely regarded as what you say Islamic. Muslim Majority living under a Muslim Ruler, is NOT Islamic. Islam is a System which needs to be implemented on a State level, with Quran and Sunnah (teachings of the Prophet) to be made as basis of ALL Laws in the country... when Muslims are ruling like Western way of Democracy, they make Laws whatever the Majority says.... something the Majority agrees to could be passed as Law even though it might have been against the Words of Quran and Sunnah...


In Islam, Sovereignity Belong to God, and Man is His represenatative... and Man is supposed to rule over the Majority who are believers in Him, according to the Words of Quran and Sunnah... that means you make all Laws but they need to be within the Limits of God...


The Countries you mentioned, One of them is being controlled by NATO and American Forces, and is a Puppet government, which does not represent People at ALL! In Afghanistan the President Hamid Karzai, is NOT the President of Afghanistan, yes his designation might be BUT he is more like a mayor of Kabul.... he does not have any authority in Afghanistan .... the Taliban are ruling most parts, and other tribes... so you don't accept this Government as Government of Afghanistan JUST because BBC and CNN say so... ...


The Country of Kazakhastan you mentioned, does NOT rule by Shariah as well, as Shariah is an Islamic Law for to be ruled over the Muslims... most of the Muslim Countries, are ruled by Democracy as the West, which is failing, as Democracy and Capitalism, have not been able to issue and solve the Problems of Humanity.... rather they have created more problems, and in the Muslim Countries have become a Shield for the corrupt Rulers to hide their corruption and continue it behind covers...


You said they are NOT secular, .... secular means God being separated from All affairs of the people of the country... means God is only confined to a Private Sphere of each persons Life, which is the thought of the Western World, but its not what Islam says.... Muslim rulers are following it, just to be praised by the West and continue their crimes.... but its a False way of Believing in One God...West needed Secularism because Christianity could NOT solve the Problems of Humanity, as it was NOT meant for Entire Mankind... therefore they needed Reforms etc.

Since you were quick to jump and say this state is secular that is Islamic... i can see you don't know what Islamic Ideology is, niether do you know what Secularism is....

This may be true but the difference is that in a Western society the law is the same for everyone no matter who or what they are whilst Sharai is discriminatory.

How is Shariah discriminatory ?... every one has the right to live according to the way they want... if you have a personal belief and Your Property needs to be distributed according to the belief and your family and you accept it, WHO has the right to force on you their own way of life.... None should! The Muslims have their own personal laws, regarding divorce, marriage, property distribution and West should consider, if its a Tolerant Society as it claims to be... Please Provide Evidence as to how a Shariah is Discriminatory...

If Non Muslims are dealt according to their Personal Law in Muslim Countries, then i guess West is obviously behind in Tolerance...

Even in an Islamic State ruled by Islam, the Jew, Christian or Hindu have the right to have their Personal Law for their personal lives....

Now theres a difference between Law of the Land and Personal Law.... Law of the Land should be respected by Muslims who live in that Western country... but Personal Law should NOT be forced on any One!

So whilst I am not denying that hate exists it may not be as common as you imply. Conversely, every day almost I get a report of a Church being damaged or destroyed, Christians being harassed or hurt or out in jail in a Muslim majority country - do YOU ever read such reports?

You are right and i agree.. with you.. yes there have been many instances where Non Muslim Minorities, have been treated that way... BUT in a Secular Muslim Majority state... NOT a Muslim Country being Run on Islam.... see you need to 1st see the example of those Islamic States, in the past in which Non Muslims were living and had access to full rights, because during those times Muslims were Ruled by Islamic law and Shariah, and NOT by Secular Ideas.... the concept of Idividual Nation states occurred after we were colonized by the Same Western Britishers, at the Point of Sword COnquered lands Shamelessly!

That is why i gave example of Hazrat Umar (r.a) dealing with the Non Muslim Minority and You were comparing Islam with president of Kazakhastan ! Compare the religious tolerance with those leaders who represent Islam and not their own thoughts....


and so i asked you to provide me ONE example as to how Umar (r.a) dealt with Non Muslims, even after being Stabbed by them to death.... with a ANY Roman Leader or Modern day Western leader who dealt with the minority like that ? Please give me one example !


I would like you to 1st Understand what Shariah is..... Shariah is Rule of God on earth over the Land where Muslims live... it was the Same Shariah which gave Non Muslim minority rights uptill the Time of Ottoman Caliphate was abolished by the Conquerors of Europe....


Give you another example...


Jewish historians like Abba Eban and Solomon Grayzel have acknowledged and recognized their “Golden Age of Diaspora” (Diaspora is the time of 2000 yr period of Jews without a Homeland of their own) the period of Jewish affluence and growth in Muslim Spain. When Muslims were ruling Over Spain, the Jews were very satisfied, as their rights were given in full, because the Institution of the State was run in that Empire with Quran and Sunnah.... it was NOT Secular, where the attitude is just like the Western Countries, to deal with Minorities the Way we Feel like! No!

Rather When the Arab rule came to end in 1492, and the Jews were immediately expelled from Spain by the Christian rulers Ferdinand and Isabella, they were given refuge and asylum in the Ottoman Empire.


The Golden Period of Jewish Diaspora was under the Muslims, when Muslims ruled according to Shariah...they were tolerated so much, that they even held posts of Ministers with the Muslim Sultans of the time.... The Jews were at the same time, persecuted and massacred by the Roman Christian Crusaders who came from the West to "liberate" the Holy Land... also there always were pogroms taking place in Europe since the time of Crusades...


and so i am sure you need to know more about Shariah, rather than finding faults 1st...

 

[Hugo]

In the uk? Are you sure? Do you honestly want me to list popular newspapers in the UK that are anti Islamic and always give false information about Muslims in the UK and the rest of the world? And the disproportion focus on Muslims, Islam and Muslim countries compared to what else is happening across the UK and the world? I would not only categories these newspapers as anti Islamic but also racist and irrational.

Yes say what they are, let us all hear and then we can make up our own mind. Perhaps you will conduct a small study for say one week and then list all the anti-Islamic stories your find in the papers you read and I will do them same for the ones I read - deal?

 

[Hugo]

How is Shariah discriminatory ?... every one has the right to live according to the way they want... if you have a personal belief and Your Property needs to be distributed according to the belief and your family and you accept it, WHO has the right to force on you their own way of life.... None should! The Muslims have their own personal laws, regarding divorce, marriage, property distribution and West should consider, if its a Tolerant Society as it claims to be... Please Provide Evidence as to how a Shariah is Discriminatory...

This is NOT true and one only has to consider apostasy to see it - if someone wants to leave Islam, since according to you "everyone has the right to live according to the way they want.." Perhaps I am unfair here and you are of the opinion that the apostasy laws in Islam are wrong. May I ask you does the Jew, the Christian under Islamic law have equal rights with a Muslim?You are either a reformed Muslim or uninformed as to what Islamic law degrees.

Now theres a difference between Law of the Land and Personal Law.... Law of the Land should be respected by Muslims who live in that Western country... but Personal Law should NOT be forced on any One!

But in a democracy there is the SAME law for everyone

i asked you to provide me ONE example as to how Umar (r.a) dealt with Non Muslims, even after being Stabbed by them to death.... with a ANY Roman Leader or Modern day Western leader who dealt with the minority like that ? Please give me one example !

I am not quite sure now which post this was but firstly Muslim rulers have more often than not been assassinated by other Muslims (I can give examples). The point perhaps is that when such incidents happened sometimes revenge was taken and sometimes not. But some Muslim rulers decreed that non-Muslim should be protected and often welcomed them as you have pointed out and that is good but it did not grant them equal rights so they in effect were protected as inferior beings and not citizens - as you say they were "tolerated"

I regard the crusades as a disgrace but one must not forget that Islamic history is littered with massacres small and large with Muslims fighting amongst themselves - pick up any Arab history book and you will be regaled with stories of heads and ears being sent to the Ottoman Sultan in Istanbul. This is not about Islam or Christianity in a way it is about the depravity that exists in human nature itself and no amount of law will get rid of that.

 

[Hugo]

in fact more than one person has confronted him with that already, even in matters unrelated to religion.
pls. see here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-science/134270536-medical-student-review-8.html#post1340656

it is an a,b,c,d,e or none of the above response.. it only requires application of knowledge which one claims one possesses not a great dance around it.. large compendiums of irrelevant text don't cut it I am afraid in any sector!

I guess most of you do not have the faintest idea what this is about other than an attempt to discredit me. Well I leave it to you, go to that thread and read what I have written and what lily has written and make your own mind up.

 

[جوري]

I guess most of you do not have the faintest idea what this is about other than an attempt to discredit me. Well I leave it to you, go to that thread and read what I have written and what lily has written and make your own mind up.

and I'd indeed urge everyone to do that..
I don't discredit you, you discredit yourself.. and such is the case with most threads you begin but can't carry to fruition unfortunately, it isn't my point of view alone!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

what accounts - what sources, what facts - how do you determine them - just because you want to? - as i said there are other things in the same source are they also plain history? whats the criteria? Lets see how you get to the frst element?

I am not entirely sure what you are asking but with regard to sources we might say
1. Ideally we look for primary sources and put simply that means we look for scholarly accounts as might be found in journals and of course such accounts usually find their way into books.
2. One considers authors, their qualifications, where they have published and the currency of their work.
3. When looking at work one also looks at the references within it because it is important to know how the work was constructed and of course to make checks.
4. One considers the publisher and their pedigree and how and who reviews work before it is published.
5. Finally, one hope that the work is objective and consider what we might call the pros and cons.

As a concerned poster to this thread or any other or writing an essay then you must read a range of sources and they in general should be current ones, the fruit of that latest research. We must weight the evidence and arguments and always be aware of our own pre-disposition otherwise we simple see what we want no matter what the evidence says. There is a good example in another thread where discrepancies have been noted in Biblical Resurrection accounts between a chapter in Matthews gospel and a chapter in that of John's. So one can note the lack of harmonisation and immediately draw a conclusion as is done there that the accounts are unreliable, the text is a fabrication, and so on. That however, is not a scholarly way and in this case there is an over-abundance of sources that deal with it both for and against and you will be dishonest not to check them out.

One might add here that with books on religion are peculiarly difficulties because in many circumstances one must stand outside of your faith, put it to one side otherwise it might bias your work. As an example, suppose I were considering authenticity of say biblical or Qu'ranic documents then you MUST put aside what you believe about God and be as much as possible independent, honest. In contrast if you were writing a commentary then of course you faith can play its full part.

 

[Zafran]

I'm sure your well aware of what we were talking about but if you want to drop the subject - just say so Hugo.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Both the christian and the muslim come to the table with books they believe are truth and nobody is going to convince them otherwise. If you want a scholarly approach it will have to be secular. If you want an honest and fair comparison between Christian text and Muslim text you will have to look to those who practice neither, be t hat a hindu, taoist, or atheist.

 

[جوري]

sure no bias there to heathenism or idolatry..

 

[Pygoscelis]

Sure, the hindu, taoist and atheists all come with their own biases, but they are independent for the christian/muslim divide. They are outsiders and their biases are far less relevant. They've got no horse in this race (until you turn the question to how their own world view compares).

 

[جوري]

Sure, the hindu, taoist and atheists all come with their own biases, but they are independent for the christian/muslim divide. They are outsiders and their biases are far less relevant. They've got no horse in this race (until you turn the question to how their own world view compares).

since engaging in any topic would require that you have to have some baseline level of knowledge on the subject I don't see how different forms of kaffirs could have anything at all to contribute bias, positively or negatively skewed that would be of relevance .. further we are not comparing and contrasting here since there is nothing to compare, the fellow has taken some historical events and added his own rendition (well because he felt like it) the rest of us are merely humoring a him through a crisis so he is saved similar blunders in the real world!

that is all geppetto.. go on now and play with a real boy!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Both the christian and the muslim come to the table with books they believe are truth and nobody is going to convince them otherwise. If you want a scholarly approach it will have to be secular. If you want an honest and fair comparison between Christian text and Muslim text you will have to look to those who practice neither, be t hat a hindu, taoist, or atheist.

Yes I agree with you in general here, if one is to be absolutely scholarly we have to step outside our faith to do it otherwise we begin with pre-suppositions that can have no material evidence to support them and I indicated this principles in my earlier post. I am not however disposed to say 'secular' but perhaps a better word would be scientific though even then not everything will be absolutely certain - that is the nature of existence. If we are inside our faith then its fine to discuss it with our accepted dogmas but when speaking to others this is not necessarily appropriate or fair.

 

[Hugo]

I'm sure your well aware of what we were talking about but if you want to drop the subject - just say so Hugo.

If you cannot be clear then don't join in. Incidentally I have read nearly all the letters of Eckermann and very instructive they are but not be able to find any where your quote - have you read them?

 

[Hugo]

so is it the only source and if it is why dont you take it FULLY or do you have other sources contradiciting the event? whats your criteria of recording plain history - theres many other things in the same source is that also history?

If there is only one source text then we have difficulty and must be sceptical and it would be foolish to accept it fully or otherwise. Ideally, one would like several sources so that corroboration is possible. Usually when there are several sources they will naturally differ and that in its own way is a mark of authenticity. If the sources are contradictory then one seeks a resolution or harmonisation if that is possible though often such a harmonisation can only be speculative but that does not mean it is impossible to harmonise the accounts or that the accounts are false.

Consider the Qu'ran, according to Muslims the revelation came from God via an angel and then via Mohammed. It is therefore a second/third hand account with no possibility of corroboration and is therefore for unreliable - do you agree?

 

[syed_z]

This is NOT true and one only has to consider apostasy to see it - if someone wants to leave Islam, since according to you "everyone has the right to live according to the way they want.." Perhaps I am unfair here and you are of the opinion that the apostasy laws in Islam are wrong. May I ask you does the Jew, the Christian under Islamic law have equal rights with a Muslim?You are either a reformed Muslim or uninformed as to what Islamic law degrees.

Hugo you are again making the mistake of challenging something about Islam of which you don't know about....

Just like how you challenged the killing of those Traitor Jews who tried destroying the Muslim Community, you are once again challenging Islam's Law regarding Apostasy...

You have already said that You don't know about Pure Islam, still you try pointing errors... and so as a Muslim its my duty to reply you regarding your misconception...


The Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, is killing ONLY when the person who declares himself a disbeliever and FURTHER goes ahead and tries to destroy the image of Islam, not only that but conspires against the Muslims in collaboration with the Enemies of Islam... Such person is supposed to be killed as Punishment of Apostasy!


Just like how you said "Muhammad ordered Killing of Jews" ...without making it clear that it was ONLY those Men among Jews who conspired and NOT women and children and elders! You did not distinguish between those killed and those spared... You just said "he killed 600 jews"... so be specific and not just point errors!


2nd Point...

Well I cannot speak with authority on this as it is not a matter of law as such and usually it will be judged on its nuisance value. Lots of Church bell ringing has been stopped because of the noise and the same would apply to calls to prayer. One wonders why in a modern age one has to use a loudspeaker to call people to prayer so maybe you just need to get up to date.

You Said Call to Prayer (Adhaan) or Church Bells might be Nuisance, while completely forgetting as to HOW much nuisance it is when a Plane flies over our heads every 15 minutes, or when Police and Ambulance Sirens keep making noise every 10 minutes ... don't you consider that a Nuisance ? If its because of Nuisance then the Western World should take those sirens off and planes should stop flying over our heads.... if a Christian Community in Pakistan or Iraq, is allowed to wring bells in their Areas and neighborhoods, there should be NO REASON for Muslim Communities living in Neighborhoods in London and Toronto, NOT to be allowed the Call to Prayer (Adhaan)....

...So as i said the Democratic West STILL needs to learn more about Tolerance... perhaps they should open the Quran and read the Seerah of Muhammad (saw)... BUT wait they are too busy drawing Cartoons of Muhammad (Saw) in the Name of Freedom of Speech... Do you agree ?

But in a democracy there is the SAME law for everyone

Unfortunately Brother... the Democracy you speak of, is going down the Garbage bin of History! Lets see how Dangerous the Democracy is... and 1st of all i am surprised that you as a Church going Boy, worshiping God, say that Democracy which Separates God from the State, is JUST FINE ?


The Philosophy of Democracy is that Sovereignity Belongs to People... its invested in people... powers of Legislation are in the hands of people. Law making depends on their own thoughts and minds and moods. So if the Majority of the people, legislate a law regardless of however ill concieved, it may be religiously or morally, it is added as a Law. And if the people want abrogation of a law or change a law, however just and rightful it might be, it would be changed JUST because Majority of people vote for it!

A good example is the Same Sex marriages, no matter how hateful it might be to many Christians around Europe , it is being accepted as a part of life...

This is the Evil of Democracy... and btw do you support Same Sex Marriage ? Just a Question ? And if you don't , then you should not Stand up for Democracy...

The point perhaps is that when such incidents happened sometimes revenge was taken and sometimes not. But some Muslim rulers decreed that non-Muslim should be protected and often welcomed them as you have pointed out and that is good but it did not grant them equal rights so they in effect were protected as inferior beings and not citizens - as you say they were "tolerated"

Since you pointed out earlier that Shariah is Discriminatory! Let us find out What Islam gives as rights to the Non Muslims Living Under an Islamic State... as you said Islam and Muslims did not Grant them Equal Rights, for which again you DID NOT provide any proof...Inferior Beings you said!

Ok so lets see... Zakah is the Tax levied on Muslims as they are Muslim Citizens living in an Islamic State. Jizyah is a tax levied on Non Muslims for their participation as citizens in an Islamic State. Now Jizyah is not a fixed rate in Quran but the traditions mention it and Guess what the Jizyah is supposed to be LESSER than Zakah according to all the available traditions of the Prophet. So a Non Muslim pays less for being a Citizen, while a Muslim Pays more ?

In addition to the Protection provided to their property, family, and their religious rights be given, they are NOT supposed to serve in the Military, as in an Islamic State every Muslim needs to be in the Military, if they are called for to serve. .... Just to give an example of USA one of the Democracy Champions, forces High School Children to sign for Military and if they don't go when called they are PUT INSIDE JAIL! This is something i've witnessed, that is signing with the Military when i went to High School when i lived in USA.... so not to forget this!!

Exempted from Jizyah

All are exempted from this Tax .... 1. all women, 2. males who have not yet reached full maturity c. old men d. all sick and crippled men e. Priests and Monks

IN Addition IF they would like to volunteer for military, those on whom the tax is supposed to be levied, even they are EXEMPTED from the payment of it!


Please Provide me ONE example of A Democratic Western Secular States which give such Rights! Priests and Monks being exempted ? And you called the Non Muslim Citizens under Islamic States Run on Islamic Ideology, as Inferior ?


An Islamic State is run on an Islamic Ideology guided by Quran and Sunnah, this is the Basis of Law of the Land. The Non Muslims CAN even get administrative posts and posts in many services of the State.... BUT not Key Posts, as the Islamic State needs to be run on an Islamic Ideology and the figures sitting on those key posts, are the only ones allowed to influence any change and for that they HAVE to be Muslims...


So you called Non Muslim living Under an Islamic State as Inferior... i guess i would say you should look the Example of Islamic Iran... which has Jews as Members of Parliament.....


I see you arguing with Brothers and Sisters about Islam, without even knowing anything about it....


So please whenever you try pointing an error, please provide PROOF! Do you agree ?

 

[Zafran]

If there is only one source text then we have difficulty and must be sceptical and it would be foolish to accept it fully or otherwise. Ideally, one would like several sources so that corroboration is possible. Usually when there are several sources they will naturally differ and that in its own way is a mark of authenticity. If the sources are contradictory then one seeks a resolution or harmonisation if that is possible though often such a harmonisation can only be speculative but that does not mean it is impossible to harmonise the accounts or that the accounts are false.

Consider the Qu'ran, according to Muslims the revelation came from God via an angel and then via Mohammed. It is therefore a second/third hand account with no possibility of corroboration and is therefore for unreliable - do you agree?

Lets forcus on something we talked about earlier and not some random tangent that you like to go off on - re read my post 85 it was specific to something you said - I would like you to answer it specifically what we we're talking about and not go off irrelevent tangents.

If you cannot be clear then don't join in. Incidentally I have read nearly all the letters of Eckermann and very instructive they are but not be able to find any where your quote - have you read them?

another tangent - I'll give you a clue you were about to prove how the Bani querza incident was a fact? as you called it "plain history" if thats the case what criteria are you using and what sources are you using? The source also talks about other things are they also "plain facts"? how do you even know in your secular mind that the Jews even were in arabia? how do you know these "facts"?

 

[Hugo]

Lets forcus on something we talked about earlier and not some random tangent that you like to go off on - re read my post 85 it was specific to something you said - I would like you to answer it specifically what we we're talking about and not go off irrelevant tangents.

It is hard to know where to being with you, I stated various criteria and you made no comment either because you agree or have your own set or simply have no idea what scholarly research means. But if I focus on the Medina case then maybe we can find some common ground if its only to establish what YOU regard as a reliable source. Firstly, the Medina executions are reported all over the place and although when one looks at the sources there are as one would expect variations but the event most agree is as follows.

"A consensus Muslim account of the massacre of the Qurayzah has emerged as converyed by classical Muslim scholars of hadith (putative utterances and acts of Muhammad, recorded by pious Muslim transmitters), biographers of Muhammad’s life (especially Ibn Ishaq), jurists, and historians. This narrative is summarized as follows: Alleged to have aided the forces of Muhammad’s enemies in violation of a prior pact, the Qurayzah were subsequently isolated and besieged. Twice the Qurayzah made offers to surrender and depart from their stronghold, leaving behind their land and property. Initially they asked to take one camel load of possessions per person, but when Muhammad refused this request, the Qurayzah asked to be allowed to depart without any property, taking with them only their families. However, Muhammad insisted that the Qurayzah surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgment. Compelled to surrender, the Qurayzah were led to Medina. The men, with their hands pinioned behind their backs, were put in a court, while the women and children were said to have been put into a separate court. A third (and final) appeal for leniency for the Qurayzah was made to Muhammad by their tribal allies the Aus. Muhammad again declined, and instead he appointed as arbiter Sa’d Mu’adh from the Aus, who soon rendered his concise verdict: The men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims". (Andrew G. Bostom’s "The Legacy of Jihad", ISBN 9781591 026020)

One might note it is mentioned in the Qu'ran at least 4 times: 59:2, 59:9, 59:13 and 59:15 according to most commentators. Why a book that is supposed to be eternal contains this temporal information I cannot say or if these writings occurred before or after the event.

Perhaps we can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza as a staring point because it is accessible and to me seems a clear and unbiased account well supported by references - perhaps you would care to comment on them and their acceptability to you, if not then let us see you list? On the issues of Jews being there then it is VERY hard to find any sources or sites that says otherwise. However, Jewish tribes reportedly arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Greek conquests or more likely Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a position of cultural, economic and political dominance. Extant sources provide no conclusive evidence whether the Banu Qurayza were ethnically Jewish or Arab converts to Judaism. Just like the other Jews of Yathrib, the Qurayza claimed to be of Israelite descent and observed the commandments of Judaism, but adopted many Arab customs and intermarried with Arabs. Ibn Ishaq, the author of the traditional Muslim biography of Muhammad, traces their genealogy to Aaron and further to Abraham but gives only eight intermediaries between Aaron and the purported founder of the Qurayza tribe.

I am not sure if its now worth saying any more until I hear your response to either generally agree with what has been written or alternatively let us hear your version and accompanying bibliography or references.

 

[جوري]

Perhaps we can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza as a staring point because it is accessible and to me seems a clear and unbiased account

That is so funny.. and certainly very credible!
do you know the difference between a chain of Isnad and narrations to convey an accurate historical picture vs. a website where anyone can write anything and the information no matter how properly sourced can only be traced to one credible source which will be written by Muslims, since there is no other account of Jews having been in that part of the world were it not for Islamic recordings.. and thus leaves us with the question, if you accept their presence there, and accept the original historical account of the events, then again why the secondary opinion that paints them as victims instead of traitors and that the punishment they chose for themselves was directly from their Torah?..

Are you really that ignorant and desperate or just playing stupid and expect voluminous loggorrhea and 'wikipedia' to drown out common sense?

I again challenge you to prove that Banu Quryzah existed at all were it not for Islamic sources!
go ahead bring me an independent Jewish scholar of the time who wrote about the event to influence your very differing point of view!

Not sure who Andrew Bosom is, but we are certainly not interested in opinion when discussing history!

 

[Zafran]

It is hard to know where to being with you, I stated various criteria and you made no comment either because you agree or have your own set or simply have no idea what scholarly research means. But if I focus on the Medina case then maybe we can find some common ground if its only to establish what YOU regard as a reliable source. Firstly, the Medina executions are reported all over the place and although when one looks at the sources there are as one would expect variations but the event most agree is as follows.

"A consensus Muslim account of the massacre of the Qurayzah has emerged as converyed by classical Muslim scholars of hadith (putative utterances and acts of Muhammad, recorded by pious Muslim transmitters), biographers of Muhammad’s life (especially Ibn Ishaq), jurists, and historians. This narrative is summarized as follows: Alleged to have aided the forces of Muhammad’s enemies in violation of a prior pact, the Qurayzah were subsequently isolated and besieged. Twice the Qurayzah made offers to surrender and depart from their stronghold, leaving behind their land and property. Initially they asked to take one camel load of possessions per person, but when Muhammad refused this request, the Qurayzah asked to be allowed to depart without any property, taking with them only their families. However, Muhammad insisted that the Qurayzah surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgment. Compelled to surrender, the Qurayzah were led to Medina. The men, with their hands pinioned behind their backs, were put in a court, while the women and children were said to have been put into a separate court. A third (and final) appeal for leniency for the Qurayzah was made to Muhammad by their tribal allies the Aus. Muhammad again declined, and instead he appointed as arbiter Sa’d Mu’adh from the Aus, who soon rendered his concise verdict: The men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims". (Andrew G. Bostom’s "The Legacy of Jihad", ISBN 9781591 026020)

One might note it is mentioned in the Qu'ran at least 4 times: 59:2, 59:9, 59:13 and 59:15 according to most commentators. Why a book that is supposed to be eternal contains this temporal information I cannot say or if these writings occurred before or after the event.

Perhaps we can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza as a staring point because it is accessible and to me seems a clear and unbiased account well supported by references - perhaps you would care to comment on them and their acceptability to you, if not then let us see you list? On the issues of Jews being there then it is VERY hard to find any sources or sites that says otherwise. However, Jewish tribes reportedly arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Greek conquests or more likely Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a position of cultural, economic and political dominance. Extant sources provide no conclusive evidence whether the Banu Qurayza were ethnically Jewish or Arab converts to Judaism. Just like the other Jews of Yathrib, the Qurayza claimed to be of Israelite descent and observed the commandments of Judaism, but adopted many Arab customs and intermarried with Arabs. Ibn Ishaq, the author of the traditional Muslim biography of Muhammad, traces their genealogy to Aaron and further to Abraham but gives only eight intermediaries between Aaron and the purported founder of the Qurayza tribe.

I am not sure if its now worth saying any more until I hear your response to either generally agree with what has been written or alternatively let us hear your version and accompanying bibliography or references.

So do you base this all on what muslims say - and therefore it is a fact or plain history? can you prove this without using muslim sources - do you only need muslims sources (yes incluidng if the Jews were in arabia) - if so muslim sources talk about other things as well are they also facts? You need to prove this outside muslim sources thats the only way it can fit in your own "critieria" of being "plain history".

wikipedia article? come on I thought you were about to give something more scholarly.

Ultimatley your contradicting your own criteria.

 

[Zafran]

That is so funny.. and certainly very credible!
do you know the difference between a chain of Isnad and narrations to convey an accurate historical picture vs. a website where anyone can write anything and the information no matter how properly sourced can only be traced to one credible source which will be written by Muslims, since there is no other account of Jews having been in that part of the world were it not for Islamic recordings.. and thus leaves us with the question, if you accept their presence there, and accept the original historical account of the events, then again why the secondary opinion that paints them as victims instead of traitors and that the punishment they chose for themselves was directly from their Torah?..

Are you really that ignorant and desperate or just playing stupid and expect voluminous loggorrhea and 'wikipedia' to drown out common sense?

I again challenge you to prove that Banu Quryzah existed at all were it not for Islamic sources!
go ahead bring me an independent Jewish scholar of the time who wrote about the event to influence your very differing point of view!

Not sure who Andrew Bosom is, but we are certainly not interested in opinion when discussing history!

salaam

If you google the quote he used you will find that Ibn Warraq has wrote the forward - I think that should explain it all.

peace