Conspiracies: Denialism or Scepticism?

[Hugo]

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!

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. 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. 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. 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.

 

[Hugo]

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

Would that make it untrue? As it happens I have the book and the question is was that summary extracted from the book I stated accurately or not. If not then let us see something from you supported from the literature not the usual recycled stuff typical to your usual approach. Yet again here we see nothing of value from you.

 

[جوري]

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

well 'ibn waraq' to him is a scholar, he has already let us know that he is after scholarship and isn't biased (as we are) and well you should believe him because he has been so credible so far-- other western turds with agendas are also scholars according to him and anything written by Muslim theologians from the oldest university in the world should be dismissed.. also dismissed right along are works of the likes of Bruce metzger (a staunch christian scholar) but only in the case he writes something contradictory to Hugo's personal beliefs of a mangod impregnating a 12 year old, choosing ineffectual apostles to shoulder the responsibility after this god's death or appearing to charlatans to abrogate OT laws .. in other words if a biblical scholar and not some turdy apostate writes that these chapters in the bible have questionable authorship then that too can be dismissed...but his endless tirade and voluminous nonsensical loggorrhea or unrelated drivel is the stuff of Pulitzers...

I wish I can get the time I wasted writing here back, but then, it is always good for a hearty guffaw if you've missed the sunday funnies!

 

[Zafran]

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. 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. 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. 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.

Hugo you dont know what muslims find reliable and you dont know how the transmission works (muttawaitir and ahad is a good palce to start) - But as your last post showed you also base your entire idea on muslims sources anyway (ofcourse contradicting your criteria) - I want to see some non muslims sources of the Jews in arabia and even in the bani querza incident - you havent given one yet? If you like giving muslim sources and find them reliable or "plain history" so everything muslim sources say is plain history?

 

[جوري]

Hugo you dont know what muslims find reliable and you dont know how the transmission works (muttawaitir and ahad is a good palce to start) - But as your last post showed you also base your entire idea on muslims sources anyway (ofcourse contradicting your criteria) - I want to see some non muslims sources of the Jews in arabia and even in the bani querza incident - you havent given one yet? If you like giving muslim sources and find them reliable or "plain history" so everything muslim sources say is plain history?

I suggest you merely report him at this stage, one of the many forum criteria which he is in overt breach of, is introducing anti-islamic rhetoric from questionable sources (all which has been refuted time and again) if anyone cared to dignify it with a reply. Anything beyond this is wasting your breath on a guy who thinks wikipedia and a moron are scholarly!

 

[Zafran]

Would that make it untrue? As it happens I have the book and the question is was that summary extracted from the book I stated accurately or not. If not then let us see something from you supported from the literature not the usual recycled stuff typical to your usual approach. Yet again here we see nothing of value from you.

so you still cant prove the incident without using muslims sources? I'm still waiting for it? stick to your criteria and show me some non muslim sources about the Jews in arabia and the bani querza incident - If you see muslim sources as being "plain history" does that also mean that other things muslims write is also plain history - I'm being patient with you by asking this the fourth time? if you cant just say so. Simple.

 

[Zafran]

I suggest you merely report him at this stage, one of the many forum criteria which he is in overt breach of, is introducing anti-islamic rhetoric from questionable sources (all which has been refuted time and again) if anyone cared to dignify it with a reply. Anything beyond this is wasting your breath on a guy who thinks wikipedia and a moron are scholarly!

salaam

I know he likes to bring the old stuff out - it seems that its only thing hes read about Islam.

I am getting tired of him escaping the discussion.

peace

 

[جوري]

salaam

I know he likes to bring the old stuff out - it seems that its only thing hes read about Islam.

I am getting tired of him escaping the discussion.

peace

not that I follow his every post, but he doesn't read replies and answers (to his queries at all) and posts unrelated material to purge his soul of the hatred that must be seething in his soul (and how contrary to the principles he so likes to hold as a paragon) that I am starting to question his mental status.. he does that on every thread he starts or derails those of others including one about the Quran being the word of God, if he doesn't like the replies he receives then he'll recompile his crap and start anew hoping for a different response from a member that either caters to his way of life or from one who hasn't matured enough in replies to give him a portal from which to pounce and create a smoldering environment that is in concert with his personal beliefs until people tire of him..

and I have certainly tired of him, and hope he received enough infractions to be rid us of him for a long time to come-- can't believe Muslim members have been banned for lesser things while he is still here!

 

[Zafran]

not that I follow his every post, but he doesn't read replies and answers (to his queries at all) and posts unrelated material to purge his soul of the hatred that must be seething in his soul (and how contrary to the principles he so likes to hold as a paragon) that I am starting to question his mental status.. he does that on every thread he starts or derails those of others including one about the Quran being the word of God, if he doesn't like the replies he receives then he'll recompile his crap and start anew hoping for a different response from a member that either caters to his wife of life or hasn't matured enough in replies to give him a portal from which to pounce and create a smoldering environment that is in concert with his personal beliefs until people tire of him..

and I have certainly tired of him, and hope he received enough infractions to be rid us of him for a long time to come-- can't believe Muslim members have been banned for lesser things while he is still here!

salaam

I agree with - he does that alot. I think muslims do the mistake of taking him seriously.

peace

 

[syed_z]

Hugo... i personally believe that Such incident did take place... and i don't like why you use the Term "massacre" again, because it was NOT a massacre.... massacre as in which the WHOLE Banu Qurayza should have been wiped off No... was NOT some Hitler Style execution... it was done to Stop injustice and ONLY those were were spreading corruption...


Hugo how much do you REALLY know, what evil planning that Banu Quraiza did ? I am pretty sure that you don't know any thing, about what they did..... read before pointing errors about Islam, Prophet Muhammad (saw) etc...

As i had already told you, you were pointing at Apostasy 1st, then blindly following Democracy, then bringing up the issue of Non Muslim being treated Inferior in Muslim lands in the Past... all of the issues i addressed you and you keep following whatever the Orientalist write about Islam and Muslims....

You should take time and do research and not try looking for errors... for the Treacherous acts in Detail about Banu Quraiza, Insh Allah i would be posting them...

 

[syed_z]

In the midst of these difficult circumstances (i.e Muslims were surrounded by thousands of men who had besieged them at the Battle of Trench) , plottery and intrigues were in fervent action against the Muslims.

The chief criminal of Bani Nadir (Jewish Tribe) , Huyai, headed for the habitations of Banu Quraiza to incite their chief Ka‘b bin Asad Al-Qurazi, who had drawn a pact with the Messenger of Allâh (Peace be upon him) to run to his aid in times of war.

Ka‘b, in the beginning resisted all Huyai’s temptation, but Huyai was clever enough to manipulate him, speaking of Quraish and their notables in Al-Asyal, as well as Ghatfan and their chieftains entrenched in Uhud, all in one mind, determined to exterminate Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his followers. He, moreover, promised to stay in Ka‘b’s fort exposing himself to any potential danger in case Quraish and Ghatfan recanted. The wicked man went on in this manner until he later managed to win Ka‘b to his side and persuade him to break his covenant with the Muslims.

Banu Quraiza then started to launch war operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the women and children of the Muslims.

On the authority of Ibn Ishaq, Safiyah (May Allah be pleased with her) daughter of ‘Abdul Muttalib happened to be in a garrison with Hassan bin Thabit as well as some women and children. Safiyah said:

“A Jew was spotted lurking around our site, which was vulnerable to any enemy attacks because there were no men to defend it. I informed Hassan that I was suspicious of that man’s presence near us. He might take us by surprise now that the Messenger of Allâh (Peace be upon him) and the Muslims are too busy to come to our aid, why don’t you get down and kill him? Hassan answered that he would not do it, so I took a bar of wood, went down and struck the Jew to death. I returned and asked Hassan to loot him but again Hassan refused to do that.

This event had a far reaching effect and discouraged the Jews from conducting further attacks thinking that those sites were fortified and protected by Muslim fighters.

They, however, went on providing the idolaters with supplies in token of their support against the Muslims. On hearing this bad news, the Messenger (Peace be upon him) despatched four Muslim prominent leaders Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, Sa‘d bin ‘Ubada, ‘Abdullah bin Rawaha and Khawat bin Jubair for investigation but warning against any sort of spreading panic amongst the Muslims and advising that they should declare in public that the rumours are groundless if they happen to be so. Unfortunately the four men
discovered that the news was true and that the Jews announced openly that no pact of alliance existed any longer with Muhammad (Peace be upon him).

The Messenger of Allâh (Peace be upon him) was briefed on this situation, and the Muslims understood their critical position with the horrible danger implied therein. Their back was vulnerable to the attacks of Banu Quraiza, and a huge army with no way to connive at in front, while their women and children unprotected standing in between. In this regard,

Allâh says in the Quran

“And when the eyes grew wild and the hearts reached to the throats, and you were harbouring doubts about Allâh. There, the believers were tried and shaken with a mighty shaking.” [33:10, 11]

( taken from Al Raheeq Al Maktum (The Sealed Nectar) BY: Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri)


... rest of the story is not what i intend to Post, but my intention is to tell those, who are quick to jump and point errors about Islam and History of Muslims, without ANY authentic Proof... This Biography is one of the Best ones out there in the Muslim, World, rather it got the best Prize in Makkah in the 1970s......

It was the WOMEN and CHILDREN the Jews were trying to kill... this is called MASSACRE!



That was Justice, so that this type of Evil planning does not take place against the Muslims in Madinah, by any other Non Muslim Tribes....

 

[Hugo]

Hugo you dont know what muslims find reliable and you dont know how the transmission works (muttawaitir and ahad is a good palce to start) - But as your last post showed you also base your entire idea on muslims sources anyway (ofcourse contradicting your criteria) - I want to see some non muslims sources of the Jews in arabia and even in the bani querza incident - you havent given one yet? If you like giving muslim sources and find them reliable or "plain history" so everything muslim sources say is plain history?

It is a typical bluff to tell someone they don't know. I have tried to give YOU a starting point that was accessible from 3 different sources all readily available even if you regard Wikipedia as weak. In a way you are right, I have not given you one source I have given you over 150 separate reference's all referring directly or indirectly to the Medina incident and in return all you can do, and any one can do it, is mention that there is a science to hadith and its terminology is huge and often complicated and of course I am asking questions about God.

I have stated the usual criteria for using sources and if the Muslim ones are different then tell us what they are and cite some sources so that I and others can look them up? I cannot see how my criteria contradict anything and all I have stated is the usual scholarly practice that you can find in any University anywhere. Look though the list I have given you and you tell me if there are any non Muslim sources - its time you did some work instead of pontificating.

Finally, suppose there are NO non Muslim sources, that all we know about the Medina incident was written by Muslim historians - what would that prove? As it happens I have read quite a few books written by Muslims on history and more often that not they are obviously eye witness accounts or accounts given by eye witnesses. So what is your point? I guess the issue is that you expect the facts to be accepted as well as the interpretation - in simple terms if the Muslim viewpoint is a just execution was carried out I must accept it. But any incident, any fact is open to interpretation.

To make the point simple, if I look at a Jewish account and that says it was a massacre by YOU logic they must also be right because the facts are the same. That is why we have to make judgements and why we come to different answers.

 

[Zafran]

It is a typical bluff to tell someone they don't know. I have tried to give YOU a starting point that was accessible from 3 different sources all readily available even if you regard Wikipedia as weak. In a way you are right, I have not given you one source I have given you over 150 separate reference's all referring directly or indirectly to the Medina incident and in return all you can do, and any one can do it, is mention that there is a science to hadith and its terminology is huge and often complicated and of course I am asking questions about God

Hugo its a wikipedia article for goodness sake - if you used that has your source in university you wouldnt get a very good mark its that simple.

I have stated the usual criteria for using sources and if the Muslim ones are different then tell us what they are and cite some sources so that I and others can look them up? I cannot see how my criteria contradict anything and all I have stated is the usual scholarly practice that you can find in any University anywhere. Look though the list I have given you and you tell me if there are any non Muslim sources - its time you did some work instead of pontificating.

Finally, suppose there are NO non Muslim sources, that all we know about the Medina incident was written by Muslim historians - what would that prove? As it happens I have read quite a few books written by Muslims on history and more often that not they are obviously eye witness accounts or accounts given by eye witnesses. So what is your point? I guess the issue is that you expect the facts to be accepted as well as the interpretation - in simple terms if the Muslim viewpoint is a just execution was carried out I must accept it. But any incident, any fact is open to interpretation

Hugo in your "scholarly practice" this wouldnt work as a fact - you would have to prove the incident by using non muslims sources as well (which I'm still waiting for so that we can actually take your "scholarly practice" seriously). Its heavily important to your secular criteria . So far you have only used muslim sources and your calling it a fact, If that is the case then what about other things Muslim sources say are they also facts? You should see now how your clearly contradicting yourself and the criteria you set out.

This is the fifth time I'm repeating it - everyone else knows what I want from you yet you still seem to either 1 not get it or 2 Just dont want to answer it because you know that it contradicts your criteria.

 

[Hugo]

Hugo its a wikipedia article for goodness sake - if you used that has your source in university you wouldnt get a very good mark its that simple.

Let me be clear here, I have suggested you look at Wikipedia and although you are right that in general one should not quote from it because its content may not be reliable. However, your mistake is therefore to assume that anything we find there must be wrong or suspect. Every academic in the world uses Wikipedia, every day because its coverage is so vast. What I and other academics say is that if one is beginning a scholarly review it is invariably a very good place to start and more often than not it has a very full bibliography and subject outline. Secondly, there are a huge number of things where no universal definition applies or something is regarded as obvious or common knowledge. In such cases it is permissible to use Wikepedia if for no other reason that it is available. For example, no less a luminary that J. Craig Venter, who famously has created artificial life earlier this year, gave a lecture in London where he used a quote from Wikipedia. Similarly, suppose you wanted to write about the notion of “best practice” then it is acceptable to define it as you want or use Wikepedia to do it. Where it becomes wrong is when you are quoting say a theory or reporting what someone said or did and in such a cases you should go to the primary source or at least as close as you can get to it.

Hugo in your "scholarly practice" this wouldnt work as a fact - you would have to prove the incident by using non Muslims sources as well (which I'm still waiting for so that we can actually take your "scholarly practice" seriously). Its heavily important to your secular criteria . So far you have only used muslim sources and your calling it a fact, If that is the case then what about other things Muslim sources say are they also facts? You should see now how your clearly contradicting yourself and the criteria you set out.

It is difficult to know where to start as so far you have offered nothing to the discussion and your only contribution is to harp on about ‘Muslim sources’ and were there any Jews there. I will try therefore to summarise the arguments from sources that you can trace on the web but to keep postings small I will have to do it over 2 or 3 posts. Firstly, I cannot quite see the logic that says I must use non Muslim sources to prove a fact, or the Medina facts in particular - unless of course we are to assume that all Muslim sources are untrustworthy? I think you are muddled over what a fact might be and an interpretation put upon those facts.

One example, before I offer a more extensive answer. In the source I quote in the next post we are told the Aisha reported "..the Angel Gabriel appeared to him and was removing dost...". According to you is this a reliable fact that any historian might use, did she see the angel, did any one see the angel?

 

[Hugo]

This is the fifth time I'm repeating it - everyone else knows what I want from you yet you still seem to either 1 not get it or 2 Just dont want to answer it because you know that it contradicts your criteria.

In my first post I will begin by saying there are literally 1000s of articles on the Banu Quraiza incident. I have located several that you can access and will review them over a number of posts. But to begin, let’s look at one by Hamza Hashem and you can find it in full at http://foreverislam.blogspot.com/2010/02/banu-qurayza-massacre-or-myth.html. I cite this one because I think it states the orthodox Muslim position though it is not fully referenced but let us see if you can say a simple yes or no to its conclusions. I just summarise here its finding but expect you to check it out in the full article otherwise we are just wasting our time. Hashem only uses Muslim sources because he rightly regards those are the principle, perhaps only ones though he does hint at possible Jewish sources.

1. Hashem assumes there were Jews in Medina. Indeed I have been unable to find an account anywhere that does not take this point for granted though occasionally it is supported by a reference to the Qu’ran or one of the accepted hadith collections.

Comment – therefore there seems no reasonable grounds for even suggesting that Jews were not resident in Medina or its environs.​

2. Hashem accepts that the Medina incident regarding the Banu Qurayza is a fact of history. Where he differs is largely related to the scale of the executions that followed their defeat.

3. Hashem states that the majority of information on the incident has been extracted from the work of Ibn Ishaq and since we know that this work only survives as recensions and is largely now known through the recension attributed to Ibn Hisham. The argument presented therefore rests on showing that this Muslim historian cannot be trusted and that presumption is itself based on the view that the standards for Sirah do not meet the high standards demanded of hadith. In short Ibn Ishaq is often regarded as a liar and imposter and we are told in this case that he might have relied primarily on the descendants of Banu Qurayza for details, a non Muslim source.

Comment - This theses is not without problems because, as Hashem points out, it only suggest the possibility of error, it cannot unequivocally demonstrate them. The thesis is also uncomfortable because I do not know of a single biography of the prophet that does not rely in large part on the work of Ibn Ishaq. If the thesis is correct, then much that is known about the prophet; is now no more than speculation.​

4. Hashem suggests that Ibn Ishaq’s works is based on Jewish sources.

Comment - this must mean such sources existed if only in oral forms. If one rejects this idea then we more or less have to conclude that Ibn Ishaq invented or embroidered whatever stories he found, from Muslim sources – why he would do that and in so doing bring shame on Islam is hard to explain.​

5. Finally Hashem asks if Ibn Ishaq is correct why are there so few other records. From an Islamic perspective Hashem suggests there are just 3 examples and if you read the article in full you will find them quoted there.

Comment - However, none of the three can be accepted as historical evidence since all rely on the miraculous so cannot possibly be corroborated – there is talk of the Angel Gabriel and like any revelation what is written in the Qu’ran amounts technically to hearsay. Nevertheless, it is a point but for all we know there were other accounts which may have been lost or destroyed or hidden because of the ordure consequent on the actions taken. It is not unknown is it for books and records to be destroyed and such destruction was even carried out on the Qu’ran itself.​

6. The final section more or less says that if indeed the executions did take place then it was a former Jew (Sa’d b. Mu’adh) who was responsible.

Comment - But Jews never used Deuteronomy 20:12-14 as a precedent as this severe command, given to Moses, was for a specific purpose and for a specific time (c. 1,400 BC) and for a specific place. However, we must not forget that whatever happened Mohammed’s approval would have been necessary.

One might lastly point out his concluding remark which to me practically invalidates all he has said, to quote Hashem - “I will simply leave off with the fact that nowhere before, or after has such an event happened”. Well this is simply untrue since Islamic history is replete with massacres. 4,000 Jews at Granada in 1066, 100,000 Hindus on a single day in 1399, a million or so Christian Armenians in the early 1900's.​

 

[Zafran]

Hugo before you go further you still dont get the point - its quite simple - the Bani querza incident and Jews actually being in medina is all based on muslim sources - you have clearly shown this on all your posts.

If yes then why do you accept it as a fact? if you do accept it as a fact then does that not mean that other things Islamic sources as well should also be taken as facts as well if not why not? We are not talking about Interpreataion we are talking about how you made this event factual in the first place with your secular outlook? Is that clear.

 

[Hugo]

Hugo before you go further you still dont get the point - its quite simple - the Bani querza incident and Jews actually being in medina is all based on muslim sources - you have clearly shown this on all your posts. If yes then why do you accept it as a fact? if you do accept it as a fact then does that not mean that other things Islamic sources as well should also be taken as facts as well if not why not? We are not talking about Interpretation we are talking about how you made this event factual in the first place with your secular outlook? Is that clear.

I don't think you appreciate the import of what you are saying here so I will explain.

1. In all the Banu Quereza accounts I have read everyone agrees that the sources are Muslim ones though more often that not they suggest things like Jewish oral records. I accept that verdict, I cannot do much else.

2. You now seem to be arguing that because I or anyone accepts, using Muslim (though the logic must apply to any source) sources that if one event is true then I must accept that all Muslim reported events are also true? Of course we can reverse this and say if a Muslim sources is shown to be untrue then all Muslim sources are untrue. I do not think this can possibly be logical and each event must be treated the same way and with the necessary scepticism and investigation/corroboration.

3. Now the fact is that Ibn Ishaq is unquestionably a Muslim source so either we accept what he says or not. You seem to be suggesting that because it is Muslim we accept it in which case 600 Jews were massacred or Executed depending on your point of view. Alternatively, we regard this Muslim source as unreliable and since there are almost no other records about the event in question we are left in a kind of historical vacuum and be content with saying it might or might not be true.

 

[Zafran]

I don't think you appreciate the import of what you are saying here so I will explain.

1. In all the Banu Quereza accounts I have read everyone agrees that the sources are Muslim ones though more often that not they suggest things like Jewish oral records. I accept that verdict, I cannot do much else

This is one of the problems you talk about Jewish oral records but lets be honest nobody actaully knows what they actually said or even if they did talk about the incident - so its not the best proof - all we have as you have stated are muslim sources.

2. You now seem to be arguing that because I or anyone accepts, using Muslim (though the logic must apply to any source) sources that if one event is true then I must accept that all Muslim reported events are also true? Of course we can reverse this and say if a Muslim sources is shown to be untrue then all Muslim sources are untrue. I do not think this can possibly be logical and each event must be treated the same way and with the necessary scepticism and investigation/corroboration.

This is the main point - Lets be very specific - you accept that the bani Querza happend or that the Jews were in medina entirely based on muslim sources - But then you pick and choose what you want to believe within muslim sources. You talk about Corroboration but you dont even know if the incident is corrobarated - you also say you have to be sceptical - what of - its ok to be sceptical about the number, its ok about the Jews being there but the rest of the account you reject? - why and how do you come to that conclusion? You still have not shown how you discriminate from one muslim source to another and why one part of the same source is reliable whilst the other one isnt?

3. Now the fact is that Ibn Ishaq is unquestionably a Muslim source so either we accept what he says or not. You seem to be suggesting that because it is Muslim we accept it in which case 600 Jews were massacred or Executed depending on your point of view. Alternatively, we regard this Muslim source as unreliable and since there are almost no other records about the event in question we are left in a kind of historical vacuum and be content with saying it might or might not be true.

This is the problem Ibn Ishaq gives a specifc account and certianly doesnt present it the way you do - So ultimately you like to pick and choose from the same source - how do you do that and how do you discriminate within the same account? Its ok to accept the number but not the rest? whats the criteria? Is he just a lying when you want him to lie and telling the truth when you want him to tell the truth?

 

[جوري]

^^ 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?

 

[Hugo]

This is one of the problems you talk about Jewish oral records but lets be honest nobody actaully knows what they actually said or even if they did talk about the incident - so its not the best proof - all we have as you have stated are muslim sources.

I don't talk about Jewish oral records its Muslim commentators who do that because they want to discredit Ibn Ishaq and you would see this if you have bothered to read the references I gave you.

This is the main point - Lets be very specific - you accept that the bani Querza happend or that the Jews were in medina entirely based on muslim sources - But then you pick and choose what you want to believe within muslim sources. You talk about Corroboration but you dont even know if the incident is corrobarated - you also say you have to be sceptical - what of - its ok to be sceptical about the number, its ok about the Jews being there but the rest of the account you reject? - why and how do you come to that conclusion? You still have not shown how you discriminate from one muslim source to another and why one part of the same source is reliable whilst the other one isnt?

This is not an honest assessment. Certainly I accept from Muslim sources that the incident happened but it is YOU who are picking and choosing, you who are deciding which bits of Ibn Ishaq to accept. I keep telling you and the best articles on the subject by Muslim authors tell you that Ibn Ishaq's accounts are the only ones that give any details and the orthodox Muslim position is that his writings are suspect and the reason mostly given is that he did not use the same high standards of evidence typical in approved hadith collections. As I have pointed out there are a few other Muslim sources but they are inconclusive.

So one discriminates based on corroborations, internal evidence, lexicography etc and that is why one document can be accepted and another not and different scholars may well take different positions. However, one cannot do a blanket acceptance can you that would be an absurdity. Of course typically you and I (I assumes) don't have the technical apparatus to do this with ancient documents or access to them so we rely on scholarly reviews and by reading several we can reach our own informed conclusions. If you do that some will come down on Ibn Ishaq' side and some not, some will see it as a massacre, some as executions and some as a minor skirmish and some dismiss it altogether.