Muhammad - war is deceipt

event_horizon

An interesting account of a hand picked assassination squad Muhammad personally selected to execute a group of Jews traveling to Medina for what the Jews thought were 'peace' talks.

Unfortunately, the Jews were unaware that peace talks can only be conducted with Muslims when they find themselves to be weaker than the disbelievers (ie., 'reloading'). However, Muslims should never seek diplomacy if they are superior in strength to their enemies - and they are to continue fighting until an Islamic theocracy is established.

As the old saying goes, 'those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it'.

Hopefully, non-Muslims will learn from this massacre and avoid repeating any similar blunders in the future.

The assassination of another Jewish leader in Kheibar occurred a short while later. Muhammad sent a hand-picked "commando unit" of thirty killers to Kheibar disguised as an official diplomatic approach to the Jews there. The Muslims negotiated with their leader, Usayr ibn Razim, and convinced him to go to Medina to negotiate with Muhammad. The Muslims offered to guarantee his safety with their own escort of thirty men. Among Arabs, nothing is more valued than a man's word, his pledge of safety and protection, so ibn Razim felt safe. Somewhere on the road to Medina, however, the Muslims fell upon the Jews and killed them all.

When the leader of the commandos returned to Medina he was met by Muhammad, who congratulated him on his work. Muhammad was earning an ability for his ruthlessness and an ability to kill at a distance just as the size of his army was increasing and he was becoming better able to support his followers economically. The message to his opponents outside the cities was that they, too, were not safe as long as they failed to join him.

Muhammad: Islam's first great general, p 129

shafique

As for the specific allegation that a 'commando unit' was sent in 7th century Arabia is laughable (it ignores the actual historical record of who was sent). We've discussed this before and the allegation is based on a selective reading of the available historical records. The fullest account of the incident records that the people killed were armed soldiers who turned on the Muslims.

Eh, your memory is letting you down - we have discussed this incident at length - and you failed then. Did you think the facts have changed now? Or is it just because you have found another quote from another 'I-spy-book'?

In any case though - the killing of armed men after a skirmish is not a war crime. And in any case, disinformation (in general) is allowed in warfare. Usayr was a military leader and he had a group of thirty soldiers accompanying him. The Muslims had an equal number of soldiers. Both were on a diplomatic mission, both were armed and both groups were military.

You may want to look up the meaning and origins of the word Chivalry and see where they got the idea from. 😉

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique

For the full account of what happened (and eh last time failed to tackle the point that this account gives more information that the selective quotes he gave).

It goes to show that an incident that is free from deceipt can be spun to be something it isn't. But we've seen, this is the only way eh's fantasies of Islamic teachings can be justified.

It has been mentioned that a party of Banu Nadhir, after their exile, had settled down among their brethren at Khaibar. One of their leaders, Huyay bin Akhtab, had been executed along with Banu Quraidhah. But another of their leaders, Sallam bin Abu Huqaiq, generally known as Abu Rafe’, was now the centre of their intrigues. He had taken a prominent part in the confederate force, which had besieged Medina and was now busy in inciting Ghatafan and other tribes of Nejd to further depredations and aggression. Five men of Khazraj were appointed to carry out the execution of Abu Rafe’, which they accomplished successfully. Abu Rafe’s place among the Jews of Khaibar was taken by Usair bin Razam, who was not less bitterly opposed to Islam and the Muslims than Abu Rafe’. He now determined to carry into effect the designs of Abu Rafe’ which he had not been able to accomplish. His very first action was to harangue the assembled Jews, informing them that he had determined upon certain new plans through which, with the help of Ghatafan and other tribes, he would accomplish the ruin of Islam and the Muslims. Thereafter, he started visiting Ghatafan and other tribes of Nejd and so provoked them that they began to prepare another expedition against Medina. When the Holy Prophet learnt of his activities, he sent Abdullah bin Rawaha with three Companions to Khaibar, to gather intelligence and return quickly. On their return they reported that what they had seen and heard left no doubt in their minds that the Jews were actively plotting against the Holy Prophet and the Muslims. About the same time, a non-Muslim, Kharajah bin Husail, happened to arrive in Medina from the direction of Khaibar and confirmed the report of Abdullah bin Rawaha. He said that he had left Usair making preparation to lead an attack against Medina. The Holy Prophet thereupon decided to make an effort to come to some understanding with Usair whereby all these conspiracies and alarms and excursions might be terminated and conditions of peace and security might be established. If Usair could be persuaded to abandon his mischievous activities directed against the Muslims, he could be acknowledged as the chief of Khaibar. With this in mind, he deputed Abdullah bin Rawaha and thirty Companions to proceed to Khaibar and to persuade Usair to come to Medina with a view of discussing such a possibility. When Abdullah’s party arrived in Khaibar they called upon Usair to guarantee their security while they were in Khaibar; Usair agreed to do so on a mutual basis. During the conversation that ensued Abdullah explained that the Holy Prophet’s purpose was to establish peace and security and to put an end to all fighting and hostility, and that the best way of achieving this was that he should himself proceed to Medina and talk directly to the Holy Prophet. If an understanding could be reached, the Holy Prophet would deal graciously with him and might recognize him as the chief of Khaibar. Usair expressed his approval of such a design and called together the leading personalities among the Jews of Khaibar for consultation. Most of them opposed the plan and in order to discourage Usair said that they did not expect that Muhammad would acknowledge him as chief of Khaibar. He told them that his own appraisal of the situation was that Muhammad was sick of the constant state of conflict and hostility and was anxious to put an end to it.

Thus Usair bin Razam agreed to accompany Abdullah bin Rawaha and his party to Medina and, on his side, selected an equal number of Jews to accompany him to Medina. It is difficult to determine whether he had any secret design in his mind against Abdullah and his party, or whether he changed his mind after the two parties had set out from Khaibar on the journey to Medina.

What happened is that when the parties arrived at Qarqarah, distant six miles from Khaibar, in the course of an apparently amicable conversation Usair stretched his hand towards the sword of Abdullah bin Unais Ansari who, apprehending mischief from him, spurred his mount forward and then veering round towards Usair called out to him, ‘Enemy of God, have you determined upon treachery?’ To which Usair made no reply. Abdullah repeated his question but Usair still remained silent and adopted an aggressive attitude. This was possibly a predetermined signal for the Jews to fall upon the Muslims and to destroy them. Swords were drawn on both sides and though the parties were equal in number and several of the Muslims were wounded, yet none of them was killed and they succeeded in disposing of all the Jews.

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/muhammad_seal_of_the_prophets/chapter_11.html

event_horizon

The fullest account of the incident records that the people killed were armed soldiers who turned on the Muslims.

Not only is this account not mentioned in any modern account of the events - Montgomery Watt, Maxime Rodinson, et al, but the account (that the Jews were armed and attacked the Muslims) is not mentioned by either Ibn Ishaq or Tabari.

In other words, please try and remain consistent.

Why would Baldhuri ignore the killing of 7000 and only list 4000 captives, and why would John of Nikiu not give any numbers at all? What evidence do we have that Theophanes' numbers for those killed is accurate - he wasn't there after all, and doesn't seem to have given his sources)

Balhaduri's figures for those captured doesn't corroborate the supposed massacre - if anything it goes to show that there wasn't a massacre

philosophy-dubai/for-shafique-caesarea-and-000-killed-t40430.html

Indeed, why would the earliest historian on Muhammad and another historian who is second to only Ibn Ishaq leave out the details your author mentions? From which early historian does he get them from (it isn't Ishaq or Tabari) and if your author does get these accounts from an early historian, why would both Ibn Ishaq and Tabari not include these details in their accounts?

You seem to be full of contradictions. One moment you're pointing out that because a Muslim historian does not mention a massacre (only implies one), the massacre of 7,000 mentioned by Theophanes must be suspect. Yet here you are quoting from a dubious author who does not cite his source nor are the accounts he provides corroborated by two of the earliest and most prolific Muslim historians. So, what does that make your author's version of events?

But hey, why try and remain consistent?

shafique

The fact is that you couldn't find any account which contradicted this fuller account of the incident - and insisted that Uzair was an unarmed diplomat, when he was actually a military commander with an armed entourage.

The analogy about your belief in 7000 killed in Caesarea has it totally the wrong way round. There you are basing your 'belief' on a one-line report by Theophanes. You are taking the briefest account and presenting it as the most authoritative. This, notably, is exactly what Kennedy et al do NOT do - i.e. they do not mention either a massacre or that figure of 7000.

Here it is the the other way round. There is no denying Uzayr was a military commander, no denying he would have taken 30 armed men with him, no denying the Muslims had equal numbers.

With Theophanes you are taking the briefest account at face value, here I'm presenting the fullest account and showing your spin relies on ignoring facts that exist in historical documents.

Cheers,
Shafique

event_horizon

The fact is that you couldn't find any account which contradicted this fuller account of the incident

HELLO.

None of the accounts say the Jews were armed or that they attacked the Muslims.

Yet, here you are claiming that Theophanes' account contradicts al-Baladuri's.

There you are basing your 'belief' on a one-line report by Theophanes. You are taking the briefest account and presenting it as the most authoritative.

As opposed to the fact that neither Ibn Ishaq nor Tabari mention that the Jews were armed or that they attacked the Muslims. The account you provided is from a modern apologetic book on Muhammad.

Here it is the the other way round. There is no denying Uzayr was a military commander, no denying he would have taken 30 armed men with him, no denying the Muslims had equal numbers.

Here it is the other way around. There is no denying that Caesarea was under seige. There's no denying the city was taken by force. No denying that the city was 'reduced' and subjected to 'horrors', no denying that some of its inhabitants were enslaved and no denying that Muslims had a history of brutally treating inhabitants of cities if they resisted.

With Theophanes you are taking the briefest account at face value, here I'm presenting the fullest account and showing your spin relies on ignoring facts that exist in historical documents.

On the contrary, not only is my account verified by other modern and credible historians, but it is based on what Tabari and Ishaq say. Rodinson et al say the men were hand picked assassins. I'm guessing that other historical sources shed more light on Muhammad's picking of these men and their histories.

shafique

The account is not in dispute - what is dispute is your spin which relies on a selective reading of the historical record.

A military commander with 30 armed men were beaten in a fight against an equal number of Muslim solidiers when a fight broke out when they were on their way to meet Muhammad, pbuh, who had extended an offer to talk.

Compare the full account given above, with your one-line from Theophanes which most historians ignore when describing the events of Caesarea's capture in 640. Even Theophanes doesn't describe the event as a massacre - you are the one labelling the capture as such - and the other historians quoted don't mention the 7000 killed, let alone a 'massacre'.

But of course, your interpretation is correct in your mind. May I refer you to the thread describing your other 'quaint beliefs'. 😉

Cheers,
Shafique

event_horizon

Compare the full account given above, with your one-line from Theophanes which most historians ignore when describing the events of Caesarea's capture in 640.

Hello.

Pot calling kettle black.

Which historians say that the Jews attacked the Muslims and that they (the Jews) were armed?

I've quoted Watt, Rodinson and two or three other ones, and none of them side with your author's version of events.

Even Theophanes doesn't describe the event as a massacre

As opposed to not citing a primary source *at all* confirming your author's version of events?

You so funny.

shafique

Glad you think I'm funny.

I think its hilarious that you have a one-liner that is discounted in all the historians who describe the conquest of Caesarea and I have a full account of a military leader and his soldiers being killed after a skirmish with an equal number of Muslim soldiers.

At the end of the day, you are going to believe your I-spy-book of historical facts and I'm going to point out that your version of events is disputed (to put it mildly). Your selective quoting has been exposed - and I've simply challenged you to show that the full account above is not accurate.

Cheers,
Shafique

event_horizon

I think its hilarious that you have a one-liner that is discounted in all the historians who describe the conquest of Caesarea and I have a full account of a military leader and his soldiers being killed after a skirmish with an equal number of Muslim soldiers.

Your 'account' comes from an apologetic book on Muhammad - that does not cite its sources and his version of events is flatly contradicted by the accounts given by respected modern historians - Watt, Rodinson, et al.

That 'one-liner' comes from a primary historical source and, ironically, is more than what your author has provided to show that the Jews were armed and attacked the Muslim 'assassins'.

t the end of the day, you are going to believe your I-spy-book of historical facts and I'm going to point out that your version of events is disputed (to put it mildly).

By whom? Moreover, if 'disputed' in your world means some historians do not mention the massacre at Caesarea, then what does that make of your author's account of the massacre of thirty Jews on a diplomatic trip? Which modern historians mention your author's version of events?

Please try and remain consistent (I know this is difficult for you).

Your selective quoting has been exposed - and I've simply challenged you to show that the full account above is not accurate.

Right after you show me that the quote from Theophanes is not accurate.

Just curious, but do you not see how often you contradict yourself? I've never come across someone who's reasoning was so contradictory as yours.

shafique

You could have just said that you can't dispute the full account above and want to believe your selective spin.

As for Caesarea - please refer to the thread you started and ran out of steam on when you were exposed editing the one line quote and eventually acknowledging that you only have that one line! I pointed out that Kennedy et al all don't mention any killing of 7000, so your argument is with historians who ignore Theophanes, not me.

My quote above was not doctored and you have been challenged to show is inaccurate. Good luck with that.

Cheers
Shafique

event_horizon

In other words, I take it that you acknowledge contradicting yourself/getting owned here:

That 'one-liner' comes from a primary historical source and, ironically, is more than what your author has provided to show that the Jews were armed and attacked the Muslim 'assassins'.

Can I also assume that you do not have a primary source to back up your apologetic author's claim?

And, from your own posts in the other thread, even if you did find an early historian who said that the Jews were armed and attacked the Muslims, this account should be treated with caution for the reasons you have already given for viewing Theophanes' account as suspect.

shafique

You can assume what you like from the full and unaltered quotation I have provided.

We can compare and contrast the accounts and see which gives more details.

Theophanes one line is ignored by historians such as Kennedy when they describe the event in the other thread. Your argument is with those historians who don't mention a massacre.

Cheers
Shafique

event_horizon

We can compare and contrast the accounts and see which gives more details.

If the details are fabricated/from a suspect source, then it wouldn't matter how many 'details' your account has.

Either your author made these claims up or he took them from an unreliable historian or both. We know that Ibn Ishaq *and* Tabari do not say that the Jews were armed and attacked the Muslims.

Modern (credible) historians, who know of the men selected to go on the 'delegation' describe them as assassins - probably because they have a prior history of assassination.

Your author, who 'gives more details', does not even mention this factoid.

shafique

Many modern day historians also blame Pilate for killing Jesus and disagree with the account in Matthew which explicitly absolves Pilate who Matthew says washed his hands and said he would not be responsible.

And as for your 'probably' were assassins - let me challenge this new belief of yours and ask for a reference from a historian that says whether they have any evidence that the Muslim delegation weren't just soldiers accompanying a miliatary commander and his armed guards.

Produce the evidence (as opposed to the spin or 'opinion') or we'll have another case of All Mouth, No Trousers.

Cheers
Shafique

event_horizon

We've already been over this - the leader of the Muslim contingent was the guy who assassinated another one of Muhammad's opponents.

Credible historians know this, that is why they correctly term the group of Muslims as 'assassins', 'murderers', 'thugs', etc.

Produce the evidence (as opposed to the spin or 'opinion') or we'll have another case of All Mouth, No Trousers.

Right after you produce the evidence that the Jewish contingent were armed and attacked the Muslims.

shafique

So, yet another quaint belief that the military commander and his armed guards were civilian diplomats.

I simply asked whether you had any evidence that the full account I quoted is a fabrication - but we only get your beliefs.

Cheers
Shafique

event_horizon

perhaps you're once again confused - you have not provided any primary source to show that the Jews were 'armed' guards. The sources say, as do modern historians, that the Jews were on a diplomatic mission to Medina.

It was at least one of the Muslims, hand picked by Muhammad (who married a six year old girl), who an assassin and also the leader of the Muslim delegation.

In fact, according to Arab custom, it would have been the Muslims who would have acted as the 'armed guards'.

shafique

Thanks for sharing your belief about what happened - however I can't see what evidence you have that the full account of the incident where a military commander and his armed guardslost a fight with an equal number of Musli$ soldiers.

It appears you really, really, really want to believe that selective readings of history are true.

However I note with amusement that the full quote exposes the spin that some have put on the incident.

Cheers
Shafique

event_horizon

Please post the source showing that the Jewish men, on a diplomatic mission to Medina, were armed and, indeed, attacked their Muslim travelers.

Strange enough, your 'fuller' account does not once mention that the leader of the Muslim group just so happened to also be an assassin.

Odd.