It shows that YOUR interpretation is spin (Gabriel, for example, doesn't say that the military commander and his entourage of soldiers were 'unarmed diplomats').
You're right, Gabriel DOESN'T say the villagers accompanying a tribal chieftain were soldiers. That shows YOUR interpretation is spin.
You've blustered and moaned that we should not believe the fuller account
You're the one who claimed to own a copy of Ibn Ishaq's biography of the prophet. Why don't you quote from Ishaq just to see whose version of events is more similar to Ishaq's?
Why are you so intent at not posting what Ishaq has to say?
but it seems your only argument is that it does not accord with your preconceived ideas about Islamic history.
No word, I take it, as to why your author does not mention the fact that the men Muhammad sent were killers.
Sending killers on a diplomatic mission? How is one to interpret that fact? Oh, never mind, your author does not mention it, so you don't have to explain that logic, right?
Why the reluctance to quote primary sources to show that the full account is wrong? Could it be that you don't, after all, have any evidence to this effect?
As with the last time, I don't currently have a copy of Ishaq. I can get a copy of Tabari, but I already posted it before and he does not say the Jews were armed, soldiers or even the ones to attack.
But the BIG point I was making, since page one, was about Theophanes' account and your dismissal of it because two other historians did not mention that seven thousand people were massacred by the Muslims.
Obviously, I was drawing parallels between that and your author's version of events - which we both know that neither Ishaq (which you claim to own) nor Tabari corroborate.
Don't you claim to be college educated? You could have fooled me.