Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Repeating yourself won't change the fact you haven't got anything new to add to your spin and selective quotes.

When you have something new, perhaps I can add something to this conversation - otherwise, the quotes and references are there for everyone to read and make up their own minds.

Excellent- imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, as they say!

I couldn't have said it better myself...



Cheers,
Shafique

Cool - in the mean time, care to post Ibn Ishaq's account of the massacre and compare this to your author's version of events?

Does Ibn Ishaq say the Jewish men were a) armed, b) soldiers and c) attacked the Muslims?

Please refer back to my comments about selective quotes and inability to address the fuller account I've given.

Ishaq doesn't spin the story as a bunch of unarmed diplomats, that's your imagination running overtime. Ishaq also does not say they were a. unarmed, b. not soldiers and c. did not attack the muslims first. (And in any case, you haven't actually quoted Ishaq here - but if you have, you can perhaps re-post)

As I said in my previous few posts, I'll happily revisit this once you have any new evidence to support your spin.

Cheers,
Shafique

'Inability to address'? I take it you're now regurgitating lines rather than reading actual posts.

I've already addressed two aspects of your author's account. If you've bothered to follow rule number one, you would have been forced to address both of them by now.

But here they are, once more:

1) Why did your author not mention that the men Muhammad sent and later congratulated for a 'job well done' were killers?

2) From which primary source did your author use when he claimed the Jewish men Muhammad's soldiers assassinated were a) armed, b) soldiers and c) attacked the Muslims?

that's your imagination running overtime.

Thank you for confirming that Ishaq's account does not support your author's claims that the Jewish men were armed, soldiers and attacked the Muslims.

I'm glad you read my post.

Let's review what actually has been posted in this thread.

You post a brief extract from Richard Gabriel's book 'Islam's first General', I posted a longer and fuller extract from Sir MZ Khan's book, 'Muhammad, Seal of the Prophets'.

In the first Gabriel says the soldiers sent by Muhammad, pbuh, are 'killers'. He does not say that Uzair/Yusayr/Aseer/Basheer bin Razam/Razim (same person, just different spellings in different accounts) was not a military commander or that his entourage were not soldiers - i.e. he does not contradict the longer account in Khan's book.

You've ever since blustered and blubbed about providing references - but I gave you a fuller reference than you did (you didn't bother to name the author in your post, or give a link - but it is easy enough to find on Google books).

Gabriel doesn't call Usayr an 'unarmed diplomat' - that's your spin. (Although, I suspect you've just copied this from an I-spy-book-of-Orientalism website )


Therefore, by my reckoning I've more than matched (if not exceeded) the standards you've practiced and have repeatedly invited you to provide some new evidence. Thus far we only have your quote from Gabriel's book.

Over to you, mon ami.

Cheers,
Shafique

Gabriel doesn't call Usayr an 'unarmed diplomat' - that's your spin. (Although, I suspect you've just copied this from an I-spy-book-of-Orientalism website

Actually, if you recall, I got that from Montgomery Watt.

Now, the question is, where did your author get his facts from? And if he actually got them from a primary source, should they be viewed as suspect since neither Tabari nor Ibn Ishaq mention that the Jews were armed, soldiers and attacked the Muslims.

Therefore, by my reckoning I've more than matched (if not exceeded) the standards you've practiced and have repeatedly invited you to provide some new evidence.

We'll see about that. Why don't you first answer my question to see how accurate your 'fuller' account is in the first place? After all, no where does your author mention the *fact* that the men Muhammad hand picked were killers - but other historians are careful enough to point this fact out.

Was this spin on your author's part, or just poor research?

So, the fact remains - you have only quoted Richard Gabriel from his book 'Isam's first General' and haven't actually provided any quote (from a primary source or even another historian) that contradicts the fuller account I have posted.

What's the matter eh - you're usually quite quick to cut and paste references and quotes. I'm satisfied that the fuller account exposes your personal spin for what it is (and perhaps corrects Watt's interpretation as well), so it is up to you to show why Khan's fuller account is actually wrong.

I understand you want to believe it is wrong. But you'll excuse me if I ask you for more than a quote from Gabriel.

Cheers,
Shafique

Actually, I have already posted Tabari, Watt and Rodinson before - not one of these historians claim that the Jews were armed, soldiers, and attacked the Muslims.

Watt and Rodinson are both clear - the men Muhammad handpicked for this diplomatic journey were killers.

Why did your author not mention this?

(and when will you provide a primary source stating that the Jewish men were armed, etc?)

You have only quoted Gabriel in this thread.

If you have primary sources or quotes from other historians, please post them here and show how they contradict or are more detailed that the description I've posted. The soldiers picked to accompany the military commander were indeed good at their jobs (they were experienced soldiers, after all) - when have I disputed this fact. It actually shows good judgement on the Prophet's part to send competent soldiers to escord Usayr and the soldiers under his command.

What you are spinning is the attempt to label one group of soldiers as 'killers' or 'assassins' and the other group as 'unarmed diplomats'. Let's see what the primary sources actually say and compare Gabriel's short account with Khan's fuller account. I don't have any doubts over Khan's account - it just contains more info than the accounts you've pasted and exposes your spin on the event.

To be honest, unless I check out the claims or even quotes you post/paste, I reserve judgement - because you have a track record of actually changing quotes, let alone selectively spinning accounts.

Why don't you let the quotes speak for themselves - let's see the primary sources you keep going on about and check whether Gabriel's short account or Khan's fuller account is more accurate.

Over to you - put up or ....

Cheers,
Shafique

Is your old age catching up to you?

I already posted the quotes from Watt and Tabari previously - that was when you also posted Ishaq's account as well.

Now, the question still remains (amongst others), why did your 'fuller' account not mention the fact that the men Muhammad hand picked for this 'diplomatic' mission were killers?

You haven't posted any quotes in this thread - only Gabriels short extract.

AMNT - again?

Simple request - please provide any evidence that Khan's fuller report is contradicted by any primary source.

Cheers,
Shafique

Please provide any evidence that Gabriel's report is contradicted by any primary source.

Oh, and have you come around to answering my question of why Khan did not mention the fact that the men Muhammad hand picked were killers?

That seems like an important detail to leave out. Do you agree with me that this is an example of 'spin'?

So, no new evidence.

I responded to Gabriel's short quote with a longer, fuller quotation. My work is done - as I've exposed that your belief is based on a selective reading of history.

Your job is to show why you want us to believe Gabriel's shorter account. So far, we have only got your 'beliefs' - I have been referring to the full quote I posted. I've asked you to present any evidence that shows Khan's full report is contradicted by any primary sources. You've failed.

AMNT, again.

Cheers,
Shafique

I responded to Gabriel's short quote with a longer, fuller quotation. My work is done - as I've exposed that your belief is based on a selective reading of history.

So? There is no rule that a longer quote means that it is more accurate. I've asked you several times to find a primary source that says the Jews were armed, soldiers and attacked the Muslims - since no modern historian, such as Watt or Rodinson, have said this.

Further, I've already brought up the spin in your 'fuller' account by pointing out that your apologetic author does not mention the fact that the men Muhammad had hand picked were killers.

So, we've already established that your account contains spin and the rest of your author's analysis and version of events should be viewed with caution.

Thanks for sharing your beliefs.

I'll wait for some evidence to back up your belief.

I've merely countered your short quote from a book with a more fuller account from a different book. You have failed to produce any evidence to show that the fuller account is wrong or contradicted by any primary source.

Operative word, fail.

Cheers,
Shafique

Sorry - couldn't see a response beyond your babbling. Do you agree with me that your author's article contains spin for not mentioning the fact that the men Muhammad hand picked for a 'diplomatic' mission were killers?

We know you 'believe' Khan's fuller account is spin.

The question remains, can you provide any historical evidence that it is spin. Thus far the answer is a resounding no.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:We know you 'believe' Khan's fuller account is spin.

The question remains, can you provide any historical evidence that it is spin. Thus far the answer is a resounding no.

Cheers,
Shafique

Right back at you.

I don't have to provide any evidence - my account from Khan is more comprehensive than the short one you quoted from Gabriel. 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've blustered and moaned that we should not believe the fuller account, but it seems your only argument is that it does not accord with your preconceived ideas about Islamic history.

I'm happy for you to continue to believe your version of events based on a selective reading of history. But if you want to challenge Khan's account - provide some evidence. Gabriel's account is merely a truncated account of events - from which you've drawn the wrong conclusions.

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?

Cheers,
Shafique

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.

As I said, you are free to believe your spin is right.

My only request to you has been to provide any reference that contradicts the fuller account (which I posted in response to your brief quote).

So far, FAIL.

Cheers,
Shafiqiue

Fascinating. Now, can you tell me if you consider the fact that your author did not mention that the men Muhammad hand picked were killers to be an example of spin?

The full account states that the men were good soldiers - and that the Prophet, pbuh, was well advised to send out trained men to accompany the military commander and his soldiers (who were also 'killers').

I note that you are still trying to argue your belief is right, but without any evidence.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:The full account states that the men were good soldiers - and that the Prophet, pbuh, was well advised to send out trained men to accompany the military commander and his soldiers (who were also 'killers').

I note that you are still trying to argue your belief is right, but without any evidence.

Cheers,
Shafique

Ok - but which primary source says that the Jewish men were soldiers and where does it say that the Jewish men were 'killers', ie., assassins?

Further, the men Muhammad handpicked weren't just soldiers (I don't think your account says even that), they were 'assassins' who had previous experience executing Muhammad's opponents and critics.

Do you think it would be important to mention the fact that the men Muhammad hand picked were cold-blooded killers when analyzing this event?

Still banging on about your belief in your spin I see.

Until and unless you provide any reference that contradicts my longer quote (which was posted in response to your shorter quote), why should we believe your spin?

I fully understand that you want to believe your spin - that the Muslim soldiers were assassins and that the military commander was an 'unarmed diplomat' - but you will excuse me if I continue to ask you to provide any historical document that backs this up.

I've matched your short quote from Gabriel's book with a longer and fuller account from Sir Muhammad Khan's book. Now the ball is in your court - put up or shut up, as the saying goes. Provide SOME evidence from historical sources that back up your exposed spin.

Otherwise, All Mouth, No Trousers.


Cheers,
Shafique

Until and unless you provide any reference that contradicts my longer quote (which was posted in response to your shorter quote), why should we believe your spin?

I'm not asking you about my beliefs - I'm asking you if you believe that your quote contained spin - such as *not* mentioning the fact that the men Muhammad hand picked for a diplomatic mission were killers.

that the Muslim soldiers were assassins

That's not my opinion, that's a fact - some of the Muslim soldiers were assassins.

but you will excuse me if I continue to ask you to provide any historical document that backs this up.

I'll do the same for you.

Now the ball is in your court - put up or shut up, as the saying goes. Provide SOME evidence from historical sources that back up your exposed spin.

What evidence are you asking for? That the Jewish men were a) soldiers, b) armed and c) attacked the Muslims? Your quote makes that claim and that directly contradicts the conclusions of respected, heavyweight historians, such Watt and Rodinson. Since my authors have more credibility on the subject in their fingernail than your author's entire body mass, I would say the ball is actually in your court.

Yawn.

You quoted one author's summary, I gave you another fuller account.

The ball is in your court. Show that the fuller account is wrong by producing any historical evidence that contradicts it.

(You seem to be going on as if you have produced quotes from primary sources - you haven't. I'm asking you to now produce them, and you're running away. All Mouth, No Trousers - yet again)

Cheers,
Shafique

The ball is in your court. Show that the fuller account is wrong by producing any historical evidence that contradicts it.

Why? You haven't shown that my account from Gabriel, Watt and Rodinson were wrong. I've also quoted Tabari and you quoted Ishaq - neither author supports your author's conclusions either.

The ball is in your court because you posted a short extract from Gabriel and I replied with a longer and more detailed quote from Khan.

You haven't actually quoted Tabari etc. When/if you do, you'll see that they don't contradict Khan.

Over to you, young man.

Cheers,
Shafique