Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

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.

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

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'.

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

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.

Just because you want to believe that the military commander and his soldiers were unarmed civilians does not make it so.

I gave you a full quote and linked to the book. You have only given accounts which give less detail and spin the story differently.

Cheers
Shafique

We already been over this - neither Tabari nor Ibn Ishaq mention that the Jews were 'armed soldiers' nor that they attacked the Muslim convoy.

Hey, I'm just trying to remain consistent here. You made a stink because only one ancient historian said that 7,000 Caesareans were massacred.

By my count, that's more than the zero early historians you have provided, but please correct me if my arithmetic is wrong here.

Anyways, regarding 'spin' - it's funny how at least four historians I quoted are influenced by some sort of spin.

Funnier, your author does not mention that the leader of the Muslim delegation just so happened to be an assassin hand picked by Muhammad.

I would think leaving that type of fact out would be considered spin. But what do you think? Do you think it's important to know that the Muslim delegation Muhammad sent were assassins?






* I underlined the main points of my post so I can get an answer to them.

Just to be pedandtic - assassins as a word did not exist in those times, it derives from Ishmaeli crack troops who killed surrepticiously. Bernard Lewis has a good book about the assassins.

Now, coming to your question about whether I have a problem with the Prophet, pbuh, sending out soldiers to accompany and military commander and his soldiers back to Medina for talks. No, I think it was quite sensible (and not to mention normal) to send soldiers to do this task. Events proved that this decision was wise indeed.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Just to be pedandtic - assassins as a word did not exist in those times, it derives from Ishmaeli crack troops who killed surrepticiously. Bernard Lewis has a good book about the assassins.

Now, coming to your question about whether I have a problem with the Prophet, pbuh, sending out soldiers to accompany and military commander and his soldiers back to Medina for talks. No, I think it was quite sensible (and not to mention normal) to send soldiers to do this task. Events proved that this decision was wise indeed.

Cheers,
Shafique

Do you have some type of comprehension disorder that explains why you misunderstand posts and respond to questions asked that have not nothing to do with the post you are addressing?

event horizon wrote:

shafique wrote:Just to be pedandtic - assassins as a word did not exist in those times, it derives from Ishmaeli crack troops who killed surrepticiously. Bernard Lewis has a good book about the assassins.

Now, coming to your question about whether I have a problem with the Prophet, pbuh, sending out soldiers to accompany and military commander and his soldiers back to Medina for talks. No, I think it was quite sensible (and not to mention normal) to send soldiers to do this task. Events proved that this decision was wise indeed.

Cheers,
Shafique

Do you have some type of comprehension disorder that explains why you misunderstand posts and respond to questions asked that have not nothing to do with the post you are addressing?

No, I don't think so.

I was just being pedantic about the use of the term assassins - and addressed your question about whether it was sensible or not to send soldiers to accompany a military commander and his entourage of armed men. What was unclear about my answer?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

event horizon wrote:

shafique wrote:Just to be pedandtic - assassins as a word did not exist in those times, it derives from Ishmaeli crack troops who killed surrepticiously. Bernard Lewis has a good book about the assassins.

Now, coming to your question about whether I have a problem with the Prophet, pbuh, sending out soldiers to accompany and military commander and his soldiers back to Medina for talks. No, I think it was quite sensible (and not to mention normal) to send soldiers to do this task. Events proved that this decision was wise indeed.

Cheers,
Shafique

Do you have some type of comprehension disorder that explains why you misunderstand posts and respond to questions asked that have not nothing to do with the post you are addressing?

No, I don't think so.

I was just being pedantic about the use of the term assassins - and addressed your question about whether it was sensible or not to send soldiers to accompany a military commander and his entourage of armed men. What was unclear about my answer?

Cheers,
Shafique

This is a tough one.

Please quote the question you were answering.

My question from my last post was:

Do you think it's important to know that the Muslim delegation Muhammad sent were assassins

I didn't ask you if it was sensible to send killers to escort thirty unarmed Jews on a diplomatic mission - just whether it would be important for a historian to mention this in his account.

Your 'fuller' account given by an apologist writer fails to include this detail. I'm wondering if you agree with me that this is an instance of 'spin' for not not including all of the facts - that the men handpicked by Muhammad were killers.

Your other unanswered questions are in regard to your author's source that the Jews were armed and that they attacked the Muslims - Tabari and Ibn Ishaq do not say they were armed nor that they (the Jews) attacked the Muslim delegation - did he make it up or did he get actually get it from a primary source.

The last question, then, is that since neither Tabari nor Ishaq mention this in their accounts, then why should we trust your apologetic author's claims that the Jews were armed and attacked the Muslims - especially when you made such a stink over Theophanes' account?

Are you sure you don't have reading comprehension problems?

So, you are complaining that Muhammad, pbuh, sent a competent contingent of 30 soldiers to escort the equal number of soldiers accompanying the military commander?

Perhaps the issue is that the military commander underestimated the military prowess of the Muslims and was unwise to have attacked them as described in the full account?

It seems like an eminently wise decision to send out competent soldiers. The last time I looked, soldiers who are well trained and are successful in battles against other soldiers are congratulated for doing their jobs.

Cheers,
Shafique

Just out of curiosity, but did you pass high school? middle school?

Do you realize your posts have nothing to do with what I'm actually typing?

For instance, I write:

event horizon wrote:I would think leaving that type of fact out would be considered spin. But what do you think? Do you think it's important to know that the Muslim delegation Muhammad sent were assassins?

You 'respond':

shafique wrote:Now, coming to your question about whether I have a problem with the Prophet, pbuh, sending out soldiers to accompany and military commander and his soldiers back to Medina for talks. No, I think it was quite sensible (and not to mention normal) to send soldiers to do this task. Events proved that this decision was wise indeed.

NO. That wasn't *my* question.

!!!!

This was my question:

I would think leaving that type of fact out would be considered spin. But what do you think? Do you think it's important to know that the Muslim delegation Muhammad sent were assassins?

and again

I would think leaving that type of fact out would be considered spin. But what do you think? Do you think it's important to know that the Muslim delegation Muhammad sent were assassins?

and again

I would think leaving that type of fact out would be considered spin. But what do you think? Do you think it's important to know that the Muslim delegation Muhammad sent were assassins?

You are seriously the dumbest poster, hands down, I have ever come across. I asked you if leaving certain details out of an account was considered spin - that had nothing to with whether you thought it was 'sensible' to send killers to escort thirty unarmed diplomats.

You even repeated your claim that you answered my question in a later post:

shafique wrote:I was just being pedantic about the use of the term assassins - and addressed your question about whether it was sensible or not to send soldiers to accompany a military commander and his entourage of armed men. What was unclear about my answer?

Dumbest. Member. Ever.

I even took the time in my last post to explain to you what the actual question was:

event horizon wrote:I didn't ask you if it was sensible to send killers to escort thirty unarmed Jews on a diplomatic mission - just whether it would be important for a historian to mention this in his account

Then you respond:

shafique wrote:So, you are complaining that Muhammad, pbuh, sent a competent contingent of 30 soldiers to escort the equal number of soldiers accompanying the military commander?

Dumbest. Member. Ever.

I really don't see why you are getting your knickers in such a twist.

The fullest account of the incident shows that a group of soldiers accompanying a military commander and his soldiers successfully thwarted an attack that you are characterising as an assassination of unarmed diplomats. I have stated a few times now that your quotes are less detailed and just spin the incident into something it wasn't.

I haven't asked you to believe the true version of events, I've only presented the quote in full and linked to the book itself.

I guess next you'll start quoting wikipedia in your defence?

Cheers,
Shafique

Does someone have to turn your computer on for you or do you do that all by yourself?

Excellent, I guess you have only lame insults left in your vast arsenal of erudite arguments.



Cheers,
Shafique

I think we're going to have to establish some rules - every time you 'answer' my questions or respond to my comments, you'll have to quote the part of the post you're addressing.

As for the question you 'answered' on page two of this thread, could you please quote the question?

Are you feeling ok eh?

As I have said before, just because you want to believe that a military commander and soldiers were unarmed diplomats, doesn't mean we will have to share in this latest quaint belief.

I have given you a full quotation that exposes the spin of your selective quote and wild interpretation.

That said though - there are quite a number of questions you are avoiding - including

Do you believe in Rapture?
Will you condemn Goldstein as a religiously motivated terrorist?
Does your Bible contain the gospel according to Matthew which says Pilate was not responsible for killing Jesus?
Will you ever find a fifth muksim convert terrorist (I'm on 242)?


Etc

Cheers
Shafique

Uh-oh. I see that you did not follow rule number one immediately following the posting of rule number one.

For a refresher - every time you 'answer' my questions or respond to my comments, you'll have to quote the part of the post you're addressing.

After that, we can move onto what the primary sources say and discuss your contradictory stance regarding your apologetic author's claims (so far unsubstantiated and 'spun') vs Theophanes' account of the massacre of seven thousand unbelievers.

I apologise for the typos in the above posts - shows I'm all thumbs when it comes to typing on a blackberry!

My eyes could be deceiving me, but is eh complaining that I'm not answering questions he's posed? Intriguing - I wouldn't have thought he'd be a fan of irony?

But back to this thread's topic - I note with on-going amusement that eh is still labouring under the quaint belief that his selective spin on the story (portraying a military commander and his entourage as 'unarmed diplomats') is one that is backed up by the available historical accounts. It still seems to me that I've quoted the fullest account and haven't seen any evidence from the young lad to dispute this account.

We only have his shorter, less detailed (obviously), selective quotes and his fanciful interpretation ('unarmed diplomats' indeed! Next he'll be imagining the Quran contains historical inaccuracies )

Cheers,
Shafique

Not following rule number one, I see.

In the mean time, while you're training to follow proper instructions, perhaps you can find that question of mine that you claimed you answered on the second page?

Here is your 'answer' to my 'question':

and addressed your question about whether it was sensible or not to send soldiers to accompany a military commander and his entourage of armed men. What was unclear about my answer?

I scanned my previous posts on this thread, but I couldn't see where I asked what you claimed I asked. Maybe I'll look again.

Let me know how you get on.

The good thing is that your less detailed quotes and my fuller quote are there for people to read, compare and contrast.

The spin of presenting a military commander and his soldiers as 'unarmed diplomats' and a group of soldiers as 'assassins' is another fascinating example of an anachronistic orientalist fantasy which relies on ignoring information.

Cheers,
Shafique

I take it you need more time finding my 'question' that you answered?

The spin of presenting a military commander and his soldiers as 'unarmed diplomats' and a group of soldiers as 'assassins' is another fascinating example of an anachronistic orientalist fantasy which relies on ignoring information.

Hey, I was just asking you to remain consistent in light of your dismissal of Theophanes' account because two other historians who mention the sacking of Caesarea do not mention that seven thousand inhabitants were slaughtered (they do imply a slaughter and their accounts do not contradict Theopanes').

Don't you think that your reasoning here is a little bit contradictory? After all, neither Tabari nor Ishaq mention that the Jewish men were armed, soldiers or had attacked the Muslims - they imply the Muslims attacked first and it speaks volumes that that is how modern historians such as Watt and Rodinson read their accounts.

Are you going to flip-flop or will you agree that your apologist author's account, if we can actually find an early Muslim historian verifying his version of events, is at best only as trustworthy as Theophanes'? At best.

As for the question that I have actually asked and you have not yet answered, do you consider the fact that your author does not mention that the Muslims Muhammad had sent were killers show that your author's account contains spin?

anachronistic orientalist fantasy

What does that mean? Are you using 'power words'?

(Or are you consulting a thesaurus to drop big words like names at a party?)

Do you think that repeating your beliefs without providing any new information will change the facts?

You made an allegation, backed it up with only selective quotes and have failed to address the fact that my quotation in full exposes your spin for what it is - a fanciful leap of logic. If you really do not know the meaning of 'anachronistic' you can easily look it up, and you will find it is just another way of describing your 'quaint' orientalist beliefs.

I really can't help you if you insist on characterising a military commander and his troops as 'unarmed diplomats' and refuse to provide any new evidence for this spin.

Cheers,
Shafique

I see you're having difficulty following one simple rule. I guess the saying is true - you really can't teach an old dog new tricks!

backed it up with only selective quotes and have failed to address the fact that my quotation in full exposes your spin for what it is

See, now if you had quoted me, you would have been forced to address the facts that *your* author's account contains spin - for not mentioning the fact that the men Muhammad sent were killers.

Now, do you have a single primary source you would like to cite to show that the Jewish men were indeed armed/soldiers and attacked the Muslims. Last time, we checked the two most oft quoted Muslim biographers of Muhammad, and neither of them mentioned these details in their accounts.

But hey, last time you (strangely enough) didn't seem concerned by this fact, but you did have a bit of an issue over Theophanes' account mentioning the massacre of seven thousand inhabitants of Caesarea.

I really can't help you if you insist on characterising a military commander and his troops as 'unarmed diplomats' and refuse to provide any new evidence for this spin.

The evidence was provided by the numerous modern accounts (from credible historians) I provided along with the accounts from Ibn Ishaq and Tabari.

You are the one who has not provided evidence beyond a lone account given by an apologetic author who does not cite his sources and whose account has already been shown to contain spin.

I couldn't see any new information in your post that backs up your belief that your selective quotes and spin about 'unarmed diplomats' is anything more than a fanciful leap of logic.

Let me know when you have something more than your less detailed quotes and your spin about 'diplomats' (not a word I've seen in any historical document you've deigned to quote).

Cheers,
Shafique

I couldn't see any new information in your post that backs up your belief that your apologetic quote and spin about 'armed soldiers' is anything more than a fanciful leap of logic.

Let me know when you have something more than your un-cited quote and your spin about 'armed soldiers' (not a word I've seen in any historical document you've deigned to quote).

Oh, and please follow rule number one.

I really don't understand why you are getting your knickers in such a twist.

All I did was post a fuller description of the incident and expose the fact your version is spun to characterise a military commander and his entourage as 'unarmed diplomats' and the Muslim soldiers as 'assassins'. I understand this is unsettling for you, but I quoted the extract in full (without doctoring) and even gave you a link to the book it came from.

You may not want to accept you've been spun a tale, but I really can't see why I need to spend any more time on this until you find some new information that backs up your view. I already know your views, and thus far can see they are based on selective readings of historical accounts.

Let me know when you have a new quotation/evidence.

Cheers,
Shafique

All I did was post a fuller description of the incident and expose the fact your version is spun to characterise a military commander and his entourage as 'unarmed diplomats' and the Muslim soldiers as 'assassins'.

How were the accounts from Watt, Rodinson et al spun? Can you quote the most oft quoted primary biographical sources on Muhammad (Ibn Ishaq and Tabari) to see whose accounts are closer to their accounts - your author's or mine?

I understand this is unsettling for you, but I quoted the extract in full (without doctoring) and even gave you a link to the book it came from.

Thanks - I agree your source was from a non-scholarly apologetic author who fails to mention that the men Muhammad hand picked were killers, ie., his version of events was spun.

You may not want to accept you've been spun a tale, but I really can't see why I need to spend any more time on this until you find some new information that backs up your view.

Happy to do so - right after you post Ibn Ishaq's account of this massacre to see where Ishaq describes the Jewish men as a) armed, b) soldiers and c) aggressors.

Let me know when you have reliable evidence or a quotation. Oh, and please follow rule number one - the most important of all the rules.

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.

Cheers,
Shafique