Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

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

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.