Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

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

Nope - not aware of any 'rule' that a fuller accounts automatically means that it is more accurate.

I'm not citing any rule.

I'm merely pointing out the fact that my fuller account was posted in response to your shorter account, and you haven't actually produced any quotes from any historical document to prove your point that your spin is correct.

AMNT.

Cheers,
Shafique