Mohamed's extermination of the Banu Quraiza.

[stevecanuck]

They saw the moon being split and the tradition is so well preserved that it is mutawatir (i.e. so well preserved according to 'hadith science' that it is undeniable fact only fractionally less reliable than the Quran itself).

Both of these events however stem from a desire to offer an "occasion of revelation" to a passage of the Quran that would be ambiguous without it, which just so happens to be the same kind of passage that you are putting your faith into.

I'm not putting my faith into any hadith. I'm trusting the plurality of historic accounts of the time. How historians came to their conclusions is their business.

The onus for demonstrating why we should believe them, so far your argument has been "because it is the historical consensus" despite the fact I've proved this to be completely false by referring to numerous pieces actual scholarship on the issue and you have made no attempt to support your position.

Let's assume they did exist for the sake of discussion though:

1. They existed in a context that is significantly different form the one described in Islamic theology which has obviously stripped much of the real historical context away (for example Roman/Persian presence in the region and it's connection to tribal and sectarian warfare). Agreed?
2. The theological narrative clearly contains numerous Biblical tropes, miracles and fabrications and thus should be treated with great scepticism. Agreed?
3. There are almost no tribes in history that we can track throughout their decline and/or assimilation. Almost all of these tribes assimilated into other groups and were not eradicated. Agreed?


But I explained all this before:



To add to that, their eradication is a trope. Like what happens to most groups, the rest got assimilated into other groups.

If you want to bring into question the record agreed upon by the vast majority of historians, you need to argue with them. For me to give you the answers you're demanding of me would require me to launch into a university-level deep dive and spend the rest of my life trying to verify or disprove that which is generally accepted.

You have yet to offer any historically-based alternative to the accepted narrative. Give me just one peer reviewed paper (and by that I mean peers not all named Mohamed and Ahmed) who give a different version of events.

And while you're at it, you still haven't said what you believe. I don't expect you to, so until you do, we're done.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not putting my faith into any hadith. I'm trusting the plurality of historic accounts of the time. How historians came to their conclusions is their business.

Yes you are, you just don't realise it.

This is what I've been trying to explain to you across multiple threads, there are no sources except the hadith /sirah, and these are often difficult to square with the actual history we know (Roman, Persian, etc.)

Islamic theology is the only source for the things you talk about and thus you are relying entirely on hadith/sirah whether you are aware of it or not.

What sources other than this do you think exist? When where they written?

Should be easy for you to answer if you are basing your views on decades of research.

If you want to bring into question the record agreed upon by the vast majority of historians, you need to argue with them. For me to give you the answers you're demanding of me would require me to launch into a university-level deep dive and spend the rest of my life trying to verify or disprove that which is generally accepted.

You have yet to offer any historically-based alternative to the accepted narrative. Give me just one peer reviewed paper (and by that I mean peers not all named Mohamed and Ahmed) who give a different version of events.

Don't be silly, it would require you to have attended week one of Islamic Historiography 101 and paid attention for the first 15 mins of the lecture, or simply displayed a modicum of intellectual curiosity and looked at a basic overview of what some contemporary scholars have said on the topic.

Alternatively, you could have just read my posts with an open mind and followed the links I provided, as I've given you a nice simple overview of the aspects of this field you're not familiar with. Just accept there are things you can learn from others, and you'll be grand

So, to restate, as has been proved, Islamic historiography is a hotly contested field and your claims are not "agreed upon by the vast majority of historians". This is a fact whether you are aware of it or not.

Your claim they are is simply a demonstration of your lack of familiarity with contemporary secular scholarship, and your conflation of Islamic theologians with secular historians.

And while you're at it, you still haven't said what you believe. I don't expect you to, so until you do, we're done.

You are literally quoting it

Here you go:

Now we've established I've already dealt with your objection several times, can you extend to a yes/no on this? Or is there another reason you can't?

Let's assume they did exist for the sake of discussion though:

1. They existed in a context that is significantly different form the one described in Islamic theology which has obviously stripped much of the real historical context away (for example Roman/Persian presence in the region and it's connection to tribal and sectarian warfare). Agreed?
2. The theological narrative clearly contains numerous Biblical tropes, miracles and fabrications and thus should be treated with great scepticism. Agreed?
3. There are almost no tribes in history that we can track throughout their decline and/or assimilation. Almost all of these tribes assimilated into other groups and were not eradicated. Agreed?

 

[stevecanuck]

Whey do YOU believe?

Did the Battle of Badr happen? Yes or no.
Did the Battle of Uhud happen? Yes or no.
Did the Battle of the Trench happen? Yes or no.
Did the (attempted) Battle of Tabuk happen? Yes or no.

 

[Augustus]

Whey do YOU believe?

Did the Battle of Badr happen? Yes or no.
Did the Battle of Uhud happen? Yes or no.
Did the Battle of the Trench happen? Yes or no.
Did the (attempted) Battle of Tabuk happen? Yes or no.

My view (for the nteenth time):

Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe,but I’m happy to assume they did for the sake of discussion. Even then, they almost certainly happened in a very different context to the ones described though. As such, uncritically relying on precise narrative details without looking at the bigger picture is naive.

Probably they have some rough historicity, but what is quite clear from comparing the Islamic narrative with what is known form non-Islamic sources is that the context Islam emerged out of is not remotely the one conveyed in the Islamic theological narratives.

For example, the Qurans' s intended audience is clearly not pagans, but people familiar with the Judaeo-Christian tradition. The links between the Arabs and the Romans/Persians has been clearly removed for theological purposes, etc. all of which is relevant to the kind of events you discuss.

If you want more specifics, I’ve already explained them in context of your op several times using multiple peer-reviewed scholarly sources (which you have consistently refused to address with evidence and/or reason).

The sources you are relying on (as they are the only ones that exist) are a mix of hagiography, theological explanations and justifications, Quranic exegesis and other forms of agenda driven, non-objective remembrances of historical events.

Is there any of this you disagree with?

Why do you find it so hard to answer simple questions on your own beliefs about the threads you start though?

You spend more time and effort avoiding them, which is telling. Usually people who are familiar with a topic and enjoy starting threads on it are happy to discuss it. In most cases a refusal to engage is simply an inability to understand or a lack of ability to answer.

No matter how many times I answer your questions you find another excuse or simply ask more (unrelated) questions.

So can you answer the questions, or will you just make another excuse?

 

[stevecanuck]

My view (for the nteenth time):

Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe,but I’m happy to assume they did for the sake of discussion. Even then, they almost certainly happened in a very different context to the ones described though. As such, uncritically relying on precise narrative details without looking at the bigger picture is naive.

And for the nteenth time - not my job. The subject has been continuously studied for 1400 years, and I accept that the major details have been sufficiently vetted.

Probably they have some rough historicity, but what is quite clear from comparing the Islamic narrative with what is known form non-Islamic sources is that the context Islam emerged out of is not remotely the one conveyed in the Islamic theological narratives.

For example, the Qurans' s intended audience is clearly not pagans, but people familiar with the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

Unless Mohamed was simply working the audience at his disposal. Mecca was where he lived, so who else would he preach to? The fact that endless repetition of stories from a book they never believed in the first place didn't sway them shouldn't have come as a surprise to him. Eventually he gave up and moved the circus to Yathrib, where at least his new audience was steeped in the tall tales of Moses et al.

The links between the Arabs and the Romans/Persians has been clearly removed for theological purposes, etc. all of which is relevant to the kind of events you discuss.

The Romans and Persians were in the process of fighting a multi-decade war. Neither of them had the slightest reason to bother the Arabs. Why open up another front?

If you want more specifics, I’ve already explained them in context of your op several times using multiple peer-reviewed scholarly sources (which you have consistently refused to address with evidence and/or reason).

The sources you are relying on (as they are the only ones that exist) are a mix of hagiography, theological explanations and justifications, Quranic exegesis and other forms of agenda driven, non-objective remembrances of historical events.

Is there any of this you disagree with?

Why do you find it so hard to answer simple questions on your own beliefs about the threads you start though?

You spend more time and effort avoiding them, which is telling. Usually people who are familiar with a topic and enjoy starting threads on it are happy to discuss it. In most cases a refusal to engage is simply an inability to understand or a lack of ability to answer.

No matter how many times I answer your questions you find another excuse or simply ask more (unrelated) questions.

So can you answer the questions, or will you just make another excuse?

The reason (other than the fact that I have many other things to do) that I haven't dived into your sources is that it just doesn't matter in terms of what we're dealing with today. The ONLY thing that matters is what today's Muslims believe and what they're willing to do about it. We have 1400 years of jihad because of what the Qur'an and hadiths say. What could possible change that fact?

The subject you bring up is actually very interesting in its own right, and I won't lose those references if I feel like getting into it. It sounds like good thread material. Why not get that going?

 

[Augustus]

And for the nteenth time - not my job. The subject has been continuously studied for 1400 years, and I accept that the major details have been sufficiently vetted.

As has already been shown, this is objectively false. If you think that most modern secular scholars accept the theological narratives you rely on as accurate, you are simply wrong.

You can only tell someone this so many times though, and if they prefer to bury their head in the sand then it’s on them.

Unless Mohamed was simply working the audience at his disposal. Mecca was where he lived, so who else would he preach to? The fact that endless repetition of stories from a book they never believed in the first place didn't sway them shouldn't have come as a surprise to him. Eventually he gave up and moved the circus to Yathrib, where at least his new audience was steeped in the tall tales of Moses et al.

Again it helps to not take theological narratives at face value, and instead look at a range of contemporary secular scholarship on the issues.

Arabia wasn’t a pagan backwater (see next section), although there is an obvious theological motive to paint it as one.

The text itself assumes the audience are already familiar with the Biblical stories, which again makes little semse if they are ignorant pagans.

Do you believe pre-Islamic Mecca was holy to all Arabs too?

You’ve never found that fantastical given no one else ever wrote of it despite having tens of thousands of Arabs forming important parts of their army and trade networks?

The Romans and Persians were in the process of fighting a multi-decade war. Neither of them had the slightest reason to bother the Arabs. Why open up another front?

This is one of the problems of being unaware of the historical context of the Middle East in late antiquity when looking at the emergence of Islam.

A significant number of those doing the fighting (and it is not impossible it was a majority of those) were Arabs.

see for example:

Lakhmids - Wikipedia

Ghassanids - Wikipedia

If you want you want to go further back

Aksumite invasion of Himyar - Wikipedia

This is the context for the emergence of Islam: Abrahamic sectarian tribal conflicts in the nexus of Roman-Persian wars, massive bubonic plagues that killed double digit % of the population, etc.

The reason (other than the fact that I have many other things to do) that I haven't dived into your sources is that it just doesn't matter in terms of what we're dealing with today. The ONLY thing that matters is what today's Muslims believe and what they're willing to do about it. We have 1400 years of jihad because of what the Qur'an and hadiths say. What could possible change that fact?

The subject you bring up is actually very interesting in its own right, and I won't lose those references if I feel like getting into it. It sounds like good thread material. Why not get that going?

In this thread you aren’t discussing what Muslims believe, but your own speculation about actual history (that makes things worse than what Muslims believe). As such you need to be able to support your views based on secular scholarship not remixed theology.

The subject you bring up is actually very interesting in its own right, and I won't lose those references if I feel like getting into it. It sounds like good thread material. Why not get that going?

I tend not to start many threads, prefer replying to add context when something interests me.

Many of these things are a bit niche for most folk here otherwise so wouldn’t get much engagement.

Occasionally I get the motivation, but not often.

 

[stevecanuck]

As has already been shown, this is objectively false. If you think that most modern secular scholars accept the theological narratives you rely on as accurate, you are simply wrong.

You can only tell someone this so many times though, and if they prefer to bury their head in the sand then it’s on them.

What are you on about? Just do a search and you'll find this sort of thing:

Military career of Muhammad - Wikipedia

 

[Augustus]

What are you on about? Just do a search and you'll find this sort of thing:

Military career of Muhammad - Wikipedia

A Wikipedia article based on Islamic theology is hardly a stinging rebuttal to the idea Islamic theology is not reliable history.

Just open your mind and ask yourself, what are the primary sources for this religious narrative and why should I believe it?

(Don’t worry if you don’t know the answer, I’ve done your homework for you so you can vastly increase your understanding with 1 minute of effort)


Google search chap: “We should uncritically accept Islamic theology as historical fact as people have believed it for 1400 years and so is settled fact.”

Actual leading historians:

In the case of Mohammed, Muslim literary sources for his life only begin around 750-800 CE (common era), some four to five generations after his death, and few Islamicists (specialists in the history and study of Islam) these days assume them to be straightforward historical accounts…

Most of the early sources for the prophet's life, as also for the period of his immediate successors, consist of hadith in some arrangement or other.

The purpose of such reports was to validate Islamic law and doctrine, not to record history in the modern sense

Patricia Crone (Princeton University)

No extant books that preserve the sīrah-maghāzī traditions date from before the period stretching from the late eighth century C.E. to the early ninth—approximately 150 to 250 years after Muḥammad’s death—and the works that do survive are filled, to varying degrees, with theologically tendentious and even outright legendary materials. For this reason, a great number of modern historians have come to hold that the sīrah-maghāzī literature tells us far more about the formation of the early cultural memory of Muḥammad than it does about the so-called historical Muḥammad. Expressed another way, the sīrah-maghāzī corpus is a primary source less about the historical figure of Muḥammad than for understanding how early Muslims understood Muḥammad and his message, as well as how they chose to depict God’s disclosure of His providential plan for human salvation through both. From the sīrah-maghāzī literature, we learn mostly about how Muslims of the eighth and ninth centuries C.E. wished Muḥammad to be known and how they used their constructed images of him to forge their own confessional and sectarian identities, but perhaps not much else.

Sean Anthony (Ohio state university)

The problem is that this detailed picture of Muhammad's career is drawn not from documents or even stories dating from Muhammad's time, but from literary sources that were compiled many years--sometimes centuries- later... and shaped with very specific objectives in mind... There is also reason to suspect that some--perhaps many--of the incidents related in these sources are not reliable accounts of things that actually happened but rather are legends created by later generations of Muslims to affirm Muhammad's status as prophet, to help establish precedents shaping the later Muslim community's ritual, social, or legal practices, or simply to fill out poorly known chapters in the life of their founder, about whom, understandably, later Muslims increasingly wished to know everything.

Further, some episodes that are crucial to the traditional biography of Muhammad look suspiciously like efforts to create a historicizing gloss to particular verses of the Qur'an; some have suggested, for example, that the reports of the raid on Nakhla were generated as exegels of Q. 2.217... Other elements of his life story may have been generated to make his biography conform to contemporary expectations of what a true prophet would do (for instance, his orphanhood, paralleling that of Moses, or his rejection by and struggle against his own people, the tribe of Quraysh)...

Fred Donner (University of Chicago)


Surely you must be able to understand now? No point in keeping on with the obviously fallacious claim it is anything like settled fact.

Sometimes a cursory google search is not a meaningful substitute for reading actual critical scholarship on an issue

 

[stevecanuck]

The purpose of such reports was to validate Islamic law and doctrine, not to record history in the modern sense

Even the Qur'an was not written down in the time of Mohamed. It was compiled from the memories of his companions well after his death. It too may very well have been edited or misremembered to a certain extent. How does that, or anything you're saying, change the situation on the ground today? The VAST majority of Muslims believe that every word of the Qur'an is directly from Allah. They also believe the tafsirs that describe such events as Badr, Uhud, and The Trench in the context of the Qur'an's verses. Surah 33 constantly refers to "The Confederates", and then describes Mohamed killing or capturing those who supposedly aided them. A couple of battles are even mentioned by name in the Qur'an. It all fits, even if the exact details aren't perfectly related.

What is undeniable is the empire that the Muslims created after the death of Mohamed and after the complete subjugation of the Arabian Peninsula in the name of Islam. Those words and events are what drive Islamic jihad today. You can quibble over details all you want to, but when Islamic regimes try to replicate the 7th century, you know what example they're following. It just doesn't matter how historically accurate it is or isn't.

So, we truly are done now. If you want to discuss your points further you're going to have to open your own thread.

 

[Augustus]

Even the Qur'an was not written down in the time of Mohamed. It was compiled from the memories of his companions well after his death. It too may very well have been edited or misremembered to a certain extent. How does that, or anything you're saying, change the situation on the ground today? The VAST majority of Muslims believe that every word of the Qur'an is directly from Allah. They also believe the tafsirs that describe such events as Badr, Uhud, and The Trench in the context of the Qur'an's verses. Surah 33 constantly refers to "The Confederates", and then describes Mohamed killing or capturing those who supposedly aided them. A couple of battles are even mentioned by name in the Qur'an. It all fits, even if the exact details aren't perfectly related.

What is undeniable is the empire that the Muslims created after the death of Mohamed and after the complete subjugation of the Arabian Peninsula in the name of Islam. Those words and events are what drive Islamic jihad today. You can quibble over details all you want to, but when Islamic regimes try to replicate the 7th century, you know what example they're following. It just doesn't matter how historically accurate it is or isn't.

So, we truly are done now. If you want to discuss your points further you're going to have to open your own thread.

This thread isn’t about what Muslims believe, but your own beliefs about factual history where you paint Muhammad in the worst light possible for ideological reasons.

This has nothing to do with what most Muslims believe.

You then defended the historical accuracy of Islamic theological narratives, and made fallacious claims it was settled fact agreed on by almost all historians.

When this was shown to be obviously false, you continued to defend it as fact and further demonstrated you were completely unaware of any modern historical scholarship and uninterested in becoming less wrong on the topic you claim to have devoted decades of study to and would prefer to continue to repeat your erroneous claims as fact.

Now you try to deflect from your mistakes by changing the topic.

History is also relevant to the present and future of Islamic beliefs and many Muslims do indeed question the Hadith literature.

So if you stop posting things that are factually wrong, then I will no longer need to correct them