Thursday, June 29, 2017

The religion of peace website and the Dunning-Kruger effect, was Banu Qaynuqa slaughtered unjustly?


Introduction:
I have decided to take on the religion of peace and dedicate a series to refute their so called responses to DTT (discover the truth),TORP made several poor and very badly worded “refutations” to DTT, the majority of them were actually commentary and not actual refutation, here I will address their sources one by one and I will provide arguments as to why their “refutation” is a work of a teenager
this is going to be the only first article i publish here on this blog in relation to TROP, the next articles will no longer be published here, go to Discover the truth for my next refutations
The Banu Qaynuqa incident

The first article TROP created to DTT was in regards to banu Qaynuqa incident, where the jews attempted to assassinate the muslims, betrayed them, and waged war on them
TROP decided to take the approached of commentary on some of DTT’s arguments, but later decided to cite Al-Tabari without authenticating what he said or giving sanad to what narrations he is citing, I have already shown why we should take whatever tabari said with grain of salt in my responses to TMA with that being said let us proceed
Their commentary on DTT sources goes as follows
DTT quotes from five historians, each of whom seems to be repeating what the one before says.  The earliest is probably Ibn Ishaq's account, since the next most reliable account (Kitab Futuh al-Buldan) directly references it.  One of their sources, al-Waqidi, is widely regarded as a fabricator.”

Apart from the part regarding Al-Waqidi being fabricator which can be regarded as correct we should not leave out ibn ishaq and several other sources DTT used
We will comment later on, but one comment they made that send the most shock to me is the following
“None of these accounts say that the Qaynuqa killed Muslims.  None even name a third party, much less say that the Qaynuqa took sides against the Muslims in a battle.  In fact, the tribe seem to have been on friendly terms with other Muslims”
We will explore how wrong this is later, but first let’s see what Ka’ab bin ashraf did
“when the prophet was done from the battle of badir he sent zaid bin harith and Abdullah bin rowaha to tell the ummah of muslims victory, and when this reached ka’ab bin ashraf he told the one who informed him of it: how could you say that, these are the kings of arabs and masters of the people (referring to quraish), the he left to Makkah and he was crying over the corpses of quraish dead soldiers and he was instigation to fight the prophet[1]
However is it correct that they never killed a muslim? This is not correcting let’s explore some sources apart from their treason
“a muslim woman was selling something in banu qaynaqua market  for a gold and jewry maker, so the jews wanted her to uncover her face, so the muslim women didn’t allow this, so the jewry maker took part of her clothes and torn it from back and when she stood up her privte parts were exposed naked so they laughed, so she screamed, so a man of muslims went to the jewry maker and killed him, and the jews gathered around the muslim and killed him, and the muslims saw this and was enraged and a fight happened between the jews and muslims”[2]
However, many have doubted the authenticity of this narration ibn ishaq never mentioned, neither did tabari or tabaqt ibn sa’ad, and the name of the woman was not given[3]

TROP makes the following childish comment in light of growing evidence
If the Banu Qaynuqa actually broke the agreement in some meaningful way, then it would have been included in the historical account.  Against this reality, the statement that they "violated" the treaty seems to be an editorial comment that got repeated without supporting detail.  “

The part regarding tabari which as I said before should always be taken with grain of salt was the following
" Tabari, whom DTT quotes as proof that the Qaynuqa 'violated' the agreement actually uses a word that can be interpreted as 'disagree.'  This is important because the full account offered in his work suggests that Muhammad required that he be recognized as a prophet, and they refused:

What happened with regard to the Banu Qaynuqa' was that the Messenger of God assembled them in the Market of the Banu Qaynuqa' and said, "0 Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you." They replied, "Muhammad, do you think that we are like your people? Do not be deluded by the fact that you met a people with no knowledge of war and that you made good use of your opportunity. By God, if you fight us you will know that we are real men!" (Tabari v.7 p.85)
"
Let’s forget the fact that they didn’t give the sanad of the narration, let’s forget the fact that no where did the narration suggest that they disagreed but rather when they refused they instigated to go to war with him, but let’s forget that, let’s explore TROP ability to do research and find if a narrator is regarded as authentic, did they do that with tabari? Or did they treat it as authentic as sunnis view sahih bukhari? The answer is no, infact this narration is regarded as non-authentic because of ibn Hamid (which they removed from chain of narration list, Muhammad bin hamid bin hyan was one of the narrators of this story and he is regarded as matruk meaning not authentic or literally (dropped)[4]

Infact what makes it funnier is that if we read further (using the same weak narrations) we actually see that tabari refutes TROP”
“According to Ibn Humayd-Salamah-Muhammad b. Ishaq-'Asim b. 'Umar b.Qatadah: The Banu Qaynuqa' were the first Jews to infringe the agreement between them and the Messenger of God; they took to arms between Badr and Uhud.”[5]
Wow, TROP, your own source just affirmed what DTT said even with a weak narrator, this is quite sad and pathetic

More childish citations of tabari by Trop goes as follows
Here is how Tabari explains it:

According to Al-Zuhri-'Urwah : Gabriel [the angel] brought the following verse down to the Messenger of God : "And if thou fearest treachery from any folk, then throw back to them their treaty fairly. "'When Gabriel had finished delivering this verse, the Messenger of God said, "I fear the Banu Qaynuga'." 'Urwah says: It was on the basis of this verse that the Messenger of God advanced upon them. (Tabari v.7 p.86
Hmmm...  An angel tells Muhammad that if he simply fears treachery then it's OK to break the treaty.  Why say that if the treaty were already broken?  Muhammad promptly says he fears treachery and then advances on the Qaynuqa community with an army.  This is a very strange way of saying that he was under attack, as Discover the Truth fantasizes.”
Yet another citation of tabari with no authentication or verification at all, but let’s have a comment on this like how TROP loves to do to DTT, Muhammad here simply implied that Qaynuqa might break the treaty and se he advanced upon them, TROP seams to make the argument that this was the only motivation Muhammad had to attack them, but that is funny because if I recall few paragraph earlier Tabari state, now what is most important here is that is this narration authentic? The answer might shock you because it laughs at the credibility of TROP, remember when they discredited DTT for using Waqidi? Youp, here they used a narration that was narrated through Waqidi
According to Sahih wa da’if tarikh Tabari in da’if section vol.7 page.101:
“within it’s sanad exist waqidi, and he is matruk”
How funny, TROP criticize DTT for using Waqidi and then they use him themselves
“According to Ibn Humayd-Salamah-Muhammad b. Ishaq-'Asim b. 'Umar b.Qatadah: The Banu Qaynuqa' were the first Jews to infringe the agreement between them and the Messenger of God; they took to arms between Badr and Uhud.”
So here tabari clearly state that they took arms preparing to infringe the agreement between them and the messenger and uphold it between badr and uhud
So clearly if we piece it together, Muhammad based on this verse advanced to the jews when they took arms against him and infringed the agreement, but somehow TROP dodged this narration in tabari to fool their gullible audience? So much for “The Qaynuqa were fighting defensively according to every account”

TROP later continue
Tabari continues:

The Messenger of God besieged them for fifteen days and prevented any of them from getting out. They then surrendered at the discretion of the Mesenger of God . They were fettered, and he wanted to kill them, but 'Abd Allah b. Ubayy spoke to him on their behalf... Four hundred men without armour and three hundred with coats of mail, who defended me from the Arab and the non-Arab alike, and you would mow them down in a single morning? By God, I do not feel safe and am afraid of what the future may have in store (Tabari v.7 p.86)
Muhammad "fears" treachery, has a private conversation with an "angel" and the next thing you know, 700 people are tied up and waiting to be beheaded.  Which party would you fear? “
I don’t know, the party that instigated a war? The party that threatened to fight Muhammad? The party that took arms in preparation for battle? The party that humiliated the muslims by attacking an innocent woman?
Let’s see yet again if this is an authentic narration
According to Sahih Wa Da’if Tarikh Tabari vol.7 page.102
“it contains Waqidi and he is matruk”
Isn’t it ironic for the second time TROP use waqidi after criticizing DTT for using him?

So far TROP have not shown what part of the agreement or treaty did Muhammad broke or invoked
“The Qaynuqa were fighting defensively according to every account”
No they were not, they saw the might of the prophet who defeated the quraishi tribe and instigated to fight him, remember ka’ab bin ashraf?

But let us see the full account and not take parts of what TROP deceptively left out
“The Messenger of God besieged them until they surrendered at his discretion. 'Abd Allah b . Ubayy b. Salul rose up when God had put them in his power, and said, "Muhammad, treat my mawdli well"; for they were the confederates of al-Khazraj . The Prophet delayed his answer, so 'Abd Allah repeated, "Muhammad, treat my mawali well." The Prophet turned away from him, and he put his hand into (the Messenger's) collar. The Messenger of God said, "Let me go! "-he was so angry that they could see shadows in his face (that is, his face coloured ). Then he said, "Damn you, let me go!" He replied, "No, by God, I will not let you go until you treat my mawali well. Four hundred men without armour and three hundred with coats of mail, who defended me from the Arab and the non-Arab alike, and you would mow them down in a single morning? By God, I do not feel safe and am afraid of what the future may have in store ." So the Messenger of God said, “They are yours.”[6]
Hold on, so Muhammad actually let them go and didn’t keep them on besiege and didn’t behead them? Hmmmmmm sounds like TROP is hiding something
However, the account I gave above is also weak for having waqidi in it’s narration
“If the Banu Qaynuqa actually broke the agreement in some meaningful way, then it would have been included in the historical account”
Either TROP are blind or acting blatantly stupid

In conclusion for this section
TROP cited a weak narration by tabari regarding jews of Qaynaqua claiming they will fight back, misquoted and bluntly took two a narration out of context, removed a complete narration from the section in the book, cited tabari without sanad and based on the work of waqidi who is a weak narrator as they admitted, made some childish stupid comments to DTT, failed to tackle DTT sources (apart from waqidi), cited Yet another weak narration by tabari, used waqidi twice after criticizing DTT for using him, there is littraly not a single valid narration TROP made here, almost all of their citations of Tabari have been discridited, and almost all their objections were mere comments, there is no indication of "self defense" as they so foolishly make, and they ignored all DTT's citations to how Jews of banu Qaynaqua broke the treaty, and on top of that, they ignored a similar narration that refutes their argument and clearly state that the jews took arms after infringing the treaty.




[1] Sunnan Al-Kubra by Baihaqi vol.9 page.183
[2] Sira Ibn Hisham vol.2 page.47
[3] Muhammad prophet of god by Muhammad ritha page.174
[4] http://library.islamweb.net/hadith/RawyDetails.php?RawyID=6930
[5] Tabari vol.7 page.85-86
[6] Tabari vol.7 page.86

18 comments:

  1. So, besides you and others, I did ask my close friend who is a Christian, but also understands about Islam and he told me that Muhammad was absolutely devastated after losing his wife, the other wives he still treats them like people of course. Like other people (anti-Islam people) who just freak out and thought of him as "child-obsessed freak" and scholars of Islam would agree, Muhammad did marry a nine-year-old girl, but that doesn't mean he is happy about that. Did had sex with her, but not because of that too, it's due to some cultural reasons, but not that Islam would 100% approve this act either. "Funny You should ask about Mohammad's Wives. Se, for the longest time he actually only had *one* Wife, a woman named Kadijah, and he adored her like no other. They seriously sound like one of the sweetest couple in all of theology. I actually think you mght be able to write a romance novel about them and hardly any Muslims would complain. He was completely heartbroken when she died, and it was only after this that the other women came along, and to boot each of the post-Kadijah marriages was made purely as part of a political alliance (although he still treated them with the respect and gave proper attendance to all of his other husbandly duties). Yes, he did marry a nine year old girl, but that doesn't mean he was at all happy about it. Yes he did have sex with her, but that was only because in that culture a husband had to do so for the legal arrangements to be finalized.

    Additionally, it should be pointed out that in those days you were considered an adult at age thirteen. One Muslim also told me that there's evidence that this particular girl had been a VERY early bloomer."

    Does that make sense to you? I mean was this a point, and that you did address this issue for those who called Muhammad a "child-lover"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Muhammad was absolutely devastated after losing his wife, the other wives he still treats them like people of course. Like other people (anti-Islam people) who just freak out and thought of him as "child-obsessed freak""
      on that case then the motive is considered emotional rather than sexual

      "Muhammad did marry a nine-year-old girl, but that doesn't mean he is happy about that"
      depends on what you mean by "happy" also what scholars? you do realize academics reject hadith authenticity
      "but not because of that too, it's due to some cultural reasons"
      then scientifically and logically calling a pedophile is false, back to my question, if i put a gun into your head and tell you to marry a 9 year old does that make you a pedophile?
      "and to boot each of the post-Kadijah marriages was made purely as part of a political alliance"
      i certainly did hear about that before
      "but that doesn't mean he was at all happy about it."
      we don't know how he "felt" about it, but you can argue with that
      "Does that make sense to you?"
      i can sympathize with that yes
      "I mean was this a point, and that you did address this issue for those who called Muhammad a "child-lover"?"
      i did dedicate a complete article regarding this issue, i addressed it scientifically and rationally

      Delete
    2. Great to see you back Salam (I'm the guy from Egypt if you don't remember me XD). To back you up here as a response to Victor. The claim that the prophet " did marry a nine year old girl, but that doesn't mean he was at all happy about it" is not true. I'm not gonna even entertain the notion that the prophet was a pedophile since this has been talked about repeatedly. But, what I will reply to is the claim that he wasn't particularly happy about the marriage with Lady Aisha. Simply enough there is clear sahih hadith that the prophet deeply loved Aisha and would proclaim his love for her in front of everyone. In Sahih Bukhari hadith #4358 the prophet was clearly asked who he loved the most and he replied by saying Aisha and when asked whom he loved the most among men he replied by saying "her father".

      Delete
    3. Hello Galal, sorry for not posting recently, i'm busy with work and daily life to the point that i have no time to write articles, but when i get the chance i will after all TROP does't put much efforts into their arguments making it easy for me to debunk them
      let me address one problem with your statement, you said that prophet Muhammad loved aisha, i wouldn't argue against that, the problem is it's a strawman, i never said he never loved her, i said it's possible that he wasn't happy with marriage conditions, totally different argument

      Delete
  2. So I mean, okay. So Muhammad did marry a nine-year-old girl, but not that he's happy about that. The sex thing, it's due with some cultural reasons but it's not that Islam would ever fully accept it either. I hope this doesn't offend you at all, and if that's what you are also trying to say that argument, sorry that I didn't look at your article I was a bit lazy for some other reasons. Again my apologies for that if that's the problem that I didn't look.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " I hope this doesn't offend you at all"
      why would it offend me? i don't believe it in the first place

      Delete
  3. About the part that Muhammad's wanting to behead 700 prisoners. You said this report is weak because of Waqidi. However,in tabari's book, after this report on page 86, there is another report mentioning Muhammad's setting them free because of Abd Allah b.ubay. it does not have waqidi in the sanad. The sanad of this particular report is as follows: tabari-muhammad bin umar -muhammad bin salih- asim bin umar bin qatadah, *can you investigate if this sanad is weak or not?* If its reliable, then it means Muhammad really wanted to do what he did to banu qurayza.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes there is a report of muhammad asking them to be set free, of course i could mention it to make muhammad look more appealing but i didn't for two reasons
      1-it's not related nor is it cited by TROP so i was mainly fact checking their claims
      2-it's also weak, infact a large proportion of the story of banu Qaynuqa cited by tabari is weak
      here is the problem, the english version of tabari doesn't give you all of the narrators, infact the majority of all english translated islamic sources including tabari doesn't give all narrators of the story, when i was reading it in my English PDF version i knew something was missing so i went to the arabic one, the original one and found more narrators, now regarding the story you cited of Muhammad setting them free is infact also from waqidi
      here is why
      it's a part of a single narration, if you look into the Arabic source it comes from chain number 158, meaning all narrations cited under this number belong to it's main narrator, and the main narrator of this chain number is none other than Waqidi again, he is responsible of 2 narrations under this number, the English version doesn't have numbering system in it
      " then it means Muhammad really wanted to do what he did to banu qurayza."
      what do you mean?
      i highly recommend downloading sahih wa daif tarikh tabari, if you had someone who speak Arabic they can verify what i said here

      Delete
    2. "of course i could mention it to make muhammad look more appealing"


      You got something wrong. The report says that he wanted to execute all the prisoners,as in banu qurayza event, but Abd Allah b. Ubay prevented him. How is that making him look more "appealing"?? Just the opposite, It makes him a cruel warlord. But its a weak sanad

      Delete
    3. i'm talking about the one where he expelled them out of madina and took their tools and supplies instead of beheading them and told abdullah to join them
      but yes it's weak after all

      Delete
    4. As salaam alaikum akhi I have a question

      Delete
  4. Just to let you know I have read the article about the prophet alayhi salaam marriage with Aisha may Allah ta Alaa be please with her

    MashaAllah may Allah ta Alaa reward you for that

    .....but the question that remain if prophet Muhammad alayhi salaam is the best of example for mankind especially for the believers as the Quran mention


    Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad SAW) you have an excellent example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.

    Quran (Surah Al-Ahzab, Verse 21)

    then whatever he did was perfect and can be imply by anybody at any time since some of his actions are divinely ordained....so as Muslim can we follow the example the prophet Muhammad alayhi salaam in marrying nine years old girl in 21 century if yes then Islam is advocating pedophilia if not then the prophet Muhammad alayhi salaam is not the best of example to follow which goes against the quranic claim


    So how would you respond to this contention brother ?

    BTW the this question is post by non Muslim, as a Muslim I believe the prophet Muhammad alayhi salaam is the best of example since Aisha may Allah ta Alaa be please with her is not the only wife he married.....

    Let me know if my question make sense inshaAllah

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. will yes the verse does say he is an excellent (note the word excellent not perfect) example to follow but let me ask you
      prophet muhammad and his people lived in tents and houses made of clay and used camels for transportation and swards and many other primitive tools, just because he is the best example to follow doesn't mean we have to do everything he did

      also the prophet (as i stated before in my articles) said "La Darar Wa La Darar" meaning "there shall be no harm done and no harm allowed" now if based on 21 century science, marrying a 9 year old is bad then based on this authentic hadith (and ruling) we shouldn't do so
      "if yes then Islam is advocating pedophilia"
      you didn't read my article carefully, marrying a 9 year old based on tradition and religion is Not pedophilia, marrying a 9 year old based on YOUR sexuality That is pedophilia
      if i put a gun into your head and tell you to marry a 9 year old does that make you a pedophile?
      because again the prophet based his actions on islamic rulings like the one i mentioned to you, so how can that be considered a contradiction

      However asked you this question ask him this "if i put a gun into your head and tell you to marry a 9 year old does that make you a pedophile?"
      again, prophet muhammad told us we should avoid doing anything that causes harm
      tell me where do you think jurists made the argument that cigarettes are haram even though it never existed at the time of the prophet?
      it's made haram based on that ruling

      Delete
  5. Can you make an article about wiki-islam?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. at one point i might tackle that website, i can't give you my word though, i'm very busy currently

      Delete
    2. Wait but i thought you were a quranist ?

      Delete