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.
