Introduction:
my apologies for not posting any articles, i decided to divide my work here and post several articles instead of jamming them into one, to keep my posting consistent, however the major article that will gather all my work on section one to TROP will be posted in DTT nevertheless I have decided to gather a number of articles into one large response, this
will be repeated 3 more times since TROP dedicated
3 sections with subarticles in them to
address DTT, in the near future I shall address TROP more times but with random articles picked by me, I will also
accept recommendations to what articles on TROP I have to respond to by audience
so long as I didn’t already address it
before like pedophilia for example
The Banu Nadir Incident
“The Sira tells us that the Banu Nadir
was one of three Jewish tribes at Medina
which were expelled or massacred at Muhammad's direction. In the case of
the Nadir, they were robbed of their wealth and evicted. Some leaders
were even murdered.”
the
right off the bat we have a statement with no clear
evidence or direct sources, although we will come to them later on, still it’s important even as opening statement for your hypothesis you still
need to provide evidence when you make arguments like these
“In order to justify this, DTT
contends that the Banu Nadir had given information to the Quraish enemy and
also attempted to assassinate Muhammad by dropping a rock on him.”
let us proceed
through their “refutation” to DTT
“Discover the Truth goes into great
detail about the Banu Nadir telling the Quraish "the weak spots of the
Muslims in battle... where the Muslims were, where to attack, and where to
hide, lay in wait to kill the Muslims" (although this seems to have
completely eluded the early Sira and Hadith compilers).
Only two references are provided by DTT from established sources: Abu Dawud and Ibn Ishaq. Neither one mentions information being sent to the Quraish. Ishaq makes a reference to an assassination plot (more on that later), but the Sahih hadith verse makes no mention of either a plot or information passed from the Nadir to the Quraish.“
Only two references are provided by DTT from established sources: Abu Dawud and Ibn Ishaq. Neither one mentions information being sent to the Quraish. Ishaq makes a reference to an assassination plot (more on that later), but the Sahih hadith verse makes no mention of either a plot or information passed from the Nadir to the Quraish.“
this is unbelievably deceptive at best, a quick search
in Sunnah.com will easily put this claim to rest, here in this entire response
by TROP there is literally no citation of
DTT sources to confirm this claim, and no direct citation to DTT article
regarding Banu nadir at all, in fact, this entire section in response to
Banu nadir incident by TROP has literally
no source no link no footnote no citation at all, this entire section or “response”
can be easily ignored and in fact one of
the weakest “responses” I have ever seen
by anyone
let us examine DTT article, he in fact dedicated 3 articles here in response to Banu Nadir
“As already mentioned, the Quraish had sent to the Jews of the
Banu Nadir to kill Muhammad (p) or they would themselves be exterminated. The Banu Nadir being already hostile, this message from the
Quraish served as an impetus. They invited the Prophet to come with thirty men
to meet their religious scholars, promising that if on hearing him, the divines
would declare him to be true, they would not hesitate to accept him as a
Prophet.”
DTT provide a hyper link here :
I shall leave a link were DTT provide
detailed analyses with sources regarding Banu Nadir treachery
what makes it so ironic here is that they
accuse DTT of not providing evidence when
they were guilty of the same issue in their own opening
statement
but since I’m addressing TROP here I will comment and respond to each “response” they had
“A laughable account from al-Waqidi's Kitab al-Maghazi contradicts
the rest and has thirty Jews trying to
assassinate Muhammad with concealed daggers. It's one more reason why
al-Waqidi is dismissed as a fabricator. “
citation needed
where is Al-Waqidi
account? where are your sources? didn’t you accuse DTT of not providing sources
for their arguments, but here this is the second time you make arguments with
no proof
“The Banu Nadir were evicted following the Muslim defeat at Uhud, when Muhammad would have been angry and
looking for a way to save face with his cult-like band of believers.”
citation needed,
this is the third time they make arguments with no proof
“There are two stories of the Banu Nadir
incident. One mentions the alleged
assassination attempt and the other does not.
Neither account says that the Banu Nadir attacked Muhammad or assisted
the enemy against him. A Sahih verse from Abu Dawud simply says that the
Quraish sent a letter to the Nadir tribe, attempting to recruit them. “
citation needed, this is the forth time they make arguments with no proof
but nevertheless this laughable at best,
We do have an account directly saying Banu
nadir attacked the prophet
“Ibn ‘Umar said “The Jews Al Nadir and
Quraizah fought with the Apostle of Allaah(ﷺ),
so the Apostle of Allaah(ﷺ) expelled Banu Al-Nadir and allowed the Quraizah to stay and
favored them. The Quraizah thereafter fought (with the Prophet).” So he killed
their men and divided their women, property,
and children among Muslims except some of them who associated with the Apostle
of Allaah(ﷺ). He gave them
protection and later on they embraced Islam. The Apostle of Allaah(ﷺ) expelled all the Jews of Madeenah in Toto, Banu Qainuqa, they
were the people of ‘Abd Allaah bin Salam, the Jews of Banu Harith and any of
Jews who resided in Madeenah.”[1]
it's important to understand that “fought
with” here doesn’t mean that they fought alongside him as allies, no, they
fought against him as Arabic text clearly state
"حاربو رسول الله"
meaning they directly fought Allah apostle
if this is not good enough being from Sunan
Abu Dawood,
we have an account from the second most authentic source after Bukhari, Sahih Muslim
“It has been narrated on the authority of
Ibn Umar that the Jews of Banu Nadir and Banu Quraiza fought against the Messenger
of Allah (ﷺ) who expelled Banu
Nadir, and allowed Quraiza to stay on, and granted favour to them until they
too fought against him Then he killed their men, and distributed their women, children, and properties among the Muslims,
except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger
of Allah (ﷺ) turned out all
the Jews of Medina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the
Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.”[2]
This is like hitting two birds with one stone, not only we have
an authentic account here saying Banu
nadir attacked the prophet, but also a mention of Banu qurayza (we will address them later) directly mentioned ass
aggressors who attacked the prophet as well
“The hadith clearly shows that the Banu
Nadir were caught between the Quraish and Muhammad. They had lived peacefully in Medina well
before he arrived and brought his feud with him. The Nadir were repeatedly threatened by the
Quraish for having given shelter to someone who had declared war on the
Quraish. In one case Muhammad talked
them out of defending themselves by assuring them that they were safe:
The infidels of the Quraysh wrote (a
letter) to Ibn Ubayy and to those who worshipped idols from al-Aws and
al-Khazraj, while the Messenger of Allah...
(They wrote): You gave protection to our
companion. We swear by Allah, you should fight him or expel him, or we shall
come to you in full force until we kill
your fighters and appropriate your women.
When this (news) reached Abdullah ibn
Ubayy and those who were worshippers of idols, with him they gathered together
to fight the Messenger of Allah.
When this news reached the Messenger of
Allah, he visited them and said: "The threat of the Quraysh to you has
reached its end. They cannot contrive a plot against you, greater than what you
yourselves intended to harm you...
When they heard this from the
Prophet, they scattered. This reached the infidels of the Quraysh. The infidels
of the Quraysh again wrote (a letter) to the Jews after the battle of Badr: You
are men of weapons and fortresses. You should fight our companion or we shall
deal with you in a certain way. And nothing will come between us and the
anklets of your women. (Abu Dawud 2998)”
finally we actually have a source here
they cited Abu Dawood, but there is only one problem here,
this hadith is Not authentic as we have seen when we addressed the masked Arab before, this hadith is regarded as “Sahih
in Chain”
I shall give a link to my article
addressing what Sahih in Chain really is and how authentic it's going to Issue #7
“These are not the actions of a man
of peace, but one who craves power and material possessions. Once the
situation with the Quraish was dealt with, Muhammad turned right around and
attacked the Banu Nadir again until they were defeated and expelled.
Nothing is said about treachery - on the part of the Nadir, at least. Clearly, the Jewish tribe was the one being forced
to act in self-defense. “
what a laughable statement, after
what we saw, your only one sources turned out to be nothing but a weak fabrication, a simple look at their source
will put any claim they make here to rest, TROP please make a better response
next time
“This episode even follows the
assassination of several key members of the Jewish tribe by Muhammad, including Ka'b al-Ashraf. These
would surely be called violations of the treaty had they been Muslims, but such
is the double standards of Islam.
Needless to say, the Banu Nadir had every reason to doubt the wisdom of
allowing Muhammad into the fold.
The supposed plot to assassinate Muhammad appears in the Sira, but not in the Hadith. In this version of the 'incident', Muhammad goes to ask the Banu Nadir for help with paying blood money to another tribe for a member who was killed by Muslims. This would have been a strange thing to do if the Nadir had just helped out the Quraish, as occurred in DTT's fictionalized account.”
The supposed plot to assassinate Muhammad appears in the Sira, but not in the Hadith. In this version of the 'incident', Muhammad goes to ask the Banu Nadir for help with paying blood money to another tribe for a member who was killed by Muslims. This would have been a strange thing to do if the Nadir had just helped out the Quraish, as occurred in DTT's fictionalized account.”
again citation needed
what follows
is the most insane sequence of event
fabricated by the authors
“The sequence of events from the Sira
is as follows:
1) Muhammad goes to visit a Jewish tribe to beg for money
2) Muhammad learns of an assassination plot... from an angel
3) Muhammad convinces his tribe to attack and evict the Banu Nadir
4) Muhammad confiscates the wealth of the Banu Nadir tribe entirely for himself”
1) Muhammad goes to visit a Jewish tribe to beg for money
2) Muhammad learns of an assassination plot... from an angel
3) Muhammad convinces his tribe to attack and evict the Banu Nadir
4) Muhammad confiscates the wealth of the Banu Nadir tribe entirely for himself”
1-citation needed
2-citation
needed
3-citation needed
4-a completely fabricated strawman
fallacy
regarding sequence 4 did Muhammad really kept the wealth for himself? let’s check their own
source
“The properties of Banu al-Nadir were
part of what Allah bestowed on His Apostle from what the Muslims has not ridden
on horses or camels to get; so they belonged especially
to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who gave his family their annual contribution.
Ibn 'Abdah said: His family (ahlihi) and not the members of his houses (ahl baitihi) ;
then applied what remained for horses and weapons in Allah's path.”
Muhammad Even using their own source clearly didn’t keep it for “himself” entirely, lets’ check the other sources
“Allah bestowed (the property of)
Banu al-Nadir on His Apostle. I swear by Allah, he did not reserve it for
himself, nor did he take it over and above you. The Messenger of Allah
(ﷺ) used to his share for his maintenance annually, or used to
take his contribution and give his family their annual contribution (from this
property), then take what remained and deal with it as he did with Allah's
property.”[3]
(Sahih)
how could TROP go beyond and even misrepresent
their own source and ignore others
Conclusion:
This is what we expected from TROP? This is their response to DTT? lack of credibility, fabricated sources, misrepresented sources, lack of sources, lack
of citations, lack of evidence
emotional and argumentum bias
if this is the start of the first
section I wonder what they will fabricate
next
[1] https://sunnah.com/abudawud/20/78
[2] https://sunnah.com/muslim/32/73
[3] https://sunnah.com/abudawud/20/36
