@SolarCross
Like I said there is falseness in them (for example the camel piss incident) but in general they don't seem made up entirely. If they were made up I doubt they would be so long and detailed nor would there be inconsistencies between different narrations and Mohammad would come out looking a lot more heroic and a lot less like a pathetically deranged psychopathic pedo.
So you think that they seem not made up because they make Mohammad look bad? Clearly you need to reexamine what you consider "truthfulness". You cannot be exactly sure what is made up and what is not. The usual method for examining the validity of a hadith is based on what is said in the Quran and pretty much all the pathetic or deranged stuff is considered false from most Muslims perspective although it primarily depends on the sect. What you consider deranged or pathetic was merely Muslims or scholars making up stories about Muhammad that validated their superstitions and narratives (just like you are doing now) thus they are to be taken critically.
You are incapable of confirming the validity of these hadiths. If you are, then prove that the hadiths you're mentioning are valid. There is a reason why historians don't tend to use Islamic sources.
I doubt that because Emperors get letters every day from people like their governors and generals they actually know and interested in. Some scribbled note from unknown savages far from the centres of civilisation is unlikely to have been accorded much interest. If it was kept it at all it would have been filed under "miscellaneous" along with peasant reports of ducks flying upside-down and other wacky irrelevant stuff and then forgotten.
>Letters everyday
>In the 7th fucking century
A letter from an unknown political leader is something different entirely especially when you consider the hindsight of a letter and the fact that Muhammad indirectly threatens the royal Emperor. Such a letter would be especially significant and wouldn't just be discarded but referenced in the Byzantines many histories of their empire. Such a letter would cause an uproar in the royal court and many would investigate this matter since a death threat from a political leader means war and thus very fucking significant if you ask me. This hasn't happened at all. We don't even have reports of a courier from Arabia.
Regardless, you're just speculating at this point. You have no idea whether or not a letter was actually sent. All you have is Muhammad's word for it and if you really think that he was the false prophet, you would think everything that comes out of his mouth are lies. You contradict yourself in your attempt to construct a narrative.
It is in the hadith that is some evidence not a perfect proof but it is some evidence. Unlike you I did not make anything up. Now you can go on and make up some story about how the whole hadith was invented by a muslim general so that he would have a pretty excuse to go on campaign but then all you have done is invent the most retarded general the world has ever seen. Somehow most generals go on campaign without writing thousands of pages of invented gossip before hand. Ghengis Khan never did anything so feeble minded. Actually the hadith looks like what it purports to be: eyewitness testimony about a person that people around him believed was a genuine prophet. That doesn't mean he was a true prophet but it certainly doesn't look like a complete fiction.
>Says it's in the hadith
>Doesn't state the hadith
Based on how you immediately follow afterward with "unlike you I don't make stuff up" and then begin on a long angry rant about what I'm about to say makes me think that you're projecting. You don't know for certain that there is a hadith probably because you haven't read a hadith in full ever in your entire life and certainly not enough to know every single hadith. The sad thing is, you lied for no reason since hadiths aren't even that valid most of the time given that they were written after Muhammad's death. This is why you need to be skeptical of hadith because it's not always correct and often is written by people who have innate biases behind them such as yourself. Some can be valid but many of them aren't and there are huge debates about the validity of a certain hadith without any capability to truly confirm that.
Also it was a speech; Muhammad just called a part of his revelation. The Quran wasn't even widely available in written form until the Umayyad era. That was literally a decade after Muhammad's death and the Rashidun Caliphate. Btw, wasn't your original argument that Muhammad was a false prophet? Why are you arguing now that the idea of Muhammad being a prophet isn't complete fiction?
Semantics. If he lead fighting men for the purpose of creating a state then he is exactly a warlord if a warlord is a sub-national military leader. He gets to be king when he is done.
Semantics are important, especially when you use terms that are meant to be used by historians. Historians don't define "men fighting for the purpose of creating a state" because there are clear differences from how those people go about things and warlords. Warlords seek to establish their own state within a state through the usage of sheer power and strength. Muhammad didn't do this given that there was no state at the time so this begs the question of exactly what state Muhammad was establishing himself within?
The definition of a warlord is definitive. If you disagree with me, you disagree with the English fucking language.
The Banu Qurayza were butchered because they did not accept that Mo was a real prophet. Your alternative narrative is just something you made up which has zero evidence supporting it.
This is ironic when you consider that the first place you've heard of the Banu Qurayza from is probably an Islamophobic conservative Christian website. Clearly such a website would have no reason to give out an alternate narrative. Furthermore, what the fuck do you think you're doing SolarCross? You think you aren't pushing out a narrative? Half the shit you say is speculation and the other half is just baseless.
Dude, Muhammad was first invited to settle disputes between two opposing tribes, the Aws and the Khazraj. Muhammad established a compact, the Constitution of Medina, which committed the Jewish and Muslim tribes to mutual cooperation. During his arrival, Muhammad signed a special treaty with the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad.
After Muhammad's arrival in Medina, the Banu Qurayza were involved in a dispute with the Banu Nadir: The more powerful Nadir rigorously applied lex talionis against the Qurayza while not allowing it being enforced against themselves. Further, the blood money paid for killing a man of the Qurayza was only half of the blood-money required for killing a man of the Nadir, placing the Qurayza in a socially inferior position. The Qurayza called on Muhammad as arbitrator, who delivered the surah 5:42-45 and judged that the Nadir and Qurayza should be treated alike in the application of lex talionis and raised the assessment of the Qurayza to the full amount of blood money.
Tensions quickly mounted between the growing numbers of Muslims and Jewish tribes, while Muhammad found himself at war with his native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh. In 624, after his victory over the Meccans in the Battle of Badr, Banu Qaynuqa threatened Muhammad's political position and assaulted a Muslim woman which led to their expulsion from Medina for breaking the peace treaty of Constitution of Medina. The Qurayza remained passive during the whole Qaynuqa affair, apparently because the Qaynuqa were historically allied with the Khazraj, while the Qurayza were the allies of the Aws.
Soon afterwards, Muhammad came into conflict with the Banu Nadir. He had one of the Banu Nadir's chiefs, the poet Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, assassinated. and after the Battle of Uhud accused the tribe of treachery and plotting against his life and expelled them from the city. The Qurayza remained passive during this conflict because of the blood money issue related above.
In 627, the Meccans, accompanied by tribal allies as well as the Banu Nadir - who had been very active in supporting the Meccans - marched against Medina - the Muslim stronghold - and laid siege to it. It is unclear whether their treaty with Muhammad obliged the Qurayza to help him defend Medina, or merely to remain neutral, according to Ramadan, they had signed an agreement of mutual assistance with Muhammad. The Qurayza did not participate in the fighting but lent tools to the town's defenders. According to Al-Waqidi, the Banu Qurayza helped the defense effort of Medina by supplying spades, picks, and baskets for the excavation of the defensive trench the defenders of Medina had dug in preparation. According to Watt, the Banu Qurayza "seem to have tried to remain neutral" in the battle but later changed their attitude when a Jew from Khaybar persuaded them that Muhammad was sure to be overwhelmed and though they did not commit any act overtly hostile to Muhammad, they entered into negotiations with the invading army.
The Qurayza readmitted Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Banu Nadir whom Muhammad had exiled and who had instigated the alliance of his tribe with the besieging Quraysh and Ghatafan tribes. Huyayy persuaded the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad to help the Meccans conquer Medina. Ka'b was, according to Al-Waqidi's account, initially reluctant to break the contract and argued that Muhammad never broke any contract with them or exposed them to any shame, but decided to support the Meccans after Huyayy had promised to join the Qurayza in Medina if the besieging army would return to Mecca without having killed Muhammad. Ibn Kathir and al-Waqidi report that Huyayy tore into pieces the agreement between Ka'b and Muhammad.
Rumors of this one-sided renunciation of the pact spread and were confirmed by Muhammad's emissaries, Sa'd ibn Mua'dh and Sa'd ibn Ubadah, leading men of the Aws and Khazraj respectively. Sa'd ibn Mua'dh reportedly issued threats against the Qurayza but was restrained by his colleague. As this would have allowed the besiegers to access the city and thus meant the collapse of the defenders' strategy, Muhammad "became anxious about their conduct and sent some of the leading Muslims to talk to them; the result was disquieting." According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad sent Nuaym ibn Masud, a well-respected elder of the Ghatafan who had secretly converted to Islam, to go to Muhammad's enemies and sow discord among them. Nuaym went to the Qurayza and advised them to join the hostilities against Muhammad only if the besiegers provide hostages from among their chiefs. He then hurried to the invaders and warned them that if the Qurayza asked for hostages, it is because they intended to turn them over to the Medinan defenders. When the representatives of the Quraysh and the Ghatafan came to the Qurayza, asking for support in the planned decisive battle with Muhammad, the Qurayza indeed demanded hostages. The representatives of the besiegers refused, breaking down negotiations and resulting in the Banu Qurayza becoming extremely distrustful of the besieging army. The Qurayza did not take any actions to support them until the besieging forces retreated. Thus the threat of a second front against the defenders never materialised.
After the Meccans' withdrawal, Muhammad then led his forces against the Banu Qurayza neighborhood. The Banu Qurayza retreated into their stronghold and endured the siege for 25 days. As their morale waned, Ka'b ibn Asad suggested three alternative ways out of their predicament: embrace Islam; kill their own children and women, then rush out for a charge to either win or die; or make a surprise attack on the Sabbath. The Banu Qurayza accepted none of these alternatives. Instead they asked to confer with Abu Lubaba, one of their allies from the Aws. According to Ibn Ishaq, Abu Lubaba felt pity for the women and children of the tribe who were crying and when asked whether the Qurayza should surrender to Muhammad, advised them to do so. However he also "made a sign with his hand toward his throat, indicating that [their fate] at the hands of the Prophet would be slaughter". The next morning, the Banu Qurayza surrendered and the Muslims seized their stronghold and their stores. The men - Ibn Ishaq numbers between 400 and 900 - were bound and placed under the custody of one Muhammad ibn Maslamah, who had killed Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, while the women and children - numbering about 1,000 - were placed under Abdullah ibn Sallam, a former rabbi who had converted to Islam.
The circumstances of the Qurayza's demise have been related by Ibn Ishaq and other Muslim historians who relied upon his account. According to Watt, Peters and Stillman, the Qurayza surrendered to Muhammad's judgement - a move Watt classifies as unconditional. The Aws, who wanted to honor their old alliance with the Qurayza, asked Muhammad to treat the Qurayza leniently as he had previously treated the Qaynuqa for the sake of Ibn Ubayy. (Arab custom required support of an ally, independent of the ally's conduct to a third party.) Muhammad then suggested to bring the case before an arbitrator chosen from the Aws, to which both the Aws and the Qurayza agreed to. Muhammad then appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh to decide the fate of the Jewish tribe.
The tribe agreed to surrender on the condition of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing.[56] According to Khadduri (also cited by Abu-Nimer), "both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them"[57][58] in accordance with the Arabian tradition of arbitration. Muir holds that the Qurayza surrendered on the condition that "their fate was decided by their allies, the Bani Aws".
In all accounts, the appointed arbitrator was Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a leading man among the Aws. During the Battle of the Trench, he had been one of Muhammad's emissaries to the Qurayza and now was dying from a wound he had received later in the battle. When Sa'd arrived, his fellow Aws pleaded for leniency towards the Qurayza and on his request pledged that they would abide by his decision. He then decreed that "the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives". Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment. Chiragh Ali argued that this statement may have referred to "king" or "ruler" rather than God.
Sa'd dismissed the pleas of the Aws, according to Watt because being close to death and concerned with his afterlife, he put what he considered "his duty to God and the Muslim community" before tribal allegiance. Tariq Ramadan argues that Muhammad deviated from his earlier, more lenient treatment of prisoners as this was seen "as sign of weakness if not madness". Peterson concurs that the Muslims wanted to deter future treachery by setting an example with severe punishment. Lings reports that Sa'ad feared that if expelled, the Qurayza would join the Nadir in the fight against the Muslims. Some authors assert that the judgement of Sa'd ibn Mua'dh was conducted according to laws of Torah. Then the massacre of the Banu Qurayza occurred.
As you can see, it's more complex than "Mohammad wanted them to convert, they said no, then death". What are you a five year old? Furthermore, here is the evidence as this directly shows how political decisions influenced Muhammad and his goal of destroying tribalism which is also directly evident by the fact that all pre-7th century tribes have been wiped out by Muhammad both in the Ridda Wars and in his conquest of Arabia. Now you prove your claim.
You don't understand anything I say at all.
I certainly understood more than you and I directly answered your post. If you think it is irrelevant then note that I am responding to your post's implications and along with it directly. You would certainly get the answer to your question if you had bothered to read anything I say.
Waffle and made up stuff.
Clearly it's made up when you literally have not given a single piece of evidence to support your claims. My arguments have more validity than yours for simply the sheer evidence I have given you. You have done nothing this debate but speculate and speculate. You've speculated that there is hadith that supports your point, you've speculate that there was a letter sent to the Byzantine emperor, and you've speculated what happened to the Banu Qurayza.
I am not a Christian but everyone believes in non-human incorporeal spirits except for hard atheists only. Buddhists, Christians, polythiests of every kind, all believe in spirits. Djinn is just the arabic word for these beings.
So you believe in ghosts. So much for mister rational over here.
Regardless I don't think you know that djinns have a very significant role in Islam and by believing in djinn, you place credence in Islam as a valid representation of the world. Furthermore, why the fuck would an atheist give a fuck about who is and is not a false prophet? For all you know, every single prophet is a false one.
Illiterate people don't read and write but they can still listen and talk. If he was a merchant then almost certainly spent time chatting with all sorts of people who travel. Syria, the levant and Egypt was substantially Christian then and there were lots of jews in Medina which wasn't far away at all. All he has to do is chat with some Christian traders or non-christian traders who traded in Christian lands or those who traded with the local jews to pick up all sorts of stuff about the respective religions. Coming to learn some of the basic stories from the Judeo-Christian religions doesn't make you an expert theologist though which is why the jews were unimpressed by him.
I have addressed this. Muhammad was capable of reading and writing because not only did he say this with his claim that he suddenly knew how to read and write but this is further shown by the fact that he wrote the Quran. Do you think that the Quran is a divine text and if not, who the fuck do you think wrote it? I have already given my arguments against this point so I won't go into it's further but to address your point that the Jews were unimpressed by him because of his lack of theological understanding, you will be delighted to learn that most Jewish tribes in Arabia converted to Islam. As such, it seems like they were impressed by him.
Like I said before, you're speculating. You don't know what the Jews thought of him, you just want to construct a baseless narrative that suits you.
No because a muslim believes that mohammad was guided by an angel of the jew's god. Whereas I think he was possessed by an evil spirit.
Well clearly you do since you think that the Quran was given by Muhammad and note written by him. Furthermore, do you have any concrete proof that such spirits even exist? You've come a long way from "everything must be rational" to "ghosts and djinn exist!".
You changed my statement so that you could go an a aimless rant about nothing.
And how did I change your statement? I'm not the one who states that Islam has a variety of sects and then says that they aren't diverse at all. Is it because I left out the word "some" out of your statement? Is "some" such an integral part of your argument that it cannot function without it? Fine, here is my argument with "some" added to it:
Oxymandias wrote:
>There is some variety in Islam
>It isn't diverse
These statements contradict one another. If you admit that there is variety in Islamic sects and interpretations then stating immediately afterward that they aren't diverse is a clear paradox. This is a logical conflict and it can only be solved by choosing one or the other. Furthermore, the fact that Islam is so spread out contributes to it's diversity. Islam in India for example is completely different from Islam in East Africa or Islam in Pakistan for that matter since there are great differences in both culture and society in that region and Islam assimilates into that. Thus, stating that Islam isn't diverse because it's so spread out is factually incorrect.
There. It doesn't change anything, does it? I still address all your points. It seems to me that you're just nitpicking since you have no way of arguing against my points.
It remains that despite the variety muslims are all drinking from the same well even if their piss doesn't all smell the same. This is why despite the differences between sunni and shia they are more alike than they are different. The same goes for Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians.
That is such a retarded analogy that I cannot even wrap my head around it. Why don't you say what you're saying know to the Druze or Bahaists or Yazidis? Why don't you tell Shias that they are theologically the same to Sunnis despite there being massive differences between them. Why not tell them that the Sunni/Shia divide makes no sense and that they are all the same in your eyes. Quite frankly, you'd just get punched in the face. You show no theological understanding of Islam and thus are unqualified to talk about it.
No muslim knows anything about what Allah wants from them except from what they get from what Mohammad said.
Except that most of what Muhammad has said and written is vague and a lot of what he has said and done is also frequently made up.