The Conference unfolds to the balanced mind. Its soul is the honor of the search, the equanimity of judgment and the breath of beauty. Beauty is an intricate state of balance weighed by the scales of the Lord. The essence of beauty is balance, like the equipoise of sight, the restitutions of love and the harmony in the Divine word.
I sit unfolding on the pages of the Conference uncovering the power of beauty to restore the imbalance of the mind. It is love, which I nurture in myself for it guards the scales. But if love has the power to guard the scales, bigotry is the ugliness colonizing the feeble soul. Bigotry is an infection of fear or hate, pillaging through the immunities of the heart. Bigotry is the quintessential disruption of the magnanimity of the mind. It was the bigotry of colonialism that once intruded upon our existence and ravished our lives. It severed us from our Conference, and persuaded us that our heritage is but a lie. The disease of colonialism had infected our hearts, our minds, our limbs and our sight. We saw our history as a corruption and aberration to be apologetically denied. Infected with bigotry, in our imbalance, we idealized the beginning of our history, and the rest — we demonized.
>Whether it is the bigotry of fear or hate, the bigotry of the colonizer or colonized, the bigotry of friend or foe, the same ugliness corrupts the scales of the Lord.
A new piece of bigotry by Daniel Pipes, and the intrusion disrupts you. It is not that the bigotry is novel or original, but the very fact that you take time to respond is an annoying chore. What can one say to bigotry that could possibly help it restore the imbalance in its soul ? What can one say to those who project their ugliness unto existence, and come to believe that history is like a painted whore – it exists for their pleasure, for their whims, and exists to service their political goals.
Pipes’ new revelation about Islam and Muslims is that their history is quite possibly a lie. Misery loves misery, and so Pipes teams up with Ibn Warraq, a pitiful figure inviting Muslims to liberate themselves from their religion and their Lord. Earlier on, Ibn Warraq fascinated us with his ranting about why he is not a Muslim. Of course, his title came from Bertrand Russell’s Why I am Not a Christian, but while Russell wrote philosophy, what Ibn Warraq wrote is an inanity, and an utter intellectual bore. This time the man with the funny name collected a bunch of articles and published them under the title The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. One of the two introductions to the book is written by a fellow with the pathetic pseudo-name Ibn Rawandi. Perhaps, our contemporary authors are alluding to friendship between the historical Ibn Rawandi and al-Warraq, both from the third Islamic century. The Manicheism and heresy of the historical figures is debated, but compared to the originals, our modern authors are unfortunate mutations and intellectual trolls. Perhaps, our two authors could not imagine that a Muslim writer could be named anything except the “Ibn” or “Abu” of something, and thought the pseudo-names sounded really cool. Perhaps, our authors simply sought to hide behind their bigotry, and sought to create with their pseudo-names their own mysterious lore.
Pseudo-names betray the lack of conviction and cowardliness of their adopters. At any case, the issue is not the facetious name holders ; the issue is our ostentatious long-time friend Daniel Pipes. Pipes, like his jovial friends, contends that Arabic sources on Islam are inherently unreliable, and so what we think we know about Islam is not what we should know. Pipes claims that Arabic sources were written a century and a half after the Prophet’s death. Furthermore, non-Muslim sources dramatically contradict the standard Muslim biography of the Prophet Muhammad, and when a Muslim and a non-Muslim speak, of course, we all know who we should believe. Pipes applauds the efforts of revisionist historians such as John Wansbrough, Yehuda Nevo, Judith Koren and Patricia Crone. According to Pipes, historical revisionism challenges the idea that Muhammad preached in Mecca, that Arabic was the language of early Arabia, that Arabic was the language of early Muslims, that there was ever such a thing as early Muslims, that the Prophet was born in 570 or, for that matter, Muhammad existed at all. The Quran was not the product of the Prophet or even Arabia, but is nothing more than liturgical material stolen from the Judeo-Christian tradition, stitched together at a late point. Islamic history, as found in Muslim sources, is no more than a pious lie, a salvation history, by a rootless people, a soul-less people trying to invent a unique identity of their own.
Discharging the White Man’s Burden, Pipes, may God bless his merciful soul, advises Muslims that revisionism is a school that they can no longer afford to ignore. According to Pipes, revisionism is a toothache, and those poor pious Muslims, immersed in their delusions and superstition, think that the toothache will disappear on its own. But Pipes, like my kind mother who taught me oral hygiene and the importance of a daily shower, teaches Muslims that toothaches don’t just go away. Toothaches, you silly willy-nilly Muslims need doctors, need rationalists, need Pipes because, darn it, they just don’t go away on their own ! Thank God for Pipes, who like his colonial predecessors, guides us to the truth of history, the falsity of our piety and the fact that the objectivism of science is the cure for our superstitious souls. Without the cant of our masters how could we have ever figured out what to do with toothaches, headaches or any other ache or sore ?
Revisionism, like all forms of incipient or established bigotry, rests on several peculiar assumptions. Assumption number one is that Muslims invariably lie. Perhaps the genetic pool of Muslims is the culprit or perhaps it is that Muslims are prone to conspiratorial delusions, and can hardly distinguish fiction from fact. According to Pipes and his revisionists, Muslims have no qualms about inventing, lying or cheating as long as it serves their salvation goals. The second assumption follows from the first. A non-Muslim source is inherently more reliable because non-Muslims have a notion of historical objectivism. Therefore, if, for instance, a hundred Muslim sources say one thing and one Syriac source says another, it is an open and shut case. The Syriac source is inherently more reliable because those pesky Muslims cannot help but lie. The third assumption is no less interesting. Muslim history is “salvation history” written by the self-serving unreliable faithful. Muslims are biased who are persistent in their search for their ever-allusive identity. Non-Muslims, on the other hand, are fair-minded even if non-Muslims have their own set of interests because, after all, non-Muslims have no need for salvation ; their Lord has already salvaged their blessed souls. So the methodology of revisionism is simple : ignore what Muslims say about themselves or others, and believe what non-Muslims say about themselves or Muslims. The fourth assumption of revisionism is the one least confessed, but is unmistakable in methodology and conclusion. Muslims are a barbaric people ; whatever good they might have produced, they must have conveniently borrowed from Judaism, Christianity or some other more civilized source. Whatever barbarism Muslims might have produced, that, naturally, comes from the depth of their hearts and souls, but whatever beauty they may have possessed they simply stole.
But revisionists will say, “No, you misguided emotional Muslim friend. You simply don’t realize that Islamic history was composed in the context of intense partisan quarrels. Knowing how emotional Muslims can be, Muslims simply wrote their history to affirm their beliefs.”
But if there was no Prophet or Quran or even history, what was the cause of the partisan quarrels ? Well, perhaps nothing more than the well-known Arab hunger for money and wealth, or the Arab inability to transcend their ethnic divisions and pedantic tribal lusts. The fact that Syriac or Jewish sources had their own partisan interests and biases is immaterial, of course, because non-Muslims invariably speak the truth. Furthermore, the fact that a Greek source might be reporting on rumors or on corrupted transmissions received from Muslims themselves does not at all impeach their reliability. We can never forget ; Muslims lie and non-Muslims speak the truth.
Of course, Pipes, and his funny named friends, conveniently ignore that accounts of the Prophet’s life were written in the first century after his death. While they love to claim the authoritativeness of papyri and coinage to their side, they never explain what coinage or papyri they are talking about. Are papyri or coinage reliable sources regardless of the source ? Even more, they ignore papyri written in the first century documenting traditions about the Prophet, and Umayyad and Abbasid coinage supporting Muslim historical accounts. They also ignore papyri documented by Sezgin and others demonstrating the existence of the Quran in the first century of Islam in its current form. Furthermore, they ignore that the Quran does not reflect the historical context of the second or third Islamic centuries, but shows an overwhelming pre-occupation with the affairs of Quraysh, Mecca, Medina, the hypocrites and the Prophet. According to the revisionists, in the time of the Abbasids, Muslims fabricated the Quran in the second and third centuries. But apparently they did not find a better way to reflect their historical context than to talk about Quraysh or Mecca, concepts which the revisionists believe were invented and which, if one accepts the revisionist logic, no one understood or cared about. Not only that, but even more, those lying cheating Muslims instead of relying on their own poetry or mythology, they could not find something better than the Judeo-Christian liturgy. In short, such are the sad affairs of Muslims, they lie and eventually believe their own lies.
But Pipes, and his friends, will surely say, “Muslims don’t have a history, and so history Muslims cannot understand. You poor ahistorical Muslim here you go again with your emotions getting out of hand. Don’t you realize that historical revisionism assaulted Christianity and Judaism as well ? Don’t you realize that both religions survived, but profoundly changed, as Islam surely will?”
“Well, of course I thank you for assuring me that Islam will survive. But revisionism in the case of non-Muslim history is a critical skepticism as to institutional and official histories, but in the case of Islam it is outright bigotry. What school of historical revisionism has ever claimed that all Jewish, Christian, British or French sources cannot be believed ? What school of revisionism has branded an entire people as compulsive liars?”
The truth is that revisionists dealing with Islamic history are ideologues without the critical integrity of scholars. We can take one example of Pipes methodology and ponder his style. Pipes claims that an unspecified inscription and a Greek account leads Lawrence Conrad to fix the Prophet’s birth at 522 not 570. Apparently, Pipes did not bother reading Conrad’s study. Conrad heavily relies on debates in Muslim sources concerning the dating of the Year of the Elephant. He also relies on debates in Muslim sources regarding whether the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant or on an earlier date. Conrad analyzes the claim that the Prophet received revelation at the age forty, and simply points out that the age forty was considered a literary topoi for maturity in Arabic and non-Arabic literature. Therefore, the argument that the Prophet was forty when he started his mission could possibly be a symbolic usage signifying that the Prophet had reached an age of maturity. Significantly, Conrad does not reach a conclusion about the date of the Prophet’s birth. Rather, he argues that Beeston’s and Kister’s conclusion that the Year of the Elephant was in 522, is supported by strong evidence. He then, appropriately, emphasizes the complexity of establishing the Prophet’s date of birth. This is a far cry from Pipes’ misrepresentation of Conrad. But Conrad is a scholar, and Pipes is an ideologue.
Many of Pipes’ delusions are fed by the infamous book Hagarism. Yet, very few people in the scholarly community take that book seriously. Even later works by the authors of Hagarism demonstrate a greater degree of fair mindedness and scholarly integrity. If Hagarism was written in a fit of indulgent fantasy, the same cannot be said about works that followed in its footsteps. Much of the work of revisionism was spearheaded by scholars with a regrettable political agenda. Like vulgar forms of Orientalism, revisionists sought to de-legitimate and deconstruct the tradition of their perceived enemies. The bigotry of the Israeli scholars Koren and Nevo is evident. They contend that any Arabic source must be corroborated by a non-Arabic source, and if the two sources conflict, as a matter of course, the non-Arab is to be believed. Wellhausen and Wansbrough were biblical scholars, and their circumspect methodology with Jewish and biblical studies contrasts sharply with their speculative fancies with Islamic history.
The truth is that the fanaticism of revisionism in doubting Islamic history is the opposite side of the coin of the fanaticism of pietistic sanctifications of Islamic history. Each is an imbalance, each is extreme and each is ugly. But the distinguishing feature of revisionism is its bigotry. Imagine if European history was written only by reliance on Muslim sources. Imagine if the Jewish history of the Second Temple was written only by reliance on Roman sources. Imagine if Christian history was written only by reliance on Jewish sources. Imagine if the history of the American Revolution was written only by reliance on British sources. Imagine if Israeli history was written only through the eyes of Palestinians. But it is impossible to write these histories in this fashion because no respectable historian would claim the inherent inaccuracy of all European, American, Jewish, Christian and Israeli sources. What would Pipes think of revisionist historians who claim that the Exodus of Jews from Egypt is a myth, and that the First or Second Temple never existed because Jews never lived in Palestine at any point in their history ? The truth is that the bigotry of revisionists is like the anti-Semitism of Holocaust-deniers who write the history of Jews by relying on the sources of their German enemies.
No, revisionism is not a toothache ; it is an insolent attempt to deny a people their very identity, it is the ugliness of Colonialism, and the imbalance of fear and insecurity. Revisionism is the heartache of simple bigotry. 
Comments
26 responses to “On Revising Bigotry”
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“You can call it revisionism if you want. What I object to is the implication that we Muslims somehow twist the historical evidence to come in line with our claims, or that we are denying the obvious implications of conclusive evidence, or that we say that Christians and Jews always lie, and hence reject their scripture as evidence entirely.”
If you are going to get upset at implications that do not exist I think you will not have a happy like. Given I have clearly and repeatedly said that I don’t think there is any historical evidence for many Muslim claims, I don’t see how you could think I have said otherwise. Nor do I see that I have said any of the other claims. What I have said is that Muslims claim Jews and Christians lie (not all the time) and hence reject any part of the scripture that does not agree with what Muslims believe.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“I don’t see any Muslim claiming that archaeology or first-hand, eyewitness, primary documents support the Muslim claim of Abraham sacrificing Ishmael in Mecca. It is a theological view, one that hinges on the veracity of the Prophet Muhammad’s prophethood.”
Who said there was ? We seem in total agreement here.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“It would be a different matter of course, if conclusive evidence turns out which runs counter to Islamic claims. That’s why I’m asking you for conclusive evidence supporting the claims of Judaism and Christianity. You haven’t shown any conclusive evidence in support of their claims, and which runs counter to specifically Muslim claims. As such, there is no point in saying that Islam is a revisionism of Judaism and Christianity in the context the article is objecting to. And it really smacks of antagonism to Islam to imply that it is revisionism of the two religions while the same could be said of the two using exactly the same line of reasoning.”
Why would I want or need to produce “conclusive” evidence ? Revisionism of Judaism and Christianity is exactly what Islam is. I do not see your objection and perhaps you do not mean what I mean by “Revisionism”? It is a simple statement of fact, not antagonism to Islam. How could Judaism be revising anything as it pre-date the other two ? You have made a case that Christianity is with respect ot Judaism and I am happy enough to go along with that a little way.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“Well it doesn’t need to be a massive conspiracy if it can begin with one person. Let’s take a look : a text was transmitted through one man. He transmits it to another. The man he transmitted it to mishandles the text. Afterwards, thousands of copies of the mishandled text were made. And those wrong copies were transmitted for 4 thousand years.”
One person with one text, perhaps. If only one copy of it exists. But for those Muslim-specific practises, thousands of manuscripts would have to have been edited and manipulated over the last 2000 years or more. They are constantly digging up new quasi-Biblical or Biblical texts. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. So the conspiracy has to be on-going and involve, for the DSS alone, the people who first bought them and recognised what they were which would include the leadership of the Syrian Orthodox Church and the American School of Oriental Research, the entire project staff, all the archaeologists and Biblical scholars who have ever worked on the project, the states of Israel and Jordan, the Rockefeller Museum, the French École Biblique, the Palestine Archaeological Museum, and the American Library of Congress. And the Vatican of course. To suppress the Truth, as Muslims see it, requires such a massive effort it is, in my opinion, beyond the bounds of reason.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“It is good that you want a fair standard for all. I also don’t think that revisionists have proven their claim. At least, not according to the evidence that we have.”
Well the real problem remains we don’t have any evidence, or not much, and so any story could be true. But then any story might be false. The revisionists can never prove their claim in a strong sense without real evidence.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“But if you’re really interested in a fair standard for all, why not say that Christianity is a revisionism of Judaism, and Judaism a revisionism of polytheistic Mesopotamian religion ? Why attack only Islam ? Why resort to the claims of revisionists (for example, regarding Muslim masses at the time of Caliph Uthman), and then suddenly switch arguments when you can’t disprove the Muslim claims regarding Abraham, by citing Occam’s Razor?”
There is a theological argument about what the Christians are doing. I am not convinced that their reinterpretation is revisionism, but if it will make you happier let’s agree it is. So what ? I don’t think a sensible case can be made that Judaism is revision of anything. It looks radically new and probably was. What resort to the claims of revisionists ? I do not see that I am switching arguments at all.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“Now here is where the circularity comes in. If Christ made a promise to the church, then the question has to be asked as to the specifics of the promise he allegedly made. We assume that this is made in the Christian scriptures. Apparently, it is not. Anyway, if a Christian says that yes, it is in the scriptures, well this is where the ‘isnads (or any method to verify how transmission was made) comes in. Which refutes your point that it is irrelevant to Christianity.”
Well no because a Christian will still claim that the presense of Christ in the world and in the Church is what counts. I do not see the circularity. Again the Bible is clearly like the Quran in that believing it does not require an isnad but Faith. However even if it did not, Christianity would be more like visiting a Sufi pir who can demonstrate his Faith by the performance of magic. The Church re-enacts the central miracle of Christ’s life every week. Christians can see, feel and experience the miracle. Islam only has the text. Christianity is a different religion and as I keep pointing out, it needs a different approach.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“However, it should be conceded by Christians that what they believe in is what the Church says, and not necessarily what Jesus said, while a Muslim would accept nothing less than something grounded in some way on what the Prophet taught.”
Christians would flatly deny there is a difference between what the Church says and what Jesus said. The stronger Christians would point to the Holy Ghost working within the Church every day.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“This is why I made a comment that you also use revisionism. Anyway, most scholars (not just Muslim scholars, who are equally capable, by the way) are in agreement that, at least in basic outline, the traditional Muslim account of the Qur’an’s preservation is correct.”
I do not deny reading and being impressed by the revisionists. And actually no, the Muslim scholars I have seen are certainly talented in their own way and in doing their own thing, but when it comes to textual criticism or scholarship, they are weak. They are, after all, by and large, believers. What they do is theology. I am unconvinced most non-Muslim scholars accept that the traditional Muslim accounts are correct. There are obvious problems with it. What most seem to do is admit the problems but say in the absence of proof it is sensible to keep it for now.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“Only a few scholars reject it, rejecting all of the hadith, or accepting parts which could potentially undermine Muslim claims.”
I don’t think anyone rejects all the aHadith except of course for some Muslims.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“Well, you’re wrong about the text of the NT. Why do scholars such as Bruce Metzger and Kurt Aland have to vote to decide on which particular word to include in their critical text of the NT ? Precisely because different manuscripts say different things, and it is up to the text critic to decide which reading best represents the autograph. Of course, they have to take new manuscripts and fragments into consideration if new ones come in. That’s why the text is fluid. It’s not just a matter of telling us more about the time in which it was compiled. It’s a matter of what the text really says. Most of the times the variations are minor, no problem with that. But sometimes, some significant variations emerge. Jesus could become God, just a man, (or maybe even a woman!) just by the difference of a word.”
You are confusing translating with editing. Metzger is a Biblical scholar who works on translations and admittedly there are problems in that the Bible was not written with punctuation for instance. As he says :
‘You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. … . You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books. These documents didn’t derive their authority from being selected ; each one was authoritative before anyone gathered them together.’
Why do you think they have to take a new text into account from any other point except scholarship ? Can you show where in any newer Bible a fragment has been incorporated and changed the text ? In the end most arguments come down to translations, not the texts.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“The difference is this : there are a few controversial scholars who attempt a revisionism of Islam, and reject the broad outline of the traditional Muslim account regarding the Qur’an’s standardization and compilation. On the other hand, there is no massive conspiracy theory regarding the Bible, as the text critics themselves (some of which are devout Christians) will candidly point out that some changes took place on the text of the NT. If you disagree with this, kindly present the text of the Bible, of which you believe each and every word to accurately represent the autograph. I will do this gladly with the text of the Qur’an we have today (the Uthmanic text). Well, a text claiming that the Prophet never went near Mecca will not matter, because it is not tawwatur. So, whatever objections you have regarding the tawwatur of the Qur’an, the other texts wouldn’t be tawwatur, and hence irrelevant to Muslim claims.”
As I keep pointing out, the Bible is not central to Christianity in the same way the Quran is to Muslims. I do not know of many people who would claim it was inerrant although no doubt there are some. That is not the issue — to return to my earlier point, you cannot judge Christian texts by Muslim standards. As for the Revisionists, of course they are not trying to revise Islam. They are trying to study the origins of Islam and the relevant texts. You cannot confuse theology with historical scholarship. The fields are distinct although of course Christian theology has been enriched by textual scholarship. At some point most Faiths, when faced with a conflict between evidence and theology, opt for the evidence. I do not agree with you on the likely consequences of any substantial and proven recasting of Muslim history. The truth is that the West shapes Islam all the time in part through scholarship. Muslims are welcome to deny what they like, but they have to convince each other as well.
Me:“There is simply no evidence of that and on the contrary we know that at least part of the Quran was transmitted through *two* people. Presumably if it was only transmitted through one that text would not have been included. We also know, with the verse on rajam, that it used to have parts it does not any more. Muslims can come up with religious reasons for that, but scholars are unlikely to accept them. ”
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“Then again, Muslim tradition is some sort of evidence. You have to reject it completely for you to say that there is no evidence for that. And the article we’re commenting to did a pretty good job of responding to some of their claims. Again, the parts which the Qur’an used to have are mentioned in the ahadith. While you apparently accept the hadith regarding the verse of rajam, you reject the rest of the ahadith, and even claim that there is no evidence for the Qur’an’s tawwatur status.”
Except it is the Muslim tradition that provides the proof of the change. I do not reject it completely. I do not believe the theological claims Muslim makes about many of their texts but no more. To claim that the Quran has never been changed is not a scholarly claim, it is a theological one. I still don’t reject aHadith completely.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“Renegades are able to kill the head of the state for petty reasons, and you find it easy for them to accept brazen disrespect for versions of the Qur’an, which may support (or be made to support) any claim of theirs ? The people clamored against the Caliph Uthman when a certain ascetic died, and you expect them to stand idly while something they are willing to die and kill for is being tampered?”
But how would they know it was tampered ? There was no copy until Uthman — apart from claims that Abu Bakr and Umar had worked to compile one. It was not a public document. It was a private possession. Where would they find an original to compare it to ? You are also asserting a love of Islam which is somewhat lacking in the evidence. They did not so love the text they put it on their tombstones, for instance, or at least none that have been found, for about 75 years. This suggests ignorance of the text and hence ease with which it could be “corrected”. How do you know they were willing to die for the Quran ? Did anyone ?
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“And though Arab society is admittedly not very literate (which also explains the lack of written documents from the era), they have the capacity for oral transmission. Claiming that preserving the Qur’an is not high priority is revisionism, and again implies a rejection of the entire corpus of hadith material and Muslim tradition.”
It is actually pretty much what the Muslim tradition says. Muhammed did not bother to collect it. Abu Bakr and Umar did not bother much. Uthman did but by then it may have been important to do so for political reasons. Even when it was supposedly collected, it was a low priority because they gave the job to such a minor person — there were many scholars, allegedly, by then, but they were not given the task. And I have to correct myself — part of the Quran was only found in one person :
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 201 :
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit Al-Ansari :
… I found with Khuzaima two Verses of Surat-at-Tauba which I had not found with anybody else, (and they were):–
“Verily there has come to you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty He (Muhammad) is ardently anxious over you (to be rightly guided)” (9.128)
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“Admittedly, I am not an expert in the concept of naksh. But some Islamic scholars have classified precisely this kind of abrogation, where the words are abrogated, and the ruling remains. I never said that this was an exception.”
Well I know of no other but that is not saying much. But what is their basis for making that claim ? Perhaps Bukhari is just wrong ? Which is the true Revisionism I wonder, those that say what the aHadith say, or those that say that the aHadith must say what they say it says. The aHadith for instance clearly show Muhammed could read and write. The Quran does not contradict this — it calls him Ummi which might mean anything but Muslims have interpreted as illiterate. Islam claims it is based on the text but the role of the scholars in saying what the text says is enormous. Even when the text does not say what they say it should.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“Odd, but not impossible. It is found in the Bible. You’re saying that no evidence of the massacres remain, but apparently you want us to accept it on authority of the Bible. That they did not do it on the Palestinians (Sabra, Shattila and Jenin seem to indicate otherwise) is not relevant. What if they wanted to do it once ? It is not odd at all, but exactly what you would expect if someone wants to put something in the mouth of an authority. Of course, it doesn’t have to be the entire Jewish people who wanted to put it on Prophet Moses’ mouth.”
Surely if I wanted you to accept it on the authority of the Bible I would argue you should accept it on the authority of the Bible. What I did say was that this is something that makes Judaism look so bad it is hard to believe anyone made it up. No more than that. Arabs murdered people in S&Sh and the number killed in fighting, not massacres, in Jenin was and is small despite attempts to make propaganda about it. If they wanted to do it once, why didn’t they ? It would surely be simpler to assume that they did it as opposed to claiming a baroque story “they wanted to but probably didn’t and haven’t ever since but haven’t bothered to re-edit the Bible or enforce the provision they invented”? Of course you come to this with Faith and so we are unlikely to agree.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“Merely opposing ? More like attempting to kill the Prophet.”
Muhammed ordered two slave girls killed for singing mocking songs about him. How did they attempt to kill him ? As far as I can see Abu Rafi only mocked Muhammed too.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“No. God did not order Khalid to kill them. Despised Jews ? Some of them are despised for treachery, but not all of them, as treaties continue with other Jews except for the treacherous tribes. If the Prophet was not responsible for it, as he clearly says, then no problem for me.”
And yet he was not punished for what he did. When Muhammed was dying with his last breath more or less he ordered those treaties broken and the Jews driven out of Arabia. Muhammed may not have been responsible for it, and I agree he claims he was not, but he did not punish the killer from what I can see or reject the benefits that accrued to the Muslims. Can you see why that might look like a retrospective endorsement even if he did not order it ?
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“They could hardly expect to be left alone since they betrayed the Muslims and they are fully aware of it. You are making it sound as if the Muslims besieged them for no reason at all. They were not just minding their own business- they left their Muslim allies to be exposed to danger even though there is a treaty between them.”
You assert that they betrayed the Muslims and I have seen no evidence of it. One of their leaders perhaps talked about it but no more. They certainly did not lift a finger against the Muslims during the Battle or let the Quraysh into Medina — why not if they were betraying the Muslims ? Nor do I see any evidence that they were fully aware of it — not the slightest attempt to flee for instance. Surely if they were going to do something bad they would have fought and then fled ? I do not say there was no reason at all. I say the reason was only apparent to God who told Gabriel who told Muhammed. Muhammed was utterly unaware of any wrong-doing. How did they leave any Muslims exposed to danger and how would that amount to a crime anyway ?
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“What other contexts ? This is just conjecture. Why did the Jews choose him, then ? Did the Prophet somehow influenced their choice ? I don’t think so, and neither would they have listened to him.”
In the context of the allegations made about Aisha for instance. According to the Sahih Bukhari that so enraged Sad he agreed to kill any of his tribesmen for spreading the rumor :
“Sad bin Mu’adh got up and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle ! by Allah, I will relieve you from him. If that man is from the tribe of the Aus, then we will chop his head off, and if he is from our brothers, the Khazraj, then order us, and we will fulfill your order.’ ”
He was such a devoted Muslim that he snuck into Mecca to go to the Kaba and loudly threatened Abu Jahl (Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 826). Even more telling of the nature of his real character is that he was staying with a friend whom he knew Muhammed was going to kill and it was only when he argued with him and lost his temper that he told the friend that little fact. Clearly Sad was extremely loyal to Muhammed and prone to outbursts of anger.
Did Muhammed influence their choice ? How do you know they made the choice ? Againm, this looks like interpretation to me. Perhaps they negotiated it. Notice what the Sahih Bukhari says :
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 447 :
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri :
The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Mu’adh. So the Prophet sent for Sad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, “Get up for your chief or for the best among you.” Then the Prophet said (to Sad).” These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sad said, “Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, “On that the Prophet said, “You have judged according to Allah’s Judgment,” or said, “according to the King’s judgment.”
Not “they asked for” Sad, or “they wanted” Sad, but the more passive “they agreed to accept” Sad. Which suggests that Muhammed proposed him and they agreed. And after all, their options were limited. Only by negotiating could they get terms. That requires compromise. Notice Muhammed’s endorsement of the verdict by the way.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“Again making saints of the poor, innocent Banu Qurayzah. They betrayed the Muslims, and they knew it, that’s why they immediately sought refuge in their fortress.”
I don’t think that sarcasm helps your argument. I am doing no such thing. How do you know they betrayed the Muslims and in what form did that betrayal come ? Not in the form of letting the Quraysh into Medina at any rate. They sought refuge when they saw a lot of armed men coming to kill them. You call that guilt ? Why ? If they betrayed and knew it, why didn’t they flee with the Quraysh ?
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“Well, why did ‘they’ agree with their leader then ? No, they didn’t help the Quraysh, but they abandoned the Muslims in the battlefield.”
The battle field was Medina. In what sense did they abandon them ? Where did it say they had to fight — where did it say anyone had to fight ? How do you know they agreed with their leader ? What is the evidence they did ?
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“There are indications that you want to accept that the Prophet ordered the execution of boys who have grown a few pubic hairs (while the traditions say it was Sa’d, and not the Prophet who made the order), but do not accept that the Banu Qurayzah acted treacherously, or that it was Sa’d who made the order, not the Prophet. The Prophet was able to make sure because the Jews chose Sa’d ! He didn’t choose for them. And now you’re looking for a Jewish view when you find out that it was really the Jews who chose Sa’d, thus sealing their own fates with their own hands.”
If it will make you happier I’ll agree that Muhammed’s ordered Sad’s judgement be carried out — and that he thoroughly approved of it. Not only calling it “God’s judgement” but lauding Sad after his death in dozens of Hadith stating openly that he was in Heaven for instance :
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 727 :
Narrated Al-Bara :
The Prophet was given a silk garment as a gift and we started touching it with our hands and admiring it. On that the Prophet said, “Do you wonder at this?” We said, “Yes.” He said, “The handkerchiefs of Sad bin Mu’adh in Paradise are better than this ”
I wonder how he knew. Or :
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 147 :
Narrated Jabir :
I heard the Prophet saying, “The Throne (of Allah) shook at the death of Sad bin Muadh.” Through another group of narrators, Jabir added, “I heard the Prophet : saying, ‘The Throne of the Beneficent shook because of the death of Sad bin Muadh.”
I have seen no evidence that the Jews commited a crime. I have seen no evidence they picked Sad. That is not to say I reject the possibility of either, but the strength of your claims is interesting given the weakness of the evidence.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“If the Bible will be used to judge, then yes, those Muslims deserve it.”
And if the Sunna is used ? If the British apply “God’s judgement” to their own Muslims for 7 – 7 ? Would they deserve it then ?
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“That’s the point ! Only Jews have the authority to kill men and enslave women. Yet you don’t seem outraged at all by this. If Sa’d misinterpreted the Bible, that’s his problem.”
Well it is not his problem because God obviously liked his judgement and he is sitting on His right hand — or at least Muhammed liked his judgement and said he was. Jews have orders to kill those men and enslave those women. I am not sure God forbids everyone else from it all the time. No one is threatening me with the fate of the Amelekites. That is ancient and dead history. I stand a fair chance of being the victim of people who do not think the Jews of Medina are dead history.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“Mind if I ask which manual ? Besides, are you sure it represents the totality of Islamic jurisprudence ? The hadith is clear : the Prophet explicitly forbade the killing of women and children in a war, unless they are doing the fighting themselves. I don’t see any such prohibition from the OT.”
Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi’s Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah. Does it matter if it represents the totality of Islamic jurisprudence ? If I want to do something is it wrong to look for a mufti who will give me the opinion I want ?
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“It is okay if Jews do it, but not if is to be done to Jews, right?”
Jews seem to think so. Both Judaism and Islam are biased religions in that sense with different laws for non-believers.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“And mind if I ask you what will happen when they accept the terms ? Will there be peace and coexistence between the Jews and the Goyim ? I don’t think so. The verse is clear : if they accept, they will be forced to labor as slaves. If non-Muslims accept the jizyah, of course they must recognize Muslim authority, but what’s clear is that they will not be treated as forced laborers. The Jews in Spain would hardly reach their Golden Age if they were treated as slaves and forced laborers by the cruel Muslims. You are attempting to use an Islamic term to make a harsh biblical sentence look soft.”
Where does it say slaves ? If the People of the Book accept the jizyah they have to spend some considerable portion of their lives working for the Muslims. The Jews of Khaybar had to give the Muslims half their date crop. Clearly they labored in the fields for the Muslims. Maimonides writes on what the text means and he was probably influenced by the Muslims of his time, but his rules are very similar to Muslim ones for the Jewish equivalents of dhimmis.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“In any case, I think it is a case of selective amnesia on your part, since apparently you forgot that you wrote this : “Muhammed’s practice was more brutal than the Bible”. Even if you were referring to the specific instance of the Banu Qurayzah, you’re still wrong.”
Well I was refering to this specific case and I am not. There was no chance for them to accept a truce.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“The worst that you could take from the Qur’an and the Sunnah would not amount to an explicit order to massacre infants, and rape virgin women.”
I agree about the massacre of infants but I don’t about the virgins. Where does the Bible say to do that ? It allows it, as the Sunna does, but does it command it ?
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“Is Resurrection a ritual ? I find more of it in the Qur’an than I do in the OT. Are the Attributes of God rituals?”
No but they are not philosophical statements. Or even moral ones. They are statements of facts, I assume.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“I’m not an expert in Islamic law. But the point is that you said that in Islamic law, human life is just worth 50 camels. Clearly, it is not. You’re sarcastic comment was not even worth responding to, but some people might be led into thinking that that’s how it is in Islam.”
How can you say clearly it is not ? Let us assume that Islamic law does not distinguish very clearly between intentional and unintentional killings. And so the diya applies to all killings. What is the rate that Muslims apply to the value of a Muslim life if the family is inclined to be merciful ? Jewish law explicitly forbids blood money by saying every human life is priceless and so no amount of money can remove the guilt or make up for the sin. Islamic law does not.
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“It is applicable to those who knowingly worship idols and are given a chance to come to the true teaching of ‘islam’.”
Is that more scholarship or what the Quran actually says ?
aian jaafar said on 21 October 2006:“Then their religion is clearly not for me, since I’m not a Jew. It’s not for a substantial portion of humanity either.”
You only have to obey the Seven Noachide laws given to Noah.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“Well we are clearly on some common ground — enough to prove the original claim that it is Revision. But when Muslims say that Abraham went to sacrifice Ishmael in Mecca, that is more than reintepretation.”
You can call it revisionism if you want. What I object to is the implication that we Muslims somehow twist the historical evidence to come in line with our claims, or that we are denying the obvious implications of conclusive evidence, or that we say that Christians and Jews always lie, and hence reject their scripture as evidence entirely. I don’t see any Muslim claiming that archaeology or first-hand, eyewitness, primary documents support the Muslim claim of Abraham sacrificing Ishmael in Mecca. It is a theological view, one that hinges on the veracity of the Prophet Muhammad’s prophethood. It would be a different matter of course, if conclusive evidence turns out which runs counter to Islamic claims. That’s why I’m asking you for conclusive evidence supporting the claims of Judaism and Christianity. You haven’t shown any conclusive evidence in support of their claims, and which runs counter to specifically Muslim claims. As such, there is no point in saying that Islam is a revisionism of Judaism and Christianity in the context the article is objecting to. And it really smacks of antagonism to Islam to imply that it is revisionism of the two religions while the same could be said of the two using exactly the same line of reasoning. So, let me ask you, is it just a matter of ‘I am not really a Jew or Christian. I just hate Islam’? then ?
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“So either a vast conspiracy is at work or Islam is wrong. You have prejudged that based on your religious beliefs. I have not. It is true that religions start with one man, but the conspiracy theory you are talking about requires the thousands. To come up with a new story, to suppress the truth, to burn documents. All over the last 4000 years. That requires a lot more than one man. Occam’s Razor is often applied to the theories of the revisionists and I think it is highly credible and convincing when it does. I don’t think the revisionists have proved their case and some of them are clearly wrong. I have no problems with equal standards being applied to all.”
Well it doesn’t need to be a massive conspiracy if it can begin with one person. Let’s take a look : a text was transmitted through one man. He transmits it to another. The man he transmitted it to mishandles the text. Afterwards, thousands of copies of the mishandled text were made. And those wrong copies were transmitted for 4 thousand years.
It is good that you want a fair standard for all. I also don’t think that revisionists have proven their claim. At least, not according to the evidence that we have. But then again, I originally objected to your post saying that Islam is also a revisionism of Judaism and Christianity. I object that it is, from a historical perspective. If you’re saying it from a theological perspective, fine, feel free to call Islam revisionism. But if you’re really interested in a fair standard for all, why not say that Christianity is a revisionism of Judaism, and Judaism a revisionism of polytheistic Mesopotamian religion ? Why attack only Islam ? Why resort to the claims of revisionists (for example, regarding Muslim masses at the time of Caliph Uthman), and then suddenly switch arguments when you can’t disprove the Muslim claims regarding Abraham, by citing Occam’s Razor ?
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“You would have to ask a Christian to be sure but I assume from the promise that Jesus would never abandon His Church and would come again. If revelation has primacy over religion that means that rational thought is not important for Muslims as it is for Christians. The Pope’s point.”
This raises the question of why you had to raise an apparent defense of Christianity with your previous posts. Is this just to annoy Muslims ? I hope not.
Now here is where the circularity comes in. If Christ made a promise to the church, then the question has to be asked as to the specifics of the promise he allegedly made. We assume that this is made in the Christian scriptures. Apparently, it is not. Anyway, if a Christian says that yes, it is in the scriptures, well this is where the ‘isnads (or any method to verify how transmission was made) comes in. Which refutes your point that it is irrelevant to Christianity.
We don’t have any guarantee except for what the supposedly infallible church claims. So, the reductio ad Deum of traditional, orthodox Christianity would be that the teaching came from God through the church, and not necessarily from Christ, in contrast to the Muslim reductio ad Deum which claims that the teaching came from God through the Prophet, whom we believe to be a messenger and divinely-inspired. Now, I understand that if this is the case, both Christians and Muslims still have very similar claims, that what they belive in is divinely-inspired. However, it should be conceded by Christians that what they believe in is what the Church says, and not necessarily what Jesus said, while a Muslim would accept nothing less than something grounded in some way on what the Prophet taught.
Now, I don’t think many Christians will be willing to accept that what they believe in doesn’t necessarily come from Jesus. Of course, Muslims have been telling them this for quite some time.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“Except you would have to prove that the Uthmanic version’s tawwatur is correct — not just that it is correct according to the standards of Muslims because we know the answer to that. And as the oldest copy of the Quran is not that old, it is also true that no problem quasi-isnad can be given for it. It is not a fallacy to apply the methods of Textual Criticism to the Quran. So far Western scholars have not been interested in doing so but the same techniques can be applied. I don’t see that the text of the NT is fluid. It looks pretty fixed to me. New findings simply tell us more about the time in which it was compiled. It is absurd to say that if a text turned up showing that Muhammed lived and died in southern Syria and never went near Mecca this would not have an impact. Not on those who believe perhaps, but on the scholarship in general.”
This is why I made a comment that you also use revisionism. Anyway, most scholars (not just Muslim scholars, who are equally capable, by the way) are in agreement that, at least in basic outline, the traditional Muslim account of the Qur’an’s preservation is correct. Only a few scholars reject it, rejecting all of the hadith, or accepting parts which could potentially undermine Muslim claims. Strangely enough, some reject ahadith but come to the conclusion that what we have today is the mushaf of the Prophet. Hence, there is no need in applying the technique you were mentioning. Well, you’re wrong about the text of the NT. Why do scholars such as Bruce Metzger and Kurt Aland have to vote to decide on which particular word to include in their critical text of the NT ? Precisely because different manuscripts say different things, and it is up to the text critic to decide which reading best represents the autograph. Of course, they have to take new manuscripts and fragments into consideration if new ones come in. That’s why the text is fluid. It’s not just a matter of telling us more about the time in which it was compiled. It’s a matter of what the text really says. Most of the times the variations are minor, no problem with that. But sometimes, some significant variations emerge. Jesus could become God, just a man, (or maybe even a woman!) just by the difference of a word.
The difference is this : there are a few controversial scholars who attempt a revisionism of Islam, and reject the broad outline of the traditional Muslim account regarding the Qur’an’s standardization and compilation. On the other hand, there is no massive conspiracy theory regarding the Bible, as the text critics themselves (some of which are devout Christians) will candidly point out that some changes took place on the text of the NT. If you disagree with this, kindly present the text of the Bible, of which you believe each and every word to accurately represent the autograph. I will do this gladly with the text of the Qur’an we have today (the Uthmanic text). Well, a text claiming that the Prophet never went near Mecca will not matter, because it is not tawwatur. So, whatever objections you have regarding the tawwatur of the Qur’an, the other texts wouldn’t be tawwatur, and hence irrelevant to Muslim claims.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“How so?”
Because by claiming it, you are rejecting all of the ahadith (which, you have to agree, is definitely evidence of a sort), imply that everything the Muslims document about themselves are lies, and adopt the very line of the revisionists.
“There is simply no evidence of that and on the contrary we know that at least part of the Quran was transmitted through *two* people. Presumably if it was only transmitted through one that text would not have been included. We also know, with the verse on rajam, that it used to have parts it does not any more. Muslims can come up with religious reasons for that, but scholars are unlikely to accept them. ”
Then again, Muslim tradition is some sort of evidence. You have to reject it completely for you to say that there is no evidence for that. And the article we’re commenting to did a pretty good job of responding to some of their claims. Again, the parts which the Qur’an used to have are mentioned in the ahadith. While you apparently accept the hadith regarding the verse of rajam, you reject the rest of the ahadith, and even claim that there is no evidence for the Qur’an’s tawwatur status. So, you accept ahadith if it apparently shows a change in the Qur’an and reject it if it shows that the Uthmanic text is tawwatur (‘preserved in the breasts of Muslims’)? This is why the article was titled ‘On Revising Bigotry’.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“There is no reason to even suspect that it would have been difficult. Muslims had a promise from God that He would not allow any part of the Quran to be forgotten without a new part to replace it. Therefore Muslims had to believe they could not supress any part of the Quran even if they wanted to. Therefore anyone could because no Muslim could accept that it was even possible without blaspheming. I make no claim as to what Ali had and it might have been too late by then anyway. Arab society was not very literate and the process of compiling the Quran was not a high priority so who knows what might have been done.”
Renegades are able to kill the head of the state for petty reasons, and you find it easy for them to accept brazen disrespect for versions of the Qur’an, which may support (or be made to support) any claim of theirs ? The people clamored against the Caliph Uthman when a certain ascetic died, and you expect them to stand idly while something they are willing to die and kill for is being tampered ? And though Arab society is admittedly not very literate (which also explains the lack of written documents from the era), they have the capacity for oral transmission. Claiming that preserving the Qur’an is not high priority is revisionism, and again implies a rejection of the entire corpus of hadith material and Muslim tradition.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“That is a religious point of view. I am not a Muslim and I do not accept that God ordered it. It certainly looks like it was not properly kept track of and bits went missing.”
If you accept the ahadith as some sort of evidence, then you will find something similar. Even the Qur’an refers to abrogation. So there’s no possibility that it was not properly kept track of as regards to the abrogated verses, since even the text itself recognizes the principle of abrogation.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“I think it matters to a lot of people. Other verses were abrogated without their ruling remaining. How do you know this one is the exception?”
Admittedly, I am not an expert in the concept of naksh. But some Islamic scholars have classified precisely this kind of abrogation, where the words are abrogated, and the ruling remains. I never said that this was an exception.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“Archeological remains often remain. None have been found.”
“It may but there is no evidence that they are. You would, for instance, expect the Jews to say it about others who persecute them. Europeans for instance. But they do not. You might even expect them to say it about, and do it to, Palestinians. But they have not. Where you would expect them to leap on a justification for what they do, they don’t. This suggests they are not willing to do so. So if they don’t want to do it, and did not do it as far as anyone can tell, why would they claim to have done it ? It is odd.”
Odd, but not impossible. It is found in the Bible. You’re saying that no evidence of the massacres remain, but apparently you want us to accept it on authority of the Bible. That they did not do it on the Palestinians (Sabra, Shattila and Jenin seem to indicate otherwise) is not relevant. What if they wanted to do it once ? It is not odd at all, but exactly what you would expect if someone wants to put something in the mouth of an authority. Of course, it doesn’t have to be the entire Jewish people who wanted to put it on Prophet Moses’ mouth.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“Yes but that is not what they actually did as we know they executed people secretly for merely opposing Muhammed”
Merely opposing ? More like attempting to kill the Prophet.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“Yes but that story is somewhat problematic isn’t it ? Did Muhammed execute Khalid for what he did ? Of course not. What does that imply ? Did he even deny justice to the survivors ? Did that apply to Arabs and not the despised Jews ? Did God tell Khalid to kill these Arabs?”
No. God did not order Khalid to kill them. Despised Jews ? Some of them are despised for treachery, but not all of them, as treaties continue with other Jews except for the treacherous tribes. If the Prophet was not responsible for it, as he clearly says, then no problem for me.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“Actually I expect they desired to be left alone, but arbitration was the best offer on hand. As for the offer of asylum, clearly there was none. They were minding their own business — once the state of war that was the Battle of the Trench was over — when a new seige began.”
They could hardly expect to be left alone since they betrayed the Muslims and they are fully aware of it. You are making it sound as if the Muslims besieged them for no reason at all. They were not just minding their own business- they left their Muslim allies to be exposed to danger even though there is a treaty between them.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“Well he always did in other contexts and Muhammed appears to have known, as the Jews did not, that he was dying from his wounds. And had express a desire to get even. ”
What other contexts ? This is just conjecture. Why did the Jews choose him, then ? Did the Prophet somehow influenced their choice ? I don’t think so, and neither would they have listened to him.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“They are attacked and you claim that locking themselves in their houses is a sign of guilt ? Why?”
Again making saints of the poor, innocent Banu Qurayzah. They betrayed the Muslims, and they knew it, that’s why they immediately sought refuge in their fortress.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“I think by the time they were being beseiged common sense would tell them they had to protect themselves. How many Muslims died in the seige?”
“don’t know what this “they” is doing there. At most one of their leaders had talks that might have lead to treason. They did not actually lift a finger to help the Quraysh.”
Well, why did ‘they’ agree with their leader then ? No, they didn’t help the Quraysh, but they abandoned the Muslims in the battlefield.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“According to the Muslim tradition. A pity no Jewish account has survived. How did Muhammed make sure of that?”
Well, I’ll leave you with your revisionism. There are indications that you want to accept that the Prophet ordered the execution of boys who have grown a few pubic hairs (while the traditions say it was Sa’d, and not the Prophet who made the order), but do not accept that the Banu Qurayzah acted treacherously, or that it was Sa’d who made the order, not the Prophet. The Prophet was able to make sure because the Jews chose Sa’d ! He didn’t choose for them. And now you’re looking for a Jewish view when you find out that it was really the Jews who chose Sa’d, thus sealing their own fates with their own hands.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“Evident high treason ? British and French Muslims have not only conspired with foreign powers, they have killed British and French citizens. It is self-evident that all their men deserve to die and their women become slaves?”
If the Bible will be used to judge, then yes, those Muslims deserve it.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“As I have pointed out, no he did not. That does not apply here or to Jews at all.”
That’s the point ! Only Jews have the authority to kill men and enslave women. Yet you don’t seem outraged at all by this. If Sa’d misinterpreted the Bible, that’s his problem.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“I don’t think that is what Islamic law says as it happens. My manual of Islamic law says that if a Harbi soldier shelters among civilians you must kill the soldiers even if it means killing all the civilians.”
Mind if I ask which manual ? Besides, are you sure it represents the totality of Islamic jurisprudence ? The hadith is clear : the Prophet explicitly forbade the killing of women and children in a war, unless they are doing the fighting themselves. I don’t see any such prohibition from the OT.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“It says what it says and I think it says what I said it says. What is clear is that either way it was not applied in Medina”
No, it doesn’t. A dhimmi, or one who pays the jizyah is not a slave. You may have lots of objections about how they were treated, but they definitely were not slaves. And they were not forced laborers. Hmm, you seem to like to soften up verses of the Bible, and highlight only the potentially bad parts of the hadiths for Muslims.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“But not the Jewish men and only after certain conditions have been met — such as offering them terms.”
It is okay if Jews do it, but not if is to be done to Jews, right ? And mind if I ask you what will happen when they accept the terms ? Will there be peace and coexistence between the Jews and the Goyim ? I don’t think so. The verse is clear : if they accept, they will be forced to labor as slaves. If non-Muslims accept the jizyah, of course they must recognize Muslim authority, but what’s clear is that they will not be treated as forced laborers. The Jews in Spain would hardly reach their Golden Age if they were treated as slaves and forced laborers by the cruel Muslims. You are attempting to use an Islamic term to make a harsh biblical sentence look soft.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“I do not see how this helps you myself. This does not apply to Jews nor to the situation in Medina.”
“The gall of us kafirs is amazing isn’t it ? However to come to this conclusion you have to pretty much ignore everything I have said and so unless you have a relevant point that refers to something I said, I don’t see the point of replying to it. Where did I say that the wider question of the general practise of one, as opposed to the specific instance, was more brutal than the other?”
I don’t know if it holds true for all kafirun, but it holds true for you in this particular situation. Even if I believe what you’re saying about the Banu Qurayzah, this is the worst that I can paint of the picture : The leader of the Banu Qurayzah acted treacherously. The Muslims besieged them. The Banu Qurayzah agreed to arbitrate, and chose someone whom they taught would be lenient to them. That person, whether rightly or wrongly, used the Bible as justification for his sentence (at least he thought he did): Kill all the adult males (those who have reached puberty), and enslave the women and children. 400, or 700 Jews were executed, some who have just reached puberty. It’s an entirely different level from what I find in the Bible. In any case, I think it is a case of selective amnesia on your part, since apparently you forgot that you wrote this : “Muhammed’s practice was more brutal than the Bible”. Even if you were referring to the specific instance of the Banu Qurayzah, you’re still wrong. The worst that you could take from the Qur’an and the Sunnah would not amount to an explicit order to massacre infants, and rape virgin women.Your statement that “Muhammed’s practice was more brutal than the Bible” is completely wrong. I see that you’re very eager to call the Prophet’s practice (whether specific or not doesn’t matter) brutal, but very, very soft when it comes to the Bible. Yet you deny you’re a Christian, and clearly you are not a Jew. Are you just a Muslim-hater then ? I hope not.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“I think we would have to have very different views about what “teachings” are in that case. Jesus makes His views very clear and I don’t see how anyone can miss them.”
Whatever you’re view of “teachings” is, the fact is that we have very little of what Jesus himself supposedly said, and hence very little of his teachings. This has proven to be a problem for Christians, what with all the excommunications, anathema, and even persecution of each other.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“No. It says a lot about rituals but not a great deal else. Some things about being good to orphans I admit.”
Is Resurrection a ritual ? I find more of it in the Qur’an than I do in the OT. Are the Attributes of God rituals ? Haven’t you read about the value of human life in the Qur’an ? Of patience in adversity ? How about belief in Angels, descriptions of them, as well as Jinn ? Descriptions of previous nations ? Teaching that blood is not needed for forgiveness, is that a ritual ? Teaching that God excels in pardon, that God has prescribed Mercy for Himself ? You know I could go on and on, and find many things aside from being good to orphans. If you have such a myopic view of Islam, then it’s not my problem.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“No you have not shown it above. You have simply cut and paste from a Muslim apologist site without reading the passages or their context. You don’t support it ? You think Muhammed was wrong?”
I have read those passages many times. I don’t support the Bible in that. The Prophet was not wrong, he was not the one who made the judgment. I don’t support the judgment because of what the Bible says, but I do believe that Sa’d judged by God’s judgment (as the Prophet said) in that he judged according to the religious law of the Jews, whether such laws are wrong or not.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“I am not sure that was my position but it is good to see you are taking such a Christian position. I have no desire to shift you from it.”
I don’t see how it is just a Christian position. I don’t deny that it is a Christian position, but then again, I used a Muslim standard of using my reason regarding what He has revealed about Himself. I cannot explain them all, but some contradictions are obvious if you ask me. By the way, why were you citing the example of the tsunami if you don’t agree with the utter destruction of populations through the hands of other people ?
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“I do not see the words “unintentional homicide” in the Quran or in books of Islamic law. Are you saying that the family of the deceased cannot offer mercy in cases of outright murder ? Are you claiming that there are still consequences, perhaps in the next life, for people to pay a diya ? If so, what?”
I’m not an expert in Islamic law. But the point is that you said that in Islamic law, human life is just worth 50 camels. Clearly, it is not. You’re sarcastic comment was not even worth responding to, but some people might be led into thinking that that’s how it is in Islam.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“The mere fact you call them prophets is revisionism. No one can verify what they said. It is ultimately a matter of faith. I don’t see how that helps your argument.”
But I don’t claim to deduce the term ‘Prophets’ from first-hand, primary source documents. So, I could hardly call it revisionism. Yes, it is ultimately a matter of faith.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“But then of course you are a Muslim and so you would believe that anyway”
But then again, I could also say that since you are a ‘kafir’ (that’s what you called yourself) you’d reject everything and anything in favor of Islam, but that is besides the point.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“I would be interested in an opinion on this subject. Especially given the Quran specifically says those that worship idols will burn in Hell which must apply to a lot of those who never got the message. Or if they had, they had forgotten it.”
It is applicable to those who knowingly worship idols and are given a chance to come to the true teaching of ‘islam’.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“But that has never been a problem for Jews because most Jewish law only applies to Jews. Non-Jews only have to avoid certain obvious things which virtually no one disagrees about. Not committing murder for instance.”
Then their religion is clearly not for me, since I’m not a Jew. It’s not for a substantial portion of humanity either.
HeiGou said on 19 October 2006 :
“No Christianity has a theology for them as well. A limited one but no Christian theologian I can think of offhand has ever denied that those born before Christ would not necessarily burn in Hell. ”
Yes, they have a ‘harrowing of Hell’ theology for that. But it further proves that Christianity is not a necessity for those persons who predate the Resurrection, since they would be saved without accepting Christianity. But ‘submission to the Will of God’ is, was, and forever will be a necessity in the presence of Messengers, Books, and adequate reason, for those endowed with them, among human beings.