Islamic history: Not enough external sources, internal conflicts.

[Blui]

Not sure if anyone here really has more info.

Most evidence of early Arab Islamic history is, of course, from Islam.

However there are many problems here, first is bias, and internal conflicts.

One of the things i've been researching, and found to my surprise, is a new slant on the commonly held belief that Muhammad was persecuted in Mecca and forced out.

Firstly, it is already recorded in Al-Tabari of some conflicting accounts, it is stated in there the worst that the Quraysh did to Muhammad was insult him verbally (so the tales of widespread Muslim torture seem's doubtful).

Then i found this on the following verses.

4:88 What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when Allah cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they earned? Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O Muhammad) canst not find a road.
4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
One time, theses people went out of Makkah to fulfill some needs and said to each other, "If we meet the Companions of Muhammad, there will be no harm for us from their side.'' When the believers got news that these people went out of Makkah, some of them said, "Let us march to these cowards and kill them, because they support your enemy against you.'' However, another group from the believers said, "Glory be to Allah! Do you kill a people who say as you have said, just because they did not perform Hijrah or leave their land Is it allowed to shed their blood and confiscate their money in this case'' So they divided to two groups, while the Messenger was with them, and did not prohibit either group from reiterating their argument


The 'hypocrites' mentioned in the Quran, are Muslims IN MECCA, who refused to leave with Muhammad, i found it absurd that suddenly some of Muhammads group would want them dead if we believe the tales that Muslims were tortured in Mecca and forced out, why weren't they tortured? and why would Muhammads group want them dead?

That is kind of like Jewish people wanting to kill Jews who still decide to stay in Germany during the Nazi regime when they fled.

[Clivedurdle]

This whole area is a no go zone because of the assertion that Allah has revealed a new and final message.

Asking about precedents, currents, processes, causes and effects, history, evolution, context, gestalt - foreground and background - is anathema and automatically results in fatwahs because Allah is the complete foreground and background. The Koran is perfect doncha know?

And millions of people march around a rock. Strange species, homo sapiens!

[Salam]

Firstly, it is already recorded in Al-Tabari of some conflicting accounts, it is stated in there the worst that the Quraysh did to Muhammad was insult him verbally (so the tales of widespread Muslim torture seem's doubtful).

I think you forgot the account where Quraysh planned his assassination before migrating to Mecca.

[Salam]

The 'hypocrites' mentioned in the Quran, are Muslims IN MECCA, who refused to leave with Muhammad

I think this is your own interpretation. There were hypocrites, those hypocrites did not migrate. That doesn't mean all the Muslims who stayed in Mecca were hypocrites.

[Salam]

why weren't they tortured? and why would Muhammads group want them dead?

Simple. They weren't tortured because some of them are taking sides with the Quraysh. Why will Quraysh want to torture and kill them if they serve their purpose.

[Blui]

I think this is your own interpretation. There were hypocrites, those hypocrites did not migrate. That doesn't mean all the Muslims who stayed in Mecca were hypocrites.
I think you should carefully read what i wrote, 'are Muslims IN MECCA' does not mean everyone.

[Salam]

I think this is your own interpretation. There were hypocrites, those hypocrites did not migrate. That doesn't mean all the Muslims who stayed in Mecca were hypocrites.
I think you should carefully read what i wrote, 'are Muslims IN MECCA' does not mean everyone.

My bad. Good observation though. Did Al tabari mention the assassination attempt?

[Blui]

My bad. Good observation though. Did Al tabari mention the assassination attempt?
I'd have to check.

Is this the assassination attempt whereby it is claimed Muhammad hid in a cave, and the assassins bypassed it because a spider spun its web across the cave entrance?

Because that is pretty hard to be credible from the face of it.

[Salam]

My bad. Good observation though. Did Al tabari mention the assassination attempt?
I'd have to check.

Is this the assassination attempt whereby it is claimed Muhammad hid in a cave, and the assassins bypassed it because a spider spun its web across the cave entrance?

Because that is pretty hard to be credible from the face of it.

No. The Quraysh picked a man from each tribe to assassinate Muhammad together, so his blood is spread to all these tribes to prevent any retaliation. Muhammad was informed of this plan and Ali volunteered to sleep in his bed that night to make them think he's still at home while he's on the way to Madina. When they got tired of waiting, they broke in the house and saw Ali in his bed instead. That was before the cave thing.

[Salam]

My bad. Good observation though. Did Al tabari mention the assassination attempt?
I'd have to check.

Is this the assassination attempt whereby it is claimed Muhammad hid in a cave, and the assassins bypassed it because a spider spun its web across the cave entrance?

Because that is pretty hard to be credible from the face of it.

It might be hard for you to believe the cave incident. However, do you believe that they chased him after he left? If yes, what do you think their motives was?

[Blui]

No. The Quraysh picked a man from each tribe to assassinate Muhammad together, so his blood is spread to all these tribes to prevent any retaliation. Muhammad was informed of this plan and Ali volunteered to sleep in his bed that night to make them think he's still at home while he's on the way to Madina. When they got tired of waiting, they broke in the house and saw Ali in his bed instead. That was before the cave thing.
Just from hearing that it sounds like fanciful storytelling rather then anything that would be done in real life.

Assassinating while he is in bed, why do you need a man from each tribe? its obviously supposed to be done in secret, if Muhammad was killed, no one would know there was 'a man from each tribe'.

Lol.


It might be hard for you to believe the cave incident. However, do you believe that they chased him after he left? If yes, what do you think their motives was?

Nope, i don't.

why not kill him while he was IN mecca?

why did Muhammad never declare these assassinations to the Quraish when he warred against them? why is it portrayed that he only told his followers? surely a legitimate greivance like that would warrant some anger on his part towards the Quraish, unless it was made up.

Why is it that Muslims who are considered hypocrites from not fleeing (migrating) with Muhammad, ordered to be killed by Muhammad, and seemed to enjoy freedom of going in and out of Mecca by the Quraish? this does not jive with the 'wanton torture committed by Quraish on Muslims' as is so often said.

Why did the Quraish try to negotiate with Muhammad twice? in Mecca AND when he had already migrated out of Mecca? do you bargain with someone your trying to kill?

Muhammad is well known for making bullshit up to cover himself, making ad-hoc 'god-inspired' messages to cover himself, Aisha notes this herself, when she claimed that 'Allah runs to your aid' whenever Muhammad had some stupid silly problem.

Neither Islamic history, nor the story itself, is credible, too many internal contradictions.

[Salam]

Just from hearing that it sounds like fanciful storytelling rather then anything that would be done in real life.

Assassinating while he is in bed, why do you need a man from each tribe? its obviously supposed to be done in secret, if Muhammad was killed, no one would know there was 'a man from each tribe'.

Lol.

How do you know that no one would know? Educate yourself about Arab history first so you understand the reason of including a number of tribes in the assassination.

why not kill him while he was IN mecca?

They tried and failed. They couldn't do it earlier because his uncle is protecting him.

why did Muhammad never declare these assassinations to the Quraish when he warred against them? why is it portrayed that he only told his followers? surely a legitimate greivance like that would warrant some anger on his part towards the Quraish, unless it was made up.

He cares more about his people than himself. The suffering his people were in was bigger for him than his own life. His wars against Quraish is legitimate without even this incident.

Why did the Quraish try to negotiate with Muhammad twice? in Mecca AND when he had already migrated out of Mecca? do you bargain with someone your trying to kill?

Negotiating happens in peace as well at war. They negotiated with him in Mecca before the death of his uncle (who was protecting him), and in Medina because they cannot assassinate him there after he gained strength.

[Blui]

How do you know that no one would know? Educate yourself about Arab history first so you understand the reason of including a number of tribes in the assassination.

Why are you spouting this silly 'educate yourself about arab history', if they wanted to kill Muhammad with men and have it known so no retaliation would follow.

They could have done it the numerous times he preached, or whenever he walked up to the Kabbah, why this elaborate getting a man from every tribe? seems ridiculous, why one man? why not say, alot of men from each tribe?


They tried and failed. They couldn't do it earlier because his uncle is protecting him.

Uhmm you can't fail an assassination unless you tried, if his uncle did protect him with his status (in Mecca) that means the assassination never even took place.

Your excuses are inconsistant.


He cares more about his people than himself. The suffering his people were in was bigger for him than his own life. His wars against Quraish is legitimate without even this incident.

You know it's funny you think its legitimate to war against the Quraish, its also funny the Quraish never attacked Muhammad. Not once. When he was outside Mecca, not even when his armies went around attacking other villages.

It's also funny you think Muhammad cared about the suffering of his people when he instigated warfare.

You would think someone who cared about his people would in fact not start a war? because it makes people suffer?
Why did he order these Muslims whom elected to stay in Quraish, to be killed? umm aren't they supposeduly tortured like you said? so he kills his own people who elected to stay and are being tortured?

So basically its like Jews fleeing Nazi Germany trying to kill any Jew electing to stay in Nazi germany?

Negotiating happens in peace as well at war. They negotiated with him in Mecca before the death of his uncle (who was protecting him), and in Medina because they cannot assassinate him there after he gained strength.
Please provide evidence of your assertions.

I'd dearly like to know how you somehow 'guessed' the motives of events hundreds of years in the past of which we have scant evidence, and the ones we do do not even date to the events itself.

[Salam]

Uhmm you can't fail an assassination unless you tried, if his uncle did protect him with his status (in Mecca) that means the assassination never even took place.

Your excuses are inconsistant.

They cannot assassinate him when his uncle is alive. When they tried to assassinate him, his uncle was already dead, so he must runaway or get killed.

[Salam]

They could have done it the numerous times he preached, or whenever he walked up to the Kabbah, why this elaborate getting a man from every tribe? seems ridiculous, why one man? why not say, alot of men from each tribe?


Do you want them to raise an army? They thought one man from each tribe will do the job.

[Salam]

Please provide evidence of your assertions.

I'd dearly like to know how you somehow 'guessed' the motives of events hundreds of years in the past of which we have scant evidence, and the ones we do do not even date to the events itself.

You are the one who said they negotiated him when he was in Madina. In Mecca they offered him status and money if he quit preaching. That was when his uncle is alive.

[Blui]

They cannot assassinate him when his uncle is alive. When they tried to assassinate him, his uncle was already dead, so he must runaway or get killed.
If they cannot assassinate him when his uncle was alive, there was no failed assassination.

Because no assassination took place, your own personal contrived story is not coherent.


Do you want them to raise an army? They thought one man from each tribe will do the job.

Did they? sorry but i don't blindly believe Islamic history without skepticism.

You did not answer the question at all, why get 1 man from each tribe? why try to kill him in secret when they (according to you) wanted everyone to know 1 man from each tribe killed him.


You are the one who said they negotiated him when he was in Madina. In Mecca they offered him status and money if he quit preaching. That was when his uncle is alive.

You avoided my question again, noted.

Answer it please.


Please provide evidence of your assertions.

I'd dearly like to know how you somehow 'guessed' the motives of events hundreds of years in the past of which we have scant evidence, and the ones we do do not even date to the events itself.

Btw they negotiated with him when he was out of Mecca, when his uncle was not alive and when he DID not have an army (it was right after he immigrated).

So your excuses are still inconsistant.

[Salam]

If they cannot assassinate him when his uncle was alive, there was no failed assassination.

They tried to assassinate him when his uncle died.

Because no assassination took place, your own personal contrived story is not coherent.

An assassination attempt took place. Why are you denying it without proof?

Did they? sorry but i don't blindly believe Islamic history without skepticism.

You shouldn't blindly believe, nor deny it without a good reason.

You did not answer the question at all, why get 1 man from each tribe? why try to kill him in secret when they (according to you) wanted everyone to know 1 man from each tribe killed him.

Doing it secretly is more effective than an open assassination. I didn't say they 'want' to let people know. They want the assassination to be shared between the tribes.

You avoided my question again, noted.

what question?

Btw they negotiated with him when he was out of Mecca, when his uncle was not alive and when he DID not have an army (it was right after he immigrated).

Are you saying they negotiated with him on the way to Madina or when he was in Madina?

[adren@line]

Many secular scholars doubt a pact even existed between the Quraysh and Mohhamed. They simply deemed it to be invented by Arab scholars to justify Mohhamed's massacre of the Qurayshi men and the sexual enslavement of one of the prominent mens daughters (she became Mohhamed's concubine).

[Blui]

They tried to assassinate him when his uncle died.

You do realize that story is the one i find not credible.


An assassination attempt took place. Why are you denying it without proof?

Because the story isn't credible, they got 1 man from each tribe to try and assassinate him secretly so it is known they all killed him so no retaliation will come forth to each tribe?

Secret!=known.

Btw you might not want to assume that what the hadiths say are true, is true, because were relying on the source that says the moon was split into two.

Doing it secretly is more effective than an open assassination. I didn't say they 'want' to let people know. They want the assassination to be shared between the tribes.

Read what you wrote.


No. The Quraysh picked a man from each tribe to assassinate Muhammad together, so his blood is spread to all these tribes to prevent any retaliation

The plan would have to be that the Muslims knew all tribes killed

[Blui]

Umm sorry for what appears to be a double-post, but i cant edit anymore.

Salam, i forgot to tell you, you believe that which is contained in the hadith is true, did you know that those who collected the hadith had to throw out roughly 99% of other hadiths?

I don't think you can somehow 'vouch' for its accuracy on face-value, especially considering that even this 1% has false stories like the moon being split into two.

Collector collected- retained
Al-Bukhari 600,000-2,762 0.46%
Muslim 300,00- 4,348 ----1.4%
Tirmidhi 300,000-3,115 ----1%
Abu Da’ud 500,000 -4,800 --1%
Ibn Maja 400,000- 4,000 ---1%
Nasai 200,000-4,321 -----2%

'MYTHS AND REALITIES OF HADITH -- a critical study'
-http://www.mostmerciful.com/hadith-book1.pdf

[Salam]

Umm sorry for what appears to be a double-post, but i cant edit anymore.

Salam, i forgot to tell you, you believe that which is contained in the hadith is true, did you know that those who collected the hadith had to throw out roughly 99% of other hadiths?

I don't think you can somehow 'vouch' for its accuracy on face-value, especially considering that even this 1% has false stories like the moon being split into two.

Collector collected- retained
Al-Bukhari 600,000-2,762 0.46%
Muslim 300,00- 4,348 ----1.4%
Tirmidhi 300,000-3,115 ----1%
Abu Da’ud 500,000 -4,800 --1%
Ibn Maja 400,000- 4,000 ---1%
Nasai 200,000-4,321 -----2%

'MYTHS AND REALITIES OF HADITH -- a critical study'
-http://www.mostmerciful.com/hadith-book1.pdf

I agree with you. I don't believe the accounts are either true nor false. It just seem that your picking the Hadiths that supports your opinion and discard Hadiths because it will go against what you believe. For example the assassination story, you find it unrealistic that they chose 1 from each tribe while trying to perform the assassination secretly, I see no contradiction in here. They perform it secretly so it succeeds, and 1 from each tribe to prevent retaliation once the assassination is discovered.

I'm not asking you to believe it really took place. I just find it unreasonable from you to say it didn't happen without a good reason in the name of skepticism.

[Blui]

I agree with you. I don't believe the accounts are either true nor false. It just seem that your picking the Hadiths that supports your opinion and discard Hadiths because it will go against what you believe. For example the assassination story, you find it unrealistic that they chose 1 from each tribe while trying to perform the assassination secretly, I see no contradiction in here. They perform it secretly so it succeeds, and 1 from each tribe to prevent retaliation once the assassination is discovered.

I'm not asking you to believe it really took place. I just find it unreasonable from you to say it didn't happen without a good reason in the name of skepticism.
Umm if its in secret, they only need 1, because when it is discovered, no one knew who did it, hence no retaliation.

The story is not very coherent.

[TheRealityOfMan]

Umm sorry for what appears to be a double-post, but i cant edit anymore.

Salam, i forgot to tell you, you believe that which is contained in the hadith is true, did you know that those who collected the hadith had to throw out roughly 99% of other hadiths?

I don't think you can somehow 'vouch' for its accuracy on face-value, especially considering that even this 1% has false stories like the moon being split into two.

Collector collected- retained
Al-Bukhari 600,000-2,762 0.46%
Muslim 300,00- 4,348 ----1.4%
Tirmidhi 300,000-3,115 ----1%
Abu Da’ud 500,000 -4,800 --1%
Ibn Maja 400,000- 4,000 ---1%
Nasai 200,000-4,321 -----2%

'MYTHS AND REALITIES OF HADITH -- a critical study'
-http://www.mostmerciful.com/hadith-book1.pdf

I agree with you. I don't believe the accounts are either true nor false. It just seem that your picking the Hadiths that supports your opinion and discard Hadiths because it will go against what you believe. For example the assassination story, you find it unrealistic that they chose 1 from each tribe while trying to perform the assassination secretly, I see no contradiction in here. They perform it secretly so it succeeds, and 1 from each tribe to prevent retaliation once the assassination is discovered.

I'm not asking you to believe it really took place. I just find it unreasonable from you to say it didn't happen without a good reason in the name of skepticism.

Do you ever pick and choose scriptures from the bible?

[Salam]

I agree with you. I don't believe the accounts are either true nor false. It just seem that your picking the Hadiths that supports your opinion and discard Hadiths because it will go against what you believe. For example the assassination story, you find it unrealistic that they chose 1 from each tribe while trying to perform the assassination secretly, I see no contradiction in here. They perform it secretly so it succeeds, and 1 from each tribe to prevent retaliation once the assassination is discovered.

I'm not asking you to believe it really took place. I just find it unreasonable from you to say it didn't happen without a good reason in the name of skepticism.

Do you ever pick and choose scriptures from the bible?

When the verse is validated by the Quran. Yes.

[TheRealityOfMan]

How do you validate verses in the Quran?