The Crusades Weren't One-Sided

[S.A.M.]

By whom? You're confusing the hadiths with the Nicean Council. Its the fake Gaspels that are quoted and revered, not the Hadiths.

Hadith are generally categorized as sahīh (sound, authentic), da`īf (weak), or mawdū` (fabricated). Other classifications used also include: hasan (good), which refers to an otherwise sahīh report suffering from minor deficiency, or a weak report strengthened due to numerous other corroborating reports; and munkar (ignored) which is a report that is rejected due to the presence of a solitary and generally unreliable transmitter.[8] Both sahīh and hasan reports are considered acceptable for usage in Islamic legal discourse. Classifications of hadith may also be based upon the scale of transmission. Reports that pass through many reliable transmitters at each point in the isnad up until their collection and transcription are known as mutawātir. These reports are considered the most authoritative as they pass through so many different routes that collusion between all of the transmitters becomes an impossibility. Reports not meeting this standard are known as ahad, and are of several different types.[3]

Another area of focus in the study of hadith is biographical analysis (`ilm al-rijāl, lit. "science of people"), in which details about the transmitter are scrutinized. This includes analyzing their date and place of birth; familial connections; teachers and students; religiosity; moral behaviour; literary output; their travels; as well as their date of death. Based upon these criteria, the reliability (thiqāt) of the transmitter is assessed. Also determined is whether the individual was actually able to transmit the report, which is deduced from their contemporaneity and geographical proximity with the other transmitters in the chain.[9] Examples of biographical dictionaries include Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's "Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb" or al-Dhahabi's "Tadhkirat al-huffāz."[10]

[edit]

 

[pjdude1219]

The victims were Christians.

yes its true the crusaders killed christans as well.

 

[GeoffP]

By whom? You're confusing the hadiths with the Nicean Council. Its the fake Gaspels that are quoted and revered, not the Hadiths.

I regret to say that this isn't so. Whether or not the correct books are in the NT, the hadiths you've been debating about recently - and which are often offensive - are not in question in the islamic world.

Whatever our biases, let's all try to be reasonable.

 

[S.A.M.]

In that case, you can freely point to Islamic scholarly resources that accept them.

Debates on such hadiths are concentrated in two groups

- non-Muslims who are clueless about isnad and hadith classifications
-ignorant Muslims who are clueless about their religion.

Unfortunately, there is no cure for ignorance when people refuse to learn.

 

[John99]

thats it everyone is ignant.

 

[GeoffP]

In that case, you can freely point to Islamic scholarly resources that accept them.

Al-Ahzar, almost certainly.

Debates on such hadiths are concentrated in two groups

- non-Muslims who are clueless about isnad and hadith classifications
-ignorant Muslims who are clueless about their religion.

Unfortunately, there is no cure for ignorance when people refuse to learn.

I agree. Unfortunately, you have labelled the argument prior to its construction.

 

[S.A.M.]

Please name an al Azhar scholar who has accepted any hadith I have declared as ghareeb or munkar.

 

[GeoffP]

I'll let you select a few scholars from this list:

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Watt, Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Kurayza, Banu".
^ a b c d e Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, p. 192f.
^ a b c d e f g h i Watt, Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Al-Madina".
^ a b c d Encyclopedia Judaica, "Qurayza".
^ a b c d e Watt, "Muhammad", in: The Cambridge History of Islam.
^ a b Firestone, Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam, p. 118, 170. For opinions disputing the early date of the Constitution of Medina, see e.g., Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, p. 119.
^ a b Alford Welch, Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Muhammad".
^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Watt, Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman, p. 170-176.
^ a b c d e f g Peterson, Muhammad: the prophet of God, p. 125-127.
^ a b c d e Ramadan, In the Footsteps of the Prophet, p. 140f.
^ Hodgson, The Venture of Islam, vol. 1, p. 191.
^ Brown, A New Introduction to Islam, p. 81.
^ Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book, p. 9.
^ a b Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 7-9.
^ Serjeant, "The "Sunnah Jami'ah, Pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the "Tahrim" of Yathrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents Comprised in the So-Called Constitution of Medina", p. 2f.
^ Muslim sources usually referred to Himyar kings by the dynastic title of "Tubba".
^ Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, p. 49f.
^ For alliances see Guillaume, p. 253.
^ Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, "Qurayza (Banu)".
^ Heck, "Arabia Without Spices: An Alternate Hypothesis", p. 547-567.
^ a b c d e Kister, "The Massacre of the Banu Quraiza", p. 93f.
^ a b c d Serjeant, p. 36.
^ a b c d e Stillman, p. 14-16.
^ Ananikian, "Tahrif or the alteration of the bible according to the Moslems", p. 63-64.
^ Guillaume, p. 267-268.
^ a b Nomani, Sirat al-Nabi, p. 382.
^ See e.g. Stillman, p. 13.
^ Zeitlin, The Historical Muhammad, p. 12
^ F. Donner: Muhammad's Political Consolidation in Arabia up to the Conquest of Mecca, The Muslim World, 69 (1979), p.233
^ Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam, p. 191.
^ Norcliffe, Islam: Faith and Practice, p. 21.
^ a b c Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 36-38.
^ Guillaume, p. 453.
^ See also above for the critical view on the historicity of this treaty.
^ Muir, A Life of Mahomet and History of Islam to the Era of the Hegira, chapter XVII, p. 259f.
^ Guillaume, p. 458f.
^ Ramadan, p. 143.
^ a b c d e f g Guillaume, p. 461-464.
^ a b c d e f g Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, p. 222-224.
^ a b c d e Stillman, p. 137-141.
^ a b c Inamdar, Muhammad and the Rise of Islam, p. 166f.
^ These included weapons, household goods, utensils, camels and cattle. The stored wine was spilled. See Kister, p. 94.
^ a b c Muir, p. 272-274.
^ Ramadan, p. 145.
^ Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews: A Re-examination, p. 79-81.
^ a b c Adil, Muhammad: The Messenger of Islam, p. 395f.
^ Hashmi, Buchanan & Moore, States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries.
^ Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, p. 233f.
^ a b Abu-Nimer, "A Framework for Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam", p. 247.
^ Muir (p. 272-274) rejects as unlikely the view that the Qurayza surrendered to Muhammad (as later espoused by Watt) as well accounts that the besieged Jews, refusing to surrender to Muhammad, instead named Sa'd as alternative and subsequently surrendered to him.
^ Ramadan, p. 145.
^ Stillman, p. 141f.
^ Muir (p. 277) follows Hishami and also refers to Aisha, who had related: "But I shall never cease to marvel at her good humour and laughter, although she knew that she was to die." (Ibn Ishaq, Biography of Muhammad).
^ a b Lecker, "On Arabs of the Banū Kilāb executed together with the Jewish Banū Qurayza", p. 69.
^ Kister, "The Massacre of the Banu Quraiza", p. 95f.
^ a b c Rodinson, Muhammad: Prophet of Islam, p. 213.
^ Ramadan, p. 146.
^ Meri, Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, p. 754.
^ a b Arafat, "New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina", p. 100-107. Arafat relates the testimony of Ibn Hajar, who denounced this and other accounts as "odd tales" and quoted Malik ibn Anas, a contempory of Ibn Ishaq, whom he rejected as a "liar", an "impostor" and for seeking out the Jewish descendants for gathering information about Muhammad's campaign with their forefathers.
^ Ahmad, p. 85-94.
^ Nemoy, "Barakat Ahmad's "Muhammad and the Jews"", p. 325. Nemoy is sourcing Ahmad's Muhammad and the Jews.
^ Kister, "The Massacre of the Banu Quraiza".
^ Peters, Islam. A Guide for Jews and Christians, p. 77.
^ Kister, The Massacre of the Banū Quraiza, p. 66.
^ Handwörterbuch des Islam, "Ahl al-Kitab".
^ Ayoub, "Dhimmah in Qur'an and Hadith", p. 179; Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 2, Book 23, Number 475 and Volume 5, Book 57, Number 50) as authorities.
^ Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Ahl al-Kitab.
^ Lewis, The Jews of Islam, p. 32.
^ Khadduri, p. 175.
^ a b c Paret, Mohammed und der Koran, p. 122-124.
^ a b Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 217-218.
^ The Encyclopedia Judaica (Vol. XI, col. 1212) estimates the Jewish population of Medina at 8,000 to 10,000. Barakat Ahmad (p. 43) calls this an understatement and calculates that there still remained 24,000 to 28,000 Jews in Medina, after the demise of the Qurayza. These figures are cited by Peters (Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, p. 301 (note 41): "According to Ahmad, whose estimate of the Jewish population at 36,000-42,000 has already been cited, the departure of the Banu Nadir and the decimation of the Banu Qurayza would still have left between 24,000-28,000 Jews at Medina.") but are disputed by Reuven Firestone ("The failure of a Jewish program of public satire in the squares of Medina"). Watt (Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman, p. 175f.) describes the remaining Jews as "several small groups".
^ Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 296.
^ Bernard Lewis: The Political Language of Islam. University of Chicago Press, 1991. p.191
^ Zeitlin, The Historical Muhammad, p. 133.
^ Hirschberg, Yisrael Ba'Arav, p. 146.
^ Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews. Volume III: Heirs of Rome and Persia, p. 79.

I mean, besides Ibn Ishaq, Al-Isfahani, Al-Samhudi, Al-Waqidi, Ibn Khordadbeh. Khadduri and Abu-Nimer. Also aside from Sa'd ibn Mua'dh and Sa'd ibn Ubadah, I guess you could say. But other than them almost nobody, I'm sure.

 

[S.A.M.]

I still don't see where any scholar has claimed to accept a ghareeb or munkar hadith. Most scholars discuss the history in the context of the Quran however, there is no extant confirmation on the existence of the Jewish tribe AT ALL

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I still don't see where any scholar has claimed to accept a ghareeb or munkar hadith. Most scholars discuss the history in the context of the Quran however, there is no extant confirmation on the existence of the Jewish tribe AT ALL

Because, SAM, you don't want to see, as it is a inconvenient truth to your arguments, and destroys your line of reason.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

What's all this then? The crusades were in response to the muslim invasion of europe. I thought everyone learned that in school. People like Richard the Lionhearted barely prevented muslims like Saladin from taking over the western world.

 

[GeoffP]

I still don't see where any scholar has claimed to accept a ghareeb or munkar hadith. Most scholars discuss the history in the context of the Quran however, there is no extant confirmation on the existence of the Jewish tribe AT ALL

Did you want to see the list again? The islamic authorities there appear to have no question at all about their existence, ghareeb or gratuitous.

I know, I know: Sam sees nossink! Nooosssink!

 

[S.A.M.]

You're confusing a scholarly discussion with historical fact. Perhaps you would do better to educate yourself in how Islamic scholars dissect the Hadiths under discussion. It is possible to discuss anything, even if there is no evidence to support that it really happened.

The Quran refers to the event and never mentions killing or enslaving them, which is in direct contradiction of many verses of the Quran. The Quran, in the Chapter known as Exodus, informs us that a group from "The People of the Book" were forced to leave the territory because of their violation of the constitution and secretly organizing war together with the enemies against Muslims (59:1-4). Verse 59:3 clearly states that they were not penalized further in this world.

The credibility of the story of Muhammad massacring Bani Qurayza Jews has been the subject of controversy since the time it was published by Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Ishaq who died in 151 A.H., that is 145 years after the event in question, was severely criticized by his peers for relying on highly exaggerated Jewish stories. He was also harshly criticized for presenting forged poetry attributed to famous poets. Some of his contemporary scholars, such as Malik, called him "a liar." However, his work was later copied by others without critical examination. This is an example of hearsay used by dubious reporters for propaganda purposes.

Modern scholars found astonishing similarities between Ibn Ishaq and the account of the historian Josephus regarding King Alexander, who ruled in Jerusalem before Herod the Great, hung upon crosses 800 Jewish captives, and slaughtered their wives and children before their eyes. Many other similarities in details of the story of Banu Qurayza and the event reported by Josephus are compelling.

Besides, the lack of reference or justification in the Quran for such a massacre of great magnitude and the verses instructing principles for Muslims to abide by removes all credibility from this story (35:18: 61:4). The Quran gives utmost importance to human life (5:32) and considers racism and anti-Semitism evil (49:11-13).

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Like I said, had the Franks not beaten off the moors, and then the crusades sent to weaken the islamic empire, we'd have beheadings in the US now.

 

[GeoffP]

You're confusing a scholarly discussion with historical fact. Perhaps you would do better to educate yourself in how Islamic scholars dissect the Hadiths under discussion. It is possible to discuss anything, even if there is no evidence to support that it really happened.

Well you should mention that to the dozens of scholars on that list who've spent a lot of time talking about it; still, the broader issue is whether or not it gets excused.

 

[desi]

The massacres of the Christians [Christians and Lions?]? The beheading of thousands of pagans? Organised persecution of the Jews?

Nero was a nutter and he had a thing against Christians.

The Romans were pagans before Constantine made them all Christians.

The Jews weren't an easy group to rule. They weren't persecuted any more than any other group the Romans conquered.

 

[skywalker]

Muslims aren't kosher. It's true through; history books often enjoy portraying Europe as an evil empire. It was way more provoked than pogroms ever were.

But I still consider you my friend... I don't hate you my friend.

 

[flameofanor5]

Some public school curriculums currently emphasize how 'evil' the Christians were in the Crusades, beating up on the peaceful Muslims. All you liberal textbook writers, I've got a shock for you. IT WASN'T ONE-SIDED! The Muslims actually started it by stopping the Christian pilgrims from coming to the Holy Land. Well, they might say, 'the Muslims were only reclaiming their rightful homeland.' Yeah right. The Christians/Jews were there since about, uh, 1600 years before the Muslim faith even got STARTED. Come on. Many atrocities in the Crusades were committed by both sides, and neither side was blameless, but it wasn't quite like the lib textbooks say. The Muslims weren't innocent little piggies then, and aren't now.

Sure the muslims may have attacked the Christians first (actually the catholics) we didn't exactly respond well.