Nozzi: Why do you trust unclean kaffir historians and not the Muslim Imams I quote?

Submitted by Plato (India), May 11, 2009 at 09:29

Nozzi, you write:

>>The following are the comments from you, Plato, to me in which you have abused the Cambidge history of Islam:<<

">>The following are the extracts from Rodinson (2002), p.164 as well as, Watt, The Cambridge History of Islam, p. 45:

In March of 624, the Muslims set an ambursh for Meccan at Badr. Aware of the plan, the Meccan caravan eluded the Muslims. Meanwhile, a force from Mecca was sent to protect the caravan, continuing forward to confront the Muslims upon hearing that the caravan was safe <<

The first sentence itself tells you the Muslims were the ones who chose to fight the Meccans by trying to loot their caravan. ….

>> The Battle of Badr began in March 624. Though outnumbered more than three to one, the Muslims won the battle, killing at least forty five Mecans with only fourteen Muslims dead. They also succeeded in killing many Meccan leaders, including Abu Jahl.

If you have prepared the battleground …….. then half the battle is already won. The prophet was a great tactician and strategist (courtesy of Allah no doubt).

The history that you extracted was based on year 624.

However, I have browsed through the summary of Cambridge History of Islam, it is mentioned that Prophet Muhammad preached the message of Allah to Meccans ever since year 610.<<"

Nozzi, the Cambridge history was written by non-Muslims whom you consider dirty and do not wish to associate with. Remember writing: We, muslims, treat non-muslims to be unclean and do not let these unclean people to enter into mosque.

The same as we treat pork and pig. We do not even want to touch pork, the unclean thing. Thus, your sources to accuse Muhammad is certainly not reliable. http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/154911 )

Why do wish to quote history written by unclean historians from Cambridge in support of your super clean prophet?

But let that be. You will notice that there are little numbers at the ends of some sentences. They are references to the original sources which they have used to support what they say. Check at the end of the chapter or of the book for these references and you will find that they refer to what people like Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Ibn Kathir or Ibn Saad etc. have written.

>>It is mentioned in the Carmbridge History of Islam that Meccans began to protest muslims ever since year 610 when Prophet Muhammad began to preach to Meccans instead of in year 624.<<

To support your claim you should have quoted the passage verbatim and the page number on which this claim is made.

Even from what you say the Meccans only protested when the Prophet insulted their religion. Is slaughter of those who protest your abuses and insults justitfied. Why can't you ponder over this and give a clear and unambiguous answer, Nozzi?

>>As Meccans did the first move to despise and persecuted our religion and Prophet Muhammad, Prophet Muhammad began to fight with the Meccans.<<

Your statements simply boggle the mind. Show me from any authentic source that the Meccans were the ones to behave in an uncivilized manner by abusing the Muslim religion. You have simply employed the standard and well-worn Muslim trick of accusing the victim of being the culprit.

>>I discover you always act smart. You simply assume that the Holy Quran is for violence simply pick the word, fight, from the Holy Quran to support it.<<

Show me where, in which post I have done what you accuse me of. Just one will do, Nozzi. Again I know this as standard Muslim practice. Make a wild accusation against the opponent and hope that it will stick. All you have succeeded in doing is put your foot in your mouth.

>>Now you have also made a mistake by picking some verses here and there from the Cambridge History of Islam to support that Prophet Muhammad was the first to stir up violence against the Meccans.<<

Nozzi, you are the one with a copy of the Cambridge History. I only picked up a sentence or two from your extract.

>>You did not indeed browse through the whole Cambridge History of Islam and yet delivered your message that it was not Meccans to start the fight. Please kindly read carefully Cambridge History of Islam.<<

I picked this sentence from YOUR extract from the Cambridge History of Islam: In March of 624, the Muslims set an ambursh for Meccan at Badr. I DID NOT WRITE IT.

Now go back to your Cambridge History and find for me a sentence which says that the Meccans at any time attacked the Muslims in Madina to justify this attack on their caravan. Remember the Prophet had left Mecca in 622.

>> Prophet Muhammad began to preach to Meccans after year 610 and on that time, many Meccans protested against Prophet Muhammad.<<

Why do you never answer me when I ask you what justification the prophet had to insult the religion of the Meccans? Is your answer Allah allowed him to? Why then could not Hubal have allowed the Meccans to protest the insults that Muhammad was directing his way?

>>They persecuted him and despised him and that caused Muslims to set trap with the Meccans in year 624.<<

They did not touch a hair of his until the death of his protecting uncle despite the fact that Muhammad despised their religion.

>>Don't mislead any more to all the readers of this site. Those who are very good in the history of Islam and those that have the book of Cambridge History of Islam, will certainly know that you are trying to mislead muslims to your wrong interpretation and understanding.<<

I quoted the sentence you quoted from the Cambridge History which tells you that Muhammad was the one to initiate violence at Badr. Are you telling me that your favourite book of history got it wrong and it was a Madinan caravan that the Meccans went to loot at Badr?

>>You should go and get a book of the Carmbridge history of Islam to see when prophet Muhammad reached out to Meccans and when they protested against Muslims.<<

You already have the book. So quote for your readers on this board what kind of preaching Muhammad did and why the Meccans protested.

>>If you have browsed through carefully the Cambridge History of Islam, you should have known that Meccans persecuted Muslims just after year 610 when Prophet Muhammad began his ministry of preaching to the public instead of in year 624.<<

What prevents you from quoting from the book (which you claim to have browsed) showing your readers that the Meccans began persecuting Muhammad as soon as he started preaching and not after he began insulting their religion.

>>Thus, the way you use year 620 in which Prophet Muhammad planned to fight against Meccans is indeed erroneous since Meccans started to persecute muslims long before year 624.<<

The prophet had taken off to Madina in 622. No Meccan ever came within miles of him. But Muhammad went in search of Madinan caravans to attack a short while after he reached Madina. Again you use the standard Muslim trick of blaming the victim and the culprit is claimed to be innocent, against all the clear evidence available for his culpability.

>>You have mentioned that the message from Allah to Prophet Muhammad was to kill and to show no mercy to non-muslims.<<

I did not invent this message Nozzi: 009.005 YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Nor did I invent this one: 009.029 YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Both these messages are open ended i.e. they are not time barred.

>>However, it is mentioned in the Cambridge History of Islam that Prophet Muhammad began to preach to the public after year 610. As it is mentioned in the history that he preached to the public after year 610, it implies that Allah'smission for all muslims are to preach the message so that they could be saved through the Last Judgment Day.<<

You are quoting from history written by unclean non-Muslims to refute Allah's verses like 9:29. Nozzi Allah has ordered you to fight non-Muslims until they submit. Which will you follow, Cambridge History of Islam or 9:29 from theKoran?

>>For instance, if Allah wants all non-muslims to die and he would not allow muslims to show mercy by preaching the message of Allah to the public, Prophet Muhammad should not have preached to the public after year 610.<<

If Allah wanted all non-Muslims to die He would not have created them in the first place, would he? What He wanted was for Muslims to fight them and kill them or make them submit to Allah (i.e.Muhammad) as He demands in 9:5 and 9:29.Why else did He make war compulsory for Muslims in 2:216 and 9:38? If fighting is only for defensive purposes then there was no need to make it compulsory.

>>As he did preach after year 610, it implies that Allah is willing to wait for the repentance of non-muslims and he wants us to reach out to them.<<

Check with your Islamic scholar when verses like 9:5, 9:29, 9:38 and 2:216 were revealed. Allah tell you that you are free to fight us kaffirs without burdening your conscience with guilt.

>>The country, Spain, that muslims fought with as mentioned below in the history is not a muslim country nowadays and it implies that muslims did not slaughter all non-muslims. This is due to they have left non-muslims behind to wait for their repentance.<<

The reason my dear Nozzi, is because another monotheistic religion conquered Spain and set about systematically reconverting it to Christianity. Countries like Persia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Algeria were all conquered and completely converted to Islam from paganism and Christianity.

>>The following are the extract of the summary of Islam's history from the Cambridge History of Islam:<<

Thanks for posting this summary of Islam. Now let me do a kind of tafsir on it:

>>624 CE Muslims successfully attack Meccan caravans at Badr.<<

Note it says Muslims attack caravans at Badr, not that Pagans attacked the Muslims.

>>625 Muslims are defeated by Meccans at Uhud.<<

Meccans return the favour and defeat the Muslims. Note this is after the Muslim aggression on the Meccans and Muhammad's continued raids on tribes and people who opposed him (he had Kaf bin Ashraf killed and banished the Banu Kaynuka from Medina).

>>630 Muslims capture Mecca. Ka'ba is cleansed, pilgrimage rites are Islamicized, tribes of Arabia vow allegiance to Muhammad.<<

Despite treaty of Hudaibia he invades Mecca on a technicality. Even this technicality need not have worried him as Allah gave him freedom to break treaties with pagans by 9:1-8

>>632-33 Wars of ridda (apostasy) restore allegiance to Islam<<

No sooner is Muhammad dead that many Muslims reconvert to their ancestors religion (apparently because they disliked paying zakat). Abu Bakr ENFORCES Islam again by going to war and killing enough of them to convince them Islam was superior. The ridda wars prove that there is no freedom of religion in Islam.

>> 633 Muslim conquests (Futuhat) begin. 633-42 Muslim armies take the Fertile Crescent (Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia), North African coast, parts of Persian and Byzantine Empires<<

Nozzi, your favourite book of history is telling you the Muslims attacked all these countries without provocation. That is unless you consider, like the Muslim jurists tell you, that once you call the other countries to Islam and it is not accepted then these countries are considered to have rebelled against Allah and His Messenger and the Muslims must attack them. Right or wrong, Nozzi?

>> c. 650 Caliph Uthman has the Qur'an written down.<<

Does the Cambridge book have anything to say about the two or three other versions of the Koran he had destroyed? Allah's eternal words seemed to have come in different versions. How can you be sure the one in your hands is the true word of god?

>>656 Uthman is murdered; Ali becomes fourth caliph.<<

It seems they forgot to mention Omar who was murdered in 644.

>> 657 Battle of Siffin. Mu'awiya, governor of Syria, claims the caliphate.<<

The companions of the prophet are shown to be quarreling for the crumbs of office.

>> 659 Arbitration at Adruh is opposed by Ali's supporters. 661 Ali is murdered; Mu'awiya becomes caliph. Beginning of Umayyad Caliphate (661-750).<<

Another Caliph murdered and the hated Muawiya becomes the King.

>>680 Death of Husayn marks beginning of the Shi'at Ali ("party of Ali") or Shi'a sect.<<

In less than fifty years Muslims splinter into two warring camps and their slaughter of each other continue to this day.

>>710 Arab armies enter Spain from North Africa. <<

Muslims invade Spain and North Africa unprovoked. Your Cambridge historians put it politely by saying they 'entered' Spain and Africa. No wonder they are your favourite non-Muslim historians whom you have ranked above even Ibn Ishaq, Bukhari and others faithful Muslim historians.

Regards

Plato

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".