Real gems from our wannabe historian Ibrahim Ali (sic)

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jun 5, 2007 at 18:37

Well, this funny debate is about: is Allah really Hubal? My answer is Wellhausen believes so, and he makes very good points and what I was saying: if you Ibrahim Ali do not like it, then prove him wrong and for this I say to you good luck.

Why do not you get that much? And why are you not focused? You quote the hadith and the sira as evidence for your little fantasy that Allah is not really Hubal and when told that both your sources and that is the sira and the hadith are bogus you did not even prove me wrong and do you know why? Because I think you are not very focused and you hope that i will forget about such point. I'm waiting for you to prove me wrong! wikipedia and bogus and tendentious Muslim web sites (see below) will not be regarded as evidence. Real history books will be regarded as evidence

So let me repeat: I believe that Wellhausen is correct and I also believe what Crone's wrote that she can see why he might be correct and that is: Allah must be Hubal. But it is all fiction! I still think that you do not get it and you know why? because history is never black and white.

But you know what? The islamic historical tradition is bogus because the sources are bogus. And I include here the oral tradition too and this is the point that Crone makes in Meccan Trade a book that you did not read . So you know what we are left with? It is debating fiction which is not history and you still do not get it. May be in your glorious madrassa it is real history!

then you wrote

>I wonder why Crone is starting to backown from her claims

Disregading your very poor syntax where on earth in "Meccan trade" does Crone "backdown from her claims" and what claims are they?You have no clue do you?

You did not read her book did you? A yes or no answer will do.

>But dhimmi

Yes our Ibrahim Ali al-tablighee who ain't no historian, and ain't no Arab.

>the spartans had no written work

Did you ever hear of apples and oranges? What do the spartans have to do with the bogus islamic historical tradition? Let me help you: Nothing. Not a thing.

>and yet we trust the oral tradition

I do not study Sparta and neither do you. So I cannot answer your question here. And you know what? I bet you a buck that you do not even know any Greek or the history of ancient Greece or Sparta for this matter but that does not stop you from pontificating about something that you have no clue about

But the funny thing is you did not realize in your ignorance that I was not talking about oral sources here. I was talking about _extant_ written_ sources by Muslims in the first 72 years after the death of Muhammad in 632CE where we have it collected in Hoyland's survey but the name of Muhammad does not appear in any of these written sources! And why is that? Why does the name of Abul qasim aka Muhammad aka Qutham aka Ahmad not apppear for 72 years after his death in written sources which we have? Yes written sources can be lost but it is indeed strange that Muhammad's name just does not appear any where. So you explain to us ya auyah al-fahlawi al-kabeer?

Then you have the audacity to post a few web sites and you cannot even write more than one sentence at a time and why is that? Could it be because you have no clue and you are only a fahlawi (oh maybe the web sites can help you in telling you what the word fahlawi really means) and you have to depend on others to spoon feed you and you have to depend on wannabe historians like you?

And why do you think that these sources are reliable? Let me help you: they are not. I checked the muslimsawarness site and it is a joke. This site is an islamic web site (and yes it is not wikipedia) and by being Islamic it is tendentious as would be expected which makes it a poor source to debate history. The guy is not a historian. From what I can gather from the site he is a scientist and this is as far as you can get from history. I would have no doubt about him being a scientist but he ain't no historian like you. He is not even an Arab. He is from what I can gather is another tablighee like you. I suspect he is from India. Shame on you for not quoting a history book.

Shame on you for not being able to write even one paragraph that refutes anything about anyhting.

Now let me provide you with some real scholarly work on the subjects of Allah and Hubal

1. Patrica Crone's "Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam" (read ALL of 187-195)

2. J Wellhuasen's "Reste arabischen Heidentums." he is the an that you need to refute!

Now for all the extant Muslim written sources from 632CE and for the first 72 years after the death of Muhammad where the written sources are silent about the name of Muhammad see

Hoyland's Survey pages 688-695

in regard to the fact that the hadith and the sira are bogus see

1. Crone's "Slave on Horses" read "Historiographical introduction" pages 3-17

2. Crone's "Roman, Provincial and Islamic law" and the final nail in the coffin of the hadith is read page: 33.

3. Lammens (yes I realize that he was very biased and at times not a careful historian) but his" Fatima and the daughters of Muhammad" is indeed great work where he concludes that the sira is unhistorical and it is nothing but another genre of Quranic tafseer and it was generated by the Quranic pericopes and logias.

4. Must reading about the hadith is Ignaz Goldziher's "Muslim studies." He in effect detaches the hadith from Arabia in 610CE-632CE and places it wher it belongs: it is the product of the Muslim community in the 3rd century of islam in distant Iran and Mesopotamia.

5. Joesph Schact's in his "The origins of Muhammadan jurisprudence"

In regard to the claim that the islamic historical tradition is unreliable and to be blunt, bogus. you can read

Noth's "Quellenkritische"

But the penultimate is the work of Wansbrough who is his two books "Quranic studies:" and "Sectarian Milieu" detaches Muhammad from the Quran and islamic from Arabia!

Now this is real history. Now do you see how much you have to refute before you can solve your little problem about is Allah really Hubal? Which it looks like he is...

---

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".