This is getting repetitive. You make a claim, I respond, you make the same claim, I respond. Instead of answering this in depth again, just read one of my various previous responses. In short, motivations are generally local or international political injustices - there are many sources but the one I gave was Michael Scheuer, former head of the Bin Laden unit, in his different books including Imperial Hubris and Through our Enemies Eyes.
You think you respond but you don't, you merely refuse to get the point, a very simple point. Didn't ISIS claim to has established the Caliphate and so on? Where do they get these ideas from? You seem to imply that ISIS has 0, nothing at all to do with Islam. This is why no one will take you seriously here, you come across as delusional or dishonest.
To iterate my point again: Islamic terrorists claim that they follow the commands of Allah and Mohammed.
This is a descriptive statement. It doesn't say whether the claim of said terrorists is true or false or whether Islam is their only source of motivation. They could be Jews trying to make Islam look bad. My claim says nothing but that x says y.
How many times will I have to explain this simple and trivial point?
It is 'very likely'? Really? Your subjective opinion on the source is of no interest. Feel free to disagree with the source as I do with some of yours, but provide valid reasons for their in-authenticity. Not "I don't like Muslims, they're probably liars".
That is a valid criticism used by Historians.
I'm sure you've heard this saying before: “
History is always written by the
winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the
winner writes the
history books-books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, 'What is
history, but a fable agreed upon?” Dan Brown.
Think about it, Mekka was supposed to be one of the largest trade centres visited by every merchant. Don't you think we would have at least 1 record of the infanticide the Quraysh supposedly practised? All we have is what the Muslims wrote years after the events. Just like they invented Hadiths about Mohammed they could easily have invented these stories about the Quraysh.
But all this aside, we know what Mohammed really wanted and he took it.
No not happy at all as you have made another serious blunder. Like I said countless times before, familiarise yourself with the source material as it leads to things like this. Like with the issue of Hadith sciences, I'm happy to explain. Tabari is NOT a reliable source for scholars and never has been. Tabari, by his own admission, never verified information - he would hear something, correct or incorrect, and record it. Whereas Hadith science has a chain of narration which divided reliable and unreliable narrations into categories of Sahih, Hasan, Daeef, Maudu - ranging from strong/sound to fabricated - Tabari had no such verification process leading scholars to declare him unreliable in his own right. However if Tabari recorded something which was corroborated by a Sahih or Hasan narration, then it can be used.
Furthermore Tabari, at the start of his book Tareekh At-Tabari, HIMSELF puts a disclaimer in mentioning the inaccuracies. It is ironic that the source that you bring up himself claims that the source is not reliable. Kinda refuted your own point there, didn't you?
I am aware that Muslims reject the ugly parts in Tabari's history, even though he wrote it after Ibn Ishaq and was supposed to have done a better job than him. No surprise that you will reject anything that shows Mohammed in a bad light. The fact that you reject it is evidence that you agree that the early history books paint Mohammed as the aggressor and a bad person.
Anyone can invent an isnad. Even today scholars dispute some of the sahih hadith claiming that there are maudu or whatever. It is not a science; putting the word science before hadith doesn't make it a science.
If you reject all the early books about the prophet then which do you accept, they heavily whitwashed Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum? You like this more because it doesn't show the true character of you god.
They are mentioned in more than one place including the Quran which is the earliest recorded text relating to that period. Surah Takvir, chapter 81 talks about the infanticide of that culture but it is also mentioned in Hadith. The collection of Abu Dawud also talks about the killing of female children at that time. Of course you don't like the source because they are too "Muslim". You can't find any counter sources but just can't accept the ones that are the earliest recorded sources of that time. You want some Western source for the ongoings in 7th century Arabia? lmao
"This research investigates the spread of infanticide that apparently prevailed in pre –
Islamic era, which many people have reported claiming that burying female children alive
was a common happening during that time. This paper proposes that the spread of
infanticide among Arabs in the Pre-Islamic era was not true. Accusations of infanticide
moved down among Arabs from generation to another until it became deeply rooted in
the minds of Arabs in subsequent generations. The present paper attempts to shed light on
many issues, which will hopefully cover this phenomenon from various aspects"
https://eis.hu.edu.jo/deanshipfiles/pub103314692.pdf
Inb4 this was written by Jews.
For all we know that verse from the Quran talks about a specific case and the hadith, well, they were compiled 200 years after Mohammed. Plenty of time to write a different history.
Again, this has been answered before. Jews continued living in Arabia long after the Prophets death. Re-read at my previous posts - I am not going to keep repeating it. As for the current demographics of Saudi Arabia, they bare no relation to what is 'Islamic', it is the text and scriptures that decide that.
That is not what I meant. They were at the top of society, they lived in peace among Christians and Polytheists. Why is it that when the Muslims arrived they lost everything they had? The Muslim terrorists had every reason to attack the Jews, they had fertile land, women, cattle, valuable things. Why would the Jews attack the Muslims? Intolerance of their religion? Why did they live in peace with Christians and other religions of the area?
Even at this level of analysis we can see who the victims were.
Actually you mentioned a narration without knowing the full picture and it turned out you had refuted your own point again. You thought you were showing the Muslims attacking a random tribe for no reason. It turns out the tribe, Banu Mustaliq, was not only at war with the Muslims but had fought with the Quraysh at Uhud where many casualties were inflicted. This is record by Ibn Kathir in his book and Asqalani as I mentioned earlier. Check out both sources.
It was the Muslims who instigated it and I can prove it. Just start a new thread. Muslims had every reason to do so, they were thugs and bandits and their lived off looting and pillaging, hence why Mohammed was behind more than 70 offensive attacks on villages and caravans. Whereas the Jews had nothing to envy about the Muslims. We also know that Mohammed recruited more people to join his cult with every successfully pillaged and looted village and caravan.
I listed names that anyone familiar with the source material would know. It is so widespread that you can find their story in almost any of the 6 books of hadith. Check Bukhari, Ibn Majah, Tirmidhi and Ahmad. When I get home, if I have time I may take pictures of the relevent passages and attach them. You have spoken about some of the sources - pretending you are familiar with them - but when I mentions things from them, you seem to suffer from that temporary memory loss again.
Don't forget to post pics. As they say, pics or it didn't happen.
