mafia996630 wrote:
Because of free will? .. Shouldn't that be a plus in terms of accuracy?
That has nothing to do with what we were discussing in relation to Ibn Ishaq. FYi, its not free will in terms of what he can say or not say. Its free will in terms of the following:
"Qadaris maintain that Allah gave man free will, without which one cannot be fully accountable for one's actions. Free will also means that Allah cannot know a man's actions in advance. Qadaris also deny other core tenants of Sunni belief including the belief in the Punishment of the Grave"
Like i said before, Ibn Ishaq is probz not even a Muslim if he denies that God is all knowing.
I've added additional evidence since you've got that vague "fishy feeling" about the character of Ibn Ishaq. Even though his version is
is the earliest surviving traditional biography. A version that was actually relatively close to the actual time of Muhammad.
What additional evidence ?
Ibn Isḥaq wrote several works, none of which survive. His collection of traditions about the life of Muhammad survives mainly in two sources:
* an edited copy, or recension, of his work by his student al-Bakka'i, as further edited by Ibn Hisham. Al-Bakka'i's work has perished and only Ibn Hisham's has survived, in copies. (Donner 1998, p. 132)
* an edited copy, or recension, prepared by his student Salamah ibn Fadl al-Ansari. This also has perished, and survives only in the copious extracts to be found in the volumimous historian al-Tabari's. (Donner 1998, p. 132)
* fragments of several other recensions. Guillaume lists them on p. xxx of his preface, but regards most of them as so fragmentary as to be of little worth.
Some of his work still exist but in a watered-down/Edited form. And yeah his version was probz one of the earliest BUT that doesn't make it a fact. Now i will repeat my point again, he is considered to be a Qadariyah, who were rebuked by companions of Muhammad, and you can't get anything closer to Muhammad then his companions.
Also his work contained Greek philosophy, Islam and Greek philosophy don't mix. End off.
mafia996630]
At the very least we must agree that Muhammad approved the murders.
Murders is the wrong word,its all about the context. But yeah i agree along those lines. In relation to Banu Qurayza, refer to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#Analysis.
They were unarmed and surrendered.. context = murder.
Form what I have read, it could bee seen either way. it could be seen to be justified because the Muslims were trying to prevent further war or "urayza broke the pact with Muhammad, and thus Muhammad was justified in repudiating his side of the pact and declaring war on the Qurayza" as the Qur'an justifies it.
the Aws was also charged with killing a group of Qurayza men.[21][41] Subhash Inamdar argues that this was done in order to avoid the risk of further conflicts between Muhammad and the Aws. According to Inamdar, Muhammad wanted to distance himself from the events and, had he been involved, would have risked alienating some of the Aws
Also note, it is not fact that they were all murdered :
Walid N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad have disputed that the Banu Qurayza were killed on a large scale.[58] Arafat disputes large-scale killings and argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who embellished or manufactured the details of the incident.[59] Ahmad argues that only some of the leaders of the tribe were killed, while some of the fighters were taken prisoners.[60][61] Watt finds Arafat's arguments "not entirely convincing"[1], while Meir J. Kister has contradicted[clarification needed] the arguments of Arafat and Ahmad.[62]
^^^Se again, what Ibn Ishaq said is being bought into question.
mafia996630 wrote:
The Qur’an is Allah’s private conversation with Muhammad. Some you slew/killed and ye made captive some. Is the qu'ran a notable book in the Muslim faith?
From what i have heard, its mostly in the form of revelation and conversation with an angels or something. Am pretty sure the Qur'an is the most important book in the Muslim faith.
"Qur’an is regarded as God's revelation
to Muhammad". We know and accept that he took captives. The Qu'ran verifies this and it's easy to put the pieces together. Why would we alter the interpretation when it says that Muhammad
(a military man) "slew"/killed? It's a rather convenient thing to do.. it smells fishy.
I am sure Muhammed did kill people. i am not debating against that.