69 million page views

to Lisa

Reader comment on item: White House Nonchalance toward the Middle East
in response to reader comment: CHALLEGE 6W: Answering Lisa and more

Submitted by Taj Ashaheed (United States), Apr 6, 2006 at 03:35

I understand the issue with searching for justification regarding marriage to Aisha...i have to admit there are times when what Muhammad has done or said tends to be a "why'd the chicken cross the road?" type of issue when it comes to "justification"...i believe his marriage to Aisha is one of them...lol

Regarding the Banu Quraiza, there are a couple sticky points to your question...

first i think it matters on how one defines the term "wisdom"...in light of this, i believe i answered your question regarding this term based on how is define it from my perspective...again, i see it as a matter where just treatment was meted that ends up being tinged with irony, as it was the tribe's own treachery and own laws that brought them recompense...

second, your question seems to presuppose that there had to be "wisdom" in what was done to the Banu Quraiza - and i am not sure where this stems from or if the assumption is necessarily valid...

third, historically speaking, there are some problems of reliablity with regard to the actual account of what actually happened...a paper published in 1976 in the Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Grt. Britian and Ireland on the historical problem of the accounts points:

"The earliest work that we have, with the widest range of details, is Ibn Ishaq's Sira, his biography of the Prophet. It is also the longest and the most widely quoted. Later historians draw, and in most cases depend on him. But Ibn Ishaq died in 151 A.H., i.e. 145 years after the event in question. Later historians simply take his version of the story, omitting more or less of the detail, and overlooking his uncertain list of authorities. They generally abbreviate the story, which appears just as one more event to report. In most cases their interest seems to end there. Some of them indicate that they are not really convinced, but they are not prepared to take further trouble. One authority, Ibn Hajar, however, denounces this story and the other related ones as "odd tales". A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik, the jurist, denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar" and "an impostor" just for transmitting such stories. "

the paper, at length points out long known problems with was was relayed about the accounts over the centuries, but of course the sensationalism of the event seems to outweigh critical thought in this case...

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".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)