Once again from the page of Rabbi Ben Abrahamson, may GOD continue to grace him with His infinite blessings. The person posing the questions to one of the most authoritative scholars of Jewish-Muslim history, seems only interested in arguing his convictions rather than either understanding, or learning anything from the venerable Rabbi who does not share that perspective for his own valid reasons. Notice how the questioner never responds reasonably to the responses provided by the Rabbi whose responses by contrast, are based on the contents of the questions. The sad combination of such hostility and arrogance does nothing positive for intellectually honest erudition, or the just peace that may be inspired by such scholarship. Such strident folk seem only interested in spreading discord based on dubious conjectures and outright hubris passing as scholarship, in order to propagate a barely concealed, divisive political agenda. Not surprisingly, they cannot seem to distinguish between an legitimate and an illegitimate disagreement. They cannot agree to disagree because neither agree on the facts themselves. A legitimate disagreement isnt over facts established by available empirical record, but the interpretation of those facts and the subsequent conclusions one may derive from different interpretations. Anyway, Im posting the whole exchange in full, followed by a link from The Onion. I hope they serve as good examples on this page :) Q. In the matter of horrendously inhumane treatment of Jews by the Rashidun Invaders (632-661CE), one does not need an entire work to prove all points but there are literally hundreds of sources. How a rational person could even question the veracity of such treatment given the fact that al Quran and Sahih Hadith both plainly state it is beyond me. I am not aware of a single Jewish source that states that Jews fared well under the Rashidun (sadly liittle difference was seen after). A (Rabbi Ben Abrahamson). You are speaking very confidently of your opinion. The Quran and Sahih Hadith do not support nor even permit inhumane treatment of Jews. This is the case only if you impose upon them a certain historical prejudice. As far as the historical progression of events, I have followed the thesis of Robert Hoyland, Gerald Hawting, Michael Cook, Michael Lecker, David Cook, Robert Bedrosian, John C. Reeves and others, which has better fit with Tabari, Ibn Hisham, etc as well as the Genizah documents, Sherira Gaon and Midrashei Geulah. You may disagree with my proposals, but it is somewhat egotistical to dismiss them as nonsense or not rational. Q. There are zero Islamic sources claiming this and with Maghazi being a Scriptural genre- in addition to Hadith [and not credible historical documents] - it just plays as patently absurd. This is why all aspects of [cooperation between Jews and Muslims] are viewed as pure conjecture by mainstream academia. I can only laugh at the claim given the fact that Dhimmitude had been canonised within Sharia just after Khaibar. Jews were forbidden upon pain of death from carrying even a ceremonial dagger. Imagine then a sword, spear or bow? And what of their being banned from riding horses, nor riding anything so long as any Muslim within sight was on foot? A (Rabbi Ben Abrahamson). Your view follows the tradition of German historical revisionism of Wellhausen and Buchler, followed by Geiger and the rest (even including Moshe Gil) who saw an impossibility of collaboration, let alone coexistence, between Muslims and Jews. That view is commonly accepted, but I support a dissenting view, championed by scholars such as Reuben and Lecker, that the texts that we have today do not support such an antagonistic relationship. These historians claim that we must be very careful because the paucity of texts allows 1) prejudices to be read into the texts that in reality belong to centuries later; 2) misidentification of the major actors in these conflicts and 3) arbitrary disregard for large quantities of historiographical evidence (such as Himyar and Dhu Nuwas) because it does not conform to certain preconceived intellectual frameworks of the relationship between Muslim and Jew. We must put aside the influence of German revisionism, especially the school of Wellhausen. We know from Islamic histories that there were Arabian Jews who fought together with Muhammad in the Battle of Uhud. We know the Prophets (pbuh) expedition led by Usama ibn Zeid was funded by a Arabian Jews. (Usama ibn Zeid led a contingent of soldiers as far as Yavneh.) Jews left Edessa to fight in the armies of the early Caliphate. We know from Jewish histories that the Rabbinic Jews of Babylon provided judges for the Islamic territories until they could provide judges for themselves, and that there was widespread support for Hz Ali (ra) among the Jews of Babylon. It is difficult to know how many Jews fought and died with the Muslims under the first four Caliphs, because these numbers were an inconvenient fact for later Islamic rulers. It is also complicated because the Byzantines often confused Jews for Muslims. All the sources that mention Bustanai speak well of Umar (ra). The Midrashei Geula speak of Umar (ra) positively as the one who repares the breaches of Jerusalem. There are geniza documents saying Jewish children were named Umar (Amar) after the Caliph. Q. Ben Abrahamson: You are talking about an Exilarch. Bostanai was responsible for al Jizya AND standard taxation for all Jews in the Eastern half of the Caliphate. Of course Umar was cordial- so long as the financial onus was met and Jews remained subservient in their position as inhuman dregs. We could discuss how Umar also ceremonially slapped Bostanai each year when al Jizya was received but what would be the point? All people treat their ATMs well so long aa they keep dispensing cash. Umar finished the Ethnic Cleansing of Jews in Hijaz and Nejd but because he was cordial with s cash cow in Persia he is regarded well? Really? As for Cairo Genizah, virtually no documents predate the 11th Century and the earliest scrap is the end of the 9th so how would it have documents talking about Jews naming babies after Umar? A violation of Halacha to say nothing of the mans crimes against Jews so I do not see it as even possible, let alone contained in a factual claim. If you are relying upon Sefer HaYishuv, the Jewish source on the 70 enslaved families from Tiberias, the book- found in the Cairo Genizah- was 11th Century, more than 400 years after the fact. A (Rabbi Ben Abrahamson). Your absolute certainty about what happened during in these events precludes any meaningful conversation.
Posted on: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:14:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015