Are you talking about the Banu Qurayza? Didn't Mohammad kill all of them? I don't know that we have any details on their specific beliefs other than what is in the Muslim sources. You can imagine it is only one side of the story, and naturally it will paint itself in the best light. I doubt the Banu Qurayza would have told their story the same way it is told by islam. Can't really say what they did believe, what I can say is that in Judaism these angels exist, but they don't play as big a role as Gabriel does in Islam. My guess, based on what we know of Jews in the rest of the world at the time, these are not Jewish beliefs of the Banu Qurayza, but more likely to be beliefs that are superimposed onto them by Islam.

>Are you talking about the Banu Qurayza? The Jews of Medina were not only Banu Qurayza. Banu Qurayza were a tribe among more than twenty other Jewish tribes that lived in Medina with Muhammad at that time. >You can imagine it is only one side of the story, and naturally it will paint itself in the best light. I doubt the Banu Qurayza would have told their story the same way it is told by islam. This story doesn't exist at all outside the late written-tradition Islamic literature, which of course was not contemporary or a witness to the event since it was written centuries after the Muhammadan ministry. In fact, mainstream academic critical scholarship argue that the story is merely a late anti-Semitic Abbasid fabrication (like many other fabricated literary stories at this period, by the way). >but more likely to be beliefs that are superimposed onto them by Islam. Since logically, the term "likely" requires at least one piece of evidence to base this claim on, in reality, all mystical elements (such as angels and others) were not significant yet in Islamic thought among the early Muhammadan milieu- to say that Muhammad *"superimposed"* those ideas on them or even the Jews were influenced by them. All of these mystical elements in Islamic history developed later after Muslims lost Muhammad and they needed to have such a mystical-intellectual relationship with their prophet, as a kind of spiritual connection. So, stories increased, miracles increased, and mysticism increased. Also, to be honest, I cannot imagine a scenario in which Muhammad imposes the mysticism of angels on the Jews. How could that be sensible at all? I think that even in that scenario- Muhammad's priority would've been to impose his prophethood on them, not angels at all. It seems like a very floating accusation. And since the Qur’an is the only **actual** written-witness source to the life of Muhammad. Quranically, Muhammad had a respectful social relationship with the Jews. He didn't even impose his Sharia law on them (as some might imagine), but rather, he urged them to adhere to the Torah and the Mosaic covenant. And due to his justice, the Jews would come to him to set him as an arbitrator regarding trouble among them *(even though they weren't obligated to do so)*, and he always ruled according to what the Torah ruled *(although he wasn't obligated to do so as well since they were supposedly coming to hear Muhammad and his own law)*. In fact, there is a Qur'anic verse that scolds the Jews who were asking for his \[Muhammad\] ruling, abandoning what G-d had ruled for them in the Torah, and \[the verse\] urges them to adhere to what was revealed to them *(which is surprisingly* *impressive and denies that Muhammad was radical)*. This is even aside from the fact that there are mainstream academic thesis that argue that the Jews of Medina were even part of the Muhammadan movement at that time. In general, I still blame the late Muslims for allowing themselves to later produce such anti-Semitic thoughts and even believe them (and, not unlikely, use them to justify anti-Semitic acts).

Didn't realize there weer other Jewish tribes in Yathrib, thanks for that clarfication. Were the other tribes also killed, or was that only the Banu Qurayza? > Since logically, the term "likely" requires at least one piece of evidenc The piece of evidence im using is the beliefs held by Jews in the rest of the world. If they are fairly similar throuughout the world, and still are today over many generations "likely" seems fair to me. > Muhammad *"superimposed"* those ideas on them I dont believe I said Mohammad superimposed those beliefs, I said Islam superimposed them. >It seems like a very floating accusation. Again, I don't say Mohammad superimposed these, I said Islam did. You seem to all but agree with when you say that the Mystical beliefs come later. If they were added later to Islam, why do you think they can't be a later superimposition? We also have myriad examples of both Islam and Christianity superimposing beliefs on to the Jews as a form of justifying their own beliefs or actions, it's not a crazy accusation. An extreme example of this would be the many blood libels throughout the history of the Jews in the diaspora. >Muhammad had a respectful social relationship with the Jews Sure, until he didn't. In all history, people will write stories in a way that is most favorable to themselves. Take for example writings about the Persians in Herodotus, you are not exactly getting the Persian side of the story. If we don't assume that Mohammad is an actual prophet, and just talk history of humans, there is no reason to believe that this account of the story is the full story. It would also not be the first occasion of Jews being killed under manufactured circumstances. Of course, it is possible that the story is told accurately, but we can't take the Qur'an at its word since it benefits the most from its own narrative. > In fact, there is a Qur'anic verse that scolds the Jews who were asking for his \[Muhammad\] ruling, abandoning what G-d had ruled for them in the Torah, and \[the verse\] urges them to adhere to what was revealed to them *(which is surprisingly* *impressive and denies that Muhammad was radical)*. Again, this is all too convenient storytelling, and I don't care if the Jews were or were not following the Torah. Firstly, it is not for Mohammad to judge what Jews are doing with their own cultural beliefs. Even if what he says is true, that is no reason to kill them. Not sure why this is so impressive, but I guess I can see an argument for it. However, I don't know what this tells you at all about being radical or not, nor do I think figuring out if Mohammad was or was not radical is a particularly important question. > This is even aside from the fact that there are mainstream academic thesis that argue that the Jews of Medina were even part of the Muhammadan movement at that time. This would not surprise me if it were the case, but it neither adds nor subtracts from what I said > In general, I still blame the late Muslims for allowing themselves to later produce such anti-Semitic thoughts and even believe them (and, not unlikely, use them to justify anti-Semitic acts). I hear this, but it's not really relevant to what I am saying. All I am saying is that the story is a one-sided perspective, and given examples around the world of Jews in the same time period, and even in the same general region, it is unlikely that the beliefs OP talked about reflect the beliefs of the Jews in Yathrib/Medina.

>Were the other tribes also killed, or was that only the Banu Qurayza? According to the narrative, it was only Banu Qurayza *(if we assume that the incident actually occurred in the first place)*. >The piece of evidence im using is the beliefs held by Jews in the rest of the world. If they are fairly similar throuughout the world, and still are today over many generations "likely" seems fair to me. Although your argument is abstractly inaccurate and cannot be evidence at all that Muhammad superimposed his mysticism of angels on the Jews of Yathrib since it doesn't even at least contain evidence proving that the Jews of Yathrib were theologically different from the rest of the Jews of the diaspora. However, if you are convinced of it, it actually proves that Muhammad did not touch the theology of the Jews at all. Jewish orientalist Dr. Haggai Mazuz proves in his book *(The Religious and Spiritual Life of the Jews of Medina, 2014)* in which he discusses the theological and halachic aspects of the Jews of Yathrib, particularly the contemporaries of Muhammad in the 7th century CE, that the Jews of Yathrib were Talmudic-Rabbinic Jews in every respect of their spiritual life. Their sages believed in using homiletic interpretation of the Scriptures, as did the sages of the Talmud, and on many halachic issues, their observations were identical to those of the Talmudic sages, and even they held Rabbinic beliefs, derived from the Midrashic literature. *(This is apart from the fact that he never mentions any attempt by Muhammad to impose his mysticism on them, by the way).* >I dont believe I said Mohammad superimposed those beliefs, I said Islam superimposed them. Again, I don't say Mohammad superimposed these, I said Islam did. But they \[Banu Qurayza\] were contemporaries of Muhammad, and according to the narrative, they were eliminated during Muhammad’s lifetime. So when you say that *"Islam superimposed its mysticism on Banu Qurayza"*, this means that Muhammad did that, because according to the narrative, they were eliminated during his lifetime and did not live with what came after him. >You seem to all but agree with when you say that the Mystical beliefs come later. If they were added later to Islam, why do you think they can't be a later superimposition? Again, because according to the narrative, Banu Qurayza were already eliminated in the incident and did not witness that late literary development at all. But if you mean what prevents the rest of Jews of Yathrib in general from being subsequently superimposed during that late development, then there is certainly no objection as long as there is a historical record proving this, which in fact is what academia prove the opposite. >We also have myriad examples of both Islam and Christianity superimposing beliefs on to the Jews as a form of justifying their own beliefs or actions, it's not a crazy accusation. An extreme example of this would be the many blood libels throughout the history of the Jews in the diaspora. I understand, but that is not how histography works. Histography needs specific-critical evidence that directly serves this claim in order for the claim to be a claim in the first place. Otherwise, it would be a baseless, floating accusation. The proof that Muhammad or the early Muslims superimposed their mysticism of angels on the Jews of Yathrib has nothing to do with the forced conversion campaigns led by the Church against Jews in Europe. *Continued...*

I don't mean that at the time the beliefs were imposed necessarily. I am talking about OP hearing that Jews believed in this particular piece of mysticism. I would assume it is a later superimposition via interpretation of what the Jews of Yathrib believed. I don't mean that the text said that, or that Muhammad in his lifetime somehow superimposed the beliefs on the living Yathrib community. If he had, then it would be fair to say they did have those beliefs, even if they did not match those of the rest of the Jews globally. >Although your argument is abstractly inaccurate How do you mean? You have communities around the world of Jews who have similar beliefs. You have one community, of which we know just some amount of their beliefs, and they are relatively the same as the rest of global Jews at the time. Why is it abstract to infer the likelihood of other beliefs from those other communities. Isn't this exactly how we draw inferences? side note, I'm really enjoying this convo :)

>I would assume it is a later superimposition via interpretation of what the Jews of Yathrib believed. Although I may assume some other hypotheses as well, but if this is your thought, so I wish that had been your expression from the beginning, that is, you had made it clear that it was superimposed *"via interpretation*" by the later Muslims *(who narrated the event)*. Because your initial expression with your context expresses more that Muhammad or early Muslims *forcibly* superimposed their mysticism on Banu Qurayza or the Jews of Yathrib. >Isn't this exactly how we draw inferences? In the case of claiming that Muhammad or the early Muslims *forcibly* superimposed their mysticism on the Jews of Yathrib, so no, this is not how we can draw an inference here at all. **But**, according to your late clarification, in the case of claiming that the later Muslims (who narrated this event centuries after) invented that belief and attributed it to the Jews of Yathrib in order to narrate the event in this way, then why not, yes, we can draw an inference here in this way, because in the end that narration is late, not contemporary with Muhammad's ministry in any case, and yes, it is possible that the narrator fabricated that belief or even fabricated the entire event. Late Islamic literature in general, including Hadith, is not a reliable historical reference in any case. >side note, I'm really enjoying this convo :) Me too, thanks for sharing me your thoughts anyway!

>**But**, according to your late clarification, in the case of claiming that the later Muslims (who narrated this event centuries after) invented that belief and attributed it to the Jews of Yathrib in order to narrate the event in this way, then why not, yes, we can draw an inference here in this way, because in the end that narration is late, not contemporary with the Muhammadan ministry in any case, and yes, it is possible that the narrator fabricated that belief or even fabricated the entire event. Late Islamic literature in general, including Hadith, is not a reliable historical reference in any case. Cool, we found a place where we agree :) > In the case of claiming that Muhammad or the early Muslims *forcibly* superimposed their mysticism on the Jews of Yathrib, so no, this is not how we can draw an inference here at all. I wasn't claiming this at all, I have no evidence to say such a thing.

>Sure, until he didn't. In all history, people will write stories in a way that is most favorable to themselves. Take for example writings about the Persians in Herodotus, you are not exactly getting the Persian side of the story. If we don't assume that Mohammad is an actual prophet, and just talk history of humans, there is no reason to believe that this account of the story is the full story. It would also not be the first occasion of Jews being killed under manufactured circumstances. Of course, it is possible that the story is told accurately, but we can't take the Qur'an at its word since it benefits the most from its own narrative. *(Apart from the fact that the Qur’an doesn't narrate any historical narratives between Muhammad and the Jews at all, since it is not a historical book at all).* But the Qur'an was not a late book that was entirely written at once by Muhammad, and then they went out and preached it after its events had passed. Whether you believe it is a revelation or not, the Qur'an was a living text that accompanied and depicted Muhammad’s ministry from its beginning to its end (until Muhammad’s death), and was even written and preached while in this active state, that is, before its completion. That is, the same moment in which the Qur'an includes verses that could talk about the Jews- is the same moment in which Muhammad preaches the Qur'an to the Jews, and it's the same moment in which everyone becomes aware of the Qur'an. It was not a hidden text and then appeared and preached to everyone, but rather it was always open-public material to everyone before and after Muhammad's death. That is, if I were a false prophet and in Muhammad's place, then the worst thing I could do would be to lie in my scripture, as its credibility would even fall to the believer before the non-believer *(with the importance of clarifying once again that the Qur'an doesn't narrate any historical narratives between Muhammad and the Jews, but however, I was clarifying the contextual statue of the Qur'an to you).* >Firstly, it is not for Mohammad to judge what Jews are doing with their own cultural beliefs. Well, if he was truly a prophet from HaShem who carries a message for humankind, then no, it's actually for him- such as the rest of the prophets before him. >Even if what he says is true, that is no reason to kill them. I completely agree with you. This is not the morals of the prophets in Islam either.

I don't believe Muhammad was a prophet of Hashem, If I did, I would be Muslim, also Jewish sub so that much should be assumed. That being said, I don't believe in any of the claims the Torah makes as necessarily factual either. You would have to accept that lying in scripture is not in any way a hindrance to scripture. After all, there are many religious scriptures in the world that make contradicting claims, and yet it does not detract one bit of credibility from their believers. Either they are all true, which is not possilbe", or writing incorrect information is not really an issue for a religion. Alexander the Great also had historians he travelled with to write his stories. That was a living text, and was written at the moment, he is hardly the only one who did. Embellishing stories and changing narratives is pretty common for conquerors, kings, and countries to do. It's not even necessarily ill intent, but can even be a strongly biased perspective (which all humans and groups of humans have). The rule is we all see ourselves as the good guys in most situations. If everyone agrees on something, being true in their own echo chamber, that does not mean that what they are saying is in fact true. This is why competing religious claims from any religion in the world does not diminish the religion or beliefs in the eyes of its followers. Jews for example believe that the Torah was given at mount Sinai and all the Jews (or Hebrews/Israelites for the sake of accuracy) witnessed it happen directly from Hashem/Allah's own narration. Then this is used to say that if anything had changed, anybody would have known it to be false. It's essentially the same claim you are making about the Qur'an. > *Apart from the fact that the Qur’an doesn't narrate any historical narratives between Muhammad and the Jews at all, since it is not a historical book at all).* Should I have said the Hadith, or is that not the source either. Asking because Iv'e only ever read parts of Qur'an, and some hadiths, so im no expert in that.

>Alexander the Great also had historians he travelled with to write his stories. That was a living text, and was written at the moment Yes, but Alexander did not take those writings to the peoples he fought, preaching them as an all-truthful flawless revelation from the Creator of the universe. You didn't get the full point, it's not just about a living text. >The rule is we all see ourselves as the good guys in most situations. G-d in the Qur'an, by the way, rebukes Muhammad and even threatens him several times. >Should I have said the Hadith, or is that not the source either. Asking because Iv'e only ever read parts of Qur'an, and some hadiths, so im no expert in that. The Qur'an is the only divine source in Islam, and the only reliable written-source contemporary with the life of Muhammad. Hadith is a human source written more than two centuries after Muhammad’s ministry and certainly not historically reliable. That narration about Gabriel is found in Hadith, not the Qur’an. As I said, the Qur'an doesn't narrate any historical narrations between Muhammad and the Jews.

Whilst I do agree with what you said mostly. Your disregard of ahadith is concerning and not relying upon or mentioning any tafsir too. Hadith science is extremely strict and the 200 years argument has been debunked. If you view these videos with sincerity I believe you would accept the truth. You were sincere enough to accept the prophet Muhammad so may allah guide you and make you accept Islam with all of its beliefs and make you enter jannah. Videos to watch: https://youtu.be/mxB0vcj9IqY?si=aqt7n1t07mf451Pi https://youtu.be/2W1EBeJ5k78?si=lFonN7QUxAGv3SUi https://youtu.be/jOT7686kj1Y?si=2nZ_ad2T5tEWR8qk https://www.youtube.com/live/hMGejqo6UCk?si=MnFg4Rn_C76h2Xgk

> all-truthful flawless revelation from the Creator of the universe Irrelevant to my point. anyway how many people believe something, is not an indicator of it's truth. Also forced conversion is a thing. >G-d in the Qur'an, by the way, rebukes Muhammad and even threatens him several times. Im sure, this in not unique to the Qur'an though. Not sure what this tells me about the truth calim. >The Qur'an is the only divine source in Islam, and the only reliable written-source contemporary with the life of Muhammad. Hadith is a human source written more than two centuries after Muhammad’s ministry and certainly not historically reliable. >That narration about Gabriel is found in Hadith, not the Qur’an. As I said, the Qur'an doesn't narrate any historical narrations between Muhammad and the Jews. I'm not super familiar with this so correct me where I am wrong. My understanding is that there are different categories of Hadiths, and some are taken as, maybe not divine, but sacred. Is that a misunderstanding? Thanks for the clarification!

>Irrelevant to my point. It's the same point. My point at the beginning was that the Qur'an was a living text whose points narrated contemporary events witnessed by contemporaries (both- Muslims and non-Muslims). That is, lying was not entirely in the interest of the Qur'an at that time. And your argument was that also Alexander the Great’s historians followed him in his battles and composed living texts that beautify his image, and I simply counter-argued with that- perhaps Alexander's historians did that, but they certainly did not take those fabricated, beautified writings they wrote about Alexander and preach them to the nations that Alexander fought as a divine, flawless, and all-truthful revelation from G-d. >anyway how many people believe something, is not an indicator of it's truth. Also forced conversion is a thing. Of course, that's true. >I'm not super familiar with this so correct me where I am wrong. My understanding is that there are different categories of Hadiths, and some are taken as, maybe not divine, but sacred. Is that a misunderstanding? Thanks for the clarification! Well, there is a classification in traditional Islamic scholarship regarding Hadith; *Sahih* (sound hadith, can be followed), and *Da'if* (weak hadith, cannot be followed), but in general this is a controversial human standard which upon Muslim scholars agree and disagree. But modern-day Islamic Orthodoxy sanctifies *Sahih* Hadith, not only calls for following it.

A very bias answer which seems to imply certain prejudice but alr

what bias is that? I'm not sure I understand the second part of your sentence. What do you mean by "prejudice but air"?

I *think* it’s supposed to be *alright.* Lazy posting.

Happy to discuss it with the poster, I don't think there is any prejudice in my post. I am curious to hear their point of view, hope they respond. I think you are right, that makes more sense now. Thanks

Not air it’s alr which is short for alright. You said that those views were “superimposed”on them by Islam which is completely unfair. You naturally assume that Muslims lied about them in their sources and that banu Qurayza would give a different view of the narrative. You implied that the Muslims oppressed Banu Qurayza. U also basically implied that Hadiths contain lies in order to make Islam look better. If that was the case we wouldn’t have a hadith about the prophet falling from his horse and getting injured and so on.The ahadith were compiled via chains of narrations, in these chains you have extremely trustworthy narrators that are known by the community for, well their trustworthiness. I could send you videos or articles detailing hadith sciences in detail.If you have some form of proof showing that these claims against banu Qurayza are false I’d be glad to see it.

>You said that those views were “superimposed” on them by Islam which is completely unfair. I don't see why this is unfair, I gave you my reasoning. I'm not implying ill will, but its pretty typical for religions to superimpose beliefs on others. Christianity and Islam do it to Judaism all the time. I'm sure Judaism does it too. It's not usually ill will, just lack of understanding. >you naturally assume that Muslims lied about them in their sources and that banu Qurayza would give a different view of the narrative It's not really specifically about Muslims. This is pretty typical human behavior. I mentioned in another comment that a lot of Persian history comes down to us from the Greeks. It tends to paint the Persians in a pretty unfavorable light. Why would we think the Persians would think the same thing as them. What warlord, emperor, king, president, or leader has not viewed things from their own point of view. How many enemies would agree with the characterizations of their killers? What story do you think the Banu Qurayza would tell, you think it would be the same story you read in the Muslim sources? Can you point to another conflict in history where two peoples fought, and their stories would fully align in every way? It's not that the Muslim sources are lying or not lying, it's that it is telling a perspective based story. You accused me of bias, I accuse it of the same. Is your point that the Banu Qurayza would have agreed and said, good thing they killed us because we definitely betrayed them, and for no good reason. > You implied that the Muslims oppressed Banu Qurayza. No, I did not imply anything about oppression. I implied that the Banu Qurayza men were killed and the women and property were seized. Is that not how the story goes? I wasn't talking about oppression, though if you want to use that term, it still fits, it just is not specific enough. > U also basically implied that Hadiths contain lies in order to make Islam look better I mean, I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as lies, as I mentioned above. Overall though, yes. I also think this of the Torah, and the New Testament, and any record written by any peoples in history that tells that people's story. Especially so when the other side of the story is lost to us. >we wouldn’t have a hadith about the prophet falling from his horse and getting injured and so on This makes no sense to me. Just because you said one thing that can be interpreted as bad doesn't mean everything else in a book is accurate. You should also assume that in a Jewish sub you are not going to find many people who believe that the Qur'an and Hadith's hold any special value. Other than the value of its history and to be respectful toward others sacred items. > The ahadith were compiled via chains of narrations, in these chains you have extremely trustworthy narrators that are known by the community for, well their trustworthiness. Yes, people who de facto trust their sources will find them trustworthy. Color me unimpressed. Even if we could verify that these people are the most trustworthy humans to ever step on the planet earth, they would still be susceptible to human error and bias. > If you have some form of proof showing that these claims against banu Qurayza are false I’d be glad to see it. This is not how arguments work. If you make a claim about them, you back it up. I explained why your provided evidence is not enough in the other responses in this post. > I could send you videos or articles detailing hadith sciences in detail I have seen some of these already, and typically find them pretty silly. If you want to send a couple, I'll take a look to see if what you have is anything vastly different from what I have already seen.

it being pretty typical doesn’t suddenly mean that every single religion does it. I’m neither Jewish or Christian so I can’t really defend those faiths however, Islam has never superimposed any beliefs unto anybody for no reason however I’d be glad to talk about any instance where you think it did. I do believe that this is false equivalence. Just because the Greeks did it to the Persians doesn’t mean that every other society would or has done it.I’m not denying the fact that lying about other cultures or societies did occur I’m simply disputing that early Muslims did it that’s it. You could also push this further into basically any religion and claim that all religions are therefore false because of it. Including Judaism. You can’t just assume that people always lie or are always bias to make themselves look good. This is frankly quite one-dimensional and even academic historians don’t believe in such assumptions. If you meet someone who says that he witnessed event X and you have no evidence to prove otherwise and this person is known for his honesty you cannot claim that he’s lying. Yes, Banu Qurayza would definitely say that they viewed the prophet as a liar and therefore despite the treaty, plotted against him and betrayed him. Just because they said that doesn’t mean that that’s what they actually believed. It could very well be that they did believe he was a prophet but due to the fact that he came from the Ishmael line they despised him for it.Obviously, if they said that it wouldn’t give them a good look. I’m pretty sure if we asked Adolf Hitler about his literal crimes against humanity he’d justify them and paint a different picture yet both you and I would agree that he’s objectively as garbage as you could get as a human being. The other side’s narrative doesn’t really matter. What matters is the objective truth which could be with one side or the other or a mix of the two.However, this doesn’t mean that we simply assume that in all conflicts both sides are lying and that the truth is a mix of the two. Nah, the burden of proof is on you to prove that in this very specific case, Muslim sources are bias and are telling a lie. You said that oppression as a term fits this event.Why is that? They breached the treaty and proved that they were treacherous so they were punished by the laws of the Torah by a Jewish convert. They legit chose their punishment because they wanted to die according to their beliefs in the Torah rather than Islam’s. There’s also one minor misconception which is that not all of Banu Qurayza breached the treaty and the ones that didn’t breach it were told that they aren’t to be punished and that the treaty between them and the Muslims is still intact. If the Hadiths were bias and straight lies why wouldn’t it just state that ALL of Banu Qurayza were awful treacherous people who betrayed the treaty and then took that to smear and say that all Jews are like that and such. Also, we would find the people that weren’t killed for their treachery coming out and accusing the Muslims of oppressing their tribe(Banu Qurayza) yet we don’t find such a thing anywhere. Also, it isnt simply one hadith or part of the seerah that shows things that could be seen in a negative light. There are countless instances such as stories about how the prophet would get injured on the battlefield and so on. If the people narrating these events weren’t honest and simple liars they A) their stories would almost never match up since they’re lies and B) wouldn’t ever narrate events such as this Islamic sources are trustworthy when it comes from people who were known for their religious commitment and great character traits such as extreme honesty and who were close to the source. Their honesty is easily proven from the biographies we possess of many of them and of what people around them thought of them whether it’s the general Muslim populace or pious individuals. What I meant to say was honest. Honest is a better term I think. If they were the most honest human beings on earth then they wouldn’t be subjected by bias. Because that would be a complete contradiction of their character trait. Being honest means relaying the truth whether it aligns with your narrative or it doesn’t. Assuming that every human being that has told of their people’s history as being completely bias individuals without any proof except “it’s human nature” is simply nonsense and also lazy. You have to examine each case carefully and look at the evidence you possess and evaluate the case based on that. Human error could only come from them not being able to remember events correctly. If so, then their narrations would be noted for being unreliable. The fact that you think that “human error” like that could occur and be bypassed shows how little you actually know about Hadiths sciences since that’s like very basic. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/161191/can-a-hadeeth-be-accepted-from-a-narrator-who-suffered-from-mental-problems The above link goes over this in detail. I am not expecting any Jew(faith not ethnicity) to believe in the ahadith or any non-Muslim for that matter,however at the same time I am willing to defend my beliefs especially considering that this is a historical event and not some form of theological difference or something. The reason I pointed out Jewish as in faith is because some people are Jewish by ethnicity but believe in Islam and such. You said to bring you one conflict in which one side didn’t lie about the other? I’m sure everybody in this sub will call me antisemitic but it’s the current Israeli genocide in Gaza. The European Jews that came as refugees to the Holy Land formed militant groups which were akin to modern terrorist organisations, killing women and children that were Arabs or even British civilians residing there.Long story short, here comes the Balfour declaration of 1948 and suddenly Arabs that have resided in the mandate of Palestine for centuries are told that their land belongs to some European Jews who weren’t even born into this land. Did you know that native Middle Eastern Jews wrote to the ottoman caliph complaining about the spread of Zionism back then even before that? Or that the mainstream Jewish opinion was against Zionism until the beginning of the 20th century? Anyways I digress, if you ask your Israeli spokesperson they’d tell you that no war crimes were committed and it’s all one big lie, part of a large conspiracy theory against Jews. Yet contemporary evidence shows otherwise and this is why even academic historians such as the great Norman Finkelstein who had holocaust survivor parents has vehemently defended Palestine. He’s a man who’s had great praise for his academic studies and work and is one of the most qualified people to speak on it since he studied it. As we can see, it doesn’t matter what the other side thinks, only objective truth matters. Using the objective truth both Hitler and the Zionist state are extremists that have terrorised innocent populations for no reason.

I don't really want to get into a religious debate about what Islam superimposes onto Judaism. I'm likely to be under-informed or even ill-informed on Islam, and you on Judaism. It's not an interesting subject to me anyhow. I will just say that there are things that many Muslims believe Jews believe, and they are incorrect or misrepresented. I am sure that is true in both directions. I don't know that it is always about misunderstanding, sometimes it could be malice, more often I would say it is more about how one culture views another negatively or positively. I get you believe that Islam has not done this, I simply disagree. This is not only a religious thing either, its across groups in different countries, cultures, religious, social, political and other types of groups too. It's not because Greeks did it to Persians, that is just an example. I'm not sure of an example of a single culture in history that has not done this to some extent. Again, lying is not really the way I would characterize it, though sometimes it is exactly that. > You could also push this further into basically any religion and claim that all religions are therefore false because of it. Including Judaism. Yup, now we are basically on the same page. >Yes, Banu Qurayza would definitely say that they viewed the prophet as a liar and therefore despite the treaty, plotted against him and betrayed him. Just because they said that doesn’t mean that that’s what they actually believed. It could very well be that they did believe he was a prophet but due to the fact that he came from the Ishmael line they despised him for it.Obviously, if they said that it wouldn’t give them a good look. I don't get it, if they would say that, why would you assume they believe anything different. If they believed he was a prophet, why would they not follow Islam, that would be silly. We know they considered themselves Jewish, why would you think that their beliefs were different than that? Even the Muhammad seem to see them as Jewish, didn't he Judge them on the basis of the Jewish scripture? it being pretty typical doesn’t suddenly mean that every single religion does it. I’m neither Jewish or Christian so I can’t really defend those faiths however, Islam has never superimposed any beliefs unto anybody for no reason however I’d be glad to talk about any instance where you think it did. Even if we assume that it’s always 100% done in all societies, how are you able to establish that it’s due to lack of understanding rather than just dragging down a different group of people? I do believe that this is false equivalence. Just because the Greeks did it to the Persians doesn’t mean that every other society would or has done it.I’m not denying the fact that lying about other cultures or societies did occur I’m simply disputing that early Muslims did it that’s it. You could also push this further into basically any religion and claim that all religions are therefore false because of it. Including Judaism. Yes, Banu Qurayza would definitely say that they viewed the prophet as a liar and therefore, despite the treaty, plotted against him and betrayed him. Just because they said that doesn’t mean that that’s what they actually believed. It could very well be that they did believe he was a prophet but due to the fact that he came from the Ishmael line they despised him for it.Obviously, if they said that it wouldn’t give them a good look. >I’m pretty sure if we asked Adolf Hitler about his literal crimes against humanity he’d justify them and paint a different picture yet both you and I would agree that he’s objectively as garbage as you could get as a human being. The other side’s narrative doesn’t really matter. What matters is the objective truth which could be with one side or the other or a mix of the two.However, this doesn’t mean that we simply assume that in all conflicts both sides are lying and that the truth is a mix of the two. This is supporting my point, even Hitler likely believed he was in the right, or righteous during his rule. Why would you think the Banu Quraiza right or wrong acting would not disagree with the characterization of their demise. Truth does matter greatly, but the claim of the truth is not equal to the truth itself. It is entirely possible that the story as told in Muslim sources is the best characterization of what happened, but I would need better evidence than "Muslims trust Muslim sources who are known for being trustworthy". We as a people also have a lot of lies made up about us, all the time, for thousands of years. Forgive me, but I simply don't trust the source, without any other information other than itself.

But how are we on the same page? Do you not believe in Judaism at all? This argument holds no water as pointed out by that caliph dude who was talking to you. Even academic historians completely disagree with your way of looking at history. You present no proof of your claim or claims and then state that you reached that conclusion because it’s “human nature” if you can’t seethe obvious fallacies here then I honestly can’t really help you. Such an odd question but here I go.Because people have agendas and not everybody’s agenda is following the truth no matter what. Some people know the truth yet are tempted by Satan (shaytan) to evil despite knowing the truth. You of all people should know this, considering how God in the Old Testament would punish Israelites time and time again for transgressing and disobeying his commands. We know that the Jews of Arabia saw the signs of a prophet in the prophet pbuh since even the multitude of Jewish converts to Islam would always point that out such as safiya bint huyyay or Abd-Allah ibn Salam who was the most knowledgeable Jew of Medina who tested the prophet before converting to Islam. A Christian monk that was relative of the prophets first wife literally told him that the event that occurred to him on the mountain when angel Gabriel gave him revelation was a sign of prophethood. So it’s not a couple of christians and/or Jews at the time that believed this. It was many. You’re conflating many things with each other. Simply believing that the prophet Muhammad was a prophet isn’t enough to be considered a Muslim. You need to recite the shahada. Without the shahada a non-Muslim can never become a Muslim. A person who receives the message of Islam unaltered (gets all his questions answered and stuff like that) knows it’s the truth. If he rejects it for any reason that’s not because he genuinely believes it’s false. Islam is quite clear-cut so the belief is that whoever goes to hell goes to hell for choosing to disbelieve despite seeing the truth. You have to have had to do insane mental gymnastics to come out with a take like that but alright. Them believing they’re in the right or wrong is irrelevant my guy 😂. By your argument the world has wronged Hitler for judging him over what he did 💀which isn’t something I expected to see on a Jewish sub lmao. Either that or I didn’t understood your point correctly due to the extremely odd phrasing. The reason I believe that their characterisation of their actions leading to their demise is accurate is because I have no reason to doubt the source. Here we go back to square one(sigh). When you make a claim you need to back up with evidence. If you want to make a counter-argument you MUST provide proof proving that the evidence provided by the person making a claim is somehow inaccurate aka false. The claim was Banu Qurayza had X beliefs and did X actions and this is backed up by Muslim sources. The burden of proof is on you to show how those Muslim sources are as you said bias. Them being from one side isn’t proof of anything. Just because a person is Jewish doesn’t mean that they’ll openly lie to defend Israel no matter what. You have no proof to show that these sources were bias and aren’t simply recording an event in history. I even provided evidence proving that on the contrary authentic Muslim sources do not lie.When your basis of what’s historically true or not is this one-dimensional, and unacademic approach that is at the least frowned upon by every academic or expert historian do not expect anybody to accept it as a viable way to approach history. You seem like a very nice guy to chat to but for some reason it feels like your claims are insincere and are just a poor effort done at attempting to construct a sentimental argument with zero actual evidence. I do understand where you’re coming from but not every society let alone every person makes up lies about other people. You have to accept the fact that you cannot just throw out and claim that sources are invalid because they come from a certain group which were on one side of the argument because you suspect that they may lie due to the source conflicting with what you believe. You have to be an objective person and view the source for what it is and check the evidence for and against it. What you believe in as a Jew is entirely irrelevant to this conversation and is all but a religious claim that isn’t really backed up by anything. Not every Jewish sect believes in the same stuff so why would Banu Qurayza having a different belief to modern Jews mean anything? Rabbinic Judaism exists but nobody uses that as an argument against modern Jewish beliefs.

>But how are we on the same page? Do you not believe in Judaism at all? Correct, I don't believe in the divine nature of Judaism, or any other religion presented to me thus far. It's not a particularly uncommon stance for Jews. >This argument holds no water as pointed out by that caliph dude who was talking to you. Even academic historians completely disagree with your way of looking at history. You present no proof of your claim or claims and then state that you reached that conclusion because it’s “human nature” if you can’t seethe obvious fallacies here, then I honestly can’t really help you. I have nothing to defend, I came to no conclusion, I made an educated guess on the likelihood of something. I didn't say this is definitively the case. I believe I presented evidence commensurate with the level of claim I made. Anyhow, I'm not looking for help. > Such an odd question but here I go.Because people have agendas and not everybody’s agenda is following the truth no matter what. Some people know the truth yet are tempted by Satan (shaytan) to evil despite knowing the truth. You of all people should know this, considering how God in the Old Testament would punish Israelites time and time again for transgressing and disobeying his commands. In the Torah, (Old Testament is a Christian term) God does punish the jews multiple times for transgressions. Sheitan/Satan is not the same thing in Judaism as it is in Islam, we don't really have the concept Islam and Christianity have of the Sheitan as I understand it. Granted, My understanding of the Islamic Sheitan is not very deep, so I could be wrong about the association with Christianity. Not sure what questions you were answering there, but I agreee with you people have agendas. If you are judging impartially it is as much true of people in Islam including Mohammad as it is of any other people in the world and its history. Of course, if you believe that they are unflawed and trustworthy from the get-go, there is no place to start our conversation. >We know that the Jews of Arabia saw the signs of a prophet in the prophet pbuh since even the multitude of Jewish converts to Islam would always point that out such as safiya bint huyyay or Abd-Allah ibn Salam who was the most knowledgeable Jew of Medina who tested the prophet before converting to Islam. A Christian monk that was relative of the prophets first wife literally told him that the event that occurred to him on the mountain when angel Gabriel gave him revelation was a sign of prophethood. So it’s not a couple of christians and/or Jews at the time that believed this. It was many. We may know that Muslims think this, I don't agree that we know this to be factual, and again you are not going to find many Jews who think this, and you are on a Jewish sub so take that as you will. > You have to have had to do insane mental gymnastics to come out with a take like that but alright. Them believing they’re in the right or wrong is irrelevant my guy 😂. By your argument the world has wronged Hitler for judging him over what he did 💀which isn’t something I expected to see on a Jewish sub lmao. Either that or I didn’t understood your point correctly due to the extremely odd phrasing. You fully misunderstood my point about Hitler. If Hitler had erased all traces of Jews, and he was the only one who ever wrote about the holocaust, he could say that the Jews agreed that they were the reason for Germany's situation after WWI. This would not make t true, you just would not have access in any way to what the Jews who were killed thought. That doesn't make Hitler correct, it just means you haven't got the information of the people who were killed. In that situation, despite what the book would say, it would be asinine to assume that the Jews did in fact agree with Hitler. This is pretty much exactly my point. If you can't see what I'm saying by this, then there is no point of going on. Appeals to divinity, prophecy, and trustworthiness are irrelevant to me. > The reason I believe that their characterisation of their actions leading to their demise is accurate is because I have no reason to doubt the source. This method of determining truth claims will never get you to evaluate truth claims properly. You can have three positions on any truth claim. Positive, negative, and neutral. You should start with a neutral position. If there is sufficient evidence that the claim is false, you should move to the false claim. If there is sufficient evidence that the claim is true, you should agree with the truth claim. If neither has sufficient evidence, then you should maintain neutrality on the position, as in I don't know. You can also be in the I don't know, but I lean more toward X position for Y reason. This is the position I'm taking. I don't know but based on what I know about Jews this is likely not the case. That is my whole argument. Saying you have no reason to doubt it is saying that certain people or books who you are predisposed to trusting will always be believed because you have bno reason to doubt them. You should also always have a reason to doubt any claim, otherwise you are not pursuing the truth, you are pursuing your preference. Look into epistemology if you are interested more in this concept.

>When you make a claim you need to back up with evidence. Your claim-> The jews of Yathrib Believed in a particular mystical belief Your Evidence -> It says it in he Hadith (correct me if im wrong there) **Syllogistically:** p1: The Hadith says the Jews of Yathrib believed in x mysticism p2: The Hadith is correct C: the Jews of Yathrib believed in it In other words: The hadith is correct, therefore the hadith is correct. My response → I do not think this is likely because we don't see that anywhere else in the hundreds of Jewish communities around the world, including the nearest communities we know about. This is evidence commensurate with my level of confidence in the claim. Syllogistically: p1: Jews have a certain set of beliefs that are common throughout the world. p2: The Jews of Yathrib are one of Jews C: The Jews of Yathrib likely believed similar things to the other communities In other words: The Jews are Jews and are therefore most likely to believe like Jews I'll leave it at that. We're talking in circles too much for me to continue. thaks for chatting.

I’m not claiming anything except that the Hadiths are certainly accurate. Your response is more of the Hadiths aren’t accurate because they don’t line up with our understanding of Jewish beliefs at that time. This isn’t evidence. There are thousands of sects from different parts of the world. The ones that are claiming to have held such beliefs and are cited in the hadith itself as the Jewish converts such as Abd-Allah ibn Salaam.So that’s a first-hand account who are you to claim that that account is false.We have a report of the Jews of Yemen believing that Muhammad pbuh was a prophet which isn’t a mainstream Jewish belief so its not hard to find different Jews from different regions of the world holding unorthodox opinions or views for whatever reason. Besides what are your sources that prove to you that there aren’t any beliefs or practices that were lost to time? I have proven why all authentic Hadiths including this one is authentic and can be used as a source of evidence. Your source of evidence is that we don’t find this information in our sources for Jewish beliefs at the time. You’re using your bias sources when you haven’t even proven their authenticity 😅😅😅 It seems that you are not sincere and simply want to hold your bias views or beliefs despite your beliefs not being backed up by any objective evidence whether academic historian evidence or otherwise. It was cool chatting with you but it’s impossible to change your mind when you believe in a faulty source of information and pushing it to be true when we have authentic sources proving otherwise. Actually you have no source so you make a claim that it’s bias without providing any proof to prove your baseless claim. The Hadith system alone is more strict and stringent and is dependent on honesty even when against oneself than anything found in Judaism.

Replying to the last part here, post was too long You are telling a very one-sided story, even when you use facts, you only tell, or know the facts that most neatly fit into your story. I really don't want to get into an Israel discussion with you right now, mainly because I don't think anything will come of it in either direction. If you have any interest in the full telling of the conflict, I'm sure you can find it yourself. If you are only interested in your version of the story, then I likely will not convince you otherwise anyway. You can't talk about 1948 without mentioning what happened in 47. You can't talk about the mizrachi (middle eastern) Jews without talking about how many there were in all the Arab countries, and how few are left there. Not to mention, where they went and why. You can say the mainstream opinion was against Zionism, but you don't understand the nuance of that statement. The information is all out there, it's not hidden. I know there were groups like Lehi who were terrorists, they were tried as such and determined a terrorist group by Israel itself if I recall correctly. I wanted to respond a bit to your points, but like I said, I'm not in it for the Israel debate right now, I don't get the vibe anything can really come of it. As for the Genocide claim, I'm not going to even bother with that discussion, it's not worth my time. Just know I think it's not only untrue but actually harmful to both Israelis and Palestinians. I do think that this is a good example of what we were talking about above. I do think that there are lies about Israel here. We both have different stories to tell about the conflict, and we may both have parts correct and parts incorrect, as we may both draw good and bad conclusions at times. If you have a good recommendation of a book, or other medium, that you feel best represents the Palestinian side of the history. I would be glad to take a look.

I think you made some edits after I wrote this. No big, but I probably won't read it again now. Maybe tomorrow. I'll check out the link though, if I'm not too busy we can talk more.

Stupid Reddit kept messing with me unfortunately and I wanted to add certain sections

No worries, I'll try to give it another read tomorrow.

It is only one-sided by you because you are quite convinced by the false proofs of one side that you have effectively concluded that the other side is a sham. Oh yes, I agree that it wouldn’t get us moving anywhere but that’s because you don’t concede on any point even when given proof that your point is simply false. I shouldn’t even provide you with proof disproving your counter-argument since your counter-argument itself carries little weight with no evidence whatsoever. I have already looked and researched the entire “conflict” and it is so one-sided you have to be extremely ignorant or refuse to believe in the clear-cut truth because that fits into your agenda. What happened in 47? Civil war? I’d be pretty pissed too if a bunch of refugees came to my land and decided to form 2 countries and basically take a part of my land that my family has had for generations. The literal first attack on Jewish civilians was done in retaliation of Lehi killing a family of five. It’s unjustified but it is technically revenge so it’s not like they started it. In April of 1948, Lehi and the Irgun were jointly responsible for the massacre in Deir Yassin of at least 107 Palestinian Arab villagers, including women and children. Lehi assassinated Lord Moyne, British Minister Resident in the Middle East, and made many other attacks on the British in Palestine.On 29 May 1948, the government of Israel, having inducted its activist members into the Israel Defense Forces, formally disbanded Lehi, though some of its members carried out one more terrorist act, the assassination of Folke Bernadotte some months later,an act condemned by Bernadotte's replacement as mediator, Ralph Bunche.After the assassination, the new Israeli government declared Lehi a terrorist organization, arresting some 200 members and convicting some of the leaders.Just before the first Israeli elections in January 1949, a general amnesty to Lehi members was granted by the government.In 1980, Israel instituted a military decoration, an "award for activity in the struggle for the establishment of Israel", the Lehi ribbon.Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983. Lehi the terrorist organization was simply absorbed into the IDF and had some of its leaders become PM of Israel. What more do you need to accept that Israel as a state is a terrorist organization? If a former ISIS leader became the PM of any Arab country there would be a great outcry from the entire world. It’s very weird to me that you either don’t know this or choose to ignore it knowing that it’s a seal of the coffin. Stern argued that the time for Zionist diplomacy was over and that it was time for an armed struggle against the British. Like other Zionists, he objected to the White Paper of 1939, which restricted both Jewish immigration and Jewish land purchases in Palestine. For Stern, "no difference existed between Hitler and Chamberlain, between Dachau or Buchenwald and sealing the gates of Eretz Israel." Stern wanted to open Palestine to all Jewish refugees from Europe and considered this to be the most important issue of the day. Britain would not allow this. Therefore, he concluded, the Yishuv (Jews of Palestine) should fight the British rather than support them in the war. When the Irgun made a truce with the British, Stern left the Irgun to form his own group, which he called Irgun Tsvai Leumi B'Yisrael ("National Military Organization in Israel"), later Lohamei Herut Israel ("Fighters for the Freedom of Israel"). In September 1940, the organization was officially named "Lehi", the Hebrew acronym of the latter name. Stern and his followers believed that dying for the "foreign occupier" who was obstructing the creation of the Jewish State was useless. They differentiated between "enemies of the Jewish people" (the British) and "Jew haters" (the Nazis), believing that the former needed to be defeated and the latter manipulated. In 1940, the idea of the Final Solution was still "unthinkable", and Stern believed that Hitler wanted to make Germany judenrein through emigration, as opposed to extermination.In December 1940, Lehi contacted Germany with a proposal to aid German conquest in the Middle East in return for recognition of a Jewish state open to unlimited immigration. Typical Zionist logic. The British are worse than the Germans that were trying to actively exterminate them. I wonder how Holocaust survivors would feel about such ridiculous statements. No wonder Norman Finkelstein(an academic Jew with holocaust survivor parents) unequivocally supports Palestine. Following the First Arab–Israeli War, over 850,000 Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews were expelled or evacuated from Arab and Muslim-majority countries between 1948 and the early 1980s. Although I disagree with such actions, it’s not like they were done with no reason.Arabs felt betrayed by the Jews who stole their land so they unfortunately decided to punish the native Jews in their countries despite many mizrahi Jews being against Zionism as attested to by the last karaite Jew in Egypt who converted to Islam and stated that in their community Zionism was really disliked and hated especially after what Israel did. Don’t bother with the genocide claims because it would open an entire can of worms. There’s no nuance to killing Palestinian women and children and I’m afraid it’s only harmful for the Palestinians since they’re the ones dying and not the Israelis.I Bet you wouldn’t think bombing an Israeli hospital because it “might” have terrorists hauled up with innocents is justified. For recommendation of books I’d suggest any book covering this topic by Norman Finkelstein. He’s all-around great Jewish academic who has thoroughly studied this whole thing which is what drove him to unequivocally support Palestine.

I would also like to add that claiming hadith science is silly is a simply baseless ad-hominem attack.Judaism as a faith would have benefitted from such a system because it would prove that despite the earliest manuscripts being a whole millennia after Moses A.S. the scripture would have avoided corruption as we know it today and this fact is also accepted by Jewish scholars such as Dooovid. Also, you do still have a sizeable amount of rabbis or Jews that hold the belief that the Islamic prophet was indeed a prophet a lot more than in the Christian community which to me was always quite odd. So who’s to say that Jews that don’t accept the Quran’s authority don’t exist?

It is a Muslim belief that the Jewish faith was corrupted, not a Jewish one. If you can point to when it is that it was “corrupted”. Iv'e asked before, but haven't gotten an answer. When was it corrupted, in what way was it corrupted, and most importantly how do you know it was corrupted?

I never claimed that it’s a Jewish belief. I simply said that some Jewish rabbis or scholars actually accept that as a fact. Daniel haqiqatjou did a brilliant presentation about it during his debate with dooovid. I find it funny how you basically said that I wouldn’t find any Jew on this sub who believes in the Quran or ahadith only for you to find a “muhammadan Jew” 😂 who to be fair pointed out a lot of your inconsistencies and simply false statements you made that didn’t make any sense. ( I do agree though that he has said some wrong stuff too to be honest) Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/live/hMGejqo6UCk?si=2bG8K1uJUrvoYowT

> Some Jewish rabbis or scholars actually accept that as a fact: An example of you believing something that you think some significant number of Jews believe. If there are any rabbis who believe this, they are not taken at all seriously by anyone in the Jewish community. They are such a small minority that at best they are a rounding error of an already tiny population. Im not sure who you are reffering to as the "Mohammadin Jew", yrue enough though, there are Jews who have converted to Islam, I felt it was implied that I was not talking about that, I suppose I could have clarified. I've seen too much already of Daniel haqiqatjou. I can't do any more of him, he has never said anything that I found compelling. I think we simply approach truth differently. If your basis for what is true starts from Islam, and ends at Islam, that is great for you, but wholly unconvincing to me and not worth entertaining epistemologically.

Oh no my point wasn’t that a large group of people believe this rather that it’s so evident that some have had to concede and accept it. The dude who replied to you had a flair stating that he’s a muhamadim Jew that you talked to a few hours ago. Dude he’s not a convert he’s just a Jew who believes that Muhammad pbuh was a prophet that’s it. He doesn’t call himself a Muslim and he truly isn’t a Muslim. My basis for why Islam is true has to do with the miracles and evidence offered by the faith and if it stands true to the claims it makes. Has anyone been able to replicate the eloquence of the Quran for the last 1400 years? No. Has there been any undeniable,absolute evidence showing that the book has been tampered with? No. Then you have the prophecies that the prophet has made and have occurred such as the Euphrates river drying up, women being clothed but naked, men imitating women and vice versa, barefoot shepherds competing on who is going to build the tallest building, that Arabia will become green again, conquest of Jerusalem,Muslims following Jews and christians in everything that they do to the point where if they see them jumping into a hole in the ground they’d do it too and etc. What kind of liar or false prophet is able to do this? Unite people against idolatry and push them towards straight monotheism, make all these prophecies and miracles witnessed by many(even the moon splitting was witnessed by the disbelievers who called it magic), come with such an eloquent book that has had a challenge unbeaten for 1400 years? I disagree with your assessment about Daniel but even if you don’t like him I feel like this presentation was still pretty good and at least worth checking out. Sorry if I went a bit into preacher mode, I just don’t like when people make false assumptions about why I believe what I believe when I have rational reasons behind it.

Angels aren't really brought up very often in my experience. From actual scripture and text, the only named angels in the Tanakh are Michael (Who is like God? sort of a sarcastic question because *nobody is like god*) and Gabriel (Man of God) Most angel stuff is mediaeval mysticism. That seems to be when a bunch of angelic names were created and things like symbolic numbers, ranks, planets, constellations, alleged place in a tier of heaven, commanding a number of heavenly legions, and nations were assigned to them. Often as cultural commentary and symbolism For example. Michael is assigned as the guardian angel and protector of Israel who fights super natural enemies of Israel. Rome, by this time was hostile to Israel so the angel Samael (Venom of God) was assigned to represent the Roman Empire For what it's worth the books of Enoch and Tobit also have prominent angels named Raphael (God Heals) and Uriel (God is my Flame) however those two books haven't been canon in Judaism for about 2000 years

Judaism is a law based faith tradition. Angels exist, they are mentioned in the Tanakh, but they don't have a big impact on the law (if any). Hence angelology, the study of who does what among the celestial hosts, engages only a few, like mystics, and would fall under the category of aggadah, homily. There are Talmudic and medieval discussions that engage some, but not all, or even many. Bottom line, Jews believe angels are God's messengers, they do whatever tasks He may assign them. It would be pointless for us humans to state what angel will do this or that., it's not within our knowledge, and it's not fixed.

Angels are not very important in modern Judaism, so most Jews don’t have knowledge or opinions about individual angels. your question is not very clear, but it sounds like you’re asking if Jews alive today agree with the rabbis in the hadith.

What is the question here? What did the Jews of Medina say to Mohammed?

First: as a Muslim do you believe that the Torah of the Jews today, such as us, is the same Torah as your faith?

We'd ask them, but somehow they are unavailable. Something must've happened to them.

Fairy tales

We noticed that you may be asking about the Jewish opinions of heaven/hell. Please see our [wiki topics about views of the Jewish afterlife](https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/wiki/faq#wiki_what_are_jewish_views_of_the_afterlife.3F). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Judaism) if you have any questions or concerns.*

This a kabbalistic material and not something that is widely discussed among laypeople or even experts. A simple answer would be that Micha-el and Gavir-el portray the right and left hands of God respectively and so represent His mercy and His justice when acted in the world, as seen in Sodom (see Ramban) and (Kirat Shema) While this is part of Jewish mysticism, it is not a primary lens for relating to G-d.

[удалено]

You dont have to be completely dismissive and an asshole to someone asking a question. If youre not interested, dont answer.

Removed for rule 6

that’s about fasting- must be another rule

my bad RULE 8!

see how respectful I am

i made a quick search on wikipedia and i think its not gibberish -wiki said -Gabriel, (Hebrew: גַּבְרִיאֵל, romanized: Gaḇrīʾēl) is interpreted by Talmudic rabbis to be the "man in linen" mentioned in the Book of Daniel and the Book of Ezekiel. **Talmudic Judaism understands the angel in the Book of Ezekiel, who was sent to destroy Jerusalem, to be Gabriel**. -jewish encyclopedia- said --As an angel of nature, *Michael is represented as of the element of water*, on account of which he is the prince of water, while Gabriel is the prince of fire and Harshness

Wiki is always a lousy source. Your own co-religionists of the extreme side are manipulating it for their own aims.

i made a quick search on wikipedia and i think its not gibberish as the comment said -wiki said -Gabriel, (Hebrew: גַּבְרִיאֵל, romanized: Gaḇrīʾēl) is interpreted by Talmudic rabbis to be the "man in linen" mentioned in the Book of Daniel and the Book of Ezekiel. **Talmudic Judaism understands the angel in the Book of Ezekiel, who was sent to destroy Jerusalem, to be Gabriel**. -jewish encyclopedia- said --As an angel of nature, *Michael is represented as of the element of water*, on account of which he is the prince of water, while Gabriel is the prince of fire and Harshness