| Main Menu
Login
Abraham Lincoln
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." Abraham Lincoln
Thereupon I concluded: As I would not be a dhimmi, so I would not be a Muslim. Ali Sina
Online
Languages
|
|
|
Author: Khalil Fariel on Sep 27, 2008 - 02:18 AM
Quran
|
By: Khalil Fariel
This article will be revisiting the topic "Banu Quraiza" massacre. I stress on the word revisiting because there are plenty of literature available on this very topic. While I do not claim to be bringing anything that can be considered "novel or prolific" it is unto readers to sort it out. Article will be rather lengthy because I can not help without inflating it for the very purpose of covering all arguments for and rebut them:
Hijra year 5 (627 AD): Almost nine hundred Jews of a Medinan tribe named Banu Quraiza were massacred by Muslims in a day. Muhammad, the prophet of Islam was the main spectator of this massacre that started early in the day to end in torchlight. Those escaped death had been taken captives by Muslims and sold in slave markets. It was genocide, total annihilation known as Banu Quraiza incident in history.
To begin with, I want to address the usual Muslim apologetics on the issue of Banu Quraiza massacre. I will be focusing on two main points in this article. First of them being, the war of Khandaq = trench was a war that never fought. Second, neither Muhammad nor his followers were accusing Banu Quraiza of treachery to besiege the tribe and eventually exterminate them. The Jewish tribe did nothing to deserve the fate that is imposed upon them. It was commemoration of blatant injustice of a merciful prophet of an all-merciful god.
Quran mentions the incident:
And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew and ye made captive some. [Chapter: 33:26]
The people of the scripture mentioned in above verse are Jews of Banu Quraiza tribe. And reason given to slay them is they supported some Meccans who came to fight Muslims of Medina. The journey of revisiting will start from this verse. I am adamant on stating this massacre has no parallels in history because of its nature and for a naked fact, it was perpetrated by a man who is claimed to be the prophet of god to the end of times for the entire humankind.
If you look at the Quranic verses above, clear it is that god; the alleged author of Quran is mentioning this incident after the occurrence. And it is god who accuses people of scripture of supporting Meccans. I would emphasize on this point, because this is going to be crucial. Muslims usually justify Banu Quraiza massacre based on these verses as the tribe broke treaty and joined Meccans against Muslims. Since breaking treaty and fighting along with Meccans was a treacherous incident, Jews of Banu Quraiza deserved total annihilation. This is the argument we have been customarily hearing over and over and over again.
In fact, Allah-the god of Islam's allegation is totally baseless because there was not a treachery from the part of Banu Quraiza that can justify total annihilation of the tribe. They were being victimized for the vicious incentives of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. This will be made clear as we move with the holy text of Muslims, so let us see in Quran where it starts to mention the battle of trench.
"O ye who believe Remember Allah's favor unto you when there came against you hosts, and we sent against them a great wind and hosts ye could not see. And Allah is ever Seer of what ye do" [Quran 33:9]
God of Quran is reminding his pious believers of the favors he bestowed upon them. "When there came a lot to attack, god sent a wind to turn the foes away, thus saving the believers from destruction" Focus on the verse again to confirm god is speaking of an incident that has occurred. Besides the indication of the above verse is enemies are being turned away by god. Doubt remains whether the enemies were turned away after fighting a war or before it. Let us move with Quran. The very next verse:
"When they came upon you from above you and from below you, and when eyes grew wild and hearts reached to the throats, and ye were imagining vain thoughts concerning Allah."[Quran. 33:10]
Here, Allah reveals the state of Muslims; when they had to face a huge Meccan army. They (Muslims) started to doubt fighting a huge army will certainly be devastating to them. Ibn Kathir clarifies in his Tafsir:
Ibn Jarir said: "Some of those who were with the Messenger of Allah , had doubts and thought that the outcome would be against the believers, and that Allah would allow that to happen.'' [Tafsir Ibn Kathir]
Quranic verses in conjunction with the interpretation reveal the fact, Muhammad and his army was not at all in any position to fight a war at Khandaq. Muhammad heard of the strength of Meccan army much earlier, so acting upon the advice of his companion Salman- the Persian, there were trenches dug all around to prevent hostile Meccans from entering Muslims territory. The battle gained the name "the war of trench" due to this tactic of Muhammad. Meccans were a huge army consisting two tribes namely Quraish and Ghatafans. The very reason, Muhammad adopted an extremely defensive stance in this fighting proves the weakness of Muslim army and strength of their foes.
I brought out these verses from Quran to reiterate the "war of Khandaq" was in fact a war that never fought by Muslims against Meccans. Meccans, though were a huge army which could have annihilated the entire host of Muslims at that time, had to halt at the trenches without finding an entry route to Muslims. Their only chances of entering Muslims was through the route of Banu Quraiza where Muhammad did not dig trenches, but ultimately the hostile, who came to fight and win a war had to regress and return without finding a way to enter Muslims. Allah testifies in Quran he inflicted terror on the opposition sending winds and shaking their settlements, so that they had to withdraw. It is Quran Muslim's holy text confirms battle did not occur at all.
Now, I have to enter into what made Muhammad and his army (who could salvage their lives and pride without fighting a war) turn towards Banu Quraiza right after Meccans left. I will stick with the most authentic sources of Islam to narrate the incidents in order for not being accused of making things up on my own. First of all, let us see what happened soon after Meccans left without entering into a full-scale battle. We saw Allah himself attests he was the one who drove away Meccans and helped Muslims from otherwise an inevitable annihilation. Now see it in Ibn Kathir what happened afterwards:
Messenger of Allah returned to Al-Madinah in triumph and the people put down their weapons. While the Messenger of Allah was washing off the dust of battle in the house of Umm Salamah, may Allah be pleased with her, Jibril, upon him be peace, came to him wearing a turban of brocade, riding on a mule on which was a cloth of silk brocade. He said, "Have you put down your weapons, O Messenger of Allah'' He said, "Yes.'' He said, "But the angels have not put down their weapons. I have just now come back from pursuing the people.'' Then he said: "Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, commands you to get up and go to Banu Quraiza.'' According to another report, "What a fighter you are! Have you put down your weapons'' He said, "Yes.'' He said, "But we have not put down our weapons yet, get up and go to these people.'' He said: "Where'' He said, "Banu Quraiza, for Allah has commanded me to shake them.'' So the Messenger of Allah got up immediately, and commanded the people to march towards Banu Quraiza, who were a few miles from Al-Madinah. This was after Salat Az-Zuhr. He said, No one among you should pray `Asr except at Banu Quraiza. [Ibn Kathir]
This account of Ibn Kathir is authenticated by Sahih Hadiths: See it in Sahih Bukhari:
Narrated 'Aisha: When Allah's Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, "You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet." Allah's Apostle said, "Where (to go now)?" Gabriel said, "This way," pointing towards the tribe of Banu Quraiza. So Allah's Apostle went out towards them. [Sahih Bukhari. Book: 52, Hadith: 68]
Evident from this account: Muhammad and his followers were relaxed and reclining after the withdrawal of Meccan troops. Campaign against Banu Quraiza was not made an agenda for them until Gabriel slowed down with Allah's orders. Remember, this Gabriel and God both are nothing more than Muhammad's altered egos. He used them conveniently for his purposes all the time whenever he felt in need of a divine intervention. Here too he brings Gabriel into the picture.
What does this tell us? It does reveal the fact Banu Quraiza did not do anything atrocious to Muslims during the siege at Khandaq while Meccan army stranded at trenches. Sources say the siege lasted for almost a month, but at last Meccans departed without offering fight. It was not possible for them to fight because the dug trenches were a new tactic that they never expected from Muhammad's side. Still they waited to get a green signal from the Banu Quraiza stronghold because that was the only route to enter. At last, losing all hopes of crossing and engaging in a full-scale war which would have resulted into wiping out of all Muslims, Meccans had to retreat. Enemy gone; it is time for Muslims to lay down arms and relax, but not for their supreme commander Muhammad. He felt it inadequate to regress without any gains. Whenever he fought a war prior to it, he and his followers emerged victorious and victory brought them booties in means of materials and human beings. Uhud was the only exception though. This time, though they could not have engaged Meccans and come out victorious, still there is something lacking. Booties..! Meccan's resignation left them without any of such.
So, it is time for Gabriel to show up. Muhammad needs booties to satisfy himself and his fellow warriors. A small fraction stationed in a fort near would make an easy target now to acquire all these means of satisfaction. So slows down Gabriel with orders from Allah. "No Muhammad, you laid arms without meeting the objective." And the prime objective here is slaughter then booties acquired by means of it.
If Banu Quraiza were in fact treacherous, Muhammad and his Islam should have been buried in those trenches they dug. That did not happen and Muhammad's fellow warriors did not feel any need to carry on. All that changed because Muhammad intervened with the aid of his altered egos. This proves the alleged treason is nothing but a made up excuse or a pretext Muslims uses in our period to justify genocide. At least Muhammad's fellow thugs then did not feel it like in the past. The very reason they reclined after Meccans left.
What happened then? The so-called holy warriors of Islam besieged a weak tribe for almost a month until those besieged had to give up. NOT fighting, but enduring. Siege ended in unconditional surrender of Jews. Now, it is all unto Muhammad who can determine the fate of the surrendered tribe.
To recount what happened then to a subjugated tribe who were on the knees to Muhammad and his fellow thugs, I will quote Muhammad Husayn Haikal's "The life of Muhammad"
Banu Quraiza sent word to Muhammad proposing to evacuate their territory and remove themselves to Adhri'at, but Muhammad rejected their proposal and insisted on their abiding by his judgment. They sent to al Aws pleading that they should help them as al Khazraj had helped their client Jews before them. A group of al Aws tribesmen sought Muhammad and pleaded with him to accept from their allies a similar arrangement to that which he accepted from the allies of al Khazraj. Muhammad asked, "0 men of al Aws, would you be happy if we allowed one of your men to arbitrate the case?" When they agreed, he asked them to nominate whomsoever they wished. This was communicated to the Jews, and the latter, unmindful of the fate that was lying in store for them, nominated Sa'd ibn Mu'adh. Sa'd was a reputable man of al Aws tribe, respected for his sound judgment. Previously, Sa'd was the first one to approach the Jews, to warn them adequately, even to predict to them that they might have to face Muhammad one day. He had witnessed the Jews cursing Muhammad and the Muslims. After his nomination and acceptance as arbitrator, Sa'd sought guarantees from the two parties that they would abide by his judgment. After these guarantees were secured, he commanded that Banu Quraiza come out of their fortress and surrender their armour. Sa'd then pronounced his verdict that the fighting men be put to the sword, that their wealth be confiscated as war booty, and that the women and the children be taken as captives. When Muhammad heard the verdict, he said: "By Him Who dominates my soul, God is pleased with your judgment, 0 Sa'd; and so are the believers. You have surely done your duty." He then proceeded to Medina where he commanded a large grave to be dug for the Jewish fighters brought in to be killed and buried. [The Life of Muhammad/ Muhammad: Husayn Haykal. Page 313-314]
According to Ibn Kathir:
Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized. [Ibn Kathir]
Worth mentioning here: Not all were lucky to get beheaded among Banu Quraiza. Those whose lives were spared had the worst waiting for them: again from Haykal:
The Prophet divided the properties, women, and children of Banu Quraiza among the Muslims after he had separated one-fifth for public purposes. Each man of the cavalry received two shares, one for himself and one for his horse. On that day, the Muslim force included thirty-six cavalrymen. Sa'd ibn Zayd al Ansari sent a number of Banu Quraiza captives to Najd where he exchanged them for horses and armour in order to increase Muslim military power. [Haykal. Page: 315-316]
These captives who were sold for horses were women of Banu Quraiza tribe. Ibn Ishaq testifies it:
Then the apostle sent for Sa'd bin Zayd al-Ansari brother of bin Abdul-Ashhal with some of the captive women of Banu Quraiza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons [Ibn Ishaq 693]
Human beings exchanged for horses and weapons..! It is how Islam honours human rights..!
[In the second part of this article, I will look into the arguments put forward by Muslims for Banu Quraiza massacre. Meanwhile, those who want to comment may please visit the forum by clicking the link below:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=58577 ]
|
|
| Banu Quraiza Revisited. Part: 1. | Log-in or register a new user account | 9 Comments |
|
| Comments are statements made by the person that posted them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of the site editor. |
Re: Banu Quraiza Revisited. Part: 1.
(Score: 1)
by Tofaan on Sep 27, 2008 - 06:21 AM
(User information | Send a message
|
The great Prophet was using urinium-enriched food and beverages, drinking camel urine, milk, and eating dry dates, dry fish, so he became restless in Medina and repeatedly attacked Jewish villages in search of booties. Banu Quraiza massacre incident was the worst in the hands of boyfriend of Allah.
After tasting Safiya and Rehana, two beautiful Jewish slave women, he became like Mad Hound and started calling to himself; Booty Ahoy! Booty Ahoy! Booty Ahoy!
Tofaan
|
Re: Banu Quraiza Revisited. Part: 1.
(Score: 1)
by Cherson on Sep 27, 2008 - 06:39 AM
(User information | Send a message
|
In all this story,there are moments which I,sincerely,do not understand.
1.The attitude of the Jews.It was clear that Muhammad麓s goal was to eliminate the force which opposed his claim of being "the prophet of Allah".And the Jews were a serious force;wealthy,well armed and influential.But didn麓t banu Qurayza see what happened with banu Nadir and banu Qanuqa?They saw it.Didn麓t they understand that they will be next?It麓s impossible.WHy did they join Muhammad,then?Why didn麓t they open the gate and let Abu Sufyan麓s army in?
And that they didn麓t let them in is the undeniable fact,and even muslim historians recognize it.
Musnad Ahmad - 22823
Narrated Huthayfa bin Al-Yaman:
"...So Abu Sufyan said,
"O ye people of Quraysh, by Allah your [current] dwelling isn't a place to be dwelled in [meaning that their current situation is bad]; the horses [and camels, mules, etc..] have died, BANU QURAYTHA HAS TURNED US DOWN - we received from them what we don't like [meaning they refused to let them in through their fortresses], and this wind is giving us what you see [a hard time]. By Allah, our cauldrons aren't standing, the fires aren't lasting, and the structures aren't holding. So retreat for I am retreating."
Muhammad ordered to dig the trench around all the city-except its northern part,where the fortresses of banu Qurayza stood. The fortresses of Banu Quraiza were impregnable (from the outer part of the city).By doing this, he, actually, put into the hands of the Jews not only the fate of Medina,but also his own life.If only the Jews decided some dark night to open the gate of some of the forts and let the Quraish army of the mortal enemy of Muhammad,Abu Sufyan, in, the head of Muhammad in the morning would be put on the wall of Medina as a scarecrow;nothing would save Muslims,because the Quraish army outnumbered them by 3:1,and besides,the Quraish had a vast advantage in the cavalry.
But the Jews hold their promise ,they did not let the Quraish in Medina,they helped Mohammad and,actually,saved his head.
Why did they do this?
2.The army of Quraysh outnumbered Muhammad麓s army by 3:1,besides,the Quraish were much better armed.
And all this army,together with the experienced military leader at the head,didn麓t know what to do with this trench Muhammad ordered to dig a week before the assault,which means it could not be neither too deep,nor too well prepared,and besides,was not filled with water?Another Mannerheim line,by God!
Come on,the Ancient Arabs were quite a savage lot,they waged wars at one another continuously,and the trenches as the defence construction were known for thousands of years,they were used by Ancient Egyptians,Greeks ,Romans,and practically by all the peoples and tribes of the Ancient World,and the Ancient warriors knew very well how to deal with them.Marcus Crassus,for example,in his campaign against Spartacus,in order to seal the army of Spartacus in the peninsula of Rhegium ordered to dig the trench 60 kms long,4,5 meters width and 4,5 meters deep,.And above the ditch he also built a wall of astonishing height and strength.And what?Did it help?
Of course,Abu Sufyan was not Spartacus.But Muhammad was not Marcus Crassus or Gneus Pompeus,either.And this miserable hole around Medina was not "60 kms long,4,5 meters width and 4,5 meters deep".
The army of Abu Sufyan without any problem could at night cross it at some point,imitating the attack on another and making Muslims concentrate a considerable part of their small army at the false direction.
Instead,the Quraysh army stood there for a month and didn麓t do any attempt to cross this miserable trench.
Why?
|
Re: Banu Quraiza Revisited. Part: 1.(Score: 1)
by pr126 on Sep 27, 2008 - 09:47 AM
(User information | Send a message | I think the mistake everybody makes is reading onegod's posts.
Followed by the second mistake of replying to them.
Do not read his posts, because as you know by now, he is an "agent provocateur", and most importantly, never reply to them.
By replying to his posts you are validating his presence.
He gets his jollies by the knowledge that he managed to rile you up enough to elicit a reply.
Don't do it. Ignore him.
|
To: Cherson(Score: 1)
by Ibn Kammuna (dont@email.com) on Sep 28, 2008 - 05:22 PM
(User information | Send a message | Hello brother. I hope you are doing well.
I agree with you about the many questions the Qurayza story raises. I do think that the main problem is that Islam's early historical sources came to us from Muslim-Friendly sources, and sometimes it is very difficult to get the facts right. I had published an article on FFI in the past entitled "In Honor of Bani Qurayza" (author's name is Ibn Jeylan, thats me again). In it I tried to get to the "Why" muhammad attacked the Qurayza, even though they had just saved him and all the Muslim thugs of the time. I could not find a satisfying answer from the historical sources. There were an unsubstantiated claims about the Jews conspiring against Muhammad. The actual events do not support such claims by Muslim historians. I just wish there are some non-Muslim sources of credible historical evidence about what really took place. I just do not buy the conspiracy theory, and actual events support my view. The Quraysh could not go to the Muslim camp through the land of the Qurayzah. This fact by itself shows that the Jews kept their word to the Muslims, and this is contrary to what Muslim apologetics claim.
I am from an arab background, so I completely understand the mentality of the Qurayzah. They gave their word to Muhammad, and that is enough to keep their promise and protect the Muslims. Muhammad, the evil one, showed his fangs again, and repayed good with evil.
As for your question about the previous Jewish tribes, and why the Qurayzah did not learn the lesson. This is only my thinking and I may be wrong here: early Arabs did not think in terms of being loyal with other tribes who happen to have the same religious beliefs. Their first loyalty was the tribe. Religion was not top on the list. So, individual people in Qurayzah thought mainly about their tribe only. What happened to the other tribes did not top the list of worries for them, especially that they had a pack with Muhammad and his cronies. We need to remember that Muhammad did not attack the Jews by themselves. He attacked many tribes around Medina, be it Jewish or not. So, it was politics, not religion that finally caused this evil massacre. I really liken it to what Hitler did to other European leaders and countries. Some signed peace treaties with him thinking that he will keep his word and not attack their country. This is exactly what Muhammad did with the surrounding tribes.
If anyone else who has deeper knowledge about early Islam, please contribute to this discussion, so we all can learn. Peace everyone.
|
Re: Banu Quraiza Revisited. Part: 1.
(Score: 1)
by Ibn Kammuna (dont@email.com)
on Sep 27, 2008 - 12:21 PM
(User information | Send a message
|
|
One historical error in the article is that Sa'd Bin Mu'ad was chosen by Muhammad to say a judgment against Banu Qurayza, and not as the article claimed. Muhammad chose him without allowing a discussion of the matter. Reason being he knew how that man felt about the Jews. I have published an article on FFI entitled "In Honor of Bani Qurayza" (author's name is Ibn Jeylan, but it is me under another name). Also the best research I've seen on the fate of this tribe is on the answering Islam website. It is all based on historical facts that are well-documented. All it boils down to is that the Bastard of Arabia, the self proclaimed prophet, was greedy and wanted to kill other people and steal their belongings. Peace everyone.
|
Re: Banu Quraiza Revisited. Part: 1.
(Score: 1)
by Sad (abc@hotmail.com)
on Sep 29, 2008 - 03:13 PM
(User information | Send a message
|
My comments are:
-It is clear that jews did not allow Meccans through. If at all ,they may have intended but did not follow through.If intention was a treason then Mohammed should have punished the leadership only, Why were 900 innocent men beheaded and all women enslaved,raped and sold (Mo raped teenage wife of Quraiza Chief Rehana).
-Apologists clainm that all Mo did was to follow a jewish law of punishement for treason. It doesnt matter what law Mo used,Quraizan's were not guilty.
-It is a muslim B.S. that jews chose Sad Bin Muadh as decider. Undoubtedly It was the choice of Mo. Irrespective of whose coice was Sad Mo could have overruled the inhuman and unfair punishment but instead he endorsed the punishment saying that Allah approved it.
|
|
|
FFI Info
References
Forums
FFI International Sites
From The Pen of Muhammad Rawschit
Petition and Action!
International Affiliates
Ask Aunt Latifa
Do you have Islam-related questions about family, friends, loved ones? Are you in a difficult situation searching for advice?
Ask Aunt Latifa
Recommended Books
Prophet of Doom is in Audio Format. Muslims must listen to it to see why everyone is laughing at Islam and why they should be embarrassed.
|