| 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 Oct 01, 2008 - 12:48 AM
Op-Ed
|
Khalil Fariel
This is an invitation to all Muslims and Muslim sympathizers for a debate on the Banu Quraiza incident. By invitation, I mean a challenge to all who try to absolve Muhammad, the prophet of Islam from the crime of genocide. Whoever feels like disagreeing with me, can indeed express their disagreements and refute me so that an intellectual discourse will be fructified therein. The link to contact and engage in debate will be given at the end of this article.
In the first part of this article, we saw how a surrendered tribe has been treated by Muhammad and his followers. All men of the tribe who had grown up pubic hair were butchered and the rest were sold in slave markets in exchange of horses and weapons. In this part, I will be focusing on usual Muslim apologetics on this topic. I will try to cover all of Muslims' polemics and rebut them. Arguments (of Muslims and Muslim sympathizers) for Banu Quraiza massacre will be in red.
*Banu Quraiza were treacherous, so they were dealt accordingly:
I am adamant or more than resolute to NOT to admit Banu Quraiza being treacherous. As I proved in the first part, the very reason Muhammad needed his Gabriel to order for besieging Banu Quraiza attests to it. Besides, neither Muhammad nor his followers accused Banu Quraiza of being treacherous even to hold it as a reason to besiege the tribe. NOT at all; He brought his angel down to convince his thugs to not to put arms down but to march towards Banu Quraiza and besiege them. That is it. The account given in Quran as Banu Quraiza siding with Muslims enemy at Khandaq is AFTER the incidents occurred, not during it. Muhammad should have felt it necessary to find some reasons for annihilating an entire tribe, so he came up with holy verses later.
I do not refuse the Muslim version of events that occurred within Banu Quraiza during the siege. They were under intense pressure to open the gates of their forts for the confederate army to get through so showed little bit of weakness by admitting one of their brethren who came along with Meccan army. Ibn Ishaq narrates this incident descriptively as the chief of Quraiza tribe refusing to admit Huayy Bin Aktab(a single person) making the latter put his knees down to get in. Still nothing happened as Meccans waited and waited for a green signal from Jewish side which never happened. Muslim apologists here weave their conspiracy theories speculating as Banu Quraiza broke the treaty and allied with Meccans to conspire against Muslims. The question they want to answer is: If what they tell is true, why didn't it happen?
So, here is the challenge: If Banu Quraiza were treacherous, Muhammad is the top authority to attest it. But can any Muslim bring out any instance from their own source that is indicative of Muhammad ever accusing Banu Quraiza of being treacherous to besiege and massacre them?
If Banu Quraiza were deceitful and joined the Meccan army to fight Muslims, less than a few hours would have been sufficient for the huge Meccan army to intrude and end the business of Muslims once and forever. That did not happen, and we know the only chance of Meccans to do so was through Banu Quraiza route. Still what makes Banu Quraiza guilty?
If anyone willing to take this challenge, come up with sources of Islam. If none can, then stop this accusation which Muslims' prophet Muhammad did not do.
*Banu Quraiza broke their covenant with Muhammad and Muslims:
NOT true. Because, if the treaty was broken and Banu Quraiza were acting deceitfully, Meccans should not have had to wait at trenches for such a long time and DEPART without fighting. Banu Quraiza could have easily let Meccans intrude through their route and helped in annihilating Muslims. That did not happen.
Secondly: there were some developments within the Banu Quraiza fort while Meccans were waiting at trenches. It is claimed that Muhammad's tactic of sending an envoy to confuse Banu Quraiza people resulted to their eventual neutral stance for not opening doors for Meccans. Many Muslims argue this was the reason for Banu Quraiza not allowing enemy to intrude. Let it be true or false, but what happened ultimately is what should be counted. The Jewish tribe did not help Meccans so the latter had to retreat for the very reason. Even though one admits Jews tried to trait, ultimately they did nothing against Muhammad and Muslims, so that Muslims escaped from the real carnage. Where is treason here? Can any Muslim come up and prove?
In fact the very existence of Muslims today is a very solid proof that Banu Quraiza did not trait Muslims during the Khandaq siege. If they were, the huge Meccan army should have intruded and annihilated Muslims and buried Islam in then dug trenches.
* Jews did not protest before getting slaughtered, because it was ordained to them.
This is the funniest of all arguments.
Jews were in no position to protest because they were subjugated. They can only accept whatever Muhammad and his thugs decide. If they believed a massacre is ordained for them by their god, they were deluded people stranded as scapegoats. Such a lot will seldom protest. I never see goats protesting before being butchered. Same can be true with Banu Quraiza too.
Besides, Jews believed in many things then. According to Muhammad, They believed Ezra is the son of god, and made lawful what was in fact forbidden to them. All these are there in Quran. Now, when they are going to be annihilated according to their laws (as Muslims want it to be), Muhammad; being the supreme authority could definitely have saved them, because he was supposed to be holding something much better than previous revelations. If the appointed arbitrator Saad bin Muadh's verdict went in par with Deuteronomy, it was unto Muhammad to NOT to accept the verdict and ask Saad for revising it so the surrendered will be dealt justly. But in fact what we see is an applauding Muhammad, who praises Saad for ruling according to his god above.
If Saad ruled according to Muhammad's god-in-heaven then it is definitely Muhammad's (Allah's) ruling. Muslims can not escape from this accusing Deuteronomy.
*Banu Quraiza were massacred because Sad bin Muadh, the arbitrator they agreed to be the one who judged. So Muhammad had nothing to do with it.
To be soft to the most, this argument is nothing but rubbish for two reasons.
First: Saad bin Muadh judged and Muhammad attested his judgement stating it is the ruling of Allah above. Then how come it is Saad's fault? No way. Muslims must have the honesty to admit Saad bin Muadh judged according to Allah, because it is what their prophet did. See in Sahih Bukhari.
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Some people agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "I judge that their (Banu Quraiza's) warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment." [Sahih Bukhari. Book: 58 Hadith: 148]
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The people of (Banu) quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh. So the Prophet sent for Saad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, "Get up for your chief or for the best among you." Then the Prophet said (to Sad)." These have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, "On that the Prophet said, "You have judged according to Allah's Judgment," or said, "according to the King's judgment." [Sahih Bukhari. Book: 59, Hadith: 447]
Both hadiths are essentially the same. See a Muhammad who rushes to approve Saad bin Muadh right after the latter gives his gory verdict. It is Muhammad who attested Saad judged according to Allah's judgment. Then it has only to do with Muhammad and his Allah, not with an old Deuteronomy. To be succinct, the moment Muhammad approved Sad-the so-called arbitrator's verdict as Allah's verdict, the call for genocide becomes Allah's (Muhammad's) and neither Saad's nor Deuteronomy's.
Second: Muhammad intended to massacre the tribe ever before Saad bin Muadh came into the picture. He had this plan in his mind from the very first. He sent an envoy (Abu Lubaba) to Banu Quraiza fort during the siege. I will quote Ibn Ishaq here to get the picture right.
Apostle sent him (Abu Lubaba) to them (Banu Quraiza), and when they saw him they got up to meet him. The women and children went up to him weeping in his face, and he felt sorry for them. They said, 鈥極h Abu Lubaba, do you think that we should submit to Muhammad's judgement? He said 鈥榶es' and pointed with his hand to his throat signifying slaughter. [Ibn Ishaq: 686]
Remember this incident occurred during the siege and Saad bin Muadh appeared in this affair after the siege. Here we see Muhammad's envoy revealing Muhammad's intention of slaughter to Banu Quraiza, the helpless scapegoats. Again we see a remorseful Abu Lubaba who later felt contrite for revealing Muhammad's gory plan to the besieged tribe. This man soon left the place and tied himself to one of the pillars in the mosque. See it in Ibn Ishaq again.
Then he (Abu Lubaba) left them and did not go to the apostle but bound himself to one of the pillars in the mosque saying 鈥業 will not leave this place until god forgives me for what I have done' and he promised god that he would never go to Banu Quraiza and would never be seen in a town in which he had betrayed god and his apostle [Ibn Ishaq: 686]
It is high time for Muslims to stop falsifying. Muhammad's intention from the very beginning was slaughtering of Banu Quraiza. We see it in one of his followers' words and deeds here.
* Jews of Banu Quraiza were put to death according to the laws of Torah. Saad bin Muadh's verdict went in par with Deuteronomy 20:10-18.
Deuteronomy 20:10-18 is not the "law of the Torah." It is a specific direction from God for a specific program of conquest. No longer relevant; once the Promised land had been settled. It has nothing to do with "treason," or the treatment of treasonous allies. So it is a wrong application of the wrong law to the wrong situation.
Besides, this argument of Muslims begs questions:
1) Why are the Muslims now accepting the judgment of Deuteronomy as righteous and just when on other occasions they attack this as being cruel and harsh command, a clear example of genocide?
2) The Islamic sources say that Muhammad did not only have those fighting men killed, such as the leaders of Banu Quraiza, but even their young men were massacred who did not have anything to do with the decisions of their leaders/elders. Why these innocent were killed?
Some Muslims claims only those who were able to fight among the tribe Banu Quraiza were killed. Not true according to their own sources. How did Muhammad determine people capable of fighting? See it in their sources:
The Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should be killed. [The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael. F: State University of New York Press, Albany 1997, Volume 8. page. 38]
Another source to know how Muhammad determined whether a person had reached puberty:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. [Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4390]
On the other hand, we saw how Saad's verdict went in par with the laws of Allah as Muhammad testified it. Muslims should stop pointlessly attacking Torah, and focus on Muhammad their prophet who attested the verdict of Saad with applause.
Finally it will be interesting to know how Muhammad the prophet and role model of Muslims to the end of times, dealt Jews of Banu Quraiza prior to besieging them. Let their sources speak up:
"When the apostle approached their forts he (Muhammad) said: "You brothers of monkeys.., has god disgraced you and brought his vengeance upon you?"
Banu Quraiza replied: "O Abul Qasim (Muhammad), you are not a barbarous person" [Ibn Ishaq: 684]
Again from Sahih collections:
Narrated Al-Bara: "On the day of Quraiza's (besiege), Allah's Apostle said to Hassan bin Thabit, 'Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you" [Sahih Bukhari: Book: 59 Hadith: 449]
How apposite it will be for a merciful prophet of an all merciful god to abuse helpless people with words like "brothers of monkeys" and to incite his followers to do the same as he did..? Not to say he traded these insults before besieging them with gory intentions in his mind..; Let Muslims sort out.
Conclusion: Muslims forward many lame reasons to give Banu Quraiza a bad name and hang them. The main reason they bring is the alleged treachery of Banu Quraiza. It is more than lame an argument because any act of treachery from the tribe should definitely have let the huge confederate army to intrude and end all Muslim lives. It would effectively have got rid off Islam early at Khandaq so the world should not be bearing this burden of Islam today. The excuses they forward thumbing an old Deuteronomy and a man who came into the picture much later are also too feeble excuses, for the very reason Muhammad planned to slaughter the tribe much earlier ever before Saad bin Muadh the so-called arbitrator has been invited. Moreover, when the latter pronounced his sanguinary verdict, it was Muhammad who rushed in favour of the judgement attesting it is Allah's judgement. Taking all these matters into account, there is nothing for Muslims to argue in defense of this most gruesome genocide which has no parallels in history for the very reason it was perpetrated by a man who claimed to be the role model for all to the end of times.
The very fact; Muslims remain in this period to argue on Banu Quraiza is more than enough to dismiss all allegations against the tribe of Banu Quraiza.
Click the link to reach the author: http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=58577&highlight
|
|
| Banu Quraiza Revisited. Part - 2 | Log-in or register a new user account | 14 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 - 2
(Score: 1)
by OneGod on Oct 01, 2008 - 03:14 AM
(User information | Send a message
|
|
Banu Quraiza was a terrorist and extremist group like Al-Qaeda. So, those who shed crocodile tears for a terrorist and extremist group like Banu Quraiza should also shed tears for Al-Qaeda terrorists and extremists!
|
How pathetic!(Score: 1)
by Dolly on Oct 01, 2008 - 08:55 AM
(User information | Send a message | First you try to change the subject with the usual collection of irrelevant links and then you come up with an obvious lie. IS THAT REALLY THE BEST YOU CAN DO?
How about addressing the issue for once? |
Re: Banu Quraiza Revisited. Part - 2
(Score: 1)
by Marie on Oct 01, 2008 - 02:53 PM
(User information | Send a message
|
"1) Why are the Muslims now accepting the judgment of Deuteronomy as righteous and just when on other occasions they attack this as being cruel and harsh command, a clear example of genocide?"
Why are Muslims accepting judgements made in the Bible? The Quran states the Jews have corrupted the Bible. This is another contradictory statement made by Muslims as usual.
|
Re: Banu Quraiza Revisited. Part - 2
(Score: 1)
by socratese on Oct 02, 2008 - 03:56 AM
(User information | Send a message
|
|
In this way islamists change tongues and twist and shout for their convenience irrationally.If any one questions rationality of Quron and sanity and authority of moahhamd as prophet they tag them as infedels or jews .They get angry because they have no rational answer.They fear allah(imaginery characet in 'Q' book by Mohammad) wil get angry for questioning and punish with imaginery hell.They say their voilence has allah(virtual) licence to commit on non-moslims. all others are terrorists or Zionists.One should have enough courage and rationality to question and think.Blind believrs nodding their heads vigoursly gettting brainwahed periodically on fridays with hate and furoius speeches can not change by themselves.A person who is not afraid of anything is really a peaceful man.A person who knows desires themselves are causes for problems is wise enough toknow hell and paradise are imaginery motivations for medicore animalistic desire humans .
|
Re: Banu Quraiza Revisited. Part - 2
(Score: 1)
by noor (noormaster02@gmail.com)
on Oct 12, 2008 - 10:10 AM
(User information | Send a message
|
Look At A Christian鈥檚 Problem With The Execution Of Men At Bani Qurayda
There seems to be a Christian who has a problem with the expulsion of Bani Qurayda. Besides the fact that this issue has already been dealt with I just want to address the most important objection, which is the execution of the men of Bani Qaynuqa. First I urge everyone to first read the article I linked to and understand how significant the crime that the Jews committed against the Muslims was and about how it lead to their destruction.
Now when the Muslims finally laid siege to them and defeated them. They did not go ahead and execute everyone. The ones that stuck to the treaty were obviously spared鈥
The siege continued for twenty-five days, during which the Muslims allowed the Jews who had refused to betray the Prophet (peace be upon him) during the Battle of the Ditch to leave and go wherever they wished as a reward for their faithfulness. (Muhammad Al Ghazali, Fiqh-Us-Seerah: Understanding the Life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), International Islamic Publishing House, p346)
It was the warriors who were to be executed and not the women and children鈥
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 148:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:
When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 447:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Mu'adh. So the Prophet sent for Sad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, "Get up for your chief or for the best among you." Then the Prophet said (to Sad)." These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, "On that the Prophet said, "You have judged according to Allah's Judgment," or said, "according to the King's judgment."
Volume 8, Book 74, Number 278:
Narrated Abu Said:
The people of (the tribe of) Quraiza agreed upon to accept the verdict of Sa'd. The Prophet sent for him (Sa'd) and he came. The Prophet said (to those people), "Get up for your chief or the best among you!" Sa'd sat beside the Prophet and the Prophet said (to him), "These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sa'd said, "So I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed and their women and children should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have judged according to the King's (Allah's) judgment." (See Hadith No. 447, Vol. 5)
At that time, anyone who reached the age of puberty was eligible to fight and were thus considered to be warriors. They were only ordered to be executed if they fought against the Muslims that is. I already showed that the ones that stuck to the deal were spared. James Arlandson asks this question鈥
So did all the men and adolescent boys have to be executed and all the women and children enslaved? Could only the leaders not have been executed?
I already showed that NOT ALL were executed. As for those who were, well maybe that would have been possible if the Bani Qurayda surrendered their leaders over to the Muslims! However, they sheltered those criminals, defended them and protected them. They were an obstruction to justice and therefore deserved the same fate as their leaders! Indeed they deserved to be punished鈥
However, Sad did not forget, amid the cries of hope directed towards him, that Islam and its sons, that Madinah, its fruits, crops, its progeny and its sanctuaries were rescued from the vehemence of the attacking forces only by a miracle of Providence. It was the Banu Quraydah and those whom they harboured who had been the instigators and the unholy allies in this war, which had been declared to crush true monotheism and its upholders. Sad did not forget that the Quraydah had broken their treaty and greeted him with a shower of abuse when he went to plead with them to remain faithful. Did he not say to them, 鈥淚 fear for you what happened to the Banu al Nadir or worse than it? Despite this, their reply was 鈥淓at your father鈥檚鈥!鈥 (Ibid. p 346)
Ironically the Jews were being judged according to their own law! The very thing that James Arlandson is trying to call brutal and unfair is actually the law that is found in his own Bible鈥!
Deuteronomy 20:10-12
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies
This is what happened. The Muslims offered a treaty with the Bani Quraydah. The Bani Quraydah broke it. They refused to surrender even after they broke the treaty and fought to protect the criminals. Therefore, they were judged with their own law and ironically even the leader who caused all this problem even admits that he deserved such a punishment and that it was the order of God鈥
Huyayy was brought to face his end, and Huyayy, as you know was the germ of these troubles. He looked at the Prophet (PBUH) and said: 鈥淏y God, I do not blame my self for my hostility towards you. Nevertheless, whoever deserts God deserts him. Then he turned to the people and said: 鈥淥 people, I have nothing against the order of God. He has decreed slaughter for the Children of Israel!鈥 Then he sat down and was beheaded. About this a poet says:
By your life, Ibn Akhtab did not blame himself,
But whoever deserts Allah is deserted
He fought until he reached his limit,
And stirred up trouble,
And every trouble maker se
Read the rest of this comment...
|
|
|
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.
|