Bani Qurayza: Details of the Islamic Genocide of the Jews by Prophet Muhammad
http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/59-kammuna/1490-bani-qurayza-details-of-the-islamic-genocide-of-the-jews-by-prophet-muhammad.html
Introduction
In this study, I will discuss the
genocide of the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayza by the prophet of Islam and
the consequent moral implications. I will organize the flow of this
study as follows:
1. Prelude to a genocide: Bani Qainuqa
2. Background on the Bani Qurayza incidents
3. Muhammad attacks Bani Qurayza
4. Who is Sa’d Bin Mu’ad?
5. Bani Qurayza genocide
6. Can there be a sufficient apologetic defense to this massacre?
7. Muslim apologetics
a. Bassam Zawadi
8. A look to the future
Prelude to a genocide: Siege of Bani Qainuqa
In 624 AD, Muhammad laid a siege upon
the Jewish tribe of Bani Qainuqa. The siege lasted 15 days, after which
the Qainuqa tribe unconditionally surrendered to Muhammad’s forces. One,
who reads the narrations from authentic Islamic sources about the
Qainuqa incidents, cannot deny the fact the Muhammad intended to behead
all adult males of that tribe, and intended to enslave the women and
children and take over their wealth. However, Muhammad was not strong
enough yet in Medina, where he had emigrated to less than two years
earlier (622 A. D). At the time of the Qainuqa incident, the powerful
local leader of Medina was Abdullah bin Ubayy, chief of the Khazraj
clan. He was a man of high status and was regarded as the city’s chief
at the time of Muhammad’s arrival, although his power gradually decline
thereafter with Muhammad's rise. Nonetheless, Muhammad had to pay regard
to Abdullah’s position and power, especially during his early years in
Medina.
Arab tribes in those days used to form
alliances with each other as part of coexistence, as well as mutual
support in conflict situations. During the Qainuqa incident, Abdullah
Bin Ubayy’s Khazraj tribe was ally of Qainuqa. In a previous conflict,
Abdullah’s own life was saved by Qainuqa warriors. So, when Muhammad
started preparation to slaughter the Qainuqa men, Abdullah Bin Ubayy
firmly intervened on their behalf. The following Sirat quote is very
telling of Ibn Ubayy’s relation to the Qainuqa, and of Muhammad’s evil
intentions to slaughter them:
Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul went to
him when God had put them (the Qainuqa tribe) in his power and said, ‘O
Muhammad, deal kindly with my clients’ (now they were allies with
Khazraj),but the apostle put him off. He repeated the words, and the
apostle turned away from , whereupon he thrust his hand into the collar
of the apostle’s robe; the apostle was so angry that his face became
almost black. He said, ‘confound you, let me go.’ He answered, ‘No, by
God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my clients. Four
hundred men without mail and three hundred mailed protected me from all
mine enemies; would you cut them down in one morning? By God, I am a man
who fears that circumstances may change.’ The apostle said, ‘You can
have them.’ (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 363)
The above quote makes Muhammad’s intentions of slaughtering them en masse
clear. To save the lives of his allies, Ibn Ubayy firmly demanded of
Muhammad that another option be given to them. He was not going to let
Muhammad kill them all in cold blood.
History tells us that Muhammad, in face
of Abdullah's firm intervention, decided to expelled the Qainuqa tribe
from Medina, which saved their lives. Although Muhammad took over their
homes and property, he stilled suffered a substantial loss by failing to
enslave the women and children.
Baun Qainuqa, thus, survived Muhammad’s worst evil, a fate that Banu Qurayza also desired at a later time but was not granted.
Background of the Bani Qurayza incidents
After Muhammad’s emigration to there,
its Pagan inhabitants easily accepted Islam, but not the Jews.
Well-versed in Abrahamic doctrines, they debated and scrutinized
Muhammad’s religious doctrines and discovered various errors in his
verses. Thus, they thought Muhammad was an imposter, not a true prophet.
So they rejected his message. Because of religious disagreements and
the Jews’ refusal to embrace Islam, Muhammad and his community becoming
hostile toward the Jews of Medina.
There were three major Jewish tribes in
Medina: Bani Qaynuqa, Bani Al-Nadir, and Bani Qurayza. As Muhammad grew
stronger in Medina, and realized that the Jews were not going to accept
him as a prophet, his Qur’anic verses started becoming increasingly
hostile towards people of the book (the Jews and the Christians). He
also changed the Muslim prayer direction (called “Qibla” in Islam) from
Jerusalem to Mecca.
In any case, Muhammad expelled the first
two Jewish tribes – Bani Qaynuqa as well as Bani Al-Nadir – as he
failed to genocide them due to intervention of powerful Abdullah ibn
Obayy. In both occasions, Muhammad enriched himself and his community by
capturing the wealth of those two rich Medina tribes. Bani Qurayza was
the last major Jewish tribes left in Medina. In 627 AD, the stage was
set for Muhammad to get rid of the last Jewish tribe of Medina. It was
going to make him richer and stronger. So, why not?
The Meccans had had enough of raiding and plundering their commercial caravans by Muhammad’s robbing gang. So they came out to Medina to finish off Muhammad and his gang. They laid siege upon the community of Muhammad for a few weeks. As Muslims had dug a deep trench around their abode, which the Meccans could not overcome, they eventually had to withdraw the siege without achieving their goals. This came to be known as the Battle of the Trench (Al-Khandaq, A.D 627). After the Meccans were gone, words came to Muhammad that the Meccans were seeking the help of Banu Qurayza against him, and that Bani Qurayza had planned to extend their support. In reality, although a negotiation apparently did take place, Banu Qurayza never came to help the Meccans, thus staying true to their agreement with Muhammad not to help his enemies. The Meccan army did not make any attack on Muhammad’s community from the Bani Qurayza area of control, a testament to the fact that Bani Qurayza did not aid the Meccans during the Battle of the Trench.
The Meccans had had enough of raiding and plundering their commercial caravans by Muhammad’s robbing gang. So they came out to Medina to finish off Muhammad and his gang. They laid siege upon the community of Muhammad for a few weeks. As Muslims had dug a deep trench around their abode, which the Meccans could not overcome, they eventually had to withdraw the siege without achieving their goals. This came to be known as the Battle of the Trench (Al-Khandaq, A.D 627). After the Meccans were gone, words came to Muhammad that the Meccans were seeking the help of Banu Qurayza against him, and that Bani Qurayza had planned to extend their support. In reality, although a negotiation apparently did take place, Banu Qurayza never came to help the Meccans, thus staying true to their agreement with Muhammad not to help his enemies. The Meccan army did not make any attack on Muhammad’s community from the Bani Qurayza area of control, a testament to the fact that Bani Qurayza did not aid the Meccans during the Battle of the Trench.
In any case, this is one area of Arab
history, where I wish there were people living in Mecca and Medina who
documented such incidents and were neutral, or even anti-Muslim with
regard to religious beliefs. The problem is that all we know about early
Islam came to us from Islam-friendly sources. Imagine! All those horror
stories we know about early Muslims came to us from Muslim-friendly
sources. Those who refused Islam got killed, no questions asked. Saying
negative things about Muhammad or Islam was no simple matter. Muhammad
ordered the assassination of a hundred plus years old man, Abu
Afak, just because he said some “not very nice things” about Muhammad.
And when a mother of five, Asma Bint Marwan, heard of that and said some
“negative” things about Muhammad, he ordered her assassination too. The
assassin had to move away her nursing baby from her chest to be able to
kill her. When you are talking about Muhammad and his Sahaba, you’ll be
amazed at what that evil man can do. It is important for us to remember
that even if the Qurayza tribe conspired against him, they never
attacked or harmed any of the Muslims. And it is still true that no
Meccan managed to get through to Medina and attack the Muslims through
the area controlled by Bani Qurayza.
Again, I wish that we had more
historical details about what exactly happened, but we don’t. If one is
to rely on only Muslim-friendly sources, she probably won’t get the full
story.
In any case, moving back to our story:
When the Meccans left, Muhammad went home and started taking a bath
during which a divine revelation came telling him to attack Bani Qurayza
and get rid of them, and take all of their belongings:
Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 68:
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 Bani Quraiza. So Allah's Apostle went out towards them.
Muhammad Attacks Bani Qurayza
With around 3000 worriers, and the
Meccans out of sight, no wonder Allah tells him to go unprovoked and
take over the fortunes of Bani Qurayza. Who is there to stop him?
Muhammad laid siege to Bani Qurayza for twenty five days, after which
they surrendered unconditionally. They did not offer any resistance.
Before they surrendered, they asked Abu Lubabah, who was doing the
negotiations between them and Muhammad, since he was on friendly terms
with them from previous dealings, if they should submit to Muhammad’s
judgement. Abu Lubabah said yes, and gestured with his hand to his
throat, telling them that Muhammad is adamant on finishing them up. Such
a gesture could only mean one thing: beheading. Afterwards, Abu Lubabah
felt bad that he had betrayed Muhammad, but again, he had some passion
to his old Jewish friends. In history, the gesture is not disputed. What
is in disputed is why Abu Lubabah felt that he betrayed Muhammad. I
think the answer is simple: Abu Lubabah knew what the murderer prophet
was up to.
In any case, Bani Qurayza probably felt
they had no option but to surrender. Muhammad’s criminals were three
thousand strong. The mighty Meccans could not take care of him and his
cronies, would one tribe in Medina be able to do it on its own? Surely
not. So, instead of dying fighting Muhammad, they chose to surrender in
the hopes that Muhammad will take their belongings and allow them to
leave town, as he did with the previous tribes. However, this was not to
be. Muhammad had become blood thirsty more and more as time passed by.
After the surrender of Bani Quaryza,
Muhammad chose Sa'd bin Mu’ad, a Muslim, to declare the judgment against
Bani Qurayza. References from different books and hadiths show that
Muhammad was adamant on killing them. But other Muslim leaders, who had
good past relationship with Bani Qurayza, forced him to choose someone
else to declare a judgement against them. Muhammad did not allow them to
choose another person, whom they wanted to judge the verdict. He named
Sa’d bin Mu’ad and ended the discussion.
Who is Sa’d Bin Mu’ad?
Muhammad wanted Bani Qurayza men
beheaded. In this manner, he will get all of their belongings and
wealth. He, also, will have a large number of enslaved women and
children. He can sell some of them. He can put them to work for his
benefit. He and the Muslim men can enjoy some sexual activities with the
women. Muhammad himself, history tells us, usually went after the young
and pretty ones.
To be able to finish off the men of Bani
Qurayza, what is better than naming the leader of their ally tribe, the
Aus, Sa’d bin Mu’ad. Muhammad knew Sa’d bin Mu’ad and what he desires
to do to those who rejected Islam. The above quoted “Sirat” has many
telling passages about Sa’d bin Mu’ad and his nature. On page 297, we
read the following:
.. that sa’d b. Mu’adh said: ‘ O
prophet of God, let us make a booth (T. of palm branches)for you to
occupy and have your riding camels standing by; then we will meet the
enemy and if god gives us the victory that is what we desire; if the
worst occurs you can mount your camels and join our people who are left
behind, for they are just as deeply attached to you as we are. Had they
thought that you would be fighting they would not have stayed behind.
God will protect you by them; they will give you good counsel and fight
with you.’ The apostle thanked him and blessed him. Then a booth was
constructed for the apostle and he remained there.
The above quote shows Sa’d’s unparalleled loyalty to Islam and to Muhammad.
Page 301 of the Sirat gives us a clue about what Sa’d desired for the prisoners of war who were not Muslims:
God slew many of their chiefs and
made captive many of their nobles. Meanwhile the apostle was in the hut
and Sa’d bin Mu’adh was standing at the door of the hut girt with his
sword. With him were some of the Ansar guarding the apostle for fear
lest the enemy should come back at him. While the folk were laying hands
on the prisoners the apostle, as I have been told, saw displeasure on
the face of Sa’d at what they were doing. He said to him: ‘you seem to
dislike what the people are doing.’ ‘Yes by God,’ he replied,’it is the
first defeat god has brought on the infidel, and I would rather see them
Slaughtered than left alive.’
The above quote, if anything, tells us
what Sa’d’s judgement against Bani Qurayza would be. Sa’ds vision is
clear: The one who rejects Islam or Muhammad must be put to death.
Sa’d was a born killer with very strong
loyalty to Muhammad. He was also badly wounded in the Battle of the
Trench, from which he soon died. So, he was not going to be sympathetic
to Bani Qurayza, who rejected the prophet. He would kill you or me in an
instant if Muhammad just says the word. Such was Sa’d Bin Mu’ad. My
suspicion is that he also knew what Muhammad desired to do with Bani
Qurayza. He was very close to Muhammad. In fact history tells us that
the prophet put up a tent in the mosque for Sa’d so he could personally
take care of him and his (Sa’d’s) wound. As one would expect, Sa’d’s
judgment was what Muhammad wanted:
Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:
When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sa’d who was near to him. Sa’d came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sa’d came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sa’d 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."
It is interesting to note, here,
Muhammad’s statement - that Sa’d’s judgment is Allah’s (God’s!). The
fact of the matter is that whatever Muhammad wanted, became Allah’s and
vice versa. So, the divine judgment has come and the crimes are almost
as good as done. Here is how Muhammad accomplished his evil genocide on
Bani Qurayza’s men. History tells us their numbers were between 600 and
900 men:
Bani Qurayza Genocide
During the night, trenches
sufficient to contain the dead bodies of the men were dug across the
market place of the city. In the morning, Mahomet, himself a spectator
of the tragedy, commanded that male captives to be brought forth in
companies of five or six at a time. Each company as it came up was made
to sit down in a row on the brink of the trench destined for its grave,
there beheaded, and the bodies cast therein. … The butchery, begun in
the morning, lasted all day, and continued by torchlight till the
evening. Having thus drenched the market place with the blood of seven
or eight hundred victims, and having given command for the earth to be
smoothed over their remains, Mahomet returned from the horrid spectacle
to solace himself with the charms of Rihana, whose husband and all her
male relatives had just perished in the massacre. [Source: W. Muir, The
Life of Muhammad, (Edinburg 1923, Pages 307-8)].
One wonders what kind of a beast would
do such an evil act, then thinks about sex. Rihana was a woman whose
husband and all adult male relatives had just been killed by Muhammad.
Yet, this did not prevent Muhammad from raping her. The Sirat book
quoted earlier says that Muhammad “had proposed to marry her”. Her
answer was in the negative. She rightfully showed repugnance towards
Islam and clung to Judaism.(page 466)
History tells us that Rayhana stayed
with Muhammad as his concubine until his death. She refused his offer to
marry her. I plan to write an article in the near future on Muhammad
being a despicable rapist. The above is one of the pieces of evidence I
plan to use to show that Muhammad was a rapist. Those Muslims who will
deny this accusation will have to show that when someone kills a woman’s
husband and all of her adult male relatives, that woman is more than
willing to have consensual sex with the murderer right away.
Moving along ..
As one of the Bani Qurayza women sees
the spectacle taking place in the today’s medina market, she becomes
hysterical and delirious. Muhammad’s Sahaba take care of her the best
way they know how:
Abu Dawud: Book 14, Number 2665:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I. I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.
Hassan bin Thabet; a medinan Muslim poet writes an imagery about the day of the Qurayza genocide (Sirat, p.480):
Qurayza met their misfortune
And in humiliation found no helper.
A calamity worse than that which fell B. al-Nadir befell them
The day that God’s apostle came to them like a brilliant moon,
When fresh horses bearing horsemen like hawks.
We left them with the blood upon them like a pool
They having accomplished nothing.
They lay prostrate with vultures circling round them.
Thus are the obstinate and impious rewarded.
Such are the acts of the prophet of
Islam and his Sahaba. Those are the people who are supposed to be an
example of conduct to all mankind!
The genocide of Bani Qurayza was for the men. Any male who had grown pubic hair was killed:
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.
The rest of the tribe’s members (the
women and children) were enslaved. The tribes’ belongings went to
Muhammad and the rest of the criminals. Muhammad’s economic situation
improved tremendously after this massive act of evil:
Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 53, Number 357:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
People used to give some of their date palms to the Prophet (as a gift), till he conquered Bani Quraiza and Bani An-Nadir, whereupon he started returning their favors.
People used to give some of their date palms to the Prophet (as a gift), till he conquered Bani Quraiza and Bani An-Nadir, whereupon he started returning their favors.
Can there be a sufficient apologetic defense to this massacre?
Islam has its apologetics. If Muhammad’s
crime is assassinating a woman, or an old man, they can create a
scenario to make it plausible that Muhammad may have been justified in
what he did. I studied many of Muhammad’s assassinations and published
many articles about that. There are a lot of Muslim apologetics on the
web who try to defend Muhammad and the early Muslims. None, of what I
have seen on the web, in my view, made a successful defense of Muhammad
and Islam.
Bani Qurayza genocide was done on a
massive scale. So, the Muslim apologetic cannot, in principle cannot,
defend Muhammad and the early Muslims. You see, we are not talking about
one person here. Let’s say the Qurayza men who were beheaded were 700
men. That is 700 hundred crimes committed by Muhammad. Seven hundred
purposeful killings. Can any decent human beings see that a defense of
Muhammad’s crimes in this instance even remotely plausible? Muslim
apologetics really have no shame. You can find their writings on the web
defending Muhammad and the early Muslims on the Bani Qurayza story too.
There are actually Multiple crimes
committed in this story. There are seven hundred plus killings. There is
the beheading of the Qurayza woman crime. There are the crimes of
taking the belongings of Bani Qurayza. There are the crimes of rapes
that the Muslim men inflected on the Qurayza women. Also, Authentic
Hadith tells us that Muhammad sent a group of Qurayza women to Yemen.
They were sold in order that the Muslims buy weapons. So, there are the
crimes of putting all those women into slavery:
Then the apostle sent Sa’d b. Zayd
al-Ansari brother of b.’Abduk-Ashhal with some of the captive women of
B. Qurayza to najd and he sold them for horses and weapons
[Source: W. Muir, The Life of Muhammad, (Edinburg 1923, p.466)].
There are many crimes committed here.
Muslim apologetics do not have a shame when they try to defend Muhammad
in the Qurayza events. There is really no sufficient defense. I am not
saying that to condemn Muhammad and the Muslims and not allow the Muslim
apologetics to have their say. It is not like that at all. How can
anyone justify seven hundred plus homicides? A favorite of Muslims
apologetics is that some of the Qurayza leaders conspired against
Muhammad during the battle of the trench. This matter is not clear at
all in the historical sources. But, let us for a moment say that some of
the Qurayza leaders did conspire against Muhammad. Is that a sufficient
reason to annihilate the whole tribe? There were kids who were twelve
or thirteen years old who got beheaded that day just because they had
grown some pubic hair. How can any decent human being defend the Muslims
and Muhammad when it comes to beheading such young lads who had not yet
understood the nature of life to start with? I discuss some specifics
of the Muslim apologetics responses in the second part of this study.
It is not enough for the Muslim
apologetic to say that Bani Qurayza were guilty, or that they were
judged by their Torah. Here we have a large number of people beheaded in
one day. The problem is most of them, if not all, are innocent.
Completely innocent! There is, in principle, no justification, for what
Muhammad and his followers did. This is why I affirm in this article,
that Muslim apologetics have no shame in defending Muhammad and the
Muslims when it comes to the genocide of Bani Qurayza.
Muslim apologetics
There are current-day Muslim apologetics
who deny that the Qurayza massacre ever took place, or if it ever
happened, it was only the “treacherous” leaders of Bani Qurayza who were
beheaded. The rest of the tribe survived. Such an apologetic defense is
worthless in my view. Authentic Islamic sources of Hadith, Sirat, and
Qur’an testify to the contrary. Hence, I will not include such a defense
in this current treatment.
In this part, which I may expand to
include other Islamist apologetics, I discuss some of what Bassam Zawadi
wrote regarding the Bani Qurayza massacre
a) Bassam Zawadi
Writing in defense of the claim that not all the Qurayza folks were executed, Mr. Zawadi says:
At that time, anyone who reached the
age of puberty was eligible to fight and was thus considered to be a
warrior and they were only ordered to be executed if they fought against
the Muslims. I already showed that the ones who stuck to the treaty
were spared.
Zawadi’s above claim is bogus and cannot
be substantiated. There is no record in Islamic sources telling that
only the ones, of Bani Qurayza, who fought the Muslims were killed. In
fact, according to his criterion all of the Bani Qurayza men should have
survived. None of them fought the Muslims. In fact, Muhammad is the
aggressor. He is the one who attacked them and laid siege to them.
Zawadi continues:
However, I personally believe that
all able-bodied men were executed, for it would have been possible for
the Bani Qurayda men to surrender their leaders over to the Muslims. IF
they weren't able to do so then they could have at least escaped the
fortress and joined the Muslim side in order to abide by the peace
treaty. 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
Zawadi continues to say that Bani Qurayza were dealt with according to the tenets of their own holy book; the Torah:
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. 13When 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 (Deuteronomy
20:10-12)
The above is actually a misquote of the
old testament. The old testament command was meant for a certain
situation, and not as a general rule. Zawadi wants to justify the
annihilation of an entire tribe. He uses the Bible for justification. He
uses the argument that the leaders of the Bani Qurayza were treacherous
and sided with the Meccans. All of this is well and good except for the
“Pudding”. A well-known English saying is “the proof is in the
pudding”. The fact of the matter is that Meccans did not go through the
Bani Qurayza quarter to attack the Muslims. This fact shows that there
was no treachery on the Qurayza part. And, even if some of their leaders
were treacherous, they were not treacherous enough to abandon their
protection agreement with the Muslims.
While historial narrations are lacking
regarding this matter, we know for sure that the Muslims were not
attacked during the Meccan trench siege to Medina through the Bani
Qurayza controlled zone.
The conclusion that Zawadi draws regarding Bani Qurayza is very telling of his train of thought (numbers added are mine):
1 To most people it could appear
that the punishment that the Jews faced was too extreme. However, on the
contrary what was more extreme is how the Jews deceptively tricked the
Muslims by breaking the treaty and wanted to end their very existence.
For such treachery they indeed deserved what they got. 2 If any
Christian wants to condemn this judgment then he is actually condemning
his own Bible because it was by a law found in their Bible which the
Jews were judged by. 3 Plus it was not Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him) who issued the order; it was Saad bin Muadh whom the Jews selected
to judge their fate.
4 The Muslims needed to make
examples out of these people. You can't expect the Muslims to go and
forgive those who fight against them. That would just encourage more
people to go and fight against the Muslims. If you think about it, the
Muslims resorted to such extreme measures only when it was necessary and
not for revenge. It was necessary to show everyone that you cannot go
and mess with Muslims by fighting against them. The Prophet (peace be
upon him) was in charge of the security of his people. If he went on
forgiving anyone who attacked them, then this would only encourage
people to fight against the Muslims, since they would think that even if
they lose the Muslims will simply forgive them.
1. According to Zawadi it was more
extreme to break a treaty with the Muslims (a matter that has not been
substantiated by historical narrations), than annihilating 800 adult
men. And who says Muslim apologetics do not have a sense of humor!
2. Condemning what happened to Bani
Qurayza amounts to condemning the biblical teachings (mainly the Old
Testament injunction that I quoted earlier). I am reiterating myself
here: the Old Testament injunction here was a special case in history.
It was not to give a blank check to the Jews to do whatever they feel is
needed during war times.
3. True, it was Sa’d Bin Mu’adh who
made the call. However, this was Muhammad’s plan all along. Sa’d was a
decoy for Muhammad as evidenced by Muhammad’s reaction when Sa’d
pronounced the judgement. Muhammad Said, “O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah.”
4. We do expect Muhammad to be a
forgiving person. Even if there were few treacherous leaders in Bani
Qurayza (a matter in great dispute in history), why annihilate the whole
tribe?
A Look To The Future
Muhammad and the Muslims took over the
Arabian Peninsula and spread beyond. So, Bani Qurayza victims have not
been vindicated or honored in any way. I plan to write about Bani
Qurayza every now and then just to honor them and remind myself and
others of them. Humanity needs to remember them too. Humanity needs to
honor them. Saudi Arabia is still ruled by Islam; a sixth century
barbaric religion. However, I look to a day when Saudi Arabia comes to
realize how evil Islam is and was. I look to a day when a large shrine
is built in the Medina market where Bani Qurayza men were killed. In
that shrine, there will be lists of names of those who perished that
day, and some of their stories and poetry that was preserved. People
from all over the globe will go there just to visit that shrine, pay
tribute and respect and honor those victims and say: Never again we will
allow a thug and his bandits do such an evil act against a group of
people as was done to Bani Qurayza.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment