Bani Qurayza: Details of the Islamic Genocide of the Jews by Prophet Muhammad
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: the 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 declined 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 their
coexistence, as well as for mutual support in conflict situations.
During the Qainuqa incident, Abdullah Bin Ubayy’s Khazraj tribe was an
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 still 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 Medina, 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’s refusal to embrace Islam, Muhammad and his
community became 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 realizing 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 tribe 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 the raiding and plundering of 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 group of men
can do. It is important for us to remember that even if the Qurayza
tribe conspired against the Muslims, they never attacked or harmed any
of them. 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 off. 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
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:
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:
Sunan Abu Dawud: Book #38, Hadith #4390
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.
Can there be a sufficient apologetic defense to this massacre?
Islam has its
apologists. 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 apologists 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 apologist 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 being
see that a defense of Muhammad’s crimes in this instance even remotely
plausible? Muslim apologists 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 apologists do not have a shame when they
try to defend Muhammad on 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 apologists to have their say. It is not
like that at all. How can anyone justify seven hundred plus homicides? A
favorite of Muslims apologists 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 apologists responses in a later
part of this study.
It is not enough
for the Muslim apologist 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 apologistss have no shame in defending Muhammad and
the Muslims when it comes to the genocide of Bani Qurayza.
Muslim apologists
There are
current-day Muslim apologists 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.
II
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.
Source: http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_execution_of_the_jews_at_bani_quraydah
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 apologists 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 toward 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
seventh 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