Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54

Thread: Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

  1. #1
    Ansar Al-Haq
    Guest

    Default Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

    Quote Originally Posted by hawk
    And to my mind God never asked any prophet to kill good people.
    Now there was nothing bad about a whole bunch of Jewish tribes that Prophet Mohammed decided to fight.
    These were good people, yet they were made war upon.
    This is a major misconception that needs to be clarified.


    Below is the text from 'THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD' by Muhammad Husayn Haykal, translated by Ismail Ragi A. al Faruqi. It gives us the true picture of what was happening in Madina between the non-Muslims (Jews, associationist, Pagans, Hypocrites) and Muslims, after the victory of the Battle of Badr. The text below answers ALL the killings that happened in the history of Madina:


    "The murder of Ka'b increased the fears of the Jews to the point that not one of them felt secure. Nonetheless, they continued to attack Muhammad and the Muslims and incite the people to war. A desert woman came one day to the Jews' market in the quarter of Banu Qaynuqa seeking to remodel some jewelry at one of their shops. They persistently asked her to remove her veil, but the woman refused. Passing behind her without her knowledge, one of them tacked he robe with a pin to the wall. When the woman got up to leave, the robe was pulled down and her nakedness exposed. The Jews laughed and the woman cried. Seeing what happened a Muslim passerby jumped upon the shopkeeper and killed him on the spot. The Jews gathered around the Muslim and likewise killed him. The Muslim's relatives called for help against the Jews and a general fight between them and the Banu Qaynuqa erupted. Muhammad first asked the Jews to stop their attacks and keep the covenant of mutual peace and security or suffer the kind of treatment meted out to the Quraysh. They ridiculed his request saying: 'O Muhammad! Fall not under the illusion that you are invincible. The people with whom you have fought were inexperienced. By God, if you were to turn your arm against us, you will find us adept in the art of war.' After this, little option was left to the Muslims but to fight the Jews. Otherwise, Islam would suffer political deterioration, and the Muslims would become the ridicule of Quraysh when they had just succeeded in making the Quraysh the ridicule of Arabia." pages 244 / 245.


    Who were the Jews of Medina?
    *
    At the time of the Prophet there were Jews living inside and around Medina. The tribes we are going to discuss and of whom*Mr Sina has totally wrong information are the Bani-Kainuka, Bani-Nazir and Bani-Kureizha.
    *
    The Jewish scholars of Arabia, and the Jews in general, before the Prophet became famous as the 'new prophet' were waiting for that savior of humanity which was clearly mentioned in their scriptures. Being people of the book which the pagan Arabs were not, they were certain the prophet would arise from amongst themselves. In that regard, they thought of themselves as being superior to the other Arabs.
    **
    But to their dismay instead of one of their own people, the Prophet claimed prophethood and started growing popular everyday. So much so that he came to Medina as the leader of the local Medinite tribes of Aus and Khazraj. The Aus and Khazraj (forgetting their feuds) rallied around him and accepted him as their prophet along with his followers. In order to unite the Ansar and the Muhajirin (Emigrants) the Prophet established a brotherhood between them, which linked them together in sorrow and in happiness. Yathrib (old name of Medina) changed its ancient name, and was styled Medinat un-Nabi or the " City of the Prophet ". All this happened with the Jews of Medina watching this new prophet steal away what they thought should have been their honour and glory.
    **
    The ill feeling of animosity grew with every success the Prophet had with the people of Medina, more so because of the Muslim victory of Badr which in a way legitimized and made famous his prophethood throughout Arabia.
    *
    The famous pact of Medina and its terms
    *
    On the arrival of the Prophet at Medina they had joined with the Muslims in a half-hearted welcome to the Prophet. The Prophet upon his arrival joined the heterogeneous and conflicting elements of the city and its suburbs through a Charter by which the rights and obligations of the Muslims and of the Muslims and Jews were clearly defined. The Jews because of the irresistible character of the brotherly movement had gladly accepted the pact.
    *
    This pact was officially made between the tribes living in Medina. The Jews of Bani-Kainuka Ban-Kuraizha and Bani-Nadir gladly accepted all the terms. This famous pact proceeds as follows:
    *
    "The state of peace and war shall be common to all Muslims ; no one among them shall have the right of concluding peace with, or declaring war against, the enemies of his co-religionists. The Jews who attach themselves to our commonwealth shall be protected from all insults and vexations ; they shall have an equal right with our own people to our assistance and good offices : the Jews of the various branches of 'Auf, Najjar, Harith, Jashm, Th'alaba, Aus, and all others domiciled in Yathrib (Medina), shall form with the Muslims one composite nation; they shall practise their religion as freely as the Muslims ; the clients and allies of the Jews shall enjoy the same security and freedom ; the guilty shall be pursued and punished ; the Jews shall join the Muslims in defending Yathrib against all enemies ; the interior of Yathrib shall be a sacred place for all who accept this Charter ; the clients and allies of the Muslims and the Jews shall be respected as the patrons ....."
    *
    This pact was concluded with the terms:
    *
    " All future disputes between those who accept this Charter shall be referred, under God, to the Prophet. "
    *
    Hostility of the Jews

    No kindness or generosity, however, on the part of the Prophet would satisfy the Jews ; nothing could conciliate the bitter feelings with which they were animated. Enraged by the Prophet's tremendous success they soon broke off (secretly) , and ranged themselves on the side of the enemies of the 'new' Faith. They reviled the Prophet ; they twisted their tongues and mis-pronounced the Quranic words and the daily prayers and formulae of Islam, rendering them meaningless, absurd, or blasphemous; and the Jewish poets and poetesses, of whom there existed many at the time, outraged all common decency and the recognised code of Arab honour and chivalry by lampooning in obscene verse the Muslim women. But there were minor offences. Not satisfied with insulting the Muslim women and reviling the Prophet, they sent out emissaries to the enemies of the State, the protection of which they had formally accepted.
    *
    Success is always one of the greatest criterions of truth. Even in the Early days of Christianity, the good Pharisee said, " Let them alone; if these men be false, they will come to naught, or else you yourselves shall perish. "
    *
    The fact that Islam survived against all odds in Its early years is indeed a miracle and a proof of its truth. Hostility was shown to Muslims from the whole of Arabia, as has always been the custom of humanity when dealing with a new faith. The Muslims small in number were supported by none but themselves during their early years in Medina. The Meccans were plotting against them and had the support of many other tribes of Arabia all of whom were determined to wipe this new faith off the face of the Earth. The animosity and hatred of the Meccans and other tribes of Arabia in general resulted in numerous battles between themselves and the Muslims. Each and every single day was a new trial for the Muslims.. At times the anxiousness of the Muslims rose to such an extent that it was mentioned in the Quran. One example is the battle of Ahzab when the Jews of Bani Kureizha being the inhabitants of Medina having a few fortresses in the rear joined the Meccans and thousands of other tribesman when they surrounded Medina. The Muslims were put to a tremendous trial which is mentioned in the Quran:
    *
    "When they assailed you from above you and from below you, and when your eyes became distracted, and your hearts came up into your throats, and ye thought divers thoughts of God, then were the Faithful tried, and with strong quaking did they quake ; and when the disaffected and diseased of heart said, "God and His Apostle have made us but a cheating promise." (Quran, Surah Al-Ahzab)
    What happened to Bani-Kanika, Qureizha and Bani-Nadir? (The Authentic Version)
    *
    I call this version Authentic and Historical because it is accepted by all historians. The term 'historians' refers to actual learned people who wrote and witnessed history or students who have undergone years of study of not only the different accounts but also of the people who presented these accounts. They do not include the religious or anti-religious controversialists. The fate of the above mentioned three tribes of Median is agreed upon by non-Muslims and Muslim historians except for a few minor variations which will be pointed out. I urge anyone seriously looking for the true versions to verify these accounts through books of renowned modern non-Muslim scholars and then take from the 'majority' view. This version here has been scrutinised by Orientalists and is in agreement with their view point.
    *
    The fate of Bani-Kainuka
    *
    We must keep in mind that before the affair of Bani-Kainuka took place the hostility of the Jews of Medina had reached its pinnacle. The Muslims had just defeated and humiliated the Meccans although being out numbered three to one in the battle of Badr. This tremendous success fired the hatred the Jews felt for the Muslims. They now openly showed their hostility of the Muslims and would not waste any opportunity to support anyone planning against them. Although they had not openly taken up arms against them they were so hostile towards the Muslims that it was just a matter of time when a major feud would erupt between them. The incident which took place at that point left the Prophet with only two choices, either to let the Bani-Kainuka stay and eventually fight them in a major battle in Medina or banish them. We shall see now what happened...
    *
    Whilst the other Jewish tribes were chiefly agricultural, the Banu-Kainuka hardly possessed a single field or date plantation. There were for the most part artisans employed in handicraft of all kinds. Seditious and unruly, always ready for a broil the Banu-Kainuka especially were also noted for the extreme laxity of their morals. One day a young girl from the country came to their bazaar or market (Suk) to sell milk. The Jewish youths insulted her grossly. A Muslim passer-by took the part of the girl, and in the fraw which ensued the author of the outrage was killed; whereupon the entire body of the Jews present rose and slaughtered the Muslim. A wild scene then followed. The Muslims, enraged at the murder of their compatriot, flew to arms, blood flowed fast, and many were killed on both sides. At the first news of the riots, Mohammed (pbuh) hastened to the spot, and, by his presence, succeeded in restraining the fury of his followers. He at once perceived what the end would be of these seditions and disorders ( practiced by the Jews for so long) if allowed to take their course. Medina would be turned into an amphitheatre, in which members of hostile factions might murder one another with impunity. It was necessary to at once put a stop to this or fight the Jews openly. The Prophet (pbuh) therefore ordered the Bani-Kainuka to vacate Medina. The reply of the Jews was couched in the most offensive terms which also depicted the jealously they had in their hearts of the Muslims' victory at Badr:
    *
    "O, Mohammed, do not be elated with the victory over your people (the Koreish). Thou hast had an affair with men ignorant of the art of war. If though art desirous of having any dealings with us, we shall show thee that we are men."
    *
    *All historians agree to this reply with the exception of Gibbon who for unknown reasons has narrated an excessively meek reply.
    *
    They then shut themselves up in their fortress, and set Mohammed's authority at defiance. A siege was accordingly laid to their stronghold. After fifteen days they surrendered. It must be kept in mind that they surrendered 'after' an open war was declared between the Muslims and the Jews and having surrendered they were at the mercy of the Muslims to do with them as they pleased. There were still simply banished which had initially been demanded of them.
    *
    The fate of Bani-Nazir
    *
    The expulsion of Bani-Kainuka made the already bitter taste in the mouth of the Jews even more bitter. This bitter feeling of animosity reached such an extent that plans were made to execute the Prophet (pbuh) just as he had ordered the killing of their two traitors (mentioned earlier). They therefore waited for an opportunity for Mohammed (pbuh) to come into their midst. The background of what happened is as follows:
    *
    The Muslims suffered considerable losses in the Battle of Ohod. The moral effect this disastrous battle was at once visible in the forays which the neighboring nomads prepared to make on the Medinite territories. Most of them, however, were repressed by the energetic action of Mohammed, though some of the hostile tribes succeeded in enticing in enticing Muslim missionaries into their midst, under the pretence of embracing Islam, and then massacred them. On one such occasion seventy Muslims were treacherously murdered near a brook called Bir-Ma'uana, within the territories of two tribes, the Bani-Amir and the Bani-Sulaim, chiefly through the instrumentality of the latter. One of the two survivors of the slaughter escaped towards Medina. Meeting on the way two unarmed Arabs belonging to the Bani-Amir who were traveling under a safe-conduct of the Prophet (pbuh) ,and mistaking them for enemies, he killed them. When the Prophet(pbuh) heard of this he was deeply grieved. A wrong had been committed by one of his followers, though under a mistake, and the relatives of the men that were killed were entitled to redress. Accordingly orders were issued for collecting the diyat(blood money) from Muslims and the people who ad accepted the Charter. The Jewish tribes of Bani un-Zair , the Kuraizha, and others were bound equally with the Muslims to contribute towards this payment.
    *
    *W. Muir and Sprenger have garbled this part of the affair. W. Muir does not find any authority for MC. de Perceval's saying, that the Jews were bound by treaty to contribute towards the Diyat. However if he had referred to Tabari he would have seen the relevant statements.
    *
    Murderous plan failed
    *
    The Prophet himself, accompanied by a few disciples, proceeded to the Bani un_Nazir, and asked from them their contribution. The Banu-Nazir were already waiting for a favorable opportunity to rud themselves of the Prophet and therefore looked upon his arrival as providential. . They seemingly agreed to the demand, and requested him to wait a while. Whilst sitting with his back to the wall of a house, he observed sinister movements amongst the inhabitants, which led him to divine their intention of murdering him. He immediately left the place immediately and thus saved himself and his disciples.
    *
    The Bani - Nazir could not be trusted again. On his arrival Mohammed sent them a message of the same import as that which was sent to Kainuka. Relying on the support of the Munafikun, Abdullah Bin Ubbay and his supporters, the Bani Nazir returned a defiant answer. Disappointed, however, in the promised assistance of Abdullah, and of their brethren, the Bani-Kureizha, after a siege of fifteen days they sued for terms. Again, no additional penalty was inflicted on them after surrendering and only the previous offer was renewed and they agreed to evacuate their territories.
    *
    The fate of Bani-Kuraizha
    *
    Mr Sina has criticized the sentence carried out on the Bani-Kureizha the most. We shall however take a look at what really happened and then see what historians had to say about the event.
    *
    The Invasion of Medina by a strong Army of Ten Thousand well-appointed men:
    *
    While all the abovementioned affairs were being dealt with the enemies of Medinites i.e. the Meccans and other Arabian tribes were by no means idle. Far and wide they had sent their emissaries to stir up the tribes against the Muslims. The Jews were the most active in these efforts. Some of the Bani-Nazir had remained behind with their brethren settled near Khaibar, and there, fired with the hope of vengeance, had set themselves to the work of forming another league for the destruction of the Muslims. Their efforts were successful beyond their utmost hopes. A formidable coalition was soon formed ; and an army, consisting of then thousand well-appointed men, marched upon Medina, under the command of the relentless Abu Sufian (Leader of Mecca).
    *
    Meeting no opposition on their way, they soon encamped within a few miles of Medina, on its most vulnerable side, towards Ohod. To oppose his host the Muslims could only muster a body of three thousand men. Forced thus by their inferiority in numbers, as well as by the factious opposition of the Munafikun (hypocritical allies) within the city, to remain on the defensive, they dug a deep trench round the unprotected quarters of medina, and, leaving their women and children for safety in their fortified houses, they encamped outside the city, with the moat in front of them.
    *
    Call to Bani-Kuraizha to fulfill the pact and their traitorous answer
    *
    In the meantime the Muslims relied for safety of the other side, if not upon the active assistance ( which also they were bound to give according to the pact ), at least upon the neutrality of the Bani- Kuraizha, who possessed several fortresses at a short distance, towards the south-east, and were bound by the Compact to assisted the Muslims against every assailant. These Jews however were persuaded by the idolaters to violate their pledged faith, and to join the Koreish. As soon as the news of their defection reached Mohammed, he deputed Saad Ibn Muad and Saad Ibn Ubada, to entreat them to return to their duty. The reply was defiant and sullen:
    *
    "Who is Mohammed, and who is the Apostle of God that we should obey him? There is no bond or compact between us and him!".
    *
    As these Jews were well acquainted with the locality, and could materially assist the besiegers by showing them the weak points of the city, the consternation among the Muslims became great, whilst the disaffected body within the walls increased the elements of danger.
    *
    The Meccans eventually Flee
    *
    The Meccans and the Jews failing in all their attempts to draw the Muslims into the open field, or to surprise the city under the direction of the Jewish guides, determined upon a regular assault. The siege had already lasted twenty days. the restless tribes of the desert, who had made common cause with the Koreish and their Jewish allies, and who had expected an easy prey, were becoming weary of this protracted campaign. Great efforts were made at this critical moment by the leaders of the beleaguering host to cross the trench and fall upon the small Muslim force. Every attempt was, however, repulsed by untiring vigilance on part of the Prophet. The elements now seemed to combine against the besieging army; their horses were perishing fast, and provisions were becoming scanty. Disunion was rife in their midst, and the far-seeing Prophet with matchless prudence, fomented it into actual division. Suddenly this vast coalition, which had seemed to menace the Muslims with inevitable destruction, vanished into thin air. In the darkness of night, amidst a sort of wind and rain, their tents overthrown, their lights put out, Abu Sufian and the majority of this formidable army fled, the rest took refuge with the Bani- Kureizha.
    *
    The Siege of Bani-Kureizha
    *
    Now came the affair of the Bani- Kureizha. The victory in the opinion of the Muslims was hardly achieved as long as the Bani-Kureizha remained so near, and in such dangerous proximity to Medina. They had proved themselves traitors in spite of their sworn alliance, and had at one time almost surprised medina from their side, an even which, if successful, would have involved the general massacre of the Muslims. The Jews were therefore besieged and compelled to surrender in discretion.
    *
    The condition for Surrender put forward by Bani-Kureizha
    *
    The Jews made only one condition, that their punishment should be left to the judgment of the Ausite (Of the tribe of Aus) chief, Sa'd Ibn Muaz. This man, a fierce soldier who had been wounded in the attack, and indeed died from his wounds the next day, infuriated by their treacherous conduct, gave the sentence that the "fighting men" should be put to death, and that the women and children should become the slaves of the Muslims ; and this sentence was carried into execution.
    *
    "It was a harsh, bloody sentence, " says Lane-Poole, "worthy of the Episcopal generals of the army against the Albigenses, or of the deeds of the Augustan age of Puritanism ; but it must be remembered that the crime of these men was high treason against the State during a time of siege ; and those who have read how Wellington's march could be traced by bodies of deserters and pillagers hanging from the trees , need not be surprised at the summary execution of a traitorous clan."
    *
    These traitorous Jews brought their fate upon themselves. If they had been put to death, even without the judgment of Sa'd, it would have been in consonance with the principles which then prevailed. But they themselves had chosen Sa'd as the sole arbiter and judge of their fate ; they knew that his judgment was not at all contrary to the received notions and accordingly never murdered. They knew that if they had succeeded they would have massacred their enemies without compunction.
    *
    People judge the massacres of King David according to the "lights of his time". Even the fearful slaughters committed by the Christians in primitive times are judge according to the certain "lights". Why should not the defensive wars of the early Muslims be looked at from the same standpoint? But whatever the point of view, an unprejudiced mind will perceive that no blame can possibly attach to the Prophet in the execution of the Bani-Kureizha.
    *
    How many were executed?
    *
    The majority of historians agree the number of men executed could not have been more than 200 or 250.
    Some of the important facts that need to be kept in mind while passing any judgments about the killing of the Banu Qurayzah are as follows[1]:




    After the Prophet's migration to Medinah, the Banu Qurayzah, with the other Jewish tribes of the locality, became a party to the Medinah declaration, according to which, these Jewish tribes and the Muslim state of Medinah were to act as alliances against any foreign attacks. According to this declaration, the Jews were allowed complete religious freedom and were granted protection of life and wealth as long as they honored the declaration;



    Previously, the Banu Qurayzah were given a lesser status than the other Jewish tribe - the Banu Nadheer - which is evident from the fact that the blood money that they were granted, if any of their tribesman was killed by Banu Nadheer was half that of what was granted to Banu Nadheer. The Prophet (pbuh) corrected this injustice and granted the Banu Qurayzah the same political status as that of Banu Nadheer. (Abu Dawood, Kitaab al-Diyyaat, Baab al-Nafs bi al-Nafs, Hadith No. 3896);



    The Jewish tribes did not honor their part of the Medinah declaration and on the instigation of the Qureish broke the agreement. At this the Banu Nadheer were sent into exile; while the Banu Qurayzah asked forgiveness and requested a renewal of the agreement, to which the Prophet (pbuh) agreed and allowed them another chance (Muslim, Kitaab al-Jihaad wa al-Siyar, Baab Ijlaa al-Yahood min al-Hijaaz, Hadith No. 3312);



    Even after all this, the Banu Qurayzah joined the alliance that was gathered by the Qureish against the Muslims.



    It was in this background that immediately after the confrontation with the confederates (Ahzaab), the Prophet (pbuh) decided to take the Banu Qurayzah to task. Even then, had the Banu Qurayzah sought forgiveness for their betrayal, the Prophet (pbuh) may have given them respite, as he did so in the past. Nevertheless, the Banu Qurayzah had decided to fight the Muslims. This was evident from the fact that when Ali (ra) reached their fort, they openly abused the Prophet (pbuh)[2]. The Muslims kept the forts of Banu Qurayzah under siege for about one month. Ultimately, the Banu Qurayzah requested the arbitration of Sa`d Ibn Mu`aaz (ra) - one of the leaders of the tribe of Aws - a traditional ally of the Banu Qurayzah[3] and promised that they would accept whatever Sa`d ibn Mu`aaz decided for them. Later on, Sa`d decided that all those among the Banu Qurayzah, who could fight be killed, while all their women and children be taken as slaves and all their wealth and property be confiscated and distributed among the Muslims. Subsequently, the sentence pronounced by Sa`d was implemented by the Muslims.


    It should be clear from the facts given above that in the light of their behavior preceding the judgment the Banu Qurayzah deserved a very strict punishment. Furthermore, it is also clear that the punishment was not decided by the Prophet (pbuh), but was actually decided by a person, who was appointed as arbitrator, by the Banu Qurayzah, themselves.


    However, one may still be of the opinion that the Prophet (pbuh) should have softened the punishment, even if it was pronounced by an arbitrator, who was appointed by the Banu Qurayzah themselves. On the contrary, the Prophet (pbuh) not only upheld and implemented the decision pronounced by the arbitrator, but also commended it as: 'in accordance with God's law'.


    To fully understand why the Prophet (pbuh) did not soften or alter the sentence pronounced by Sa`d ibn Mu`aaz, we should keep in mind that Banu Qurayzah were actually Jews, who were subject to the laws of the Torah. Deuteronomy 20: 10 - 14 says:



    When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.



    It was in accordance with this law that Moses (pbuh) ordered the killing of all the men of Midian and taking all their women and children as captives. Numbers 31: 7 - 11 read as:



    They did battle against Midian, as the LORD had commanded Moses, and killed every male... The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive; and they took all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods as booty. All their towns where they had settled, and all their encampments, they burned, but they took all the spoil and all the booty, both people and animals.



    Obviously, on reciprocal basis, the Israelites themselves were subject to the same divine law. Thus, Sa`d Ibn Mu`aaz pronounced his judgment according to this law, upon which, the Prophet (pbuh) declared that his decision was 'in accordance with God's law'.* Furthermore, because of this particular nature and basis of the judgment, the Prophet (pbuh) neither had the right nor the authority to alter it.


    Because Sa`d ibn Mu`aaz's decision was in accordance with the directives of the Torah, which the Jews accepted to be divine and were, therefore, subject to, the Prophet (pbuh) did not alter the decision. It was, in fact, because of this background of the judgment that when Hayee ibn Akhtab - one of the Jewish leaders - was brought to the place where he was to be killed, he looked at the Prophet (pbuh) and said:





    By God, I have no regrets in opposing you, but the fact is that whoever tries to deceive God, is Himself, ultimately, deceived.



    Then he turned toward his people and said:





    People, there is no harm in the implementation of God's laws. This was a directive of God, it was decided, it is a punishment, which God had prescribed for the Israelites.



    Thus, the Banu Qurayzah were, in fact, slaughtered by the sword of the Torah - the book, which they, themselves, held to be divine.


    I hope this helps.
    If other members have good points to raise, I encourage them to do so.

    Salaam

  2. #2
    Al Abd Al Jabar hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-Haq
    Now came the affair of the Bani- Kureizha. The victory in the opinion of the Muslims was hardly achieved as long as the Bani-Kureizha remained so near, and in such dangerous proximity to Medina. They had proved themselves traitors in spite of their sworn alliance, and had at one time almost surprised medina from their side, an event which, if successful, would have involved the general massacre of the Muslims. The Jews were therefore besieged and compelled to surrender in discretion.
    We call this a pre-emptive war.

    The pretexts to go to war seem thin to me, but then I am not Muslim, so I might not understand it.

  3. #3
    Al Abd Al Jabar hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-Haq
    To fully understand why the Prophet (pbuh) did not soften or alter the sentence pronounced by Sa`d ibn Mu`aaz, we should keep in mind that Banu Qurayzah were actually Jews, who were subject to the laws of the Torah. Deuteronomy 20: 10 - 14 says:



    When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.



    It was in accordance with this law that Moses (pbuh) ordered the killing of all the men of Midian and taking all their women and children as captives. Numbers 31: 7 - 11 read as:



    They did battle against Midian, as the LORD had commanded Moses, and killed every male... The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive; and they took all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods as booty. All their towns where they had settled, and all their encampments, they burned, but they took all the spoil and all the booty, both people and animals.



    Obviously, on reciprocal basis, the Israelites themselves were subject to the same divine law. Thus, Sa`d Ibn Mu`aaz pronounced his judgment according to this law, upon which, the Prophet (pbuh) declared that his decision was 'in accordance with God's law'.* Furthermore, because of this particular nature and basis of the judgment, the Prophet (pbuh) neither had the right nor the authority to alter
    This argument holds no water absolutely.

    The Lord told Moses that he was to do one more things before he died. God said that Moses was to lead the army of Israel against the Midianites to judge them for enticing Israel to commit immorality and worship idols

    You cant even begin to use the same example.

    The Jews of Medinah were in no way transgressors of the same nature.
    Obviously the Prophet had no knowledge of the laws of God, if he was advocating the same treatment on that basis.

  4. #4
    Ansar Al-Haq
    Guest

    Default Re: Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

    Quote Originally Posted by hawk
    Obviously the Prophet had no knowledge of the laws of God, if he was advocating the same treatment on that basis.
    What you are saying is that THE JEWS OF MADINAH had no knowledge of their own law, not the Prophet!

    It was they who agreed to the law of the Torah according to their interpretation.

    The Lord told Moses that he was to do one more things before he died. God said that Moses was to lead the army of Israel against the Midianites to judge them for enticing Israel to commit immorality and worship idols
    Please elaborate. I don't see how your example negates Mosaic Law.

    Peace

  5. #5
    Ansar Al-Haq
    Guest

    Default Re: Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

    Quote Originally Posted by hawk
    We call this a pre-emptive war.

    The pretexts to go to war seem thin to me, but then I am not Muslim, so I might not understand it.

    It is not a preemptive war. The Jews broke their covenant and betrayed the muslims. they openly declared war on the muslims by supporting the Quraysh army camped righton the muslims doorstep!

    If you say that it is a pre-emptive war that the jews started, you are absoloutely correct. They supported the invading armies, betrayed their allies, and attacked the women and children from behind.

    I suggest you examine historical accounts in more detail hawk.

  6. #6
    Al Abd Al Jabar hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-Haq
    What you are saying is that THE JEWS OF MADINAH had no knowledge of their own law, not the Prophet!

    It was they who agreed to the law of the Torah according to their interpretation.



    Please elaborate. I don't see how your example negates Mosaic Law.

    Peace

    The bottom line is that the midian example cannot be used.

    And obviously, the Prophet (who stands for God), should of been aware that it could not be used.

    Look at the context, on the one hand God says kill these people they are blaspheming against me, they are making idols, they are making false gods.

    And what is worse they are teaching this to Israel.

    On the other hand you have Prophet Mohammed who is killing these Jews, for what? nothing but opposing him.

    You do realise, that either the Prophet didnt know the law.

    OR

    He was willfully killing people with no pretext (or under wrong pretexts)

    Either way, he is not a Prophet of God.

  7. #7
    Al Abd Al Jabar hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-Haq
    It is not a preemptive war. The Jews broke their covenant and betrayed the muslims. they openly declared war on the muslims by supporting the Quraysh army camped righton the muslims doorstep!

    If you say that it is a pre-emptive war that the jews started, you are absoloutely correct. They supported the invading armies, betrayed their allies, and attacked the women and children from behind.

    I suggest you examine historical accounts in more detail hawk.
    I have checked out this account on non-muslim sites, there is absolutely no pretext for war.

    Instead I came across an explanation that suggests,
    that the muslims were restless, after the treaty with Mecca
    hence they wanted to attack.

    You have to ask yourself an important question at this point.
    What were the trades of the Muslims?
    They were refugees form Mecca, they didnt have land, they had little wealth.
    It had to come from raids, raids on pagan caravans.
    The jews of medinah couldnt care less about the Muslims raiding the Pagans.
    So the muslims must have been peeved as hell at the treaty with Mecca,
    So lets attack the jews at khaybar, it will placate the Muslims.

  8. #8
    (THOAT-wob-lur MAN-grove)
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hell on the Border
    Posts
    5,002

    Default Re: Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

    Those Jews were not merely opposing but persecuting--hence the Koran's rule that you are to fight against your persecutors but not instigate conflict. That's how it was throughout most of the Prophet's (P) life. Do the research.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    829

    Default Re: Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

    "Obviously the Prophet had no knowledge of the laws of God, if he was advocating the same treatment on that basis."

    You've not read the quote too carefully.

    1. The man chosen to be the arbiter was chosen by the Jewish tribe.

    2. The man chose laws from the "Old Testament", or the Jewish Scriptures.

    3. This is even acknowledged by the leader of the tribe who said (paraphrasing) 'this is God's Law and no one can deceive God'.

    4. The roles of the Prophet's Moses (p) and Muhammad (p) are very similar. Consider the following:
    a. Both were raised from a people who were descended from Abraham (p).
    b. Both were given a law.
    c. The law in both instances included laws pertaining to fighting in the way of God for his religion.
    d. The missionary periods of both men were manifestations of God's ultimate truth on earth -- hence people who fought them were actually fighting with God, Almighty, Himself.
    e. It is not for any reason that both were ultimately victorious in spreading the religion to their own people.

    "So the muslims must have been peeved as hell at the treaty with Mecca,
    So lets attack the jews at khaybar, it will placate the Muslims."

    A totally unfounded and unwarranted statement. Baseless.

  10. #10
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,830

    Default Re: Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

    The prophet muhammad ( peace be upon him ) tired every alternative to avert war. He attempted peace, every encounter that he face with these jews he invoked peace. Why? Because islam means peace and he is the prophet of islam. Thrity six treaties he made with these jews, everyone did not suit the muslims but suited the jews. Everyone against the muslims but for the jews. I will give you one point emphasis my point. The prophet muhammad and a few companions were looking over a contract with the jews, it was a peace treaty. Their were 15 points on the list, 15 against the muslims. Yet muhammad ( peace be upon him ) told ali ( radiallahhuanhu) to sign the contract muhammad rasulla (peace be upon him). He (peace be upon him) did not sign him self as he was unable to read and write. The jew negotiater turned in anger and said that if the signature was left as it was then that would mean the jews would agree that muhammad (peace be upon him) was rassulla (prophet of allah.) They commanded the signature be changed to simply muhammad ibn abdulla. Ali (radiallhuanhu) protested but muhammad (peace be upon him) stepped forward and licked his thumb, then smuged or erased the signature and ordered the signature be changed. This shows how hard muhammad ( peace be upon him ) srtived utmost for peace. But when peace failed war was inevitable and it was essential to protect the muslims and knock down any obstacles blocking islam.

  11. #11
    Al Abd Al Jabar hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

    Quote Originally Posted by razwan1979
    "Obviously the Prophet had no knowledge of the laws of God, if he was advocating the same treatment on that basis."

    You've not read the quote too carefully.

    1. The man chosen to be the arbiter was chosen by the Jewish tribe.

    2. The man chose laws from the "Old Testament", or the Jewish Scriptures.

    3. This is even acknowledged by the leader of the tribe who said (paraphrasing) 'this is God's Law and no one can deceive God'.
    You dont get my point.
    If the Prophet was indeed a Prophet of God, then he knew the law better than even the Jews.
    Therefore he should have known that the Midian law could not be applied to these people.
    So either he did something wrong according to Gods Law
    OR
    He didnt know Gods Law
    Eitherway the prophet is not a prophet.

    As an aside question look at the logical flow of the statements attributed to the jewish leader in question.
    He says
    "The punishment due to the Israelites!"
    but the Israelites are not the Midinites!
    He was trying to say something else. He wasnt agreeing with the punishment that the Prophet Mohammed decided on.

    I dont think this case holds water at all.
    Last edited by hawk; 1st January 2005 at 14:23.

  12. #12
    Al Abd Al Jabar hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hash
    The prophet muhammad ( peace be upon him ) tired every alternative to avert war. He attempted peace, every encounter that he face with these jews he invoked peace. Why? Because islam means peace and he is the prophet of islam. Thrity six treaties he made with these jews, everyone did not suit the muslims but suited the jews. Everyone against the muslims but for the jews. I will give you one point emphasis my point. The prophet muhammad and a few companions were looking over a contract with the jews, it was a peace treaty. Their were 15 points on the list, 15 against the muslims. Yet muhammad ( peace be upon him ) told ali ( radiallahhuanhu) to sign the contract muhammad rasulla (peace be upon him). He (peace be upon him) did not sign him self as he was unable to read and write. The jew negotiater turned in anger and said that if the signature was left as it was then that would mean the jews would agree that muhammad (peace be upon him) was rassulla (prophet of allah.) They commanded the signature be changed to simply muhammad ibn abdulla. Ali (radiallhuanhu) protested but muhammad (peace be upon him) stepped forward and licked his thumb, then smuged or erased the signature and ordered the signature be changed. This shows how hard muhammad ( peace be upon him ) srtived utmost for peace. But when peace failed war was inevitable and it was essential to protect the muslims and knock down any obstacles blocking islam.
    I think you are referring to a treaty with the Meccans?

  13. #13
    Al Abd Al Jabar hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

    Quote Originally Posted by razwan1979

    "So the muslims must have been peeved as hell at the treaty with Mecca,
    So lets attack the jews at khaybar, it will placate the Muslims."

    A totally unfounded and unwarranted statement. Baseless.
    I am sorry for sounding offensive.

    My point is that these people had no source of income except raids and theivery. I was reading an older thread on this forum and came across a number of references to theivery on the part of the Muslims.
    Ofcourse this is logical, they had no land, no trades, they were refugees.
    And they were plundering the caravans of the Meccans.
    This must have peeved the Meccans no end.

    The truth is that the Muslims couldnt have lived on love and fresh air.
    The money came from Meccan Caravans.

    Once they signed the treaty with Mecca, where was the money going to come from?
    They turned to the Jews at khaybar.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    829

    Default Re: Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

    "If the Prophet was indeed a Prophet of God, then he knew the law better than even the Jews."

    Quite.

    "Therefore he should have known that the Midian law could not be applied to these people."

    The dichotomy you present is a false one. This is how I believe the Qur'an eludicates the God's Law pertaining to Messengers -- which both Muhammad and Moses (pbut) were.

    1. God has sent prophets to all peoples of all times, until the last Prophet (p).

    2. Their "role" is to remind people of God and to give those who belief and do good deeds of the Day of Judgment.

    3. People accept or reject these prophets -- their fate is to be decided in the Hereafter ultimately (though if God wills He may punish them in this world).

    4. Some of these prophets, however, have a special role. They are called Messengers.

    5. Above and beyond the role of preaching to people, they are God's sign to those people that His Justice will manifest itself in this world. He sends Messengers to the "chief town" of the locale.

    6. Accordingly, the Messenger preaches a "clear" message -- so much so that there is, in reality, no excuse left for people to deny the Message.

    7. When the alloted time comes, God tells the Messenger to make a hijrah or a 'migration' -- for now the time for people to escape His wrath has passed -- God's message has been delievered in clear terms and they still do not believe. Only an arrogant person rejects God when He comes to him in clear terms.

    8. He shall now send down a severe punishment on the rejectors of the Messenger. Only the Messenger and his followers will survive.

    9. This can be the form of a natural disaster or a calamity of some sort. For example, the people of the Prophet Noah (p) suffered a flood. But, this punishment can also be delievered through the hands of the believers, if the believers have managed to establish an 'organised collective'. When done in this manner, it is also a test on the believers -- to weed out the hypocrites as it were.

    10. The latter (in 9) was true of both the Prophet's Muhammad (p) and Moses (p).

    11. This is why Moses (p) was commanded to kill the idolaters who worshipped the Golden Calf. They were guilty of turning their back on the message of God, after it had been made clear to them. This is also why Pharoah suffered and was killed.

    12. Similarly, the Prophet Muhammad (p) was commanded to fight the polytheists and People of the Book because they had rejected his message after it had manifested itself before their very eyes (not like us who are either or not privledged or burdened, depending on how one looks at it, to arrive in posterity).

    Within this 'paradigm' the incident involving the Prophet (p) and the Banu Qurayzah makes much more sense.

    Your claim about the "Midinan Law" is a different interpretation altogether -- one which is neither inline with the Qur'an nor how the Jewish tribes saw it (for they didn't complain did they?). We seem here to be at an impasse. I could easily say that being Christian you will see Old Testament Scriptures through a totally different light. The civil thing here would be to agreee to disagree.

    "Once they signed the treaty with Mecca, where was the money going to come from? They turned to the Jews at khaybar."

    Obviously, not from where we see the Qur'an. You are welcome, of course, to your opinion. They were in Medinah which was hardly a a non-entity (relatively speaking).

    "The jews of medinah couldnt care less about the Muslims raiding the Pagans."

    But why did they sign treaties with the Pagans against the Muslims? Obviously, the Jewish tribes took a vested in the new Prophet (who some of them had predicted) and his community of followers.

    Regards and Salaam

  15. #15
    Al Abd Al Jabar hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Prophet muhammad saws killed innocent jews?

    Quote Originally Posted by razwan1979
    "If the Prophet was indeed a Prophet of God, then he knew the law better than even the Jews."

    Quite.

    "Therefore he should have known that the Midian law could not be applied to these people."

    The dichotomy you present is a false one. This is how I believe the Qur'an eludicates the God's Law pertaining to Messengers -- which both Muhammad and Moses (pbut) were.
    You see where your argument does not hold is that you work from the assumption that Prophet Mohammed was a prophet, and therefore above the law (in some way, because he was divinely inspired)

    But I work the other way, saying he couldnt have been a Prophet, because his actions were not consistent with the actions of a Prophet of God.

    Now if he killed the Jews, because they were idolaters, who were teaching wrong things to the Muslims, then of course the precedent was set.
    The Midian Law could be used.

    Which is where the real inconsistency lies, because the Meccans who were the real idolaters were let off scott free.

    I beleive it was because the Prophet was loathe to kill his own people, but felt no qualms about killing jews.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •