WikiIslam

The Massacre of the Banu Qurayzah: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

The Massacre of the Banu Qurayzah (view source)

Revision as of 10:20, 8 April 2013

587 bytes removed ,  8 April 2013
m
no edit summary
[checked revision][checked revision]
mNo edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
==Introduction==
==Introduction==


Hijra year 5 (627 AD), almost nine hundred Jews of a Medinan tribe named Banu Qurayza were massacred by Muslims in one day. [[Muhammad]], the prophet of [[Islam]], was the lead spectator of this butchery which began early in the day, ending in torchlight. Those who escaped death were taken captive by Muslims and sold in [[Slavery|slave]] markets. This genocide is known in history as the Banu Qurayza incident.
Hijra year 5 (627 AD), on the orders of Prophet [[Muhammad]], almost nine hundred Jews of a Medinan tribe named Banu Qurayza were massacred by Muslims. The killing began early in the day, ending in torchlight. Those who escaped death were taken captive and sold at [[Slavery|slave]] markets.  


==Qur'anic Account==
==Qur'anic Account==


The [[Qur'an]] makes mention of this incident in chapter 33:
The [[Qur'an]] refers to this incident in [[Surah]] 33:


{{Quote|{{Quran-range|33|26|27}}| And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew and ye made captive some.  
{{Quote|{{Quran-range|33|26|27}}| And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew and ye made captive some.  
Line 71: Line 71:
{{Quote|Ibn Ishaq: 693 |Then the apostle sent for Sa'd bin Zayd al-Ansari brother of bin Abdul-Ashhal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.}}
{{Quote|Ibn Ishaq: 693 |Then the apostle sent for Sa'd bin Zayd al-Ansari brother of bin Abdul-Ashhal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.}}


===Muslim Apologetics===
===Muslim Apologetics===  
 
Muslims do not see any moral dilemma and are quick to justify the genocide of the Banu Qurayza.


The most common Muslim argument is that Muhammad was dealing with treachery and he had taken the maximum punitive actions against it. But this alleged treachery on Banu Qurayza’s part is very hard to accept for a rational mind. To be treacherous, Banu Qurayza must have joined the confederate army who had come to attack the Muslims. If that were the case (had Banu Qurayza joined the Meccan army) it would have ended in the total eradication of Muslims. But Abu Sufyan's- the then Meccan chief’s words before retreating, testifies Banu Qurayza did not ally with the Meccans in a war against the Muslims. To quote Ibn Ishaq:
The most common Muslim argument is that Muhammad was dealing with treachery and he had taken the maximum punitive actions against it. But this alleged treachery on Banu Qurayza’s part is very hard to accept for a rational mind. To be treacherous, Banu Qurayza must have joined the confederate army who had come to attack the Muslims. If that were the case (had Banu Qurayza joined the Meccan army) it would have ended in the total eradication of Muslims. But Abu Sufyan's- the then Meccan chief’s words before retreating, testifies Banu Qurayza did not ally with the Meccans in a war against the Muslims. To quote Ibn Ishaq:
Line 94: Line 92:


{{Quote|{{Bukhari|5|59|447}}|Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The people of (Banu) quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh. So the Prophet sent for Saad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, "Get up for your chief or for the best among you." Then the Prophet said (to Sad)." These have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, "On that the Prophet said, "You have judged according to Allah's Judgment," or said, "according to the King's judgment."}}
{{Quote|{{Bukhari|5|59|447}}|Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The people of (Banu) quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh. So the Prophet sent for Saad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, "Get up for your chief or for the best among you." Then the Prophet said (to Sad)." These have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, "On that the Prophet said, "You have judged according to Allah's Judgment," or said, "according to the King's judgment."}}
Still, there is more.


Muhammad always intended to massacre the tribe, ever before Saad bin Muadh had come into the picture. He had this plan in mind when besieging the tribe. He sent an envoy (Abu Lubaba) to the Banu Quraiza fort during the siege. Below is the account of this incident as mentioned in Sirah Ibn Ishaq:
Muhammad always intended to massacre the tribe, ever before Saad bin Muadh had come into the picture. He had this plan in mind when besieging the tribe. He sent an envoy (Abu Lubaba) to the Banu Quraiza fort during the siege. Below is the account of this incident as mentioned in Sirah Ibn Ishaq:
Line 109: Line 105:
Another favorite argument of Muslims is the Jews of Banu Quraiza were put to death according to "their own laws" within the [[Taurat|Torah]]. Saad bin Muadh's verdict matches that which is found in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2020:10-18&version=KJV Deuteronomy 20:10-18] thus, Islam nor the Muslims can be blamed for it.  
Another favorite argument of Muslims is the Jews of Banu Quraiza were put to death according to "their own laws" within the [[Taurat|Torah]]. Saad bin Muadh's verdict matches that which is found in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2020:10-18&version=KJV Deuteronomy 20:10-18] thus, Islam nor the Muslims can be blamed for it.  


In reality, Deuteronomy 20:10-18 is not the "law of the Torah." It is a specific direction from God for a specific program of conquest. No longer relevant, as the Promised land mentioned in the Torah had been settled. It has nothing to do with "treason," or the treatment of treasonous allies. So if Muhammad or Saad bin Muaad had indeed applied these laws to the tribe, it was the wrong application of the wrong law to the wrong situation. Being the prophet of God, Muhammad could have easily annulled such a faulty application of the wrong laws.  
In reality, Deuteronomy 20:10-18 is not the "law of the Torah." It is a specific direction from the Judeo-Christian God for a specific program of conquest. No longer relevant, as the Promised land mentioned in the Torah had been settled. It has nothing to do with "treason," or the treatment of treasonous allies. So if Muhammad or Saad bin Muaad had indeed applied these laws to the tribe, it was the wrong application of the wrong law to the wrong situation. Being the prophet of Allah, Muhammad could have easily annulled such a faulty application of the wrong laws.  


'''Besides, this argument of Muslims begs the questions:'''
'''Besides, this argument of Muslims begs the questions:'''
Line 142: Line 138:
==Conclusion==  
==Conclusion==  


Setting the apologetics aside, the Banu Qurayza massacre will always remain a stain on Muhammad and Islam, as this incident has no parallels in true history for the reason that it was perpetrated by a man who claimed to be a prophet sent as a mercy to mankind.
Muslims propose many apologetic arguments to excuse this crime. The most favored argument they use is the alleged treachery of Banu Quraiza. Its flaws are evident when considering any act of treachery from this tribe would have put an end to Islam at Khandaq, and as a result, Islam would never have existed outside of Arabia.  
 
Muslims propose many apologetic arguments to release Muhammad from this crime. The most favored argument they use is the alleged treachery of Banu Quraiza. Its ludicrousness is evident when considering any act of treachery from this tribe would have rid the world of Islam at Khandaq, and as a result, Islam would never have existed outside of Arabia.  


The excuses they forward thumbing through Deuteronomy (contained within religious scripture they themselves consider to have been altered since the incident in question), and a man who came into the picture much later, do not stand up to scrutiny, for the very reason that Muhammad had planned to slaughter the tribe before Saad bin Muadh, the 'arbitrator', had been invited.  
The excuses they forward using Deuteronomy (contained within religious scripture they themselves consider to have been altered since the incident in question), and a man who came into the picture much later, do not stand up to scrutiny, for the very reason that Muhammad had planned to slaughter the tribe before Saad bin Muadh, the arbitrator, had been invited.  


Moreover, when the latter pronounced his sanguinary verdict, it was Muhammad who rushed in favor of it, proclaiming it to be Allah's judgment. Taking all of these issues into account, there is no valid argument that a Muslim can use in defense of this most gruesome of genocides. After this most unholy of incidents, there remained not a tribe named Banu Qurayza in Arabia.
Moreover, when the latter pronounced his verdict, it was Muhammad who rushed in favor of it, proclaiming it to be Allah's judgment. Taking all of these issues into account, there is no valid argument that can be used in its defense. After this incident, there remained not a tribe named Banu Qurayza in Arabia.


{{Core POTB}}
{{Core POTB}}
Sahab
Bureaucrats, Editors, em-bypass-2, Reviewers, rollback, Suppressors, Administrators
48,466

edits

Retrieved from "http://wikiislamica.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/86408"