The Massacre of the Banu Qurayzah: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
(View all pending changes)
[checked revision][checked revision]
Line 90: Line 90:


Yassir Qadhi states that the punishment was "harsh" and yet it is sometimes necessary to be harsh. Yaqeen institute scholar Abu Amina Elias (Justin Parrott) makes the cases that killing the "fighting men" prisoners of the Banu Qurayza was an "act of self-defense" on the part of the Muslim community and cites Deuteronomy 20:12-14 to justify the actions of the Muslims.  
Yassir Qadhi states that the punishment was "harsh" and yet it is sometimes necessary to be harsh. Yaqeen institute scholar Abu Amina Elias (Justin Parrott) makes the cases that killing the "fighting men" prisoners of the Banu Qurayza was an "act of self-defense" on the part of the Muslim community and cites Deuteronomy 20:12-14 to justify the actions of the Muslims.  
First of all, it is not clear from Islamic sources whether it were Banu Qurayza or their allies, the tribe of “Aws”, who agreed to Sad bin Muadh being the judge. The sahih hadith in Bukhari below points to this fact:


{{Quote| {{Bukhari|5|58|148}}|  Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."}}
These arguments are all echoes of the original arguments found in the material above. Even ibn Ishaq recounts of how "harsh" the punishment was:  
 
In the USC translation, "Jews of Banu Qurayza" has been given in brackets when mentioning the people agreed to accept Sad bin Muadh’s verdict. But the original Sahih Bukhari hadith in Arabic does not have this. So, it is most probably the tribe of Aus were who agreed to accept the verdict of Sa’d, not the Banu Qurayza. It does not make any sense for a subjugated people like the Banu Qurayza who were on their knees at the time to be given a choice in selecting their judge. So, the evidence we have available is against the Muslims claim that the surrendered Banu Qurayza tribe were given a choice in the case of adjudicator.
 
Moreover, even if one accepts the Muslim arguments that the Banu Qurayza were given a choice in selecting their judge, it does not let Muhammad off the hook. A careful analysis of the sahih hadiths on this account reveals Saad bin Muadh was just echoing Muhammad’s intention as his verdict. Soon after Saad bin Muad gave his verdict, Muhammad rushed to applaud him stating Saad's judged was in accordance with the judgement of Allah. Again from Sahih Bukhari:
 
{{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."}}
 
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:


{{Quote| Ibn Ishaq: 686|Apostle sent him (Abu Lubaba) to them (Banu Quraiza), and when they saw him they got up to meet him. The women and children went up to him weeping in his face, and he felt sorry for them. They said, ‘Oh Abu Lubaba, do you think that we should submit to Muhammad's judgement? He said ‘yes' and pointed with his hand to his throat signifying slaughter.}}
{{Quote| Ibn Ishaq: 686|Apostle sent him (Abu Lubaba) to them (Banu Quraiza), and when they saw him they got up to meet him. The women and children went up to him weeping in his face, and he felt sorry for them. They said, ‘Oh Abu Lubaba, do you think that we should submit to Muhammad's judgement? He said ‘yes' and pointed with his hand to his throat signifying slaughter.}}


Remember, this incident occurred during the siege and Saad bin Muadh became involved in this affair after the siege. Here we see Muhammad's envoy revealing Muhammad's intentions to the Banu Quraiza. Again, we see a remorseful Abu Lubaba who later felt contrite for revealing Muhammad's plan to the besieged tribe. This man soon left the place and tied himself to one of the pillars in the mosque. Again, it is recorded in Ibn Ishaq:
{{Quote| Ibn Ishaq: 686 | Then he (Abu Lubaba) left them and did not go to the apostle but bound himself to one of the pillars in the mosque saying ‘I will not leave this place until god forgives me for what I have done' and he promised god that he would never go to Banu Quraiza and would never be seen in a town in which he had betrayed god and his apostle }}
If all that befell the Banu Qurayza were solely the fault of Saad bin Muaad, how does one deal with the account given by Ibn Ishaq? It reveals Muhammad besieged the Banu Qurayza with the intention of ethnically cleansing them.


Another favorite argument is the Jews of Banu Qurayza 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 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.  
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:
#Why are the Muslims now accepting the judgment of Deuteronomy [scripture which they allege is corrupt] as righteous and just when on other occasions they attack this as being a cruel and harsh command, and a clear example of genocide?
#The Islamic sources say that Muhammad did not only have the fighting men killed, such as the leaders of Banu Quraiza, but also their young men who had nothing whatsoever to do with the decisions of their leaders/elders, were massacred. Why the unnecessary slaughter of innocents?
Some Muslims claim only those who were able to fight among the tribe of Banu Quraiza were killed.  According to their own sources, this is not true. How did Muhammad determine who from among the Jews were capable of fighting? See it in their sources:


{{Quote|Al-Tabari: Vol 8. (p. 38)|The Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should be killed.<ref>The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael. F. State University of New York Press, Albany 1997, Volume 8. page. 38 </ref>}}
{{Quote|Al-Tabari: Vol 8. (p. 38)|The Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should be killed.<ref>The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael. F. State University of New York Press, Albany 1997, Volume 8. page. 38 </ref>}}
Line 129: Line 108:
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.}}
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.}}


As has been shown, Muhammad testified that Saad's verdict was in proportion to the laws of Allah. Therefore Muslims should stop attacking the Torah and instead focus on Muhammad who attested the verdict of Saad with applause.
As a final point, it would be interesting to learn how Muhammad dealt with the Jews of Banu Qurayza prior to besieging them. Let the sources speak for themselves:


{{Quote|Ibn Ishaq: 684 | "When the apostle approached their forts he (Muhammad) said: "You brothers of monkeys.., has god disgraced you and brought his vengeance upon you?"
{{Quote|Ibn Ishaq: 684 | "When the apostle approached their forts he (Muhammad) said: "You brothers of monkeys.., has god disgraced you and brought his vengeance upon you?"
Line 142: Line 118:


How appropriate is it for a religious leader to abuse helpless people with words like "brothers of monkeys" and to incite his followers to do as he did? Not to mention, he traded these insults prior to besieging them.
How appropriate is it for a religious leader to abuse helpless people with words like "brothers of monkeys" and to incite his followers to do as he did? Not to mention, he traded these insults prior to besieging them.
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.
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 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.


==Problem with the Traditional Narrative==
==Problem with the Traditional Narrative==
Retrieved from "http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Massacre_of_the_Banu_Qurayzah"