/* */

PDA

View Full Version : The Jews of Medina



evangel
08-13-2006, 04:27 AM
What made Mohammed go after the three clans of Jews in Medina?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Woodrow
08-13-2006, 05:35 AM
At the moment I can not recall the whole story. However, if memory serves me correctly it had to do with an attempt to assasinate Muhammad and some treaty violations. If I recall the 3 groups were somewhat break away radicals from Judaism and the whole thing was not over Judaism. I'll try to find out more. Most likely what I have said is not the whole truth about those events.
Reply

Woodrow
08-13-2006, 05:41 AM
Here is a bit more:

PROPHET MUHAMMAD'S TREATY WITH JEWS (622 C.E.)





Books and E-Books
On Muslim History and Civilization




Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) decided to leave Mecca because the Meccan chiefs had taken action to kill him at his home. It was the year 622 CE. As far the choice of migrating to Medina (known as Yathrib at that time), the decision was made easier by the second ‘Pledge of Aqaba’ made a year before on the occasion of the annual rites of pilgrimage. The pledge was made by seventy three men and two women of Khazraj and Aws communities of Medina. They had accepted Islam and wanted to invite the Prophet to migrate to Medina. Their motivation for this move, apart from recognizing him as the Prophet, the trustworthy, and the best in conduct in Mecca, was to bring peace and security between the Khazraj and Aws. They were often at war with each other and the Battle of Bu'ath had shattered their strength completely. They desperately needed a leader who could be trusted by both communities and bring peace in Medina. As part of the pledge, they were to protect the Prophet as they would protect their women and children if he were attacked by the Meccans.

Among the people in Medina, there was a small community (three tribes) of Jews with Arab communities constituting the majority of the population. Because of wars going on for several generations, the resources of the Arabs were depleted and their influence in Medina was dwindling. The Jews were traders and many of them used to lend money at exorbitant interest. The continuing wars boosted their economy and personal wealth.

The immediate result of the Prophet’s migration to Medina was peace and unity between the communities of Aws and Khazraj. The Prophet, motivated by the general welfare of citizens of Medina, decided to offer his services to the remaining communities including the Jews. He had already laid down the basis for relationship between the Emigrants from Mecca (known as Muhajirin) and Medinites (known as the Ansar, the helpers).

The Treaty between Muslims, non-Muslim Arabs and Jews of Medina was put in writing and ratified by all parties. It has been preserved by the historians. The document referred Muhammad (pbuh) as the Prophet and Messenger of God but it was understood that the Jews did not have to recognize him as such for their own religious reasons. The major parts of the document were:


“In the name of Allah (The One True God) the Compassionate, the Merciful. This is a document from Muhammad, the Prophet, governing the relation between the Believers from among the Quray****es (i.e., Emigrants from Mecca) and Yathribites (i.e., the residents of Medina) and those who followed them and joined them and strived with them. They form one and the same community as against the rest of men.
“No Believer shall oppose the client of another Believer. Whosoever is rebellious, or seeks to spread injustice, enmity or sedition among the Believers, the hand of every man shall be against him, even if he be a son of one of them. A Believer shall not kill a Believer in retaliation of an unbeliever, nor shall he help an unbeliever against a Believer.

“Whosoever among the Jews follows us shall have help and equality; they shall not be injured nor shall any enemy be aided against them.... No separate peace will be made when the Believers are fighting in the way of Allah.... The Believers shall avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of Allah ....Whosoever kills a Believer wrongfully shall be liable to retaliation; all the Believers shall be against him as one man and they are bound to take action against him.

“The Jews shall contribute (to the cost of war) with the Believers so long as they are at war with a common enemy. The Jews of Banu Najjar, Banu al-Harith, Banu Sa'idah, Banu Jusham, Banu al-Aws, Banu Tha'labah, Jafnah, and Banu al-Shutaybah enjoy the same rights and priviledges as the Jews of Banu Aws.

“The Jews shall maintain their own religion and the Muslims theirs. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The close friends of Jews are as themselves. None of them shall go out on a military expedition except with the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound.

“The Jews shall be responsible for their expenses and the Believers for theirs. Each, if attacked, shall come to the assistance of the other.

“The valley of Yathrib (Medina) shall be sacred and inviolable for all that join this Treaty. Strangers, under protection, shall be treated on the same ground as their protectors; but no stranger shall be taken under protection except with consent of his tribe....No woman shall be taken under protection without the consent of her family.

Whatever difference or dispute between the parties to this covenant remains unsolved shall be referred to Allah and to Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah. Allah is the Guarantor of the piety and goodness that is embodied in this covenant. Neither the Quraysh nor their allies shall be given any protection.

“The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib. If they are called to cease hostilities and to enter into peace, they shall be bound to do so in the interest of peace; and if they make a similar demand on Muslims it must be carried out except when the war is agianst their religion.

“Allah approves the truth and goodwill of this covenant. This treaty shall not protect the unjust or the criminal. Whoever goes out to fight as well as whoever stays at home shall be safe and secure in this city unless he has perpetrated an injustice or commited a crime.... Allah is the protector of the good and God-fearing people.”

The first written constitution of a State ever promulgated by a sovereign in human history emanated from the Prophet of Islam. It was enacted from the first year of Hijrah (622 CE). The treaty stipulated a city state in Medina, allowing wide autonomy to communities. Private justice was to be banished. The head of the State had the prerogative to decide who should participate in an expedition, the war and peace being indivisible. Social insurance was to be instituted.










The name Yathrib was changed to Medinat-un-Nabawi, meaning the 'City of the Prophet' soon after he migrated there. The use of only the first word in that name (i.e., Medinah

The link source:

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/treaty22.html


I'm searching now for how this treaty was violated and how the 3 clans rebelled.
Reply

Woodrow
08-13-2006, 06:01 AM
The Three Jewish Tribes of Madinah (Jealousy, Treachery, Tragedy)

The fate of the three Jewish tribes of Madinah is closely linked with the three major battles, which decided the fate of the Muslim community. The tragedy can be seen in what could have been rather than what actually transpired.
Muhammad (S) had clear expectations for the Jews and Christians of Arabia from the very beginning. He knew that the "people of the book", as the Qur'an calls them, were familiar with the concepts of monotheism and righteousness, that they had clear Messianic expectations. He expected them to recognize him as a Messenger of Allah. The clarity, sanity, and truthfulness of the Qur'anic message, he thought, would turn them toward Islam. Some "people of the book" did accept the message.

And when they (the Christians) hear what hath been sent down to the Apostle, thou wilt see their eyes overflow with tears because of the truth which they recognize. They say, "Our Lord! We believe. Write us down therefore with those who bear witness." (Qur'an 5: 83)

However most not only rejected the Qur'an's message but also showed hostility. This was especially true of the Jews of Madinah. They felt that any new Prophet should come from amongst them, the "chosen people". Muhammad's (S) leadership threatened their political power in Madinah, and so they regarded him as an enemy.
As mentioned earlier, one of Muhammad's (S) first acts on arrival at Madinah was to gather all the major tribes together, including the Jewish tribes to sign a Covenant. One of its major articles was the agreement to defend jointly against a common enemy. The tribe of Banu Qaynuqa' was the first to violate the treaty with the Muslims. The reason for this appears unclear, but it seems that the victory at Badr increased Muslim prestige, which they viewed as a direct threat to Jewish influence and prestige in Madinah. For the Qaynuqa ', who had the reputation of being the most fearless and proud tribe in the area, the increase in Muslim prestige resulted in a clear diminution of their standing in the community. In a society that functioned on social pride this was a serious matter and they became increasingly disagreeable and hostile towards the Muslims. In this tense atmosphere, there were many incidents of provocation. A Muslim woman was molested, for example, and in the ensuing fight a Jew and a Muslim were killed. As several articles of the Covenant had been breached repeatedly by the tribe of Banu Qaynuqa' the Muslims decided to besiege their fortress. After about two weeks of siege, the Qaynuqa' capitulated and were exiled.
Petty jealousy and hostility also motivated the clash with the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir. After the battle of Uhud the Muslim position appeared much weaker. The Jewish tribes had excused themselves from the battle of Uhud, on the grounds of Sabbath, and had once again violated the Covenant. The Quraysh who expected the Banu Qurayzah to come to their help, may have instigated this. Abdullah bin Ubayy, a local chieftain with ambitions of being the leader of Madinah, had clandestinely promised to help them causing them to be even more arrogant and intransigent in their behavior. Following the battle, they even attempted to assassinate Muhammad (S). They were also besieged in their fortress and soon capitulated.

"He it is who caused the unbelievers among the People of the Book to quit their homes, to join those who had gone into exile earlier. Ye (believers) never thought they would quit their homes, And even they (the People of the Book) on their part thought that their fortresses would protect them against Allah. But Allah's force (the believers) came upon them from whence they scarcely expected it." (Qur'an 59: 2)

The Banu Nadir was permitted to take as many of their belongings as they could on their beasts of burden. Some of them ripped out the doors and windows of their homes and loaded them onto their camels. Many of them destroyed what was left of their homes so that it might not be usable to the Muslims. The Qur'an draws attention to this irony:

"And caused such upheaval in their hearts that they let their houses be demolished by their own hands." (Qur'an 59: 2)

Referring to the hypocrites who had promised to help the Banu Nadir but did not, the Qur'an elaborates as follows:

If they are expelled, they (the hypocrites among them) will not go forth with them, And if they are attacked, they (the hypocrites) will not help them; And even if these (make a show) of helping them, they will do so only to turn their backs so they will in fact receive no help at all
They (the People of the Book) will not fight you in a body except from fortified towns or from behind walls. They are themselves opposed to each other, and thou (O Prophet) thinkest they are united (among themselves). But at heart, they are not united. This is because they are not a sensible people.
They are just like those who had preceded them and tasted the results of their doings; So there awaiteth therein a grievous chastisement. (Qur'an 59:12, 14 and 15)

The most tragic encounter with the Jews in Madinah was with the third and the last remaining Jewish tribe, the Banu Qurayzah. The expulsion of the Banu Nadir initially had a sobering effect and the Qurayzah revalidated the covenant with the Muslims. However, soon they were conspiring with both the pagans of Makkah and the Jewish tribes that had been expelled. When the Qurayshi armies attacked in what was later called the "battle of the trench" (Khandaq), the Qurayzah connived with them. If the invading army had been successful in breaching the trench, the Qurayzah would have attacked the Muslims from behind, resulting in total annihilation of the Muslim community. This was clearly a serious act of treason.
The Muslims had been extremely patient with the Jews. Their retaliation was proportionate, limited and just. With each breach of the treaty the penalty was increased. Even though the other two tribes had been expelled, the Banu Qurayzah had been given the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless they reneged on the treaty, again with potentially extremely dangerous consequences to the Muslims. After the battle of the trench was won, the fortress in which the Banu Qurayzah lived was besieged and they surrendered after a short while. As was Muhammad's (S) custom, they were judged by the rules of their own scripture, the Tawrah (Torah) and traditions (Talmud), and were asked to select an individual (Sa'd bin Mu'adh), from their allies, the tribe of Aws, who they could trust as their judge.

"And He brought down out of their fortresses such of the People of the Book (the Jews) as had aided (the confederates) and cast despair into their hearts. Of these, ye slew some and some ye made captives. And as heritage He gave you their land and their dwellings and their wealth, And further a territory on which you had never set foot. And Allah hath power over all things!" (Qur'an 33: 26 -27.)


Source link:

http://www.ispi-usa.org/muhammad/muhammad11.html
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Zulkiflim
08-13-2006, 11:56 AM
Salaam,

Good answer..

But evangel i hope you can read the auto bio graphy of the Prophet so that you can know the various parties involved.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-13-2006, 03:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by evangel
What made Mohammed go after the three clans of Jews in Medina?
Hi,
He didn't just 'go after' the three tribes. When Prophet Muhammad pbuh first came to Madinah (the hijrah) and established the Islamic state he made a covenant and peace agreement with the 3 tribes. They were all to live in peace and defend the city together. Dr. M. Hamidullah explains the following points:
When the Prophet Mohammed settled down in Medina, he found there complete anarchy, the region having never known before either a State or a king to unite the tribes torn by internecine feuds. In just a few weeks, he succeeded in rallying all the inhabitants of the region into order. He constituted a city state, in which Muslims, Jews, pagan Arabs and also probably a small number of Christians, all entered into a statal organism by means of a social contract. The constitutional law of this first 'Muslim' State - which was the confederacy as a sequence of the multiplicity of the population groups - has come down to us in toto, and we read therein not only in clause 25: "to Muslims their religion, and to Jews their religion," or, "that there would be benevolence and justice," but even the unexpected passage in the same clause 25: "the Jews . . . are a community (in alliance) with - according Ibn Hisham and in the version of Abu-'Ubaid, a community (forming part) of - the believers (i.e., Muslims)." The very fact that, at the time of the constitution of this city-state, the autonomous Jewish villages acceded of their free will to the confederal State, and recognized Muhammad as their supreme political head, implies in our opinion that the non-Muslim subjects possessed the right of votes in the election of the head of the Muslim State, at least in so far as the political life of the country was concerned. (Hamidullah, Introduction to Islam, paragraphs 414-416)
During the life of Prophet Muhammad, there was a Jewish synagogue in Madinah and an educational institute known as Bait Al-Midras. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) preserved and protected both of them.

After the Battle of Badr (2nd year after hijrah) when the Muslims triumphed over the Makkan polytheists, the Jews of Banu Qaynuqa began to display open hostility with the Muslims. When the Prophet Muhammad pbuh went to them an requested them to honor their pact they replied by saying, "Those people with whom you fought were inexperienced and ignorant of the ways of warfare, which allowed you to score an easy victory. If you fight us we would teach you a lesson." They then fortified themselves in their quarters and the Muslims surrounded them and laid siege. None of the other Jewish tribes assisted the tribe of Banu Qaynuqa because they recognized the clear violation of the treaty on the part of the latter. The Banu Qaynuqa tribes realized they couldn't hold up and they surrendered. Instead of taking prisoners and slaves as other contemporary leaders would have done to their vanquished enemies, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh allowed them to take their belongings and leave Madinah.

After the Battle of Uhud (3rd year after hijrah), when the Muslims had a less favorable outcome in their battle with the Makkans, the Jews of Banu Nadeer attempted to take advantage of the Muslim's weakness and assasinate the Prophet Muhammad pbuh when he visited them. The Prophet pbuh escaped and issued a 10-day ultimatum for the tribe of Banu Nadeer to leave Madinah. However, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh even allowed them to retain all their property and appoint agents to look after their farms. The Banu Nadeer however consulted with Abdullah Ibn Ubayy Ibn Salul, the leader of the hypocrites in Madinah. The latter told them that he had 2000 fighters who would assist them against Prophet Muhammad and he also assured them the Ghatafan would come to their aid. The tribe of Banu Nadeer, feeling confident that they could destroy the Muslims, rejected the Prophet's ultimatum and prepared for war. The Muslims laid siege to their quarters during which time they recieved none of the promised support from Abdullah Ibn Ubayy or his allies. After 26 days they surrendered and asked to leave under the original conditions. This was no longer reasonable since they themselves had rejected the Propet's offer. Thus they were to leave with whatever belonging they could take with them, and their land was turned over to the Muslims. And yet, the Prophet still did not enslave them, take them prisoner or spill any blood in this conflict. He was always keen to find a peaceful situation.

In the 5th year after hijrah, an alliance was made between the arab tribes of Ghatafan, the Quraysh of Makkah, the Jews of Khaybar (which included the exiled tribe of Banu Nadeer), the arabs of Sulaym, Asad, Ashja' and Fazarah. Together, this coalition raised a massive army of 10 000 soldiers to march against and annihilate the Muslims once and for all. The Muslims could not face such an immense force and consequently they dug a trenche around the northern part of the city to defend themselves. The coalition forces laid siege to the Muslims in the battle known as Al-Khandaq. The Muslims had only protected the norther part of the city as their allies, the last Jewish tribe called Banu Qurayzah, lay to their south beyond the orchards. However, the coalition forces were able to persuade the Banu Qurayzah to break their treaty with the Muslims and attack them from behind. The Banu Qurayzah had the ability to attack the undefended Muslim city - occupied now only by women and children - from the south.

When rumours spread that Banu Qurayzah had broken their peace treaty with the Prophet Muhamamd pbuh and had joined the coalition of forces surrounding the Muslim city of Madinah, the Prophet pbuh was distressed and sent to them four of his companions as a delegation to request them to honor their treaty. Sa'd ibn Mu'âdh [chief of the 'Aws tribe], Sa'd ibn 'Ubâdah [chief of the khazraj tribe], Abdullah ibn Rawâhah and Khawât ibn Jubayr were the four members of the delegation.

The Banu Qurayzah treated the delegation rudely, disavowed all past treaties with the Prophet, and began to exchange insults with Sa'd ibn 'Ubâdah. Sa'd ibn Mu'âdh interrupted saying that the matter was far too serious than to enter into a petty exchange of insults. He pleaded with the Banu Qurayzah but to no avail; they began to abuse him using the most vulgar and obscene language. Sa'd ibn Mu'âdh said, "You would have been well advised to use better language." With that, they left and conveyed their sad report secretly to the Prophet pbuh to avoid causing more fear to spread in amongst the Muslims who already had an army of 10 000 camped on their doorstep and were now open to attack from the Banu Qurayzah behind them.

The Banu Qurayzah sent some of their fighters in to the undefended city to attack the Muslims. A Muslim woman, Safiyyah bint Abdul-Muttalib, saw one of the Qurayzah warriors creeing about the quarters of the Muslim women. She managed to kill him and the others fled thinking that the Muslims had left men to guard the rear as well. (Ibn Sayyid al-Nâs, 'Uyûn Al-Athar, pp. 89).

After the coalition forces had disbanded, given up the siege and left, the Muslims surrounded the quarters of the Banu Qurayzah and laid siege to them. Those amongst the Banu Qurayzah who had opposed their tribe's violation of the treaty were allowed to leave freely but the remaining warriors were killed. The Muslims had seen how leniency failed with the previous tribes who had gathered up their forces to launch another attack on the Muslims. The Banu Qurayzah had also witnessed this and despite all that they still chose to violate their treaty with the Muslims.

I hope this helps.

Regards
Reply

lavikor201
08-13-2006, 05:19 PM
You think you could give us a much more unbiased site?
Reply

adi8putra
08-13-2006, 05:32 PM
what biased? care 2 elaborate?
Reply

Vishnu
08-13-2006, 06:12 PM
I think he means these are all Muslim sites as the sources.

Maybe we could see the views of someone who has knowledge on this subject, who has a religious affiliation with neither of them.
Reply

Woodrow
08-13-2006, 07:03 PM
I believe Lavikor made a valid request. I do not know of any other sources. Perhaps somebody knows of one.
Reply

QuranStudy
08-13-2006, 07:23 PM
All what has been posted are facts.

Lavikor201, unfortunately you would claim bias because the traitors were "Jewish."

I challenge you to disprove any fact presented.
Reply

جوري
08-13-2006, 07:40 PM
I am sure something can be found on the ever unbiased "wikipedia" to the contrary ... things always appear "biased" if they have a historical account in favor of Muslims.... which is not in concert with the anti-Islamic sentiment that is common today....
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-13-2006, 09:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
You think you could give us a much more unbiased site?
I didn't paste my answer from a site; I typed that up myself earlier today in response to evangel's question. The information is based on the original historical documentation of that time. Refer to Ibn Hisham's Sirah An-Nabawiyyah and Ibn Sayyid An-Nas's 'Uyun Al-Athar. Even if you go to anti-islamic sites/books that discuss the issue, they don't quote different historians or historical records, they still quote the Muslim historical records because they are the historical records of that time.
Reply

جوري
08-13-2006, 09:27 PM
Muslims are just as qualified and if we talk of percentages... I am sure of the 1.5 billion Muslims at least 15 million are comparable to their Jewish counter parts... 15 million being the number of Jews in existence today..... this is of course off the top of my head....... I do admire the tenacity and rise to power though.....
Reply

lavikor201
08-13-2006, 09:34 PM
Alright thank you then.

Sources regarding the Banu Qurayza are sparse: the only known mentions of this tribe are in Muslim sources, and date from no earlier than 150 years after the event.

So I am not sure how accurate your sources are.
Reply

Woodrow
08-13-2006, 09:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
Alright thank you then.

Sources regarding the Banu Qurayza are sparse: the only known mentions of this tribe are in Muslim sources, and date from no earlier than 150 years after the event.

So I am not sure how accurate your sources are.
all sources are going to be biased. Bias does not have to be a negative term. The fact that something is biased is not an indication that it is false. In fact the more valdiation there is about a statement, the more reason there will be bias to believe it is true and the statement becames biased in favor of the validations.

we are all biased towards what we believe to be true. we would not have much faith in our believes without that bias.

Bias, is wrong when it becomes a shut door and no other views are allowed to be considered.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-13-2006, 11:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
Sources regarding the Banu Qurayza are sparse: the only known mentions of this tribe are in Muslim sources, and date from no earlier than 150 years after the event.
I'm afraid that is not true at all. The Banu Qurayzah are mentioned in the sources amongst the very first generation of Muslims who lived through the incident, and they are recorded in every source right up to the renowned and unanimously accepted Ahâdîth collection known as Sahîh Bukhârî, whose contents have been rigorously authenticated by the scholars of hadith. For a detailed refutation of these common hadîth misconceptions, please refer to:
Ahadeeth Myths

Regards
Reply

north_malaysian
08-14-2006, 07:54 AM
I've heard some rumours saying that there are many jews in medina became Muslims.... is it true?
Reply

lavikor201
08-14-2006, 11:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
I've heard some rumours saying that there are many jews in medina became Muslims.... is it true?
If you were a Jew in Medina you were either brutally executed or sold into slavery with all of your property being given to a Muslim.

The only ones that weren't were the few traitors to Judaism who converted.
Reply

جوري
08-15-2006, 12:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
I've heard some rumours saying that there are many jews in medina became Muslims.... is it true?
I found the following on the web as to the fate of the Jews of Medina....
anything else is hot air from ones who enjoy satisfaction out of simplistic concussions, especially when it plays into their plot

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)

So-called assassinations

Our atheist friends fail to understand the nature of these so-called assassinations carried out under the supervision of the Prophet. For our Christian friends there is no need for an explanation as rightly pointed out by Syed Ameer Ali:

Our Christian historians forget that the " wise " Solon himself, for the safety of his small city, made it obligatory on the Athenians to become executioners of the law, by pursuing the factious, or taking one of two sides in a public riot. They also forget that even the laws of Christian England allow any person to pursue and kill "an outlaw".

The problem however mostly concerns our atheist friends. But to understand fully what 'really' happened with these people and why were they "so unjustly assassinated" let us take a look at the conditions and a few examples.

Among the not so technologically advanced nations of those times poets occupied the position and exercised the influence of the press in modern times. Of course there is nothing wrong with 'freedom of the press' but death sentence for a traitor is a just punishment agreed upon by even the most modern laws. The Jews were under obligations to the pact they had made with the Muslims. All the inhabitants of Medina had pledged to be united under a single commonwealth. Any individual found guilty of 'collaborating with the enemy' as we call it in modern times was a traitor and was to be pursued and punished according to the pact.

The Muslim Scholars and the knowledgeable Muslims are not bewildered of the modernists' view point that death sentence for any crime whatsoever is contrary to humanism. If someone kills another in times of peace or war, he should be killed in return. An eye for an eye. If another seeks to damage you breaking his word (or pact in the case of the Jews) then should he also be dealt with the most efficient means. Many Israeli commentators have made remarks on CNN and BBC how if 'someone pulls out a knife at us we have the policy of pulling out a gun'. It's common sense they say. That is probably the reason why for one Israeli we have two dozen Palestinians murdered every time. Of course the fact that the Palestinians have lost their homes and their lands to the hegemonic designs of Israelis, a fact fully accepted by the whole world community has no significance in the eyes of the Israeli Government..... "Islam is a religion of common sense" remarked Bernard Shaw. But what were the conditions that lead to such measures, let us see.....

Treachery and fate of Abu Uzza

An example of the influence which poets and rhapsodists exercised among unprogressed nations is afforded by one of the episodes connected with war of Ohod. Whist preparing for this eventful campaign, the Koreish requested a poet of the name of Abu Uzza to go round the tribest of the desert, and excited them by his songs and poetry against the Muslim, and persuade them to join the confederacy, formed under the auspices of the Meccans, for the destruction of Mohammed and his followers. This man had been taken prisoner by the Muslims in the battle of Badr, but was released by the Prophet, without ransom, on pledging himself never again to take up arms against the Medinites. In spite of this, he was tempted to break his word, and went round the tribes, rousing them to arms by his poetry; and it is said he was eminently successful in his work. After Ohod he was again taken prisoner and executed by the Muslims ; Ibn Hisham p. 591.

Jewish poets provoked hatred of Muslims in spite of being under an official pact

The Jewish poets by their superior culture naturally exercised a vast influence among the Medinites; and this influence was chiefly directed towards sowing sedition among the Muslims, and widening the breach between them and the opposing faction. The defeat of the idolaters at Badr was felt as keenly by the Jews as by the Meccans.

Fate of Ka'ab, the son of Ashraf

Immediately after this battle a distinguished member of their race, called Ka'b, the son of Ashraf, belonging to the tribe of Nazir, publicly deploring the ill-success of the idolaters, proceed towards Mecca. Finding the people their plunged in grief, he spared no exertion to revive their courage. By his satires against the Prophet and his disciples, by his elegies on the Meccans who had fallen at Badr, he succeeded in exciting the Korish to that frenzy of vengeance which found vent on the plains of Ohod. Having attained this object, he returned to his home near Medina in the canton of Nazir, where he continued to attack Mohammed and the Musulmans in ironical and obscene verses, not sparing even the women of the Believers whom he addressed in terms of the grossest character. His acts were openly directed against the commonwealth of which he was a member. (The Jews and Medinites were under a pact of helping each other if attacked by a foreign power) He belonged to a tribe which had entered into the Compact with the Muslims, and pledged itself for the internal as well as the external safety of the State. Another Jew of the Nazir, Abu Rafe Sallam, son of Abul Hukaik, was equally wild and bitter against the Musulmans. He inhabited, with a fraction of his tribe, the territories of Khaibar, four or five days journey to the north-west of Medina. Detesting Mohammed and the Musulmans, he made use of every endeavourer to excite the neighbouring Arab tribes, such as the Sulaim and the Ghatafan, against them. It was impossible for the Musulman commonwealth to tolerate this open treachery on the part of those to whom every consideration had been shown, wit the object of securing their neutrality, if not their support. The very existence of Muslim community was at state; and every principle of safety required that these traitorous designs should be quietly frustrated. The sentence of outlawry was executed upon them by the Medinites themselves - in one case by a member of the tribe of Aus, in the other by a Khazrijite.

Controversialists have stigmatised these executions as "assassinations". And because a Muslim was sent secretly to kill each of the criminals, in their prejudice against the Prophet, they shut their eyes to the justice of the sentence, and the necessity of a swift and secret execution. There existed then no police court, no judicial tribunal, nor even a court-martial, to take cognisance of individual crimes. In the absence of a State executioner any individual might become the executioner of the law. These men had broken their formal pact ; it was impossible to arrest them in public, or execute the sentence in the open before their clans, without causing unnecessary blood-shed, and giving rise to the feud of blood, and everlasting vendetta. the exigencies of the State required that whatever should be done should be done swiftly and noiselessly upon those whom public opinion had arraigned and condemned.

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.

Conclusion

Human nature is so constituted that, however criminal the acts of an individual may be, the moment he is treated with severity which to our mind seems harsh or cruel, a natural revulsion of feeling occurs, and the sentiment of justice gives place to pity within our hearts. However much we may regret the fate of the Jews should have been, thought at their own special request, left in the hands of an infuriated soldier, however much we may regret that sentence of this man should have been so carried into effect- we must not , in the sentiment of pity, overlook the stern question of justice and culpability. We must bear in mind the crimes of which they were guilty- their treachery, their open hostility, their defection from an alliance to which they were bound by every sacred tie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply

QuranStudy
08-15-2006, 12:54 AM
The hatred and jealousy of the Jews against Muhammad lead to theirm own demise.
Reply

lavikor201
08-15-2006, 01:48 AM
Ibn Ishaq describes what happens as follows:
Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off.
The spoils of battle, including the enslaved women and children of the tribe, were divided up among Muhammad's followers, with Muhammad himself receiving a fifth of the value.

Sa'd ruled that all the adult males of the Banu Qurayza should be killed. His fellow chiefs urged him to pardon these former allies, but he refused. Muhammad approved the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment. This ruling was taken to refer to all males over puberty, some 600-900 individuals according to Ibn Ishaq. A few converted, and were spared. The rest. Enslaved.
Reply

MuslimCONVERT
08-15-2006, 03:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
I've heard some rumours saying that there are many jews in medina became Muslims.... is it true?
I would do a google search about Abdullah ibn Salaam, the Jewish Rabbi who converted to Islam in Medina.

Salaamz.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-15-2006, 03:59 AM
NOTE: No anti-islamic links or articles. Articulate your arguments yourself.

format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
I've heard some rumours saying that there are many jews in medina became Muslims.... is it true?
Yes it is true. The notable example is Abdullah ibn Salaam the chief Rabbi. Others like Mukhtayriq upheld their peace treaty with the Muslims and did not break it as the rest of their tribe did. When the Muslims surrounded Banu Qurayzah some Jews came out and disavowed their tribe members who had breached the covenant, so these people were all allowed to go free.
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
If you were a Jew in Medina you were either brutally executed or sold into slavery with all of your property being given to a Muslim.
Blatantly false. Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir, the two largest tribes, left the city without execution or enslavement. If the Muslims were really out to get the Jews as you claim, then why did Prophet Muhammad pbuh make a peace treaty as soon as he moved in? Why was the Jewish synagogue and bayt al-midras, their institute of learning, preserved? Why did he differentiate between the tribes and not attack them all at once? Why was Banu Qaynuqa allowed to leave in 2AH and Banu Nadir the following year in 3AH? Why was it another two years later after the Banu Qurayzah betrayed the Muslims at the Battle of Al-Khandaq, that they suffered slavery and execution? Sorry, but your anti-islamic drivel crumbles in light of historical facts. You completely ignore the peace treaty, the historical battles, the attempted assasination, the alliance with the coalition to annihilate the Muslims. You haven't responded to a single one of the points I've made.
The only ones that weren't were the few traitors to Judaism who converted.
The real traitors were the one's who broke their peace treaty, who allied with pagans against fellow monotheists, and resorted to treachery and stabbing the Muslims in the back.

Ibn Ishaq describes what happens as follows
How amusing! You begin right in the middle of the conflict, conveniently after the part of the story where the Jewish tribes continually betrayed the Prophet and he was lenient with them, allowing them to leave the city unharmed. You post only the part that takes place after the Banu Qurayzah allied with the coalition to annihilate the Muslims. I didn't think that you would resort to such manifest distortions, lavikor. Shameful, really.
The spoils of battle, including the enslaved women and children of the tribe, were divided up among Muhammad's followers, with Muhammad himself receiving a fifth of the value.(as khums, to be used for the public good).
When you copied this from wikipeda you left out the highlighted part. The fifth goes to the state to be spent for the benefit of the community.

Now let's put things into perspective by comparing with what the Bible says.

Moses and the Israelites kill all the males and take the women and children as slaves
Numbers 31. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2. Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites...3. And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the Lord of Midian...6. And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe...7. And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 8. And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. 9. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 10. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11. And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. 12. And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses.”

Moses commands the death of 3 000
Exodus 32: 28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Judah kills 10 000

Judges 1:4 And Judah went up; and the Lord delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand: and they slew of them in Bezek ten thousand men.”

The Israelites killes 12 000 Men and Women
Joshua 8:24-6, And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword. And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai. For Joshua drew not his hand back…until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.
David kills 22 000
2 Samuel 8:5, “And when the Syrians of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men.

Israelites kill 100 000

1 kings 20:29 and the children of Israel slew of the Syrians an hundred thousand footmen in one day.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
08-15-2006, 04:03 AM
Sorry, but your anti-islamic drivel crumbles in light of historical facts.
Historical fact?

None of this is historical fact! Were you there? Of course not...

The only people who are sources for this are Muslims so there is an obvious bias, because Muslims of course will slant the story to favor Mohammad in any way.

There is no complete FACT in this situation Ansar.
Reply

evangel
08-15-2006, 04:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
NOTE: No anti-islamic links or articles. Articulate your arguments yourself.

If the Muslims were really out to get the Jews as you claim, then why did Prophet Muhammad pbuh make a peace treaty as soon as he moved in?

Maybe because he expected them to be wowed by his understanding of scripture. When they weren't (because he had it all wrong) and corrected him it was humiliating and he went head hunting. After two exiles would not deter these people from there faith and since it was embarrassing to Mohammed to hear he was getting it wrong it was off with their heads or into slavery they went. They preferred to fear the Lord over Mohammed.

Deuteronomy 3:22
You shall not fear them; for it is the LORD your God who fights for you.
Reply

shahidiceprince
08-15-2006, 02:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
If you were a Jew in Medina you were either brutally executed or sold into slavery with all of your property being given to a Muslim.

The only ones that weren't were the few traitors to Judaism who converted.
Not true at all!!!

The Jews in Madina, during the days of the prophet, were treated as brethren. They were given equal rights. They were free to do anything they wished, but within the laws. A muslim was not permitted to make a Jew his slave. But, as the authority of the Prophet grew over Madina, the Jews became jealous of him and became traitors. During all the three wars with the Meccan Quraish, the Jews of Madina acted treacherously. They became traitors, and after the wars, they were punished according to their own laws, or expelled from Madina. No Jew was brutally executed or sold into slavery.

As far as the conversions were concerned, only the Jews who were fed up of the teachings of Judaism and were seeking truth converted to Islam. They were not traitors to Judaism, since they were seekers of the true religion, which they found in Islam.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-15-2006, 06:15 PM
Last warning to members: No more off-topic posts or copy-pasting other material. Respond to the facts presented in this thread and back up your claims.

format_quote Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
Historical fact?

None of this is historical fact! Were you there? Of course not...

The only people who are sources for this are Muslims so there is an obvious bias, because Muslims of course will slant the story to favor Mohammad in any way.

There is no complete FACT in this situation Ansar.
My points have been based on the historiocal documenation of the time in the Sirah and Ahadith collections. You don't have ANY documentation to build your arguments. You want to play this way? Fine. Prove that Banu Qurayza EVEN existed! If you cannot do so without turning to the Muslim sources or those secondary sources based on Muslim sources, then your argument is self-defeating. We can dream up whatever scenario we want if we don't have to substantiate it with historical documentation. We could say that the Jewish tribes never existed in the first place.
format_quote Originally Posted by evangel
Maybe because he expected them to be wowed by his understanding of scripture. When they weren't (because he had it all wrong)
But those who knew the scripture best, like the Rabbi Abdullah Ibn Salam, converted to Islam. Another Rabbi, Mukhayriq supported the Muslims and fought alongside them. In fact, even Huyayy ibn Akhtab of Banu Nadir said that he recognized Muhammad pbuh as the foretold Prophet (Ibn Hisham, vol. 2 pp. 165-166).

Moreover, the treaty specifically recognized the Jew's, it protected their synagogue, Bayt Al-Midras (their institute of learning) and said that "no Jew is to be annoyed on account of their Jewish faith". Why would he take steps that would only be against him if his intention was to spread Islamic views amongst the Jews and not judaic views?
and he went head hunting.
But then why would he differentiate between the tribes. Why did he exile only the tribe that showed agression and the tribe that sought to assasnate him? And why did he maintain an alliance with the Christians of Abysynnia though they did not convert to Islam? You conveniently ignore the breach of the covenant by the Jewish tribes and you replace historical documentation with imaginative ideas. Like ManchestorFolk, your argument is self-defeating. You use the Muslim sources only when it suits your anti-islamic position, like when it says that there was a Jewish tribe that was exiled. But you conveniently neglect the same sources when they mention that treason was the reason for the exile. Your methodology is manifestly fallacious. If you don't want to rely on the historical records, then you have no proof that these Jewish tribes existed in the first place.

Moreover, you asked at the beginning of the thread what made the Prophet 'go after' the Jewish tribes. I answered but now you've betrayed your insincere intentions because it seems you never wanted an answer in the first place! Why ask if you didn't want an answer?! Why ask Muslims if you are just going to obstinately cling to your preconceived ideas? You've only proven in front of everyone that your initial question was not sincere but only a [failed] attempt to throw dirt at Islam.
After two exiles would not deter these people from there faith and since it was embarrassing to Mohammed to hear he was getting it wrong it was off with their heads or into slavery they went.
But it wasn't the same people who were exiled. The Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir were exiled and the Banu Qurayzah were executed. And how would exile help 'deter' them from their ideas? And why did he only attack Banu Qurayza after they joined forces with his enemies and sent soldiers into the city to attack the Muslim women and children?
They preferred to fear the Lord over Mohammed.
Actually, they were not faithful to their own religion at all. According to Judaism, Muslims are also on the path to salvation since they are monotheists abiding by the Noahide laws. But these Jewish tribes allied with the pagan idolaters of Makkah and even payed tribute to those of Ghatafan to persuade them to help fight the Muslims. They broke their treaty of peace whereas Judaism teaches one to uphold it.

Clearly your claims are also void of any historical basis.
Reply

`Abd al-Azeez
09-09-2006, 08:05 PM
:sl:

Truth About The “Massacre” of Banu Qurayza
by: `Abd al-Azeez

Alot has been said about the so called “massacre” of Banu Qurayza, anti-Islamic sites such as ------- and the Islamaphobe site which goes by the name ------- and in general about the Prophets (saw) treatment of the Jewish Tribes. This old fruitless polemic has been re-used many times before this article will expose the myths of what happened to the Jewish tribe and it will reveal the truth about the “massacre” of Banu Qurayza.

1. MYTH:

The Banu Qurayza are innocent victims who perished under the sword of Muhammad (saw).

FACT:

Not true at all. On the contrary, the Banu Qurayza prior to the incident of their so-called "massacre" attempted to betray the Muslims by aligning themselves with the Confederate armies (consisting of the pagan Quraysh and their allies) during the beseiging of the city of Madinah, known in history as the "War of the Confederates" (al-Harbul al-Adzhaab). This is a significant act of treason, because they had earlier pledged to uphold the Madinan Covenet with the Muslims, which stipulates cooperation and an alliance if Muslims were attacked by a foreign force.

2. MYTH:

The Prophet (saw) ordered this punishment of the Banu Qurayza.

FACT:

Wrong. It was the Companion of the Prophet (saw), Sa'd bin Mu'adh , an Ansar and the ally of the Banu Quraiza, who did that after the Banu Qurayza leaders met with him and agreed to submit to whatever his judgement would be for their crimes against the Muslims. This haidth from Sahih Muslim elaborates:

‏ ‏و حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة ‏ ‏ومحمد بن المثنى ‏ ‏وابن بشار ‏ ‏وألفاظهم متقاربة ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏أبو بكر ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏غندر ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏شعبة ‏ ‏و قال ‏ ‏الآخران ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏محمد بن جعفر ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏شعبة ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏سعد بن إبراهيم ‏ ‏قال سمعت ‏ ‏أبا أمامة بن سهل بن حنيف ‏ ‏قال سمعت ‏ ‏أبا سعيد الخدري ‏ ‏قال ‏
‏نزل أهل ‏ ‏قريظة ‏ ‏على حكم ‏ ‏سعد بن معاذ ‏ ‏فأرسل رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏إلى ‏ ‏سعد ‏ ‏فأتاه على حمار فلما دنا قريبا من المسجد قال رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏للأنصار ‏ ‏قوموا إلى سيدكم ‏ ‏أو خيركم ‏ ‏ثم قال إن هؤلاء نزلوا على حكمك قال تقتل مقاتلتهم ‏ ‏وتسبي ‏ ‏ذريتهم قال فقال النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏قضيت بحكم الله وربما ‏ ‏قال قضيت بحكم الملك ‏ ‏ولم يذكر ‏ ‏ابن المثنى ‏ ‏وربما قال قضيت بحكم الملك ‏
‏و حدثنا ‏ ‏زهير بن حرب ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏عبد الرحمن بن مهدي ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏شعبة ‏ ‏بهذا الإسناد وقال في حديثه فقال رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏لقد حكمت فيهم بحكم الله وقال مرة لقد حكمت بحكم الملك ‏

----------

Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him, reported:
The people of Quraizhah surrendered and accepted that their fate be decided based on the judgement of Sa'd bin Mu'adh about them. Accordingly, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent for Sa'd who came to him riding a donkey. When he approached the mosque, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said to the Ansar: Stand up to receive your chieftain. Then he said (to Sa'd): These people have surrendered accepting your decision. He (Sa'd) said: Let their fighters be killed and their women and children be kept as slaves. (Hearing this), the Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: You have adjudged by the command of Allah. The narrator is reported to have said: Perhaps he said: You have adjudged by the decision of the King. Ibn Al-Muthanna did not mention the phrase: "or perhaps he said: You adjudged by the decision of the King."

SOURCE

3. MYTH:

The "massacre" was ordered by Muhammad's says-so. This is because Muhammad feared the Jews and recognised that they were a threat to his political dominance.

FACT:

It is nothing but a blasphemous lie. It is clear that Sa'd bin Mu'adh had administered the punishment in accordance with Jewish law as found in the Torah. The law is:

"When the Lord thy God hath delivered it unto thy hands, thou shalt smite every male therein with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself" (Deuteronomy 20:12)

It is therefore clear that Muslims are not to be blamed for administering a Law that is found within the Jewish scripture itself upon the Jews who had earlier agreed to submit to Sa'd bin Mu'adh's judgement.

4. MYTH

The Prophet (saw) allowed this Law to be passed because he was inhuman and unmerciful.

FACT:

The reason why the Prophet (saw) allowed judgement according to Jewish law was because the Banu Qurayza were Jews, and in their initial agreement with the Prophet (saw), they were allowed their own system of law according to the Torah.

Allahu Alim

:w:
Reply

QuranStudy
09-09-2006, 08:11 PM
Excellent post. Thank God for facts!
Reply

chitownmuslim
09-10-2006, 05:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
[b]

My points have been based on the historiocal documenation of the time in the Sirah and Ahadith collections. You don't have ANY documentation to build your arguments. You want to play this way? Fine. Prove that Banu Qurayza EVEN existed! If you cannot do so without turning to the Muslim sources or those secondary sources based on Muslim sources, then your argument is self-defeating. We can dream up whatever scenario we want if we don't have to substantiate it with historical documentation. We could say that the Jewish tribes never existed in the first place.
I love it when Ansar steps in and sets the facts straight, jazak allah khayr bro.
Reply

QuranStudy
09-10-2006, 04:22 PM
The Jews can distort the media, but they'll never distort the history. That is why I never trust Jewish history professors.
Reply

Hijrah
09-10-2006, 05:16 PM
So Sa'd Bin Muadh was previously a Jew, there is different Hadith on what happened to Bani Quraizah, one say all the men were killed women and children killed, one says all the able bodied males were killed and another says only the cobatants, props on this though, assalam-u-alaikum
Reply

arabiyyah
09-10-2006, 07:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by QuranStudy
The Jews can distort the media, but they'll never distort the history. That is why I never trust Jewish history professors.
You don't trust all because of a few? That is pretty ignorant considering the fact that I absolutly hate people who look at me different because I am a Muslim. When I went to France this one time people looked at me odd, so why would I ever want to look at someone different because of there religion? I think that is a pretty ignorant, and sad thing for a Muslim to be saying.
Reply

QuranStudy
09-10-2006, 07:11 PM
If you ever had a Jew as a professor of Jewish history, you'd know what I mean :)
Reply

therebbe
09-10-2006, 07:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by QuranStudy
If you ever had a Jew as a professor of Jewish history, you'd know what I mean :)
How unheard of! A Jewish professor teaching a Jewish history class! What do you want? A Nazi? A member of Al-Queda?

Who would you want teaching people about Islam? A Hindu or a Muslim?
Reply

- Qatada -
09-10-2006, 07:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hijrah
So Sa'd Bin Muadh was previously a Jew, there is different Hadith on what happened to Bani Quraizah, one say all the men were killed women and children killed, one says all the able bodied males were killed and another says only the cobatants, props on this though, assalam-u-alaikum

:wasalamex


Sa'ad ibn Mu'aadh (may Allaah Almighty be pleased with him) was an arab and the leader of al-Aws tribe in Medina. He was an ally of the Banu Quraydha in the jahilliyah (ignorant) times.


Allaah Almighty knows best.


:salamext:
Reply

QuranStudy
09-10-2006, 08:00 PM
How unheard of! A Jewish professor teaching a Jewish history class! What do you want? A Nazi? A member of Al-Queda?
Unbiased and professional work. A non-Jew teaching Jewish history is more helpful that a Jew teaching Jewish history.

Who would you want teaching people about Islam? A Hindu or a Muslim?
Religion and history are two different fields.
Reply

therebbe
09-10-2006, 08:12 PM
Religion and history are two different fields.
So you would prefer a Hindu teach Islamic History over a Muslim?

Unbiased and professional work. A non-Jew teaching Jewish history is more helpful that a Jew teaching Jewish history.
It depends who it is. Jews know the most about our own history. Maybe it is the student who should not walk into the class with hate and misconceptions.
Reply

Fishman
09-10-2006, 08:14 PM
:sl:
I would rather have a Jewish teacher teaching me Jewish history than a non-Jew, because they properly understand the subject.
:w:
Reply

therebbe
09-10-2006, 08:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
:sl:
I would rather have a Jewish teacher teaching me Jewish history than a non-Jew, because they properly understand the subject.
:w:
Exactly! I would much rather have a Muslim teacher, teaching me about Islamic history then a Christian, Jewish, or Hindu teacher.
Reply

- Qatada -
09-10-2006, 08:22 PM
:salamext:


Please don't go offtopic guys :) insha'Allaah.



Peace.
Reply

QuranStudy
09-10-2006, 08:22 PM
So you would prefer a Hindu teach Islamic History over a Muslim?
Usually those to teach Islamic history in universities are non-Muslim.

It depends who it is. Jews know the most about our own history. Maybe it is the student who should not walk into the class with hate and misconceptions.
Of course they know more, but they are biased. It does disservice to the student when a professor teaches one side of the story. For instance, a jew will definitely be biased over the formation of Israel.
Reply

therebbe
09-10-2006, 08:47 PM
Usually those to teach Islamic history in universities are non-Muslim.
You didn't awnser my question. Would you rather have a Muslim teach Islamic history or a Hindu teach Islamic history?

Of course they know more, but they are biased. It does disservice to the student when a professor teaches one side of the story. For instance, a jew will definitely be biased over the formation of Israel.
Everyone has biases. The bottom line is that a Jew can give yo much more insight to Jewish history, and why somethings are the way they were or happend according to Judaism.
Reply

QuranStudy
09-10-2006, 08:51 PM
You didn't awnser my question. Would you rather have a Muslim teach Islamic history or a Hindu teach Islamic history?
If the Hindu had a the credentials and degrees on Islamic history, then sure.

Everyone has biases.
Some are more biased that others.

The bottom line is that a Jew can give yo much more insight to Jewish history, and why somethings are the way they were or happend according to Judaism.
You are linking religion with history ("according to Judaism"). History is entire factual, events cannot be refuted. Religion is not factual, but faith-based.
Reply

therebbe
09-10-2006, 09:17 PM
Some are more biased that others.
It goes both ways.
Reply

Bassam Zawadi
10-15-2007, 10:55 AM
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/th...es_of_madinah1
Reply

Aprender
11-30-2013, 05:59 PM
Are there any Jewish people left in Saudi Arabia now? I know that practicing the religion is banned there but what happened to them?

Are there Jews there who are now Muslims or did just migrate to other places?
Reply

جوري
11-30-2013, 06:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender
Are there any Jewish people left in Saudi Arabia now?
my feeling is that the current ruling family is the remnant of Banu Qynuqaa.. You should google and read about Crypto-Judaism...

:w:
Reply

Karl
12-02-2013, 10:08 PM
It just goes to show that multi culturalism does not work. Especially with the "chosen ones". Things never seem to change. Alexander the Great tried to build a commonwealth and had the same sort of trouble as Muhammad (PBUH).
Reply

Vlad
05-21-2015, 11:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hijrah
So Sa'd Bin Muadh was previously a Jew, there is different Hadith on what happened to Bani Quraizah, one say all the men were killed women and children killed, one says all the able bodied males were killed and another says only the cobatants, props on this though, assalam-u-alaikum
He raised that point on two different threads but no one answered his vitriol, notwithstanding in a tribal warfare, all able-bodied(adulthood in general) males are considered combatants. Pakistani army are bombing tribal combatants(Taliban) indiscriminately, in Anbar US strikes kill 100's of IS fighters in Iraq weekly, but the tribes (who see IS as their way of kicking out the iraqi militias of a certain sect) just pump in 100's of more adult fighters.
Many 11 and 12 years old boys are fighting against U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq, has anybody in the international media considered the killing by U.S. and secular Pakistani establishment a massacre of tribal children? Nope, simply in Army they say when an adult take up arms, he should be abe to take a bullet.

Note: Not exonerating U.S. and Pakistani establishment from the massacre of tribal children and women.
Reply

Karl
05-21-2015, 11:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender
Are there any Jewish people left in Saudi Arabia now? I know that practicing the religion is banned there but what happened to them?

Are there Jews there who are now Muslims or did just migrate to other places?
Yes they do the banking for the Royal family. But they must not be Zionists only master bankers. With all that oil revenue they get the best bankers that only invest 5% of shares into any non Zionist company. Before the oil boom Saudi Arabia had a GDP one year of about $50 US dollars. Camel raiding was the pastime of the men and life was very simple, so when the oil was discovered they had no skills or infrastructure to deal with it, so Western experts did it for them and the Jews were known to be experts with money so they got the job.
I suppose they have done a deal with the devil, tapping the treasures of Pluto, better had they kept camel raiding and eating dates and staying simple and pious, maybe there would be no war and strife in the Arab world today.
Reply

Karl
05-23-2015, 02:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Vlad
He raised that point on two different threads but no one answered his vitriol, notwithstanding in a tribal warfare, all able-bodied(adulthood in general) males are considered combatants. Pakistani army are bombing tribal combatants(Taliban) indiscriminately, in Anbar US strikes kill 100's of IS fighters in Iraq weekly, but the tribes (who see IS as their way of kicking out the iraqi militias of a certain sect) just pump in 100's of more adult fighters.
Many 11 and 12 years old boys are fighting against U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq, has anybody in the international media considered the killing by U.S. and secular Pakistani establishment a massacre of tribal children? Nope, simply in Army they say when an adult take up arms, he should be abe to take a bullet.

Note: Not exonerating U.S. and Pakistani establishment from the massacre of tribal children and women.
Give these 11 and 12 year old jihadi some respect they are not effeminate dancing boys but young men, they are definitely not children. And what is the international media? Liberal leftist Zionist liars, propagandists. War is war, there is no mercy from the war machine. The West is a two faced beast, one cries platitudinous slogans "human rights", "what about the children", "peace" and "freedom" while the other cries kill 'em all.
Reply

Karl
05-23-2015, 02:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Vlad
He raised that point on two different threads but no one answered his vitriol, notwithstanding in a tribal warfare, all able-bodied(adulthood in general) males are considered combatants. Pakistani army are bombing tribal combatants(Taliban) indiscriminately, in Anbar US strikes kill 100's of IS fighters in Iraq weekly, but the tribes (who see IS as their way of kicking out the iraqi militias of a certain sect) just pump in 100's of more adult fighters.
Many 11 and 12 years old boys are fighting against U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq, has anybody in the international media considered the killing by U.S. and secular Pakistani establishment a massacre of tribal children? Nope, simply in Army they say when an adult take up arms, he should be abe to take a bullet.

Note: Not exonerating U.S. and Pakistani establishment from the massacre of tribal children and women.

Give these 11 and 12 year old jihadi some respect they are not effeminate dancing boys but young men, they are definitely not children. And what is the international media? Liberal leftist Zionist liars, propagandists. War is war, there is no mercy from the war machine. The West is a two faced beast, one cries platitudinous slogans "human rights", "what about the children", "peace" and "freedom" while the other cries "kill 'em all".
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-17-2011, 07:27 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-11-2011, 12:47 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-05-2007, 04:39 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-28-2007, 05:00 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!