The Jews of Medina

[QuranStudy]

The hatred and jealousy of the Jews against Muhammad lead to theirm own demise.

 

[lavikor201]

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.

 

[MuslimCONVERT]

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.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

NOTE: No anti-islamic links or articles. Articulate your arguments yourself.

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.

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.

 

[ManchesterFolk]

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.

 

[evangel]

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.

 

[shahidiceprince]

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.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

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.

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.

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.

 

[`Abd al-Azeez]

Truth about The “massacre” of Banu Qurayza



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

 

[QuranStudy]

Re: Truth about The “massacre” of Banu Qurayza

Excellent post. Thank God for facts!

 

[chitownmuslim]

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.

 

[QuranStudy]

The Jews can distort the media, but they'll never distort the history. That is why I never trust Jewish history professors.

 

[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

 

[arabiyyah]

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.

 

[QuranStudy]

If you ever had a Jew as a professor of Jewish history, you'd know what I mean

 

[therebbe]

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?

 

[- Qatada -]

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:

 

[QuranStudy]

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.

 

[therebbe]

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.

 

[Fishman]

I would rather have a Jewish teacher teaching me Jewish history than a non-Jew, because they properly understand the subject.