E
Emad
Guest
Rodrigo Bivar:
I didn’t even read the link, I just wanted to point out that people should be catious of it.
- Status
P
pro_universal
Guest
As for this, we hashed this out weeks ago.
The Qurayza twice made war on the muslims. As a result, they were punished. Muhammad allowed them to choose their own judge for deciding what the punishment would be. They did not choose Muhammad, and he didn’t decide their fate. Instead, they chose a general who decided to judge them under the Jewish law, and that’s why all the men were killed and the women taken (that was the Jewish custom of warfare for the situation.)
Your implication that Muhammad simply decided to kill them all is wrong, and it’s detracting from the issue on the thread. Let’s get some good historical info out there now.
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
- It is not mentioned at all in earlier and more authoritative historical sources such as the sahih hadiths and Tabari’s history. It is only mentioned in Ibn Hisham.
- The Qurayza expressly denied having any understanding or agreement with Muhammad. Thus contradicting the existence of any Medina Charter.
- Muhammad tried to force treaties on the Nadir and Qurayza. Why would he do that if there was a Medina Charter?
Narrated A man from the companions of the Prophet:
AbdurRahman ibn Ka’b ibn Malik reported on the authority of a man from among the companions of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him): The infidels of the Quraysh wrote (a letter) to Ibn Ubayy and to those who worshipped idols from al-Aws and al-Khazraj, while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was at that time at Medina before the battle of Badr.
(They wrote): You gave protection to our companion. We swear by Allah, you should fight him or expel him, or we shall come to you in full force, until we kill your fighters and appropriate your women.
When this (news) reached Abdullah ibn Ubayy and those who were worshippers of idols, with him they gathered together to fight the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him).
When this news reached the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), he visited them and said: The threat of the Quraysh to you has reached its end. They cannot contrive a plot against you, greater than what you yourselves intended to harm you. Are you willing to fight your sons and brethren? When they heard this from the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him), they scattered. This reached the infidels of the Quraysh.
The infidels of the Quraysh again wrote (a letter) to the Jews after the battle of Badr: You are men of weapons and fortresses. You should fight our companion or we shall deal with you in a certain way. And nothing will come between us and the anklets of your women. When their letter reached the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him), they gathered Banu an-Nadir to violate the treaty.
They sent a message to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him): Come out to us with thirty men from your companions, and thirty rabbis will come out from us till we meet at a central place where they will hear you. If they testify to you and believe in you, we shall believe in you. The narrator then narrated the whole story.
When the next day came, the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) went out in the morning with an army, and surrounded them.
He told them: I swear by Allah, you will have no peace from me until you conclude a treaty with me. But they refused to conclude a treaty with him. He therefore fought them the same day.
Next he attacked Banu Quraysh with an army in the morning, and left Banu an-Nadir. He asked them to sign a treaty and they signed it.
He turned away from them and attacked Banu an-Nadir with an army. He fought with them until they agreed to expulsion. Banu an-Nadir were deported, and they took with them whatever their camels could carry, that is, their property, the doors of their houses, and their wood. Palm-trees were exclusively reserved for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). Allah bestowed them upon him and gave them him as a special portion.
He (Allah), the Exalted, said: What Allah has bestowed on His Apostle (and taken away) from them, for this ye made no expedition with either camel corps or cavalry." He said: “Without fighting.” So the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) gave most of it to the emigrants and divided it among them; and he divided some of it between two men from the helpers, who were needy, and he did not divide it among any of the helpers except those two. The rest of it survived as the sadaqah of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) which is in the hands of the descendants of Fatimah (Allah be pleased with her).
- The Jews would never agree to a charter written in the name of Allah and the Apostle of God. That would be against their religion.
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
You have made several errors.
- Genocide is not the sort of behavior for someone who claims to be a prophet of the religion of peace. I don’t know about you, but I do not think genocide and peace are compatible.
- It was not the Qurayza who chose Sa’d ibn Sa’d bin Muadh. It was their allies, the Aus. This is a misreading and/or a misrepresentation by Muslims.
- Sa’d admitted to being an enemy of the Qurayza at Badr
d was shot by an arrow which severed the vein of his arm. The man who shot him, according to what Asim b. Umar b. Qatada told me, was Hibban b. Qays b. al-Ariqa, one of B. Amir b. Lu'ayy. When he hit him he said, "Take that from me, the son of al-Ariqa." Sad said to him, "May God make your face sweat (arraq) in hell. O God, if the war with Quraysh is to be prolonged spare me for it, for there is no people whom I want to fight more than those who insulted your apostle, called him a liar, and drove him out. O God, seeing that you have appointed war between us and them grant me martyrdom and do not let me die until I have seen my desire upon B. Qurayza."’ [Sirat, page 459]answering-islam.org.uk/Muhammad/Jews/BQurayza/banu2.html
- The Sirat of Ibn Ishaq clear states that it was the Aus, and not the Qurayza, who accepted Sa’d’s judgment.
who were allies of al-Khazraj and when they submitted to his judgmentAbdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul had asked him for them and he gave them to him; so when al-Aus spoke thus the apostle said: ‘Will you be satisfied, O Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgment on them ?’ When they agreed he said that Sad b. Muadh was the man. [page 463]answering-islam.org.uk/Muhammad/Jews/BQurayza/banu3.html
Note how Muhammad asked the Aus if they will be satisfied if one of their number (meaning Sa’d ibn Mu’adh) pronouncement judgment on them (meaning the Qurayza).
The Sirat clearly shows that it was the Aus who agreed that Sa’d bin Mu’adh should be the man to provide ‘judgment’ on the Qurayza.
When Sa
d reached the apostle and the Muslims the apostle told them to get up to greet their leader. The muhajirs of Quraysh thought that the apostle meant the Ansar, while the latter thought that he meant everyone, so they got up and said 'O Abu Amr, the apostle has entrusted to you the affair of your allies that you may give judgment concerning them.’ Sad asked, 'Do you covenant by Allah that you accept the judgment I pronounce on them?' They said Yes, and he said, 'And is it incumbent on the one who is here ?' (looking) in the direction of the apostle not mentioning him out of respect, and the apostle answered Yes. Sad said, ‘Then I give judgment that the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives.’ [Sirat, page 464]Note how the above paragraph clearly shows that Sa’d was the ‘leader’ of the Muslims in question – i.e. the Aus.
Also note how Sa’d asked, ‘Do you covenant by ALLAH that YOU accept the judgment I pronounce on THEM?
This shows 2 things:
A. Jews don’t covenant by Allah – only Muslims (in this case, the Aus) do.
B. Sa’d asked if YOU (meaning the Aus) accept the judgment he pronounce on THEM (meaning the Qurayza). If THEM = Qurayza, then YOU cannot = Qurayza, otherwise, Sa’d would have asked, ‘Do you covenant by Yahweh that you accept the judgment I pronounce on YOU.’
- Sahih Bukhari backs up the Sirat account that it was the Aus who accepted the judgment of Sa’d bin Mu’adh.
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:
Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri: When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad’s judgment, Allah’s Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah’s Apostle said (to the Ansar), “Stand up for your leader.” Then Sad came and sat beside Allah’s Apostle who said to him. “These people are ready to accept your judgment.” Sad said, “I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners.” The Prophet then remarked, “O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah.”
Volume 5 Book 58 (Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar)) Number 148
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, “Get up for the best amongst you.” or said, “Get up for your chief.” Then the Prophet said, “O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sad said, “I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives.” The Prophet said, “You have given a judgment similar to Allah’s Judgment (or the King’s judgment).”
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 447:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Mu’adh. So the Prophet sent for Sad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, “Get up for your chief or for the best among you.” Then the Prophet said (to Sad)." These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, "On that the Prophet said, “You have judged according to Allah’s Judgment,” or said, “according to the King’s judgment.”
Volume 8, Book 74, Number 278:
Narrated Abu Said: The people of (the tribe of) Quraiza agreed upon to accept the verdict of Sa’d. The Prophet sent for him (Sa’d) and he came. The Prophet said (to those people), “Get up for your chief or the best among you!” Sa’d sat beside the Prophet and the Prophet said (to him), “These people have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sa’d said, “So I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed and their women and children should be taken as captives.” The Prophet said, “You have judged according to the King’s (Allah’s) judgment.”
These four hadiths are all narrated by the same person, and the words are almost identical, leading to the conclusion they are mere repetition (which is very common in Sahih Bukhari), perpetuating the same mistake. However, there is sufficient difference to show that the common Muhammadan interpretation is wrong.
The reasons why the hadiths cannot be correct in the assertion that the Qurayza agreed to Sa’d’s judgment are as follows:
A. These hadiths all claim Sa’d was the chief of the people who had agreed to accept the verdict. However, Sa’d was not the chief of the Qurayza – he was the chief of the Aus. The chiefs of the Qurayza were Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the audience who accepted the verdict was the Aus who were asked to stand before their chief, Sa’d bin Mu’adh.
B. The hadith clearly states it was the Ansar who was the audience, not the Qurayza.
The hadiths are clearly a mistake on the part of either Imam Bukhari or the translator (doubtful in my view). This is because the narrative does not fit the first sentence which states that the Qurayza agreed to accept Sa’d’s judgment – the audience was the Ansar (i.e. specifically the Aus) and not the Qurayza; and Sa’d was the chief of the Aus and not the Qurayza.
Either we reject these hadiths due to their internal inconsistencies, and therefore accept only the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq, or accept that these hadiths are in error. In either case, the only logical conclusion is that it was the Aus and not the Qurayza who accepted Sa’d ibn Mu’adh’s verdict.
cont
Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri: When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad’s judgment, Allah’s Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah’s Apostle said (to the Ansar), “Stand up for your leader.” Then Sad came and sat beside Allah’s Apostle who said to him. “These people are ready to accept your judgment.” Sad said, “I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners.” The Prophet then remarked, “O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah.”
Volume 5 Book 58 (Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar)) Number 148
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, “Get up for the best amongst you.” or said, “Get up for your chief.” Then the Prophet said, “O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sad said, “I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives.” The Prophet said, “You have given a judgment similar to Allah’s Judgment (or the King’s judgment).”
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 447:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Mu’adh. So the Prophet sent for Sad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, “Get up for your chief or for the best among you.” Then the Prophet said (to Sad)." These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, "On that the Prophet said, “You have judged according to Allah’s Judgment,” or said, “according to the King’s judgment.”
Volume 8, Book 74, Number 278:
Narrated Abu Said: The people of (the tribe of) Quraiza agreed upon to accept the verdict of Sa’d. The Prophet sent for him (Sa’d) and he came. The Prophet said (to those people), “Get up for your chief or the best among you!” Sa’d sat beside the Prophet and the Prophet said (to him), “These people have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sa’d said, “So I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed and their women and children should be taken as captives.” The Prophet said, “You have judged according to the King’s (Allah’s) judgment.”
These four hadiths are all narrated by the same person, and the words are almost identical, leading to the conclusion they are mere repetition (which is very common in Sahih Bukhari), perpetuating the same mistake. However, there is sufficient difference to show that the common Muhammadan interpretation is wrong.
The reasons why the hadiths cannot be correct in the assertion that the Qurayza agreed to Sa’d’s judgment are as follows:
A. These hadiths all claim Sa’d was the chief of the people who had agreed to accept the verdict. However, Sa’d was not the chief of the Qurayza – he was the chief of the Aus. The chiefs of the Qurayza were Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the audience who accepted the verdict was the Aus who were asked to stand before their chief, Sa’d bin Mu’adh.
B. The hadith clearly states it was the Ansar who was the audience, not the Qurayza.
The hadiths are clearly a mistake on the part of either Imam Bukhari or the translator (doubtful in my view). This is because the narrative does not fit the first sentence which states that the Qurayza agreed to accept Sa’d’s judgment – the audience was the Ansar (i.e. specifically the Aus) and not the Qurayza; and Sa’d was the chief of the Aus and not the Qurayza.
Either we reject these hadiths due to their internal inconsistencies, and therefore accept only the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq, or accept that these hadiths are in error. In either case, the only logical conclusion is that it was the Aus and not the Qurayza who accepted Sa’d ibn Mu’adh’s verdict.
cont
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
The Bukhari hadiths are almost exactly replicated by Imam Muslim:
Book 19, Number 4368:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri who said: The people of Quraiza surrendered accepting the decision of Sa’d b. 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: You will kill their fighters and capture their women and children. (Hearing this), the Prophet (may peace he upon him) said: You have adjudged by the command of God. The narrator is reported to have said: Perhaps he said: You have adjudged by the decision of a king.
Ibn Muthanna (in his version of the tradition) has not mentioned the alternative words.
Book 019, Number 4369:
Through the same chain of transmitters Shu’ba has narrated the same tradition in which he says that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said (to Sa’d): You have adjudged according to the command of God. And once he said: you have adjudged by the decision of a king.
Book 019, Number 4371:
It has been narrated on the authority of Hisham (who learnt it from his father) that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said (to Sa’d): You have adjudged their case with the judgment of God. the Exalted and Glorified.
Conclusion
We can see that the Bukhari and Muslim hadiths are inconsistent because the texts suggest that it was the Aus who accepted Sa’d’s verdict even though the first sentences suggest it was the Qurayza. This is clearly an error in transmission, most probably by the narrator, so we either have to reject the hadiths outright, or take this error into consideration.
Accepting the error (i.e. that the Qurayza accepted Sa’d’s verdict), but not the text (which says the opposite) would be in total contradiction to the account of Ibn Ishaq and common sense.
Therefore, the only reading the fits both the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq and the sahih hadiths is that it was the Aus that accepted Sa’d’s verdict.
Musnad Ahmad - 22823
Narrated Huthayfa bin Al-Yaman:
[The beginning is irrelevant]
He [Mohammad] said to me,
“O Huthayfa, go and infiltrate the people [the armies against the Muslims] and see what they’re up to, and don’t say a word until you return.”
So I went and infiltrated the people while the winds and the soldiers of Allah [referring to the Angels that fought off the armies] were doing what they were doing - not leaving them [the armies] any cauldron or fire or structure. So Abu Sufyan bin Harb [the leader of the Pagan Quraysh] stood up and said,
“O ye people of Quraysh, let every person check and see the person sitting next to him [in fear of spies].”
So I took the hand of the man next to me and said,
“Who are you?”
He replied,
“I am someone the son of someone [an Arabic expression used in narrating events when the name of the person isn’t needed - it is like saying “so and so”].”
So Abu Sufyan said,
“O ye people of Quraysh, by Allah your [current] dwelling isn’t a place to be dwelled in [meaning that their current situation is bad]; the horses [and camels, mules, etc…] have died, Bani Quraytha has turned us down - we received from them what we don’t like [meaning they refused to let them in through their fortresses], and this wind is giving us what you see [a hard time]. By Allah, our cauldrons aren’t standing, the fires aren’t lasting, and the structures aren’t holding. So retreat for I am retreating.”
cont
Book 19, Number 4368:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri who said: The people of Quraiza surrendered accepting the decision of Sa’d b. 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: You will kill their fighters and capture their women and children. (Hearing this), the Prophet (may peace he upon him) said: You have adjudged by the command of God. The narrator is reported to have said: Perhaps he said: You have adjudged by the decision of a king.
Ibn Muthanna (in his version of the tradition) has not mentioned the alternative words.
Book 019, Number 4369:
Through the same chain of transmitters Shu’ba has narrated the same tradition in which he says that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said (to Sa’d): You have adjudged according to the command of God. And once he said: you have adjudged by the decision of a king.
Book 019, Number 4371:
It has been narrated on the authority of Hisham (who learnt it from his father) that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said (to Sa’d): You have adjudged their case with the judgment of God. the Exalted and Glorified.
Conclusion
We can see that the Bukhari and Muslim hadiths are inconsistent because the texts suggest that it was the Aus who accepted Sa’d’s verdict even though the first sentences suggest it was the Qurayza. This is clearly an error in transmission, most probably by the narrator, so we either have to reject the hadiths outright, or take this error into consideration.
Accepting the error (i.e. that the Qurayza accepted Sa’d’s verdict), but not the text (which says the opposite) would be in total contradiction to the account of Ibn Ishaq and common sense.
Therefore, the only reading the fits both the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq and the sahih hadiths is that it was the Aus that accepted Sa’d’s verdict.
- Qurayza did not make war on the Muslim. In fact, they refused to take part in the battle of the Trench. It was Muhammad who made war on them. It is claimed that the Qurayza helped the Meccans and also harbored the leaders of the B. Nadir such as Huyay ibn Akhtab. This is just an apologetic. We have a hadith that specifically has the Meccans complaining that the Qurayza did not help them.
Musnad Ahmad - 22823
Narrated Huthayfa bin Al-Yaman:
[The beginning is irrelevant]
He [Mohammad] said to me,
“O Huthayfa, go and infiltrate the people [the armies against the Muslims] and see what they’re up to, and don’t say a word until you return.”
So I went and infiltrated the people while the winds and the soldiers of Allah [referring to the Angels that fought off the armies] were doing what they were doing - not leaving them [the armies] any cauldron or fire or structure. So Abu Sufyan bin Harb [the leader of the Pagan Quraysh] stood up and said,
“O ye people of Quraysh, let every person check and see the person sitting next to him [in fear of spies].”
So I took the hand of the man next to me and said,
“Who are you?”
He replied,
“I am someone the son of someone [an Arabic expression used in narrating events when the name of the person isn’t needed - it is like saying “so and so”].”
So Abu Sufyan said,
“O ye people of Quraysh, by Allah your [current] dwelling isn’t a place to be dwelled in [meaning that their current situation is bad]; the horses [and camels, mules, etc…] have died, Bani Quraytha has turned us down - we received from them what we don’t like [meaning they refused to let them in through their fortresses], and this wind is giving us what you see [a hard time]. By Allah, our cauldrons aren’t standing, the fires aren’t lasting, and the structures aren’t holding. So retreat for I am retreating.”
cont
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
Musnad Ahmad - 22823
Narrated Huthayfa bin Al-Yaman:
[The beginning is irrelevant]
He [Mohammad] said to me,
“O Huthayfa, go and infiltrate the people [the armies against the Muslims] and see what they’re up to, and don’t say a word until you return.”
So I went and infiltrated the people while the winds and the soldiers of Allah [referring to the Angels that fought off the armies] were doing what they were doing - not leaving them [the armies] any cauldron or fire or structure. So Abu Sufyan bin Harb [the leader of the Pagan Quraysh] stood up and said,
“O ye people of Quraysh, let every person check and see the person sitting next to him [in fear of spies].”
So I took the hand of the man next to me and said,
“Who are you?”
He replied,
“I am someone the son of someone [an Arabic expression used in narrating events when the name of the person isn’t needed - it is like saying “so and so”].”
So Abu Sufyan said,
“O ye people of Quraysh, by Allah your [current] dwelling isn’t a place to be dwelled in [meaning that their current situation is bad]; the horses [and camels, mules, etc…] have died, Bani Quraytha has turned us down - we received from them what we don’t like [meaning they refused to let them in through their fortresses], and this wind is giving us what you see [a hard time]. By Allah, our cauldrons aren’t standing, the fires aren’t lasting, and the structures aren’t holding. So retreat for I am retreating.”
"According to what al-Zuhri told me, at the time of the noon prayers Gabriel came to the apostle wearing an embroidered turban and riding on a mule with a saddle covered with a piece of brocade. He asked the apostle if he had abandoned fighting, and when he said that he had he said that the angels had not yet laid aside their arms and that he had just come from pursuing the enemy. ‘God commands you, Muhammad, to go to B. Qurayza. I am about to go to them to shake their stronghold.’
The prophet ordered it to be announced that none should perform the afternoon prayer until after he reached B. Qurayza (705). The apostle sent `Ali forward with his banner and the men hastened to it. …" [Sirat, p. 461]
If you read the sirat and hadiths you will find no mention of any treachery by the Qurayza. The only reason given in the sirat is the vision of Gabriel by Muhammad.
Book 19, Number 4370:
It has been narrated on the authority of A’isha who said: Sa’d was wounded on the day of the Battle of the Ditch. A man from the Quraish called Ibn al-Ariqah shot at him an arrow which pierced the artery in the middle of his forearm. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) pitched a tent for him in the mosque and would inquire after him being in close proximity. When he returned from the Ditch and laid down his arms and took a bath, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and he was removing dust from his hair (as if he had just returned from the battle). The latter said: You have laid down arms. By God, we haven’t (yet) laid them down. So march against them. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) asked: Where? He pointed to Banu Quraiza. So the Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him) fought against them. They surrendered at the command of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), but he referred the decision about them to Sa’d who said: I decide about them that those of them who can fight be killed, their women and children taken prisoners and their properties distributed (among the Muslims).
I also find the excuse that one can commit genocide solely because the tribe harbors an enemy to be obscene.
Chau,
Rodrigo
Narrated Huthayfa bin Al-Yaman:
[The beginning is irrelevant]
He [Mohammad] said to me,
“O Huthayfa, go and infiltrate the people [the armies against the Muslims] and see what they’re up to, and don’t say a word until you return.”
So I went and infiltrated the people while the winds and the soldiers of Allah [referring to the Angels that fought off the armies] were doing what they were doing - not leaving them [the armies] any cauldron or fire or structure. So Abu Sufyan bin Harb [the leader of the Pagan Quraysh] stood up and said,
“O ye people of Quraysh, let every person check and see the person sitting next to him [in fear of spies].”
So I took the hand of the man next to me and said,
“Who are you?”
He replied,
“I am someone the son of someone [an Arabic expression used in narrating events when the name of the person isn’t needed - it is like saying “so and so”].”
So Abu Sufyan said,
“O ye people of Quraysh, by Allah your [current] dwelling isn’t a place to be dwelled in [meaning that their current situation is bad]; the horses [and camels, mules, etc…] have died, Bani Quraytha has turned us down - we received from them what we don’t like [meaning they refused to let them in through their fortresses], and this wind is giving us what you see [a hard time]. By Allah, our cauldrons aren’t standing, the fires aren’t lasting, and the structures aren’t holding. So retreat for I am retreating.”
"According to what al-Zuhri told me, at the time of the noon prayers Gabriel came to the apostle wearing an embroidered turban and riding on a mule with a saddle covered with a piece of brocade. He asked the apostle if he had abandoned fighting, and when he said that he had he said that the angels had not yet laid aside their arms and that he had just come from pursuing the enemy. ‘God commands you, Muhammad, to go to B. Qurayza. I am about to go to them to shake their stronghold.’
The prophet ordered it to be announced that none should perform the afternoon prayer until after he reached B. Qurayza (705). The apostle sent `Ali forward with his banner and the men hastened to it. …" [Sirat, p. 461]
If you read the sirat and hadiths you will find no mention of any treachery by the Qurayza. The only reason given in the sirat is the vision of Gabriel by Muhammad.
Book 19, Number 4370:
It has been narrated on the authority of A’isha who said: Sa’d was wounded on the day of the Battle of the Ditch. A man from the Quraish called Ibn al-Ariqah shot at him an arrow which pierced the artery in the middle of his forearm. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) pitched a tent for him in the mosque and would inquire after him being in close proximity. When he returned from the Ditch and laid down his arms and took a bath, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and he was removing dust from his hair (as if he had just returned from the battle). The latter said: You have laid down arms. By God, we haven’t (yet) laid them down. So march against them. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) asked: Where? He pointed to Banu Quraiza. So the Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him) fought against them. They surrendered at the command of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), but he referred the decision about them to Sa’d who said: I decide about them that those of them who can fight be killed, their women and children taken prisoners and their properties distributed (among the Muslims).
I also find the excuse that one can commit genocide solely because the tribe harbors an enemy to be obscene.
Chau,
Rodrigo
P
pro_universal
Guest
Rodrigo Bivar:
Rodrigo Bivar:
I’ll tell you what: try to find a source other than answering-islam that makes the above claim. I think it’s a safe bet to say that Bukhari was more proficient in classical arabic than the webmaster of answering-islam. If you can come up with an academic/somewhat credible source to support these claims, sure, I’ll see them.
Your posts below are basically just really long quotes from hadiths which at best claim that there is some dispute over who chose Sa’d as a judge. They admit that:
There was no genocide, and Muhammad wasn’t the judge who ordered the punishment. You need 1. A dictionary to look up the word genocide, and 2. to get a credible source on arabic for the points that follow.
Rodrigo Bivar:
How are you going to show a mistranslation when you don’t speak arabic?
I’ll tell you what: try to find a source other than answering-islam that makes the above claim. I think it’s a safe bet to say that Bukhari was more proficient in classical arabic than the webmaster of answering-islam. If you can come up with an academic/somewhat credible source to support these claims, sure, I’ll see them.
Your posts below are basically just really long quotes from hadiths which at best claim that there is some dispute over who chose Sa’d as a judge. They admit that:
- Most sources agree that he was chosen by the Quraysh themselves. (Already a presumption there that it’s true, since only answering-islam.org is contesting this, according to you.)
- Regardless of who chose the judge, Muhammad wasn’t the one who decided their fate. And on top of that, it was Jewish law that applied…not Islamic law.
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
Would you prefer I use the term, ‘mass murder’?
Anyway, how is my definition wrong?
Here is a recognized definition.
preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Hmmm… looks like the definition fits.
Thanks for the ad hominem against answering-islam.com. Why do you think you can libel a Christian site for nothing more than being critical of Islam, and in another Christian site?
You tell me which Arabic terms and/or conclusion you disagree and I will check.
I think you presume too much. First of all, the translations I used were originated from Arabic experts. Secondly, my reference to answering-islam is because it is a convenient collection point for the relevant translations. Thirdly, the translations made by answering-islam all show their original Arabic – you just have too look at their site.
You don’t get it, do you? Most of the translations are by Arabic speaking Muslims, not the answering-islam team. When they make translations that are not generally available they include the Arabic so that there is no confusion. So far, no Muslim has yet come to show that the answering-islam translations are wrong.
Okay, please show where my translations are in error. Go on. You made the claim, now prove it.
Show me the Arabic where my translations are wrong.
I think you should read my post carefully before commenting. It is Dr Mohsin Khan’s translation that betrays the mistranslation. The reasons why those translations are wrong has already been given. In fact, the answering-islam team has nothing to do with the translations used in this issue.
Let me spell it out for you:
- Ibn Ishaq said it was the Aus who accepted Sa’d’s decision, not the Qurayza.
- Bukhari initially said it was the Qurayza who accepted Sa’d’s decision, but the narrative shows it was really the Aus who accepted Sa’d’s decision – so either the translation or the transmission is flawed here.
- Muslim again makes it clear the audience is the Aus and it is they whom Muhammad was talking to.
In the morning they [the B.Quraiza] submitted to the apostle’s judgment and al-Aus leapt up and said, ‘O Apostle, they are our allies, not allies of Khazraj, and you know how you recently treated the allies of our brethren.’ Now the apostle had besieged B. Qaynuqa
who were allies of al-Khazraj and when they submitted to his judgmentAbdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul had asked him for them and he gave them to him; so when al-Aus spoke thus the apostle said: ‘Will you be satisfied, O Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgment on them ?’ When they agreed he said that Sad b. Muadh was the man. [Sirat - page 463]Note how the Aus weren’t told whom among them would be the judge until after they agreed to the deal. And note how Sa’d was a KNOWN anti-Jew from long before this affair. Looks like Muhammad tricked the Aus.
cont.
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
No. The original sources say he was chosen by the Aus. It is the modern Muslims who claim he was chosen by the Qurayza.
Not the Quraysh.???
The Qurayza submitted to Muhammad, but their allies the Aus intervened asking for the same favor as the Khazraj with the B. Quynuqa. In an earlier encounter, Muhammad wanted to eliminate the Quynuqa but the Khazraj intervened to get them spared. So Muhammad merely exiled them from Arabia (a spot of ethnic-cleansing I believe).
So the Aus wanted the same deal. But Muhammad tricked them. He asked them if they would accept the judgment of one of them. They agreed, little knowing that Muhammad already had in mind one of the Aus who was a well-known anti-Jew.
So to say that Muhammad had nothing to do with the genocide is false as he was the one who selected Sa’d ibn Muadh knowing Sa’d’s hatred for the Jews.
See above. Muhammad chose Sa’d knowing his hatred of the Jews, knowing he vowed to kill the Jews.
Sa
d said to him, "May God make your face sweat (arraq) in hell. O God, if the war with Quraysh is to be prolonged spare me for it, for there is no people whom I want to fight more than those who insulted your apostle, called him a liar, and drove him out. O God, seeing that you have appointed war between us and them grant me martyrdom and do not let me die until I have seen my desire upon B. Qurayza."’ [Sirat, page 459]
As opposed to your ad hominems against me and the Christians at answering-islam. I’m not sure libel against a Christian site will do much for your credibility.
If you have any misgiving about the Arabic translations, please bring the Arabic and we shall see. I rather think you presume too much.
Hasta luego,
Cid.
P
pro_universal
Guest
Rodrigo,
What you have provided is long winded repetition of your first post.
Here’s what’s missing:
A credible authority to support your claims of mistranslation of the arabic text. Until you provide that, there’s no reason to assume Bukhari (who was a classical arabic speaker himself) is wrong and you are right. I can’t disprove or comment on your claims because there’s no substance to them. All you have is an allegation. If you can provide some credible sources on arabic translation, we can move forward. If all you have is “rodrigo the man who does not speak arabic says so”, then the point is moot.
As for answering-islam, it’s not libel to point out that it’s not written by arabic speakers, and is mostly wrong in its information. That’s not surprising, because it relies mostly on the internet rumor-mill instead of turning to generally accepted authorities on Quranic and Hadith scholarship.
So again, I’ll ask that you provide something credible to support your translation claim, because that’s what the rest of your claims about the Quraysh rely on.
If you can’t do that, I think it’ll be obvious that there is no such support, and we can go on discussing the accurate historical information that we do have (like the Ohio State link on the Medina Charter.)
What you have provided is long winded repetition of your first post.
Here’s what’s missing:
A credible authority to support your claims of mistranslation of the arabic text. Until you provide that, there’s no reason to assume Bukhari (who was a classical arabic speaker himself) is wrong and you are right. I can’t disprove or comment on your claims because there’s no substance to them. All you have is an allegation. If you can provide some credible sources on arabic translation, we can move forward. If all you have is “rodrigo the man who does not speak arabic says so”, then the point is moot.
As for answering-islam, it’s not libel to point out that it’s not written by arabic speakers, and is mostly wrong in its information. That’s not surprising, because it relies mostly on the internet rumor-mill instead of turning to generally accepted authorities on Quranic and Hadith scholarship.
So again, I’ll ask that you provide something credible to support your translation claim, because that’s what the rest of your claims about the Quraysh rely on.
If you can’t do that, I think it’ll be obvious that there is no such support, and we can go on discussing the accurate historical information that we do have (like the Ohio State link on the Medina Charter.)
- Status