bayezid: Read Quran and hadith before setting out Islamic laws of war Part II (Especially about Banu Quraiza)

Submitted by Plato (India), Jan 8, 2009 at 06:03

bayezid, you write:

>> Remember what happened to the Banu Quraiza? The adult males who were all beheaded must have included some priests, rabbis. Do you have even a single ruins of any synagogue or church in the Hejaz? How did they disappear?"

oh well how could i forget? knowing that you would acvtually remind me of this some time. lol. yes i knw about them.<<

From what you have written below it is clear that you know only the version that your madrassa taught you. Why don't you study the original sources to discover what really happened to the Banu Quraiza. Before I demolish the madrassa story let me quote to you from an admirer of Muhammd. You have probably heard of Karen Armstrong. This is what she has to say in her book ‘Muhammad. A biography of the Prophet', Phoenix Press paperback Pages 207-208:

‘It is probably impossible for us to dissociate this story from Nazi atrocities and it will inevitably alienate many people irrevocably from Muhammad….' Funnily after saying this on page 208 Armstrong says ‘Nobody seems to have been shocked by the massacre and the Quraiza themselves seem to have accepted its inevitability.'

And equally funnily we see Muslims defending this crime shamelessly like you are doing now.

>>and heres the whole truth abt banu quraiza.<<

The whole TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH?? The poor Banu Quraiza, not only did they get wiped out but their memory is defiled and defamed in every Muslim book there is.

Bayezid, let us look into your own sources to get to the TRUTH about the Banu Quraiza. If you can get the biography of the prophet published in the land of the pure, Pakistan, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated by A Guillame, Oxford University Press. Read their sad story given on pages 457-468.

>> they were the aggressors. not the muslims.<<

Modern day Muslim historians accuse the Banu Quraiza of conspiring to do harm to the Muslims. During the month-long siege of Medina they never once lifted a weapon in anger. Ibn Ishaq has nothing to say about what they actually did except to report some conversation with Huyayy bin Akhtab. (He was the father of Safiya whom the Prophet got as a slave girl when he fought the Banu Nadir and forced her to marry him on the day he had her husband tortured and killed.) The prophet sent Sa'd Mu'ad to the Quraiza to find out what had happened and got into a slanging match with the Quraiza who are claimed to have slandered the prophet (Pg 453). This is the extent of the so-called perfidy and aggression of the Banu Quraiza. And with this excuse the Muslims decimated a whole tribe.

>> after they provoked muslims in ways of war, the muslims took up arms to fight them. <<

If conspiracy is provocation to war then Bush was justified in attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. The crusades too were justified as the Muslims were conspiring to attack Christian countries as abundantly proved by their conquest of Syria, Palestine, Egypt etc all Christian countries of the time.

>>it led to the famous battle of the ditch. et me also remind you that the banu quraiza had a treaty with the medinite muslims. they were not to attack the muslims. but banu quraiza broke the treaty.<<

Show me using the original sources when the Quraiza attacked the Muslims. The only way to break a treaty is to take some action. Accusations of conspiring with someone to break a treaty is something two can play at. Do not take us infidels for total idiots. Allah has given us some little intelligence which we use to good effect unlike the surfeit of intelligence He has given to Muslims and which seems to remain unused.

>>after the well suplied and well fortified banu quraiza were defeated, <<

They surrendered, they did not fight. They did not shoot an arrow during the siege by the Qureish no did they shoot an arrow while they were under siege. Civilised religions do not massacre people after they surrender.

>>Muhammad peace be upon him asked the banu quraiza who should be the judge for thir misconduct, the prophet or one of their own men. the defeated party said one of our own men.<<

This is a nice little twist Muslims give to this sorry tale. The prophet did not ask the Quraiza about the matter, but rather the Al-Aus who were their Arab allies who asked that their allies be treated as he had treated the allies of the al-Khazarj, the Banu nadir. Now here is what Ibn Ishaq has to say on the matter:….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 Sa'ad Mua'd was the man. Bayezid, note it is the apostle's decision who would judge the Quraiza on a plea from the Aus and it was not the Quraiz. Pg 463

>> this man was sad ibn muadh a jewish revert to islam.<<

If Sa'ad was of the Aus then he never was a Jew, as the Aus was an Arab tribe. If your maulanas told you that Sa'ad was an ex-Jew then they lied or they have better sources than Ibn Ishaq.

>>sad decided their fate according to their own jewish law. and so killed every man that passed puberty and every man that could fight.<<

bayezid, the fate of the Banu Quraiza was decided by the prophet before he even appointed Sa'ad to judge them. This is what Ibn Ishaq says on page 462: ‘…So the apostle sent him to them, and when they went up to him (Abu Lubaba Abdul Mundhir). The women and children went up to him weeping in his face, and he felt sorry for them. They said, ‘Oh Abu Lubaba, do you think we should submit of Muhammad's judgment?' He said ‘Yes' and pointed with his hand to his throat, signifying slaughter.

Ibn Ishaq also tells us this about Sa'ad Mua'ad (Pg 457).'……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 the B. Quraiza.' This is the man the prophet appointed as their judge and sure enough he gave the prophet what he wished, the heads of all the male Quraiza.

The prophet's choice was not surprising given Sa'ad's reputation as a bloodthirsty killer. ‘In Life of the Prophet Muhammad', by Ibn Kathir, Vol II published, Garnet Publishing Ltd, page 290 we can read this conversation between Muhammad and Sa'ad Mua'ad (when the prisoners of Badr were being tied up):

‘Do I see you dislike what our men are doing, Sa'd? He replied, ‘Yes, by God, O Messenger of god; this is the first battle God has waged against the polytheists and I would have preferred the men to be massacred rather than kept alive!' Now recall the verse which tells Muhammad that he should slaughter prisoners. Allah was probably inspired by Sa'ad to reveal the verse: 8:67: It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he has thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for temporal goods of this world…

>>there was nothing unfair here at all.<<

Nothing unfair about massacring a people who had all surrendered? If he was after some kind of perverted justice why did he not kill the leaders. Did he have to kill boys just growing their pubic hair? Was not appointing a man who had vowed vengeance upon them unfair? Would a prophet who did not agree to the massacre exclaim to Sa'ad, the executioner judge ‘You have given the judgment of Allah above the seven heavens'. To claim after this statement of Muhammad that they were executed according to jewish law is dishonest.

>> the banu quraiza knew abt prophet and islam, they couldve chosen him to be judge. instead they chose someone else, and they chose an ex jew who was well versed in jewish laws.<<

Do you agree the prophet also would have judged by Allah's law as Muhammed told Sa'ad he did? What then makes you think he would have spared the Banu Quraiza? And get your facts straight. Sa'ad Muad was never a jew.

>> so yeah, muslims do want to treat the enemy well, but its the enemy of islm that chooses to have the bad end.<<

How nice! The enemies of Islam choose to have a bad end. The people who died in Mumbai also came to a bad end because those Muslims wanted to treat their enemy well??? Can anything be more convenient than this. If Muslims kill their enemy unjustly it is because they to chose to have it that way!!!

>>bayezid, your Hindu ancestors had better rules of war than what Allah thought up in the Koran: The world famous historian, Will Durant has written in his Story of Civilisation that "the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history". India before the advent of Islamic imperialism was not exactly a zone of peace. There were plenty of wars fought by Hindu princes. But in all their wars, the Hindus had observed some time-honoured conventions sanctioned by the Sastras. The Brahmins and the Bhikshus were never molested. The cows were never killed. The temples were never touched. The chastity of women was never violated. The non-combatants were never killed or captured. A human habitation was never attacked unless it was a fort."

>>did they? did they not use fire to harm enemy? the indians were proficient in the use of fire as weapon and they had very sophisticated weaponry that had an incendiary effect to them. they relied on these kinds of weaponry.and in islam the use of fire is forbiden.<<

What is wrong with fire as a weapon? Allah has forbidden it? Why should the Hindus bother with what Allah has forbidden. I have not yet come across any verse that bans it. I know of a hadith where ibn abbas criticizes Ali for burning some atheists (Vol 4, No. 260). But you are going on about fire as a forbidden weapon in response to the rules of war in India. Your reply seems to have no focus.

>>did the hindus not torture the enemy captives and treat them badly? the wars of the kalingas and the battles that ashoka fought in another account had such bloody accounts of torture and random killing that it tured ashoka into a buddhist convert !!<<

The needless deaths did turn Ashoka into a Buddhist. Did Khalid Bin
Walid turn pacifist after his massacring sprees? Infidels do not deny that their ancestors tortured and killed people. But we admit and condemn our ancestors for it. Will any Muslim dare to condemn what the Prophet did to the Banu Quraiza?

>> so what are you taking about really ?? there had been many local wars between domestic kingdoms like the Cholas, Pallavas and Pandyas competing with the Satvahanas and the Guptas or the Rashrakutas, Gurjara Pratiharas and Palas in later times. these were never recorded in brahminic texts. countless people were slaughtered and injustice to the vanquished group was a common place activity.<<

This is the standard trick Muslims employ. When you cannot defend the actions of your Muslim brothers, you bring in the atrocities committed by other religions. How does that absolve Muslims of the charges against them?

Kaffirs themselves have researched and condemned what some of their ancestors did. I challenge you to do the same about what Khalid Bin Walid, Muhammad and his namesakes, Bin Qasim, Gazni, Ghori did. You know you cannot and I don't blame you. The sword of Islam will take care of you!

>>and most importantly, thre were no religious excuses found for these wars. <<

Is religion an excuse for war? All Muslim wars have religious excuses so by corollary they are all justified. All wars by others are non-religious and so unjustified. How convenient!

>>buddhists had it the worst in india. i am bangladeshi and i know this for a fact. this region used to be a place of refuge for buddhists in anceint times. the indian clns forced these buddhists into hinduism and oetn took their women as sport. so who are you kidding ?<<

And who are you kidding?? If you are not kidding us with these stories you must give us the sources so we can check their accuracy.

>>many people do not know this but india used to be one of the bloodiest places on earth. dont forget the human sacrifice that took plce in temples after the enemies of hinduism were captured. in islam, ALLAH does not require us to slaughter captives or human beings as a ritual. but in anceint india before islam arrived, hindu kings would order their soldiers to force march the enemy soldiers into the local temples for beheadings.<<

In some kingdoms and at some times all that you say did happen. The big difference with Hinduism is they have banned all such cruelties. To see what is happening in Muslim countries study what happened under the Taliban, and what is happening in Pakistan, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. Almost all that happened in India continues to happen to this day in Muslim countries. (Sawing off a human's head while reciting the Koran is most certainly human sacrifice)

>>A. R. Mujumdar in The Hindu History (…..Hindus rather suppressed history and invented nice legends instead". is this the glorious history of my ancestors?? your ancestors?? so its a good thing islam came to this land, isnt it?<<

If by sacrificing up about 80 million of our ancestors on the altar of Allah Muslims made our land a cleaner place, I can certainly agree.

>>Brahmin ministers and priests ruthlessly exterminated the previously dominant Buddhist and Jain faiths. and this was a very commonplace activity of anceint hindus. muslims are forbidden by ALLAH to carry out injusices to religious minorities in islamic countries. <<

Since you have quoted A.C. Mazumdar you could continue with his history and name the book where he makes these allegations against Brahmins.

>>very often we would see muslims guilty of attacking non muslims being beheaded in slamic history. How much more proof should I give you?<<

Your statements alone are not sufficient proof. Give us sources and references to prove your assertions. You seem to be repeating what the mullas taught you.

>>you had better investigate into it. and i mean no harm to you, but i cannot allow you to say things untrue about islam. <<

I have investigated Islam and I gave you historical references, aya, hadith and sira. All you are doing is telling me the Hindus were worse offenders than Muslims without proving with proper references how you came to that conclusion.

Even admitting the Hindus were worse people than the Muslims how can you justify the atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. We unreservedly condemn our forefathers for their atrocities. Now show that as a Muslim you have the gumption to admit that some of your religious heroes, which include your prophet, did indulge in some villainous activities.

>>we are both indians so no need to lie to each other. hindus had their way of life an i admire the good things about them, but they were bloody people. fact !!<<

Fact. The Hindus were often bloody even to this day, especially with the lower castes. Also fact. The muslims were responsible for killing millions in India.

>>Several Nepalese accounts state that the followers of Buddha were ruthlessly persecuted, slain, exiled and forcibly converted.<<

Name some of those accounts. Hindus do not take converts. You have to be born a Hindu. The caste system, you know. To which caste, would you be accepted, if you decided you wanted to become a Hindu, Allah forbid?

>>Though many converted rather than face death, humiliation or exile. The attackers tested their faith by making them perform ‘Hinsa', or the sacrifice of live animals, that was abhorrent to Buddhists and Jains. Many bhikshunis, or nuns, were forcibly married and the learned Grihasthas were forced to cut off the distinguishing knot of hair on top of their heads. 84,000 Buddhist works were searched for and destroyed.<<

The above statement you have given is from this website: http://www.chowk.com/articles/14150. And he has not quoted any source for this assertion.

I will not dismiss what you claim as baloney. But if you could lead us to the sources for these stories it would be helpful. I seriously suspect what you are describing is what the Muslims did to the Buddhists.

>>these are a few examples of what anceint india was guilty of. i can provide more if you so wish.<<

Yes I would like to hear more about what ANCIENT India was guilty of, but please provide the references.

>> but please do not say untrue things about islam.<<

I have always given you references for what I state. Please pick out some and pick holes in those references.

>> in islamic hiostory, 98 percent of the wars that took place was becasue of provocation from enemy side<<

I hope your madrassa taught you about the gazwas of the prophet. Check with your teachers how many of the eighty or so of them were defensive in nature. You will hear from them that all of them were defensive. Now just take the first real war the Muslims fought, the battle, rather skirmish, of Badr. Prove to me with quotes from original Muslim sources that this was a defensive war.

And what constitutes provocation? Can a caravan carrying great wealth several days camel ride from your city be provocation enough to try and loot it?

>>ither they killed muslim minority or they broke treaty or something like that. then muslims attackd. <<

I have shown you all about treaty breaking at the beginning of this post. Read Koran 8:58 again. In Islam all it takes to break a treaty is to suspect the enemy will not honour it. Strangely this excuse is not available to non-Muslims. Or something like that??

>> in hindu history, most wars that took place were of the second category of wars in hindu warfare :adharma yuddha. not dharma yuddha (righteous war)<<

Very interesting theory you have. When King Dahir tried to fight off Muhammd Bin Qasim it was ‘adharma yuddha' while what Qasim was doing was fighting a righteous war because the King had provoked the Muslims a few thousand kilometers away by being an infidel.

>> That was written in remembrance of Alauddin Khalji's invasion of Gujarat in the year l298 AD. But the gruesome game had started three centuries earlier when Mahmud Ghaznavi had vowed to invade India every year in order to destroy idolatry, kill the kafirs, capture prisoners of war, and plunder vast wealth for which India was well-known. "

anothr lie. the muslims entity in india ensured for the better part ofits time that the hindus and buddhists and others were never to be wrnged. never to be attacked unjustly. <<

Another statement without substantiation. What is the lie in what I have quoted?

>> but like all human beings, muslims can also err. four or five times in history all in all did muslim soldiers torment and kill hindus.<<

When Muslims commanders erred four or five times the death toll reached 80 million or 16 million human lives per error.

>> but do not forget how the muslim commanders and rulers punished them and humiliated them.<<

That is your unsubstantiated statement again. Please tell us where you heard this story. Remember what I told you about Khalid Bin Walid. The prophet himself did not punish him for his war crime in killing people who had surrendered. Check my previous post.

Among those commanders would have been Timur. How many millions did he massacre and have you heard of him being punished. You will have to wait till judgment day to see Timur splurging in heaven for having fulfilled Allah's command in 9:111.

>> from the century spanning rule of babar to shahjahan, the hindus buddhists and jains and muslims lived like brothers. this is history.<

Akbar created a new deen, the deen e elahi, and the Muslim clergy hated him for it. Jahangir was the son of a Hindu mother so was Shah Jahan. You would not expect them to go about massacring their subjects who had much in common with them.

You know who the real hero among the Mughal kings is for the Muslims. Aurangazeb. He seems to have made up for some of the religious lapses of his grandsires. But fortunately for the Hindus he was tied up for most of his reign by an upstart Hindu called Shivaji.

>>that is why you have stories like akbar and birbal. <<

We love Akbar and Birbal. He tried to unsuccessfully found a tolerant religion and was snubbed by the mullas. The next two generations of Mugal emperors were born of Hindu princesses.

>>in fact it was the hindus that unjustly slaughtered musims preachers in southern india. they did it in such ways that islam had to send military force to stop the hindu army.<<

What was the Islamic army doing in India to begin with?? Who invited them here? Also please substantiate your charge that Muslim preachers were being unjustly slaughtered.

You may not know it but the first mosque in south India was in the eighth century, much before Bangladesh. The Muslims had no trouble in building mosques and preaching then as now.

Regards

Plato

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".