General Ayub: I hate to break it to you too….you seem unaware of the prophet's violent nature

Submitted by Plato (India), Jan 13, 2009 at 20:00

General, you wrote:

Thank you General for reminding us that Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism have had their fair share of violence. Who denies it?? I hope this means you are admitting that Islam also has its fair share of violence and is not the peaceful religion so many posters here claim it to be.

Talking of violence, can you show me that founders of the other religions indulged in as much gratuitous violence as the founder of Islam. I have written about the senseless violence that Muhammad was guilty of in my post to bayezid on this blog:

>>bayezid wrote: truly pathetic. the only one who has the right to torture is ALLAH. so the punishment of the grave is from HIM and by HIS permission. people dont have the right to torture. muslims are people. so this lw applies to them.<<

Bayezid, what is really pathetic is your amnesia about the horrors committed by your Prophet. Do recall the torture that Muhammad inflicted on Kinana b Rabi to get a few pieces of silver that belonged to his tribe. Did Allah allow Muhammad to torture as the treasure of the Banu Nadir would have helped His cause?

Read this hadith:

"O Allah's Apostle! Give us shelter and food. So when they became healthy they said, "The weather of Medina is not suitable for us." So he sent them to Al-Harra with some she-camels of his and said, "Drink of their milk." But when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away his camels. The Prophet sent some people in their pursuit. Then he got their hands and feet cut and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. I saw one of them licking the earth with his tongue till he died." Bukhari 7. 71.58

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/147532

Let me also remind you of what the mercy to all mankind did to the Banu Quraiza. These are the details of that infamous incident:

>>bayezid wrote: 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.

………..

>>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.

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/147417

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".