To Shakeel: Tiresome moulvi-inspired logic-free answers

Submitted by Plato (United Arab Emirates), May 29, 2007 at 08:06

Shakeel you are in square brackets:

Shakeel, I can answer this by just referring you back to my post of May 27 titled Slavery is halal in Islam. In this post you have simply repeated what you said beofore, without addressing anything that I raised. I get the feeling that you are avoiding addressing them because you seem to be parroting the same stuff that is heard from half-literate moulvis. You have no sources for anything that you say, apart from a few verses from the Koran. Your first three paras in this post are no different than your previous one so I will just copy paste my previous questions as you have not changed your answers.

[Islam banned out-rightly that those who are free cannot be enslaved. However, those who were already slaves can be kept as slaves and to free them, God put the duty on the shoulders of Islamic government to pay their masters and free them.]

Show me a verse in the Koran (since the hadith is suspect) which bans slavery outright. Why have you not said anything about what happened to the Banu Quraiza. Here is a report I have quoted before: '....Women captives were sent to Najd to be bartered with horses and weaponry...."Only one woman of the Jews was killed because she had killed a Muslim warrior by flinging a grinding stone upon him. A few elements of the enemy embraced Islam and their lives, wealth and children were spared. As for the spoils of the war, the Prophet [pbuh] divided them, after putting a fifth aside, in accordance with Allâh's injunctions. Three shares went to the horseman and one to the infantry fighter. Women captives were sent to Najd to be bartered with horses and weaponry. For himself, the Prophet [pbuh] selected Rehana bint ‘Amr bin Khanaqah, manumitted and married her in the year 6 Hijri. She died shortly after the farewell pilgrimage and was buried in Al-Baqi‘[Ibn Hisham 2/245; Talqeeh Fuhum Ahl Al-Athar p.12].' (http://www.masmn.org/documents/Books/Safiur_Rahman_Mubarakpuri/Raheeq_Al_Maktoom/410.htm)

[The fate of Banu Quraiza was not decided by Muhammad (sws), it was decided by their own law by their own arbitrator, and consequently all men were slain and women and children were sold out in slavery.]

I am now a hundred per cent sure you have only listened to fairy stories from your friendly moulvi. You have not read your history (maybe cooked up as dhimmi says, but accepted in the Islamic world for centuries and a source for many of your hadiths). Shakeel, go and get a copy of Ibn Hisham's rendition of Ibn Ishaq's rendition of the Rasool's biography. If you are in Pakistan it is available with Oxford Univesity Press. There you will read that this Saad Muad who was callled upon to give judgement on the Banu Quraiza had sworn vengeance on them (he had had a verbal duel with them some time before). It was the Prophet who suggested him as their judge and the unsuspecting Quraiza accepted, his tribe having been once their allies, little knowing about his vengefulness. Also what happened to your claim that free people are not to be enslaved.

So were the Banu Quraiza free people or not before the Prophet enslaved them? Tell us Shakeel. You say that those who were already slaves can be kept as slaves and at the same they should be freed. Like having your cake and eating it too. The duty put by Allah on Islamic governments did not give any results for 1400 years and the rest of the infidel world had to give the Muslim world a hard push for them to reluctantly comply. It took Islam 1400 years to realise, under compulsion, that slavery is an obscenity.

You have simply avoided the question of how the free Banu Quraiza women were enslaved if the Koran bans taking free people as slaves. The question was not about their so-called treason but how if the Koran banned enslaving free people Saad could give a judgement sending them into slavery. Can Jewish law, if there is any about enslaving free women, override Koranic law. Also you have not shown me which Koranic verse of hadith or the sunnah "out-rightly" bans taking free people as slaves. If you can't give proof then your claim is baseless.

[

Show us the evidence. Your best known sira of the Rasool tells of the incident where a representative of the Prophet, before Saad was brought to judge them, when asked by the Banu Quraiza indicated their slaughter was decided by drawing his finger over his throat. How did he know before Saad that they were to be executed unless the Muslims (Rasool) had already decided their fate? The excuse of treason is only vaguely hinted at in the biographies but ashamed by the incident are clutching at like a straw.

[Muhammad (sws) appreciated the Saad's judgment.]

If Mohammed appreciated Saad's judgement then what is the meaning of your claim that if the Rasool had judged he would have forgiven them? Here is what you said in your post of May 25 (RE:To Shakeel: Free a slave and go to jannat) 'If they asked Muhammad (sws) to decide their fate, then he would surely forgive their lives, women and children as he had done with the other tribe of Jews Banu Qaynuqa.'

[

If Allah's law is to execute those guilty of treason, then it means that Mohammed broke Allah's law because of a hypocrite? As I demonstrated to you in my previous post ( To Shakeel: Free a slave and go to jannat) here is the Rasool playing fast and loose with Allah's laws as he was afraid to offend a hypocrite.

[And there is nothing to be ashamed of if both of those tribes were executed, because they both betrayed and deserved this punishment.]

Why don't you substantiate this statement of yours with some evidence, Shakeel. I have given you evidence to show that the Prophet was wreaking vengeance against the Jews.

[Also we have already read, pagans of Macca also got the same treatment when they betrayed after having peace treaty.]

What is going on Shakeel have you forgotten you wrote this: "It is not true. Rasool never take personal revenge, if he were to take personal revenges then Meccans were mass murdered not mass forgiven" (RE:to Shakeel: Anger management II, and marvellous Muslim logic). The Meccans were neither executed, as they richly deserved according to Allah's laws, nor exiled.
[This proves that neither Allah nor Muhammad was biased or unbiased toward Jews or pagans.]

Which is it, biased or unbiased, they can't be both. If you are trying to say that Allah and his Rasool were not favouring the Meccans because he treated the Meccans as harshly as the Jews, then obviously you are wrong as the Meccans were neither massacred nor exiled. You have yourself said the Meccans were "mass forgiven".

[It also concludes that Islam prescribes a punishment of death for those who are guilty of treason.]

Then your Prophet did not uphold the law in at least three cases. The Banu Qaynuka, the Banu Nadir and the Meccans. Did Allah grant his Rasool the power to break his laws as in the case of his wives, or his marriage to Safya before the iddat was over?

Shakeel, I am hoping you can come up with something more original rather than these tired moulvi-type logic-free answers.

Second thing, Banu Qaniuqa were not forgiven because Muhammad (sws) wanted to forgive them. They were forgiven on the plea of Hypocrite Abdullah Bin Abi. Banu Qaniuqa were also guilty of treason and deserved to be executed.]Banu Quraiza were not just prisoners of war, they were guilty of treason. That's the reason, they were executed but they were executed according to their own law]. [Muhammad (sws) appreciated the Saad's judgment.]

---

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".