To Raqib about Banu Quraiza mostly
Submitted by Plato (United Arab Emirates), Dec 23, 2006 at 05:26
Sure, Brother Raqib let us talk about the Banu Quraiza some more. Before you answer this post please go and buy Ibn Ishaaq's Sirat Rasul ullah (Translation by Alfred Guillaume). From the way you end your posts (Allah Hafez) I guess you must be Pakistani. The book is published in translation by Oxford University press in Pakistan. You will be able to get your facts right then. Let me now tell you what facts you have got wrong.
Now remember that this history (the earliest one of the Prophet, and referred to extensively by all later biographers) was written by a believing Muslim. There is no history written by any Jews of Medina who were either killed or exiled and later absorbed into the Ummah. We have only what the victors had to say about the incident."Don't forget, they wanted to be judged by their people. Indeed they were judged."
Who was suggested/chosen by the Prophet? Sa'ad Muad, whose death later would shake God's throne. And what was a fervent wish of Saad Muad, of which the Prophet would have been aware. Read your Sira Brother Raqib.
Saad had prayed to Allah to let him have his way with them before he died. Do you seriously believe the Banu Quraiza would have chosen a person like that to judge them. And Ibn Ishaaq also tells us that when a negotiator went to the Quraiza and he was asked what was their fate he drew his hand over his throat, indicating the slaughter that awaited them. Ishaaq also describes the wailing of the terrified women and children. Does that move your heart Brother Raqib? This man felt so guilty about revealing the fate ordained for them before hand that he tied himself to a pillar of the mosque until the prophet forgave him. Read the Sira Brother Raqib.
On Sa'ad (on whose death Allah's throne shook) delivering the sentence of decapitating all the adult males and women and children to be sold into slavery the Prophet declared that his decision was as per the will of Allah. So Allah approves of slaughter of people who meekly surrender and also approves of selling off women and infants into slavery. This is the same God your co-religionists insist disapproved of slavery. Read your Sira Brother Raqib. And also read your Koran.
There is a reference to this incident even in the Koran"...some you killed and others you took captive..." As you insist: "Read the Qur'an fully, surely you will learn many things." I read the Koran and indeed learned many things from it.
Now coming to the first two paras of your post. There is no evidence in the Sira (what other source is there, I am not aware that Wakidi has any mention of it in his Magazi) to your charge that the Banu Quraiza aided the Meccans. In fact it mentions that they helped the Muslims at least at the start of siege. One of the reasons the Meccans were disheartened was because the Banu Quraiza refused help despite all their pleadings. This was also helped by the skill of the Prophet in sowing doubts in the minds of the Jews and the Meccans about each others intentions. Yes the evidence seems to point to the Banu Quraiza being not very enthusiastic about supporting the Medinans, that is all. The beheading judgement was based on mere conjecture.
Brother Raqib read the Sira carefully and show me that my conclusions are wrong. Also since you seem to approve of Sa'ad's judgement would you also have approved if when Indian took seventy thousand odd Pakistanis captive they were to be beheaded and their families sold into slavery? After all they were a threat to India.
You also write:"You quote verses from Qur'an in a random" I do not understand that statement. One has to pick and choose to illustrate one's point. If there is something wrong please point it out. I will correct it or admit my error.
You wrote: "You have brought numerous research telling muslims massacred non muslim." I brought it up when you brought up the killing of Muslims. Your numbers are as nothing compared to the numbers others can come up with. And as I later pointed out 'Let those who have not sinned cast the first stone'. You cast the first one.
Another quote from your post: " Do you know why your scripture is greater in number? The answer is human fabrication." How many hadeeses are there Brother Raqib. And how many are fabrications.
Brother Raqib how does it matter whether the scriptures are large or small in number or even fabricated. What matters at the end of the day is what it contains, the ethical values they teach is what matter, not whether it is the unaltered word of god. For all one knows the Buddha may have been a mythical person, and the scriptures attributed to him all fabricated. But Brother Raqib if you can get hold of some of his scriptures in your country please do so and do a compare and contrast study with your own scripture. It will be most enlightening I can assure you. And I am no Buddhist.However, from what little I know of Indian history the ruling style adopted by many Muslim rulers including the Mughals was to ally themselves with local rajas as the Muslim rulers were themselves under threat from other Muslims (Afghans, Turks, Persians). The process of conversion was slower than in places like Persia, Egypt, Syria etc. Also there was a well-entrenched nearly 4000 year old culture far superior to the one that sought to be imposed already in existence. As I said before look up the numbers of people slaughtered during the conquest of India.
Also I notice you have nothing to say about the activities of Khalid Bin Walid. Why is that?
Something else from your post: "let me tell you one thing, India was ruled by Mughals for approximately 500 years. They could have turned every hindus and christians to Islam by the point of the sword. Today in India 80% are non muslim. this shows us Islam was spread by the point of the sword." I suppose you really mean Islam was not spread by the sword. We were not talking about the present percentage of Muslims in India but rather the number of Hindus and Buddhists massacred in the name of religion. Are you aware of those numbers. As I promised I can dig them up for you from reputed Muslim historians. Was Saad Muad a Jew? NO. Get your facts right. He was of the Awfs, who were supposed to be allied with them. The poor unsuspecting Banu Quraiza thinking that since in another incident where a Jewish tribe surrendered and were let off with their lives because the leader of the tribe they were allied with pleaded strongly for them the same would happen in their case.
This post has grown very long. I will take up your statement about what French students are taught in my next post. The postings seem to come out jumbled when they get long.
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".
Reader comments (1084) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes