Banu Quraiza Revisited
sold in slave markets in exchange of horses and weapons. In this part, I will be focusing on usual Muslim apologetics on this topic. I will try to cover all of Muslims’ polemics and rebut them. Arguments (of Muslims and Muslim sympathizers) for Banu Quraiza massacre will be in red.
*Banu Quraiza were treacherous, so they were dealt accordingly:
I am adamant or more than resolute to NOT to admit Banu Quraiza being treacherous. As I proved in the first part, the very reason Muhammad needed his Gabriel to order for besieging Banu Quraiza attests to it. Besides, neither Muhammad nor his followers accused Banu Quraiza of being treacherous even to hold it as a reason to besiege the tribe. NOT at all; He brought his angel down to convince his thugs to not to put arms down but to march towards Banu Quraiza and besiege them. That is it. The account given in Quran as Banu Quraiza siding with Muslims enemy at Khandaq is AFTER the incidents occurred, not during it. Muhammad should have felt it necessary to find some reasons for annihilating an entire tribe, so he came up with holy verses later.
I do not refuse the Muslim version of events that occurred within Banu Quraiza during the siege. They were under intense pressure to open the gates of their forts for the confederate army to get through so showed little bit of weakness by admitting one of their brethren who came along with Meccan army. Ibn Ishaq narrates this incident descriptively as the chief of Quraiza tribe refusing to admit Huayy Bin Aktab(a single person) making the latter put his knees down to get in. Still nothing happened as Meccans waited and waited for a green signal from Jewish side which never happened. Muslim apologists here weave their conspiracy theories speculating as Banu Quraiza broke the treaty and allied with Meccans to conspire against Muslims. The question they want to answer is: If what they tell is true, why didn’t it happen?
So, here is the challenge: If Banu Quraiza were treacherous, Muhammad is the top authority to attest it. But can any Muslim bring out any instance from their own source that is indicative of Muhammad ever accusing Banu Quraiza of being treacherous to besiege and massacre them?
If Banu Quraiza were deceitful and joined the Meccan army to fight Muslims, less than a few hours would have been sufficient for the huge Meccan army to intrude and end the business of Muslims once and forever. That did not happen, and we know the only chance of Meccans to do so was through Banu Quraiza route. Still what makes Banu Quraiza guilty?
If anyone willing to take this challenge, come up with sources of Islam. If none can, then stop this accusation which Muslims’ prophet Muhammad did not do.
*Banu Quraiza broke their covenant with Muhammad and Muslims:
NOT true. Because, if the treaty was broken and Banu Quraiza were acting deceitfully, Meccans should not have had to wait at trenches for such a long time and DEPART without fighting. Banu Quraiza could have easily let Meccans intrude through their route and helped in annihilating Muslims. That did not happen.
Secondly: there were some developments within the Banu Quraiza fort while Meccans were waiting at trenches. It is claimed that Muhammad’s tactic of sending an envoy to confuse Banu Quraiza people resulted to their eventual neutral stance for not opening doors for Meccans. Many Muslims argue this was the reason for Banu Quraiza not allowing enemy to intrude. Let it be true or false, but what happened ultimately is what should be counted. The Jewish tribe did not help Meccans so the latter had to retreat for the very reason. Even though one admits Jews tried to trait, ultimately they did nothing against Muhammad and Muslims, so that Muslims escaped from the real carnage. Where is treason here? Can any Muslim come up and prove?
In fact the very existence of Muslims today is a very solid proof that Banu Quraiza did not trait Muslims during the Khandaq siege. If they were, the huge Meccan army should have intruded and annihilated Muslims and buried Islam in then dug trenches.
* Jews did not protest before getting slaughtered, because it was ordained to them.
This is the funniest of all arguments.
Jews were in no position to protest because they were subjugated. They can only accept whatever Muhammad and his thugs decide. If they believed a massacre is ordained for them by their god, they were deluded people stranded as scapegoats. Such a lot will seldom protest. I never see goats protesting before being butchered. Same can be true with Banu Quraiza too.
Besides, Jews believed in many things then. According to Muhammad, They believed Ezra is the son of god, and made lawful what was in fact forbidden to them. All these are there in Quran. Now, when they are going to be annihilated according to their laws (as Muslims want it to be), Muhammad; being the supreme authority could definitely have saved them, because he was supposed to be holding something much better than previous revelations. If the appointed arbitrator Saad bin Muadh’s verdict went in par with Deuteronomy, it was unto Muhammad to NOT to accept the verdict and ask Saad for revising it so the surrendered will be dealt justly. But in fact what we see is an applauding Muhammad, who praises Saad for ruling according to his god above.
If Saad ruled according to Muhammad’s god-in-heaven then it is definitely Muhammad’s (Allah’s) ruling. Muslims can not escape from this accusing Deuteronomy.
*Banu Quraiza were massacred because Sad bin Muadh, the arbitrator they agreed to be the one who judged. So Muhammad had nothing to do with it.
To be soft to the most, this argument is nothing but rubbish for two reasons.
First: Saad bin Muadh judged and Muhammad attested his judgement stating it is the ruling of Allah above. Then how come it is Saad’s fault? No way. Muslims must have the honesty to admit Saad bin Muadh judged according to Allah, because it is what their prophet did. See in Sahih Bukhari.
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Some people 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 (Banu Quraiza’s) 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.” [Sahih Bukhari. Book: 58 Hadith: 148]
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The people of (Banu) quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh. So the Prophet sent for Saad, 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 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.” [Sahih Bukhari. Book: 59, Hadith: 447]
Both hadiths are essentially the same. See a Muhammad who rushes to approve Saad bin Muadh right after the latter gives his gory verdict. It is Muhammad who attested Saad judged according to Allah’s judgment. Then it has only to do with Muhammad and his Allah, not with an old Deuteronomy. To be succinct, the moment Muhammad approved Sad-the so-called arbitrator’s verdict as Allah’s verdict, the call for genocide becomes Allah’s (Muhammad’s) and neither Saad’s nor Deuteronomy’s.
Second: Muhammad intended to massacre the tribe ever before Saad bin Muadh came into the picture. He had this plan in his mind from the very first. He sent an envoy (Abu Lubaba) to Banu Quraiza fort during the siege. I will quote Ibn Ishaq here to get the picture right.
Apostle sent him (Abu Lubaba) to them (Banu Quraiza), and when they saw him they got up to meet him. 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 that we should submit to Muhammad’s judgement? He said ‘yes’ and pointed with his hand to his throat signifying slaughter. [Ibn Ishaq: 686]
Remember this incident occurred during the siege and Saad bin Muadh appeared in this affair after the siege. Here we see Muhammad’s envoy revealing Muhammad’s intention of slaughter to Banu Quraiza, the helpless scapegoats. Again we see a remorseful Abu Lubaba who later felt contrite for revealing Muhammad’s gory plan to the besieged tribe. This man soon left the place and tied himself to one of the pillars in the mosque. See it in Ibn Ishaq again.
Then he (Abu Lubaba) left them and did not go to the apostle but bound himself to one of the pillars in the mosque saying ‘I will not leave this place until god forgives me for what I have done’ and he promised god that he would never go to Banu Quraiza and would never be seen in a town in which he had betrayed god and his apostle [Ibn Ishaq: 686]
It is high time for Muslims to stop falsifying. Muhammad’s intention from the very beginning was slaughtering of Banu Quraiza. We see it in one of his followers’ words and deeds here.
* Jews of Banu Quraiza were put to death according to the laws of Torah. Saad bin Muadh’s verdict went in par with Deuteronomy 20:10-18.
Deuteronomy 20:10-18 is not the “law of the Torah.” It is a specific direction from God for a specific program of conquest. No longer relevant; once the Promised land had been settled. It has nothing to do with “treason,” or the treatment of treasonous allies. So it is a wrong application of the wrong law to the wrong situation.
Besides, this argument of Muslims begs questions:
1) Why are the Muslims now accepting the judgment of Deuteronomy as righteous and just when on other occasions they attack this as being cruel and harsh command, a clear example of genocide?
2) The Islamic sources say that Muhammad did not only have those fighting men killed, such as the leaders of Banu Quraiza, but even their young men were massacred who did not have anything to do with the decisions of their leaders/elders. Why these innocent were killed?
Some Muslims claims only those who were able to fight among the tribe Banu Quraiza were killed. Not true according to their own sources. How did Muhammad determine people capable of fighting? See it in their sources:
The Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should be killed. [The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael. F: State University of New York Press, Albany 1997, Volume 8. page. 38]
Another source to know how Muhammad determined whether a person had reached puberty:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. [Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4390]
On the other hand, we saw how Saad’s verdict went in par with the laws of Allah as Muhammad testified it. Muslims should stop pointlessly attacking Torah, and focus on Muhammad their prophet who attested the verdict of Saad with applause.
Finally it will be interesting to know how Muhammad the prophet and role model of Muslims to the end of times, dealt Jews of Banu Quraiza prior to besieging them. Let their sources speak up:
“When the apostle approached their forts he (Muhammad) said: “You brothers of monkeys.., has god disgraced you and brought his vengeance upon you?”
Banu Quraiza replied: “O Abul Qasim (Muhammad), you are not a barbarous person” [Ibn Ishaq: 684]
Again from Sahih collections:
Narrated Al-Bara: “On the day of Quraiza’s (besiege), Allah’s Apostle said to Hassan bin Thabit, ‘Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you” [Sahih Bukhari: Book: 59 Hadith: 449]
How apposite it will be for a merciful prophet of an all merciful god to abuse helpless people with words like “brothers of monkeys” and to incite his followers to do the same as he did..? Not to say he traded these insults before besieging them with gory intentions in his mind..; Let Muslims sort out.
Conclusion: Muslims forward many lame reasons to give Banu Quraiza a bad name and hang them. The main reason they bring is the alleged treachery of Banu Quraiza. It is more than lame an argument because any act of treachery from the tribe should definitely have let the huge confederate army to intrude and end all Muslim lives. It would effectively have got rid off Islam early at Khandaq so the world should not be bearing this burden of Islam today. The excuses they forward thumbing an old Deuteronomy and a man who came into the picture much later are also too feeble excuses, for the very reason Muhammad planned to slaughter the tribe much earlier ever before Saad bin Muadh the so-called arbitrator has been invited. Moreover, when the latter pronounced his sanguinary verdict, it was Muhammad who rushed in favour of the judgement attesting it is Allah’s judgement. Taking all these matters into account, there is nothing for Muslims to argue in defense of this most gruesome genocide which has no parallels in history for the very reason it was perpetrated by a man who claimed to be the role model for all to the end of times.
The very fact; Muslims remain in this period to argue on Banu Quraiza is more than enough to dismiss all allegations against the tribe of Banu Quraiza.
Recent Comments