Islam Muhammads' genocide: Banu Qurayza

Not a Muslim, but even just looking at the hadith you quote, they don't kill everyone, merely the men that fought in the battle. And given the context of Muhammad supposedly having an agreement with them, which they then violated in helping Abu Sufyan's forces attack Medina and the like, it's not as if there wasn't some justification.

Also not defending the action as moral (I'd say it's harsh and unnecessary), but calling it genocide seems exaggerated, to say nothing of that there was a distinction made by the arbitrator to leave the women and children alive, so it wouldn't be the same.

Much of the debate seems to be about the nature of the agreement and whether they necessarily broke it, but this was still a contentious time in Islam relative to its development with the Quraysh from Mecca trying to get rid of Muhammad's group entirely and Muhammad making alliances such as in Yathrib with the Banu Quraysha and others.

Muhammad supposedly was told by Gabriel to do this and it's regarded as God's judgment. Not sure how this is supposed to be qualitatively different in the long run from God telling the ancient Israelites to slaughter their enemies, the context still being military conflict, the only major difference being that these were allies that supposedly betrayed them to the enemies (not that the Battle of the Trench was lost)

muichimotsu said:

Not a Muslim, but even just looking at the hadith you quote, they don't kill everyone, merely the men that fought in the battle. And given the context of Muhammad supposedly having an agreement with them, which they then violated in helping Abu Sufyan's forces attack Medina and the like, it's not as if there wasn't some justification.

Also not defending the action as moral (I'd say it's harsh and unnecessary), but calling it genocide seems exaggerated, to say nothing of that there was a distinction made by the arbitrator to leave the women and children alive, so it wouldn't be the same.

Much of the debate seems to be about the nature of the agreement and whether they necessarily broke it, but this was still a contentious time in Islam relative to its development with the Quraysh from Mecca trying to get rid of Muhammad's group entirely and Muhammad making alliances such as in Yathrib with the Banu Quraysha and others.

Muhammad supposedly was told by Gabriel to do this and it's regarded as God's judgment. Not sure how this is supposed to be qualitatively different in the long run from God telling the ancient Israelites to slaughter their enemies, the context still being military conflict, the only major difference being that these were allies that supposedly betrayed them to the enemies (not that the Battle of the Trench was lost)

Click to expand...

Simple really. Muhammed is described by most Muslims as the ideal man. Anyone who publicly disagrees with that view, Muslim or not, has put their life at risk. Mo was a mass murdering paedophile. At least Hitler was not bedding 9 year old girls. Apart from that I can see little difference. Lord Jesus came to bring grace, truth, forgiveness and life. Mo came to murder, rape, pillage, extort, lie and deceive. Now which role model do you prefer?

muichimotsu said:

Not a Muslim, but even just looking at the hadith you quote, they don't kill everyone, merely the men that fought in the battle. And given the context of Muhammad supposedly having an agreement with them, which they then violated in helping Abu Sufyan's forces attack Medina and the like, it's not as if there wasn't some justification.

Also not defending the action as moral (I'd say it's harsh and unnecessary), but calling it genocide seems exaggerated, to say nothing of that there was a distinction made by the arbitrator to leave the women and children alive, so it wouldn't be the same.

Much of the debate seems to be about the nature of the agreement and whether they necessarily broke it, but this was still a contentious time in Islam relative to its development with the Quraysh from Mecca trying to get rid of Muhammad's group entirely and Muhammad making alliances such as in Yathrib with the Banu Quraysha and others.

Muhammad supposedly was told by Gabriel to do this and it's regarded as God's judgment. Not sure how this is supposed to be qualitatively different in the long run from God telling the ancient Israelites to slaughter their enemies, the context still being military conflict, the only major difference being that these were allies that supposedly betrayed them to the enemies (not that the Battle of the Trench was lost)

Click to expand...

Aussie Pete said:

Simple really. Muhammed is described by most Muslims as the ideal man. Anyone who publicly disagrees with that view, Muslim or not, has put their life at risk. Mo was a mass murdering paedophile. At least Hitler was not bedding 9 year old girls. Apart from that I can see little difference. Lord Jesus came to bring grace, truth, forgiveness and life. Mo came to murder, rape, pillage, extort, lie and deceive. Now which role model do you prefer?

Click to expand...

Mohammed's raids and murders are documented in nearly every history book. The OP may be a more well known case, but it was certainly not the only case.

mindlight said:

If there was a massacre how does that square with the idea of Islam as a "religion of peace" if your founder was himself guilty of genocide?

Click to expand...

First off, the Qurayzah broke a treaty and were therefore the guilty party.

Second, if you read the Hadith you quoted it wasn't Muhammad who ultimately decided that the men be slaughtered, it was Sa'd ibn Mu'adh.

A group of al-Aws tribesmen sought Muhammad and pleaded with him to accept from their allies a similar arrangement to that which he accepted from the allies of al-Khazraj. Muhammad asked, "O men of al-Aws, would you be happy if we allowed one of your men to arbitrate the case?" When they agreed, he asked them to nominate whomsoever they wished. This was communicated to the Jews, and the latter, unmindful of the fate that was lying in store for them, nominated Sa'd ibn Mu'adh. Sa'd was a reputable man of al-Aws tribe, respected for his sound judgment. Previously, Sa'd was the first one to approach the Jews, to warn them adequately, even to predict to them that they might have to face Muhammad one day. He had witnessed the Jews cursing Muhammad and the Muslims. After his nomination and acceptance as arbitrator, Sa'd sought guarantees from the two parties that they would abide by his judgment. After these guarantees were secured, he commanded that Banu Qurayzah come out of their fortress and surrender their armour. Sa'd then pronounced his verdict that the fighting men be put to the sword, that their wealth be confiscated as war booty, and that the women and the children be taken as captives.

Mu'adh's decision to execute prisoners was based on Jewish law which is at the foundation of Islamic law (The Qur'an isn't the only holy book in Islam, the Torah is also). Since the violators of the treaty were Jews, the following was applied to them:

"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engaged you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."
(Deuteronomy 20:10-16)

The above scripture is also what was used in justifying the confiscation of the wealth of the Qurayzah and taking their women and children as captives.

The Battle of Banu Qurayza is just one of countless examples of how warfare and justice was carried out in Muhammad's day. When reading the Qur'an and other Islamic texts from the days of Muhammad we need to remember to look at them through a historic lens rather than make a judgement on them from our modern point of view. It's also important to remember that what we see as being barbaric today was the norm at that point in history, and the atrocities that Islamic armies carried out were no different than that of other armies and empires were carrying out at the time; Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and pagan tribes alike.

So the Muslims you have discussed this with who affirm the incident and say it was war and the men got what they deserved would be correct since Muhammad and Mu'adh were following the law of the land that was accepted by both Jews and Muslims at that point in history.

Aussie Pete said:

Simple really. Muhammed is described by most Muslims as the ideal man. Anyone who publicly disagrees with that view, Muslim or not, has put their life at risk. Mo was a mass murdering paedophile. At least Hitler was not bedding 9 year old girls. Apart from that I can see little difference. Lord Jesus came to bring grace, truth, forgiveness and life. Mo came to murder, rape, pillage, extort, lie and deceive. Now which role model do you prefer?

Click to expand...

Pedophile is technically up for debate if we apply pedophile to a particular age range (under 12) that according to some scholars (not even with any vested interest in lying) might not have applied to Aisha when they consummated the marriage versus when she was betrothed: he'd still be a hebephile (11-14), though honestly the range could apply anyway, so that's minor.

The general idea seems to be she was early teens at the latest when he did the deed, but there's also the context of the "marriage" being more political or meant to benefit the less fortunate in a way that was magnanimous to them, such as widows or children orphaned, though I forget the exact context for Aisha, I want to say her father was involved in the arrangement. Either way, that hardly seems any more relevant than bringing up the distinct possibility that Joseph was old enough to be Mary, mother of Jesus', father and was a widower, as well as Mary being 13 or so when she had Jesus, so...I feel like bringing up the age of females in regards to a historical period when women were treated pretty poorly in regards to respect is muddying the waters regarding the truth of claims or the morality of the system making said claims

There are other differences, but sure, try to make a comparison based on one factor and suggest that one person is far worse than another when the general assessment would be fairly different even if the conclusion was that both were probably guilty of horrible acts

And now you're just well poisoning to create a comparison to the person you idolize in order to offer a false dichotomy as if I have to choose either in terms of being a role model rather than any of several other religious leaders if that's the constraint.

Every country that was conquered by Islam was conquered by the sword, and the population were given the choice of either converting to Islam or die. That is historical fact.

When Muhammed died, many Arabs departed from Islam because they were forced into it in the first place. Muhammed's successor went in and forced them back into Islam and massacred thousands who refused.

This is what Islam is, and it is a real concern that Islam is having a greater influence in Western countries. My view is that if Islamic Sharia Law became the law in any Western Country, we will see Christianity and Judaism outlawed, and people will be forced to convert to Islam or else.

Muslims can be liberal and tolerant in countries where Islam is not dominant, but once it becomes dominant, there will be no more tolerance and what is clearly written in the Koran will be the basis of the law.

Oscarr said:

Every country that was conquered by Islam was conquered by the sword, and the population were given the choice of either converting to Islam or die. That is historical fact.

Click to expand...

What is your source for this information? That is certainly not a historical fact. What about the Muslim majority countries in Southeast Asia where greatest concentration of the world’s Muslims are found today?

Oscarr said:

When Muhammed died, many Arabs departed from Islam because they were forced into it in the first place. Muhammed's successor went in and forced them back into Islam and massacred thousands who refused.

Click to expand...

A source for this would be nice also.

JosephZ said:

What is your source for this information? That is certainly not a historical fact. What about the Muslim majority countries in Southeast Asia where greatest concentration of the world’s Muslims are found today?


A source for this would be nice also.

Click to expand...

Look it up on Google like I did. Read the Koran for yourself and see what it says about Jews and Christians. Also, name me one country taken over by Islam through peaceful methods.

When you go to Google, find out how many Christian churches have been destroyed and members killed in Indonesia which is a Muslim country.

Also, find out how many thousands of Christians have been massacred in Muslim North Nigeria.

JosephZ said:

First off, the Qurayzah broke a treaty and were therefore the guilty party.

Second, if you read the Hadith you quoted it wasn't Muhammad who ultimately decided that the men be slaughtered, it was Sa'd ibn Mu'adh.

A group of al-Aws tribesmen sought Muhammad and pleaded with him to accept from their allies a similar arrangement to that which he accepted from the allies of al-Khazraj. Muhammad asked, "O men of al-Aws, would you be happy if we allowed one of your men to arbitrate the case?" When they agreed, he asked them to nominate whomsoever they wished. This was communicated to the Jews, and the latter, unmindful of the fate that was lying in store for them, nominated Sa'd ibn Mu'adh. Sa'd was a reputable man of al-Aws tribe, respected for his sound judgment. Previously, Sa'd was the first one to approach the Jews, to warn them adequately, even to predict to them that they might have to face Muhammad one day. He had witnessed the Jews cursing Muhammad and the Muslims. After his nomination and acceptance as arbitrator, Sa'd sought guarantees from the two parties that they would abide by his judgment. After these guarantees were secured, he commanded that Banu Qurayzah come out of their fortress and surrender their armour. Sa'd then pronounced his verdict that the fighting men be put to the sword, that their wealth be confiscated as war booty, and that the women and the children be taken as captives.

Mu'adh's decision to execute prisoners was based on Jewish law which is at the foundation of Islamic law (The Qur'an isn't the only holy book in Islam, the Torah is also). Since the violators of the treaty were Jews, the following was applied to them:

"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engaged you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."
(Deuteronomy 20:10-16)

The above scripture is also what was used in justifying the confiscation of the wealth of the Qurayzah and taking their women and children as captives.

The Battle of Banu Qurayza is just one of countless examples of how warfare and justice was carried out in Muhammad's day. When reading the Qur'an and other Islamic texts from the days of Muhammad we need to remember to look at them through a historic lens rather than make a judgement on them from our modern point of view. It's also important to remember that what we see as being barbaric today was the norm at that point in history, and the atrocities that Islamic armies carried out were no different than that of other armies and empires were carrying out at the time; Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and pagan tribes alike.

So the Muslims you have discussed this with who affirm the incident and say it was war and the men got what they deserved would be correct since Muhammad and Mu'adh were following the law of the land that was accepted by both Jews and Muslims at that point in history.

Click to expand...

This may help

"
another serious challenge that Muhammad faced was finding some means of livelihood for the Meccan believers who had sacrificially left their city and belongings to follow their prophet to Medina. A few of the emigrants were able to carry on trade in the markets and some performed common labor. But the majority of them soon became involved, with Muhammad’s sanction, in raiding the commercial Meccan caravans. The prophet himself led three such raids in the first year. Doubtless the purpose of these surah 22:39–40). A later revelation commands, “Then fight in the cause Of God, and know that God Heareth and knoweth all things” (surah 2:244). And it seems that because of the unwillingness of some believers to fight, the Qur’an introduced some new incentives to those who do (as opposed to “those who sit at home and receive no hurt”) such as “special rewards” and entrance to Paradise (cf. surah 4:95–96; 3:194–95).

For various reasons all the Muslim raids that happened within the first eighteen months failed to procure any booty, and there was hardly any contact between the two parties. The first actual fighting between the Muslims and the pagan Quraysh occurred in January 624 when a small band of Muslims ambushed a Meccan caravan, killed one of its attendants, captured two, and safely brought back the plunder to Medina. This action caused a great uproar since it was believed that the Muslims, by Muhammad’s instructions, had shed blood during the sacred month of Rajab. The pagan Arabs believed that four of the months of the year were sacred—an idea that is also sanctioned by the Qur’an (surah 9:36)."
above quote from Norman Geisler - Answering Islam- the crescent in light of the cross.


these unsuccessful raids led to further military battles in the name of Allah.... the battle of Badr, and the battle of Uhud, and a siege of medina, and a conquest of mecca (too much history to post). the point is from Muhammad's first year in leadership, he was a military leader.

"
oral Expediency. Muhammad sanctioned the raiding of commercial Meccan caravans by his followers (Haykal, 357f.). The prophet himself led three raids. Doubtless the purpose of these attacks was not only obtaining financial reward, but also to impress the Meccans with the growing power of the Muslim force. Critics of Islam question this piracy. These actions cast a dark shadow over Muhammad’s alleged moral perfection.

Another time Muhammad approved of a follower lying to an enemy named Khalid in order to kill him. Then in the presence of the man’s wives “he fell on him with his sword and killed him. Khalid’s women were the only witnesses and they began to cry and mourn for him” (Haykal, 273).

On other occasions Muhammad had no aversion to politically expedient assassinations. When a prominent Jew, Ka’b Ibn Al-Ashraf, had stirred up discord against Muhammad and composed a satirical poem about him, the prophet asked: “Who will deliver me from Ka?” Immediately four persons volunteered and shortly returned to Muhammad with Ka’b’s head in their hands (Gudel, 74). Haykal acknowledges many such assassinations in his book, The Life of Muhammad. Of one he wrote, “the Prophet ordered the execution of Uqbah ibn Abu Muayt. When Uqbah pleaded, ‘Who will take care of my children, O Muhammad?’ Muhammad answered, ‘The fire’ ” (234; cf. 236, 237, 243)."

Quote from Norman Geisler- Encyclopedia of apologetics

Did not Jesus warn against hypocrisy?

So let us try to avoid some?

Muhammad did betroth Aisha when she was 6. It was an arranged marriage (if you want to condemn from a modernist perspective). But the marriage ceremony didn't take place until she was 9, and even after that she continued to live with her parents until she came of age. Muhammad did not consummate his marriage to a pre-pubescent girl. Moreover, as already observed, Holy Mary was exactly this age ~13 when she was married to Joseph -- supposedly without too much of her own input on the matter either?

Also, Jesus (Yehoshua) is named after the Biblical Joshua, and someone will eventually point out Biblical views of the Canaanites he was tasked to conquer

Furthermore, as to number of wives, how many wives did Jacob Israel have (Rachel, Leah, Bilhah, Zilpah, right)? Abraham, Isaac, the other Patriarchs? David?? Solomon??? And aren't they role models, even for modern Christians??

If it is legitimately possible to question Islam, it must be possible to do so in a non-hypocritical manner which does not immediately violate Jesus' own commands to be ever mindful of the "leaven of hypocrisy" -- otherwise we "DQ" (disqualify) ourselves as Christians (by violating Jesus' stern warning) from the outset, and then we don't even get to "participate in the race"

Jesus said "don't be a hypocrite, ever, for any reason", so just noting appropriate parallels

the NT does say what it says, and the OT does say what it says, and the Quran does say what it says, and if they don't all 3 agree 100% on some issues then we had better recognize why (w/o being hypocritical) ?

mindlight said:

That was an interesting and informative post that explains a lot about what occurred under Muhammads purview and with his consent.

But Islam claims to be the latest revelation and an advance on the Christianity and Judaism that preceded it. But here we have an example of regression to the eye for an eye of the Torah. It is clear that law is enforced by external coercion and therefore by the sword. The contention that this incidence demonstrates the inherent violence at Islams heart is therefore proven

Click to expand...

Think Islam would characterize itself not as an "advance" but as a "reversion" to the "original" monotheistic faith of Adam in Eden and all the Prophets since, perhaps especially Abraham, hence some of the more "Patriarchal epoch" customs & practices

You realise God wiped out humanity almost entirely with the flood, right?

Stop pointing fingers, worry about your own journey.

mindlight said:

God did that....His judgment I trust, Muhammads less so.

Click to expand...

So mass killing isn't the problem, but by whose hand?

Interesting.

High Fidelity said:

You realise God wiped out humanity almost entirely with the flood, right?

Stop pointing fingers, worry about your own journey.

Click to expand...

God put us into existence, that means He can take us out of existence too. Man however, who is not God should not have the freedom to kill people, for wealth.