Islam Muhammads' genocide: Banu Qurayza

[summerville]

Most Muslims I have met are Sunni which is the majority view across the Muslim world by a considerable margin also. But I have met Shias and am aware they have reinterpreted the traditions in the light of their own Persian culture and a horror at the Arabian practice of having sex with little girls after their first blood. The differences of the Shia position reflects a healthy horror of this practice and also rivalry with the Sunnis. But the problem with the Shia position is that Muhammad was an Arab and Arabs have been doing this for all their recorded history.

In the early 1950s the life expectancy was about 40-45 years. Historically, girls didn't marry until after the onset of the mense which came late because of poor diet.

You're just getting a dose of disaffected Shia baloney. I was around both for many years and I liked both, but I got caught in a Shia riot in 1953 or 54 and they were terrifying.. They were jumping and ululating, throwing rocks at our car and they all had erections.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s all children under 2 had malaria, there were smallpox scars on most faces and blindness was common. Life was hard. The oil company took aggressive actions, vaccinating people, passing out mosquito netting and spraying with DDT. They opened clinics for the Bedouin and townspeople.

They are remarkable people and they have come a long, long way.

 

[summerville]

I liked this post, but remember the crusades started out with a just war campaign, it was to deflect muslim invasion. but just like any war, greed set in, and they realized they could fund the war by taking lands. I am not exactly sure about that part but I know the end of the crusade was pretty nasty and was not a reflection of the initial just war that originated it. The childrens crusade and other really messed up ideas they had.

The Crusades were about booty... and to boost the power of the church which was fading fast.

 

[createdtoworship]

The Crusades were about booty... and to boost the power of the church which was fading fast.

Again after the Islamic Turks invaded and took Jerusalem, and further more started attacking peaceful religious pilgrims to the holy land, this was the initial act that started the crusades.

"The event that sparked the Crusades was the advance of the Seljuk Turks in the East and the call for help from the Byzantine emperor Alexis I. Tales of the sufferings pilgrims endured at the hands of the Turks in the Holy Land provided emotional appeal for many to engage in holy war.'
-Church History in Plain language, Bruce Shelly


"For centuries peaceful pilgrims had been traveling from Europe to worship at the birthplace of Christ. The rise and spread of Islam in the Near East during the seventh century did not interrupt this traffic. By the tenth century bishops were organizing mass pilgrimages to the Holy Land; the largest of these, which set out from Germany in 1065, included about 7,000 pilgrims.

During the eleventh century, however, Christian pilgrims began to encounter persecution, and when the Seljuk Turks, new and fanatical converts to Islam, came sweeping and plundering into the Near East, the situation became especially tense. The Seljuks seized Jerusalem from their fellow Muslims and then swept north into Asia Minor."
Exploring Church History-HOWARD F. VOS

Like I said before after the initial call for a crusade they realized they could fund further crusades by pillaging and getting booty. So intead of just a defensive crusade due to an invasion in the holy land, they used that invasion to launch offensive campaigns for wealth, and to spread christianity into islamic realms. Essentially the christians became just as guilty as the muslims.

But my point is that the crusades started from an islamic invasion. Technically speaking. And muhammed was from day one a military leader. He actually conquered mecca.

 

[summerville]

Again after the Islamic Turks invaded and took Jerusalem, and further more started attacking peaceful religious pilgrims to the holy land, this was the initial act that started the crusades.

"The event that sparked the Crusades was the advance of the Seljuk Turks in the East and the call for help from the Byzantine emperor Alexis I. Tales of the sufferings pilgrims endured at the hands of the Turks in the Holy Land provided emotional appeal for many to engage in holy war.'
-Church History in Plain language, Bruce Shelly


"For centuries peaceful pilgrims had been traveling from Europe to worship at the birthplace of Christ. The rise and spread of Islam in the Near East during the seventh century did not interrupt this traffic. By the tenth century bishops were organizing mass pilgrimages to the Holy Land; the largest of these, which set out from Germany in 1065, included about 7,000 pilgrims.

During the eleventh century, however, Christian pilgrims began to encounter persecution, and when the Seljuk Turks, new and fanatical converts to Islam, came sweeping and plundering into the Near East, the situation became especially tense. The Seljuks seized Jerusalem from their fellow Muslims and then swept north into Asia Minor."
Exploring Church History-HOWARD F. VOS

Like I said before after the initial call for a crusade they realized they could fund further crusades by pillaging and getting booty. So intead of just a defensive crusade due to an invasion in the holy land, they used that invasion to launch offensive campaigns for wealth, and to spread christianity into islamic realms. Essentially the christians became just as guilty as the muslims.

But my point is that the crusades started from an islamic invasion. Technically speaking.

Are you talking about the Treaty of Omar when the Jews were invited to return to Jerusalem?

 

[createdtoworship]

Are you talking about the Treaty of Omar when the Jews were invited to return to Jerusalem?

not sure. I closed up my software. But it should provide enough information to google search it out.

 

[Erik Nelson]

even Caiaphas gave a prophecy when he said that sometimes it is necessary that one man should die for the people. That did not make him a prophet

it sure did

anyone who Prophesies by the wondrous Power of Heaven is (then & there) a Prophet of Heaven

some are called for minutes, others for years, others for a lifetime -- that's up to Heaven

but they all experienced Prophetic occurrences

Muhammad said the future Muslim army to conquer Constantinople would be "wondrous", and Sultan Mehmet's army had to be "wondrous" to sack the city -- if that army had not been "wondrous" the city would have survived the siege as it had repeatedly for a thousand years

the Prophesy was about the Fall of Constantinople, not the biography of the leader in charge of

 

[Barney2.0]

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)

All boys that reached puberty were killed, that would include 13 and 15 year old boys. The Banu Qurayza never took part in any battle against the Mohammedans in-fact they even refused to aid the Quraysh against the Mohammedans. Had the Banu Qurayza aided the Quraysh, then the pagans would have entered the city and slaughtered Mohammad’s forces. I wouldn’t call it genocide, but it’s a massacre, God never commanded Moses or David to massacre a people that had a treaty with Israel for no obvious reason, so there’s a big difference between this and the wars in the Old Testament.

 

[Barney2.0]

The numbers were exaggerated, but the Jews broke a treaty and asked to be judged by their own laws.

Is there any proof for the numbers being exaggerated, if the Jews broke the treaty, then they would have helped the confederates enter the city through their quarter and slaughter Mohammed’s forces this never happened, there’s no proof that together broke the treaty, by all accounts Mohammed broke it by ordering the massacre in order to satisfy his exhausted men with spoils, probably to prevent unrest. What law specifically matches how Mohammad massacred the Banu Qurayza in either the Torah or Rabbinic law?

 

[Barney2.0]

Aisha was born before the Call so she was 19 years old not 9.

Muhammad's wives - Wikipedia

That’s not what the sources state:

Refutation of the lie that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) married ‘Aa’ishah when she was 18 years old - Islam Question & Answer

 

[summerville]

All boys that reached puberty were killed, that would include 13 and 15 year old boys. The Banu Qurayza never took part in any battle against the Mohammedans in-fact they even refused to aid the Quraysh against the Mohammedans. Had the Banu Qurayza aided the Quraysh, then the pagans would have entered he city and slaughtered Mohammad’s forces. I wouldn’t call it genocide, but it’s a massacre, God never commanded Moses or David to massacre a people that had a treaty with Israel for no obvious reason, so there’s a big difference between this and the wars in the Old Testament.

In Arabia in those days there were Muslims, Christians, Jews and pagans. How is this different than the mandate to slaughter the Canaanites?

 

[summerville]

Is there any proof for the numbers being exaggerated, if the Jews broke the treaty, then heh would have helped the confederates enter the city through their quarter and slaughter Mohammed’s forces this never happened, there’s no proof that together broke the treaty, by all accounts Mohammed broke it by ordering the massacre in order to satisfy his exhausted men with spoils, probably to prevent unrest. What law specifically matches how Mohammad massacred the Banu Qurayza in either the Torah or Rabbinic law?

The population of all of Arabia wasn't more than a half million.. But, exaggeration and grandiosity seems to have been the rule rather than the exception. Look at the huge numbers in the OT.

 

[Barney2.0]

In Arabia in those days there were Muslims, Christians, Jews and pagans. How is this different than the mandate to slaughter the Canaanites?

There were Christians, Jews and pagans pre Islam. After Islamic rule was established in Arabia all pagans were forcibly converted as jizyah isn’t accepted from pagans, and Christians and Jews were forced out of Arabia as Mohammed’s last parting gift before his journey to hell. The Canaanites were evil and murdered their own children as sacrifices to pagan idols.

 

[Barney2.0]

The population of all of Arabia wasn't more than a half million.. But, exaggeration and grandiosity seems to have been the rule rather than the exception. Look at the huge numbers in the OT.

The Old Testament and other Near Eastern literature exaggerate casualties as a literary theme. But however we can still assume many of the Banu Qurayza were killed.

 

[summerville]

There were Christians, Jews and pagans pre Islam. After Islamic rule all pagans were forcibly converted as jizyah isn’t accepted from pagans, and Christians and Jews were forced out of Arabia as Mohammed’s last parting gift before his journey to hell. The Canaanites were evil and murdered their own children as sacrifices to pagan idols.

Who was trashing the Canaanites? The Canaanites were settled and prosperous. They were successful in mining, metallurgy and pottery making and they paid tribute to Pharaoh.

Nestorian records attest to a consistent Christian presence in the region between the fifth and seventh centuries, as evidenced by the regular attendance of synods by local bishops.

The Christian population consisted mainly of Syriac and Persian speakers, while the remainder consisted primarily of Arabic -speakers deriving from the Abd al-Qays tribe.

 

[summerville]

The Old Testament and other Near Eastern literature exaggerate casualties as a literary theme. But however we can still assume many of the Banu Qurayza were killed.

The literature doesn't give a number. The issue was oases.... water..

 

[Barney2.0]

Are you talking about the Treaty of Omar when the Jews were invited to return to Jerusalem?

The terms of the treaty were meant to degrade Christians, Jews, Samartians, and any Zoroastrians of the city. Also it’s worth noting if Jews really deserved to renter the city noting that they helped the Persians take the city and massacre the city’s Christian population. Do you think the terms of the pact are just?

• The ruler would provide security for the Christian believers who follow the rules of the pact.
• Prohibition against building new churches, places of worship, monasteries, monks or a new cell. (Hence it was also forbidden to build new synagogues, although it is known that new synagogues were built after the occupation of the Islam, for example in Jerusalem and Ramle. The law that prohibits to build new synagogues was not new for the Jews, it was applied also during the Byzantines. It was new for the Christians.)
• Prohibition against rebuilding destroyed churches, by day or night, in their own neighbourhoods or those situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
• Prohibition against hanging a crosson the Churches.
• Muslims should be allowed to enter Churches (for shelter) in any time, both in day and night.
• Obliging the call of prayer by a bell or a kind of Gong (Nakos) to be low in volume.
• Prohibition of Christians and Jewsagainst raising their voices at prayer times.
• Prohibition against teaching non-Muslim children the Qur'an.
• Christians were forbidden to show their religion in public, or to be seen with Christian books or symbols in public, on the roads or in the markets of the Muslims.
• Palm Sunday and Easter parades were banned.
• Funerals should be conducted quietly.
• Prohibition against burying non-Muslim dead near Muslims.
• Prohibition against raising a pig next to a Muslims neighbour.
• Christian were forbidden to sell Muslims alcoholic beverage.
• Christians were forbidden to provide cover or shelter for spies.
• Prohibition against telling a lie about Muslims.
• Obligation to show deference toward Muslims. If a Muslim wishes to sit, non-Muslim should be rise from his seats and let the Muslim sit.
• Prohibition against preaching to Muslims in an attempt to convert them from Islam.
• Prohibition against preventing the conversion to Islam of some one who wants to convert.
• The appearance of the non-Muslims has to be different from those of the Muslims: Prohibition against wearing Qalansuwa (kind of dome that was used to wear by Bedouin), Bedouinturban (Amamh), Muslims shoes, and Sash to their waists. As to their heads, it was forbidden to comb the hair sidewise as the Muslim custom, and they were forced to cut the hair in the front of the head. Also non-Muslim shall not imitate the Arab-Muslim way of speech nor shall adopt the kunyas (Arabic byname, such as "abu Khattib").
• Obligation to identify non-Muslims as such by clipping the heads' forelocks and by always dressing in the same manner, wherever they go, with binding the zunar (a kind of belt) around the waists. Christians to wear blue belts or turbans, Jews to wear yellow belts or turbans, Zoroastriansto wear black belts or turbans, and Samaritans to wear red belts or turbans.
• Prohibition against riding animals in the Muslim custom, and prohibition against riding with a saddle.
• Prohibition against adopting a Muslimtitle of honour.
• Prohibition against engraving Arabic inscriptions on signet seals.
• Prohibition against any possession of weapons.
• Non-Muslims must host a Muslimpasserby for at least 3 days and feed him.
• Non-Muslims prohibited from buying a Muslim prisoner.
• Prohibition against taking slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
• Prohibition against non-Muslims to lead, govern or employ Muslims.
• If a non-Muslim beats a Muslim, his Dhimmi is removed.
• The worship places of non-Muslims must be lower in elevation than the lowest mosque in town.
• The houses of non-Muslims must not be taller in elevation than the houses of Muslims.

 

[Barney2.0]

Who was trashing the Canaanites? The Canaanites were settled and prosperous. They were successful in mining, metallurgy and pottery making and they paid tribute to Pharaoh.

Nestorian records attest to a consistent Christian presence in the region between the fifth and seventh centuries, as evidenced by the regular attendance of synods by local bishops.

The Christian population consisted mainly of Syriac and Persian speakers, while the remainder consisted primarily of Arabic -speakers deriving from the Abd al-Qays tribe.

They also practiced human sacrifice on infants, theres evidence that the Phoenicians a people descended from the Canaanites practiced human sacrifice usually on children. Not to mention that they were responsible for turning the Israelites away from God afterwards. A Nestorian presence in Arabia between the fifth and seventh centuries would have been before Mohammed started preaching his new faith.

 

[summerville]

The terms of the treaty were meant to degrade Christians, Jews, Samartians, and any Zoroastrians of the city. Also it’s worth noting if Jews really deserved to renter the city noting that they helped the Persians take the city and massacre the cities Christian population. Do you think the terms of the pact are just?

• The ruler would provide security for the Christian believers who follow the rules of the pact.
• Prohibition against building new churches, places of worship, monasteries, monks or a new cell. (Hence it was also forbidden to build new synagogues, although it is known that new synagogues were built after the occupation of the Islam, for example in Jerusalem and Ramle. The law that prohibits to build new synagogues was not new for the Jews, it was applied also during the Byzantines. It was new for the Christians.)
• Prohibition against rebuilding destroyed churches, by day or night, in their own neighbourhoods or those situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
• Prohibition against hanging a crosson the Churches.
• Muslims should be allowed to enter Churches (for shelter) in any time, both in day and night.
• Obliging the call of prayer by a bell or a kind of Gong (Nakos) to be low in volume.
• Prohibition of Christians and Jewsagainst raising their voices at prayer times.
• Prohibition against teaching non-Muslim children the Qur'an.
• Christians were forbidden to show their religion in public, or to be seen with Christian books or symbols in public, on the roads or in the markets of the Muslims.
• Palm Sunday and Easter parades were banned.
• Funerals should be conducted quietly.
• Prohibition against burying non-Muslim dead near Muslims.
• Prohibition against raising a pig next to a Muslims neighbour.
• Christian were forbidden to sell Muslims alcoholic beverage.
• Christians were forbidden to provide cover or shelter for spies.
• Prohibition against telling a lie about Muslims.
• Obligation to show deference toward Muslims. If a Muslim wishes to sit, non-Muslim should be rise from his seats and let the Muslim sit.
• Prohibition against preaching to Muslims in an attempt to convert them from Islam.
• Prohibition against preventing the conversion to Islam of some one who wants to convert.
• The appearance of the non-Muslims has to be different from those of the Muslims: Prohibition against wearing Qalansuwa (kind of dome that was used to wear by Bedouin), Bedouinturban (Amamh), Muslims shoes, and Sash to their waists. As to their heads, it was forbidden to comb the hair sidewise as the Muslim custom, and they were forced to cut the hair in the front of the head. Also non-Muslim shall not imitate the Arab-Muslim way of speech nor shall adopt the kunyas (Arabic byname, such as "abu Khattib").
• Obligation to identify non-Muslims as such by clipping the heads' forelocks and by always dressing in the same manner, wherever they go, with binding the zunar (a kind of belt) around the waists. Christians to wear blue belts or turbans, Jews to wear yellow belts or turbans, Zoroastriansto wear black belts or turbans, and Samaritans to wear red belts or turbans.
• Prohibition against riding animals in the Muslim custom, and prohibition against riding with a saddle.
• Prohibition against adopting a Muslimtitle of honour.
• Prohibition against engraving Arabic inscriptions on signet seals.
• Prohibition against any possession of weapons.
• Non-Muslims must host a Muslimpasserby for at least 3 days and feed him.
• Non-Muslims prohibited from buying a Muslim prisoner.
• Prohibition against taking slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
• Prohibition against non-Muslims to lead, govern or employ Muslims.
• If a non-Muslim beats a Muslim, his Dhimmi is removed.
• The worship places of non-Muslims must be lower in elevation than the lowest mosque in town.
• The houses of non-Muslims must not be taller in elevation than the houses of Muslims.

Why don't you just READ the treaty instead of all that crap somebody said about the treaty.

 

[Barney2.0]

Muhammed protected the Nestorian Christians of Najran and waived Jizya. However, by the time of Muhammed they weren't really in any grave danger from the Jewish Himyarite kingdom of Yemen because it was on the wane..

There was no Jewish kingdom by the time “Islam” started. Who was he protecting Christians from, themselves? Jizyah contains dehumanizing and humiliating terms for those who accepted the treaty, jizyah is designed to either coerce you to become Muslim to avoid the humiliating costs of being a dhimmi or make money for the Caliphate or Islamic state.

 

[Barney2.0]

Why don't you just READ the treaty instead of all that crap somebody said about the treaty.

That was the treaty:

http://www.rogerlouismartinez.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-Pact-of-Umar-7th-Century.pdf

Why are you defending (don’t deny you are) the actions of Mohammed’s blasphemous faith?