Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
see here The Quran's Verses of Violence
It is actually a site prompt Islam, so they have the answers already.
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"
The problem with the explanation is, Mohammad sets an example in Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, where after they surrender, all their males who "is subjected to razors" are killed and women/children are enslaved. That sounds just way to familiar with happens in Iraq.
In 627, when the Quraysh and their allies besieged the city in the Battle of the Trench, the Qurayza entered into negotiations with the besiegers.[11] Subsequently, the tribe was charged with treason and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad.[12][13] The Banu Qurayza were overtaken and most of the men, apart from those who surrendered (many of whom converted to Islam), were beheaded, while all the women and children were taken captive and enslaved.[12][13][13][14][15][16] Several revisionist authors have challenged the veracity of this incident, arguing that it was exaggerated or invented.[17][18][
The revisionist approach
Walid N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad have disputed that the Banu Qurayza were killed on quite such a large scale.[17] Arafat disputes large-scale killings and argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who embellished or manufactured the details of the incident. He states "on examination, details of the story can be challenged. It can be demonstrated that the assertion that 600 or 800 or 900 men of Banu Qurayza were put to death in cold blood can not be true; that it is a later invention; and that it has its source in Jewish traditions." Arafat relates the testimony of Ibn Hajar, who denounced this and other accounts as "odd tales" and quoted Malik ibn Anas, a contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, whom he rejected as a "liar", an "impostor" and for seeking out the Jewish descendants for gathering information about Muhammad's campaign with their forefathers.[18][19]
Ahmad argues that only some of the tribe were killed, while some of the fighters were merely enslaved.[70]
Watt finds Arafat's arguments "not entirely convincing",[4] while Meir J. Kister has contradicted the arguments of Arafat and Ahmad:
Arafat's arguments are however unfounded, his conclusions incorrect and his opinion about Sira tradition is misappreciative. Muslim jurists were well acquainted with the story of the Banu Qurayza and based themselves in their judgments and decrees on the account of the massacre.[71]
Analysis
The Qur'an briefly refers to the incident in Surah 33:26[18] and Muslim jurists have looked upon Surah 8:55-58 as a justification of the treatment of the Banu Qurayza, arguing that the Qurayza broke their pact with Muhammad, and thus Muhammad was justified in repudiating his side of the pact and killing the Qurayza en masse.[50]
Arab Muslim theologians and historians[who?] have either viewed the incident as "the punishment of the Medina Jews, who were invited to convert and refused, perfectly exemplify the Quran's tales of what happened to those who rejected the prophets of old" or offered a political, rather than religious, explanation.[72]
In the 8th and early 9th century many Muslim jurists, such as Ash-Shafii, based their judgments and decrees supporting collective punishment for treachery on the accounts of the demise of the Qurayza, with which they were well acquainted.[73] However, the proceedings of Muhammad with regard to the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qurayza were not taken as the premier model for the relationship of Muslim states toward its Jewish subjects.[74][75][76][77][clarification needed][78]
Paret[79] and Watt[11][80] say that the Banu Qurayza were killed not because of their faith but for "treasonable activities against the Medinan community".[11] Watt relates that "no important clan of Jews was left in Medina"[11] but he and Paret also note that Muhammad did not clear all Jews out of Medina.[79][80][81]
Aiming at placing the events in their historical context, Watt points to the "harsh political circumstances of that era"[11] and argues that the treatment of Qurayza was regular Arab practice.[82] Similar statements are made by Stillman,[30] Paret,[79] Lewis[83] and Rodinson.[67] On the other hand, Michael Lecker and Irving Zeitlin consider the events "unprecedented in the Arab peninsula - a novelty" and state that "prior to Islam, the annihilation of an adversary was never an aim of war."[65][84] Similar statements are made by Hirschberg[85] and Baron.[86]
The wiki article you are quoting is not as simple as your quote. There is a bit more to the article
Citation please.
And the textual evidence of the Bible is kind of a mess, too. Yet we are able to derive the Faith from it.
Sister, I implore you. Cease your mocking and try to be a witness to Good News.
I was reading in the current events forum and a post triggered some questions about Islam. I did not want to hijack the thread, so I'm posting them here.
I know absolutely nothing about Islam or Muslims. I don't even know where they all live (or are they everywhere?). But from the sounds of your post, it seems like Islam is a religion that has different "denominations" or different [maybe political] ideologies kind of like the difference between ultra-conservative Christians versus ultra-liberal Christians. Is that right?
If that's the case, isn't the war a holy war that is intra-Islam that only involves Christians from the point of being in the wrong place (where the radicals live) at the wrong time?
Muslims get into 'holy war' against each other - and with outsiders as the opportunity arises. That interview on Fox News was instructive.
in Christ,
Bob
The problem with the explanation is, Mohammad sets an example in Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, where after they surrender, all their males who "is subjected to razors" are killed and women/children are enslaved.
Or this?That sounds just way to familiar with happens in Iraq.
Or this?
"However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. "When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. "Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20:12-14)
They broke the treaty between the tribe and the Prophet & committed high treason. That's why their warriors (the adult men and one woman) were executed.
The Expulsion of Banu al-Qurayzah
Or this?
"However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. "When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. "Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20:12-14)
There were a few cites where all the people and everything inside the city were ordered to be destroyed.
Hi LoAmmi,
Yep I know at least one incident of that. And you have said God didn't give any explanations. Is there anything in the oral Torah about it? Is this a great mystery or do you think there are other knowledge rabbis that might have an answer?
You could be right that the number of man killed might be inaccurate or biased. However there are other accounts in Hadiths that support the issue (i.e. Muhammad's interpretation of the Quran is of the more violent way).
For example, (Bukhari 46:717) "The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives"
And there were many more, where Muhammad commands attacks not in self defense, or attacks that to convert. It is clear that Muhammad's interpretation of Quran is different than yours.
Another way to see this is by the actions of many young Muslims who go to Iraq and Syria. Be-headings (even of children), bleeding people to death, and still many want to go. You never see any other religion rush to that from all over the world (and from my experience on islamboard, most people approve of this, some did say they don't like it but still view it in a somewhat sympathetically). I got banned posting pictures so I will not do it again.
May God have mercy on us all.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 003, Book 046, Hadith Number 717.
Narated By Ibn Aun : I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.
That is a very interesting article, especially toward the ending where the crippled solider thanks God for his one arm left. They are happy to find the Lord.
This is one of the reasons I like the Christian message, Leviticus 19:18
"'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
and Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness....
With God, the worldly matters are no longer important. God bless you all!
That is a very interesting article, especially toward the ending where the crippled solider thanks God for his one arm left. They are happy to find the Lord.
This is one of the reasons I like the Christian message, Leviticus 19:18
"'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
and Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness....
With God, the worldly matters are no longer important. God bless you all!
And presumably his right arm was hacked off by his Christian neighbor in combat. It seems you miss the irony.
Could well be. The people of the world will never follow the teaching of God to the letter. If they do there will be no wars. Government fights over different causes, but man touched by God will have love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, as shown in the story.
Would that apply to this man: HERE
You would not be able to teach Christianity with the OT alone.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?