Banu Qurayzah

[Dr. Debate]

I've been reading about this and it confuses me. This meaning the "Massace of Banu Qurayzah", the Jewish Tribe in Medina. What do Muslims here have to say about this?

For all that don't know, people say that Banu Qurayzah was a tribe that was massacred by Prophet Muhammed's (PBUH) people back when he was alive.

Thanks.

[rcne]

I think when Muhammad was waging war to establish the religion of peace, he needed booty to satisfy his warriors. His caravan raids were not as profitable as promised.
So he looted this tribe, killed all the men and took all the women and children as slaves.
Or was this a different story?

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: rcne I think when Muhammad was waging war to establish the religion of peace, he needed booty to satisfy his warriors. His caravan raids were not as profitable as promised. So he looted this tribe, killed all the men and took all the women and children as slaves. Or was this a different story?

Sounds right, I think. The way I read it, he preached tolerance of the Jews, but systematically accused each tribe living nearby of trying to undermine his Muslim community and summarily had them massacred.

[The_Genius]

When Prophet Mohammed (saw) took refuge in Media, where were three Jewish tribes named Qaynuqa, Nadir and Qurayza. They were determined to destroy Mohammed (saw) and his followers. Those three Jewish tribes had formidable armies and they made a pact with militarily superior Pagan Meccans, who were Mohammed (saw)'s main enemies. Since these Jewish tribes lived close to where Mohammed (saw) and Muslims were situated, they plotted with Pagan Meccans to wage war against the Muslims.

The rebellion of Qaynuqa was unsucessful against Mohammed (saw) and thus, they were exiled accoring to Aran custom.

Prophet Mohammed (saw) made a special treaty with Nadir but he later discovered that tribe was plotting to assassinate him. Therefore, he had to exile them too.

The remaining tribe called Qurayza sided with Pagan Meccans in the Battle of the Trench against the Muslims. There was a great possibility that Muslims would be exterminated. Thus, that time Mohammed (saw) did not show any mercy and killed 700 Jewish men. Women and children were sold as slaves.


I'm not going to justify the massacre using my perspective since everyone will sceam BIAS. Let's read what Karen Armstrong, a prominent British author on monotheistic faiths, said about the event in her book "Islam: A Short History"....

"The massacre of Qurayzah was a horrible incident, but it would be a mistake to judge it by the standards of our own time. This was a very primitive society: the Muslims themselves had just narrowly escaped extermination, and had Mohammed (saw) simply exiled Qurayzah they would have swelled the Jewish opposition in Khaybar and brought another war upon the Muslims."

Let's not forget, Prophet Mohammed (saw) was both spiritual and secular leader. Simply forgiving the tribe of Qurayzah would be the same as writing his own death certificate.

[The_Genius]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Sounds right, I think. The way I read it, he preached tolerance of the Jews, but systematically accused each tribe living nearby of trying to undermine his Muslim community and summarily had them massacred.

Historically unsound.

Jewish Tribes actually had armies. They literally threatened Muslims' existence.

[shrike]

Historically unsound. Jewish Tribes actually had armies. They literally threatened Muslims' existence.

Does it justified mass massacre?
Anyways all the information we have its from Muslim sources so its natural it will be biased.

[The_Genius]

Quote by: shrike Does it justified mass massacre? Anyways all the information we have its from Muslim sources so its natural it will be biased.

Have it your way.

I hope you are enjoying taking revenge by killing thousands of Palestinains.

Peace out.

[shrike]

Have it your way. I hope you are enjoying taking revenge by killing thousands of Palestinains. Peace out

Could you debate without red herrings and logical fallacies???
So do you condemn this massacre or no?

[phoenix_fire]

Of course he doesn't. All Muslim-biased sources go out of their way to justify these criminal and inhumane acts, but secular sources tell a different tale...unfortunately, due to the nature of the acts, the only firsthand info we really have is already tainted by bias.

[The_Genius]

@ phoenix, before you pass irrational judgements on Muslims, don't forget that Crusaders killed 40000 (if not more) innocent people for no reason what so ever. But in that Battle of Trench, Muslims were in a DO OR DIE situation. You need to understand the context...

[The_Genius]

@ shrike, I feel sorry for what happened. But I don't condemn the event. Because, if they spared the Jewish army, Muslims would most definitely be massacred. It's as simple as that, whether you think I'm biased or not. It's the truth... and don't forget, I actually used an objective non-Muslim source to describe the event.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: The_Genius @ phoenix, before you pass irrational judgements on Muslims, don't forget that Crusaders killed 40000 (if not more) innocent people for no reason what so ever. But in that Battle of Trench, Muslims were in a DO OR DIE situation. You need to understand the context...

Erm...I'm not sitting here trying to justify it either. I could point out that Jesus neither did nor sanctioned any such thing. I could point out the things that instigated the Crusades. I could even point out the more forceful political causes. But I won't. I don't justify murder.

[notworthabean]

Quote by: The_Genius @ shrike, I feel sorry for what happened. But I don't condemn the event. Because, if they spared the Jewish army, Muslims would most definitely be massacred. It's as simple as that, whether you think I'm biased or not. It's the truth... and don't forget, I actually used an objective non-Muslim source to describe the event.

there are no non-muslim sources on the event. indeed form a historical persepctive the jewish and meccans alliance makes sense, muhhamad claimed to be a prophet, preaching a religion counter to many people and upsettingt othe social order.

as a side note, i believe the jews of qana were farmers, and were no wher enear the professinal soliders of mohhamds army. the jews were reacting to mohhamds threat,not the other way around.

[The_Genius]

Quote by: notworthabean there are no non-muslim sources on the event. indeed form a historical persepctive the jewish and meccans alliance makes sense, muhhamad claimed to be a prophet, preaching a religion counter to many people and upsettingt othe social order. as a side note, i believe the jews of qana were farmers, and were no wher enear the professinal soliders of mohhamds army. the jews were reacting to mohhamds threat,not the other way around.

It shows how little you know about history.

Prophet Mohammed (saw) never had trained armies or camels when he stayed in Media. They carried light weapons. Meccans were far more superior and they are the ones funded Jewish tribes' armies. In pre-Islamic times, tribal wars was a very common thing. Each tribes had their own army. Jewish tribes were no exceptions...

[The_Genius]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Erm...I'm not sitting here trying to justify it either. I could point out that Jesus neither did nor sanctioned any such thing. I could point out the things that instigated the Crusades. I could even point out the more forceful political causes. But I won't. I don't justify murder.

I don't justify murder either. However, there is a big difference between 'murder' and 'reacting in self-defence'...

[notworthabean]

Quote by: The_Genius It shows how little you know about history. Prophet Mohammed (saw) never had trained armies or camels when he stayed in Media. They carried light weapons. Meccans were far more superior and they are the ones funded Jewish tribes' armies. In pre-Islamic times, tribal wars was a very common thing. Each tribes had their own army. Jewish tribes were no exceptions...

actually mohhamad and his followers raided the meccan caravans and thats how they got thie rmoney. don't give me the "he never trained armies" he must have,other wise he would not have conquered the arabian peninusla. if the meccans funded the jews at qana (something i have never heard before-even from my muslim "middle eastern politicls professor" who has gone into great depth on the history) indeed I recall they were farmers. i am sure they had an army of sorts but the fact is mohhamad had the better one. the story I have heard when mentioning qana is that when muhhamd came to medina he expected the local jews (from whom he got many ideas) to accept him as a prophet, evne going so far as to have people pray to jerusalam. when the jews, who figured out he wasn't a prophet, didn't follow him, he had to punish them to show an example. something along those lines is the modern belief regarding the matter.

[Athena]

Quote by: shrike Does it justified mass massacre? Anyways all the information we have its from Muslim sources so its natural it will be biased.

Considering the Jewish long history of record keeping, I find it surprising there isn't a Jewish explanation?

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: The_Genius I don't justify murder either. However, there is a big difference between 'murder' and 'reacting in self-defence'...

Erm...when your "self defense" is commonly termed a "massacre", I think you've exceeded the limits of credible self defense.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: notworthabean actually mohhamad and his followers raided the meccan caravans and thats how they got thie rmoney. don't give me the "he never trained armies" he must have,other wise he would not have conquered the arabian peninusla. if the meccans funded the jews at qana (something i have never heard before-even from my muslim "middle eastern politicls professor" who has gone into great depth on the history) indeed I recall they were farmers. i am sure they had an army of sorts but the fact is mohhamad had the better one. the story I have heard when mentioning qana is that when muhhamd came to medina he expected the local jews (from whom he got many ideas) to accept him as a prophet, evne going so far as to have people pray to jerusalam. when the jews, who figured out he wasn't a prophet, didn't follow him, he had to punish them to show an example. something along those lines is the modern belief regarding the matter.

I read that too. Apparently, the local Jewish scholars made Muhammad(fp) look pretty bad by calling him on his numerous historical and scriptural inaccuracies. He apparently did not take it too well.

[notworthabean]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I read that too. Apparently, the local Jewish scholars made Muhammad(fp) look pretty bad by calling him on his numerous historical and scriptural inaccuracies. He apparently did not take it too well.

we are generally good at all that stuff. we even caught that very convicning jesus guy.