Banu Qurayza

Yeah, they were totally dying to get their heads chopped off (pun intended). Please...who are you kidding? The sole reason the Qurayza asked for one of their own to be appointed so that the punishment wouldn't so harsh, but it was Muhammad SAW who appointed Sa'd Bin Mua'dh, who had been injured in the battle and wished the worst for the Banu Qurayza tribe. Muhammad SAW knew this. This was such a trap. It was Muslims who entered the Jewish land and eventually took over by force- yes I said it BY FORCE! They expelled the Jewish tribes and eventually killed the Banu Qurayza whose only fault was that they wanted their lives back and didn't accept Muhammad SAW as their prophet (why should they?)

Ok, tell me how does this make any sense that Muhammad SAW wanted to preach Islam because he wanted peace among all parties and then accepted this punishment for the tribe because he so badly wanted to obey the Jewish law because the men of Qurayza wanted their children to become orphans and their wives to be sold to some deucebag?

Ok let's even accept that the men "deserved" the punishment. What did the children and women do to be sold into slavery? Was the Jewish law applied here to? Did the women ask for this punishment?

How can you not feel sorry for these people? I don't care if they were Jews, they were humans first. If God sent down his messenger to convey the message of God then why didn't Muhammad SAW convey this message to the Banu Qurayza by forgiving them? I think you already know the answer...it was political. It would have meant the end of Islam.

Is it really? treasonous by what extent? They didn't fight the Muslims, they waited for the Quraysh to make their move, which never happened because even the Qurayza didn't trust the Quraysh. So why the harsh punishment? Talibans are pretty much doing the same thing, you condemn them because let's be honest, you have morals and you see the situation pretty clear. Replace Muhammad SAW with any other leader, you will instantly see how this was a horrible man slaughter in the name of God.

Anyways, let me ask this again. Do you condone what happened? Is this act of violence only justified for you because Muhammad supervised it?

P.S. I would rather hear you tell me that you don't believe this even took place than tell me that you believe it happened and you condone it.

Re: Banu Qurayza

Muhammad arrived in Medina in 622 believing the Jewish tribes would welcome him. Contrary to expectation, his relations with several of the Jewish tribes in Medina were uneasy almost from the start. This was probably largely a matter of local politics. Medina was not so much a city as a fractious agricultural settlement dotted by fortresses and strongholds, and all relations in the oasis were uneasy. In fact, Muhammad had been invited there to arbitrate a bloody civil war between the Khazraj and the Aws Allah, in which the Jewish clans, being their clients, were embroiled.

At Muhammad's insistence, Medina's pagan, Muslim and Jewish clans signed a pact to protect each other, but achieving this new social order was difficult. Certain individual pagans and recent Medinan converts to Islam tried to thwart the new arrangement in various ways, and some of the Jewish clans were uneasy with the threatened demise of the old alliances. At least three times in five years, Jewish leaders, uncomfortable with the changing political situation in Medina, went against Muhammad, hoping to restore the tense, sometimes bloody-but predictable-balance of power among the tribes.

According to most sources, individuals from among these clans plotted to take his life at least twice, and once they came within a bite of poisoning him. Two of the tribes--the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qaynuqa--were eventually exiled for falling short on their agreed upon commitments and for the consequent danger they posed to the nascent Muslim community.

The danger was great. During this period, the Meccans were actively trying to dislodge Muhammad militarily, twice marching large armies to Medina. Muhammad was nearly killed in the first engagement, on the plains of Uhud just outside of Medina. In their second and final military push against Medina, now known as the Battle of the Trench, the Meccans recruited allies from northwestern Arabia to join the fight, including the assistance of the two exiled Jewish tribes. In addition, they sent envoys to the largest Jewish tribe still in Medina, the Banu Qurayza, hoping to win their support. The Banu Qurayza's crucial location on the south side of Medina would allow the Meccans to attack Muhammad from two sides.

The Banu Qurayza were hesitant to join the Meccan alliance, but when a substantial Meccan army arrived, they agreed.

As a siege began, the Banu Qurayza nervously awaited further developments. Learning of their intention to defect and realizing the grave danger this posed, Muhammad initiated diplomatic efforts to keep the Banu Qurayza on his side. Little progress was made. In the third week of the siege, the Banu Qurayza signaled their readiness to act against Muhammad, although they demanded that the Meccans provide them with hostages first, to ensure that they wouldn't be abandoned to face Muhammad alone. Yet that is exactly what happened. The Meccans, nearing exhaustion themselves, refused to give the Banu Qurayza any hostages. Not long after, cold, heavy rains set in, and the Meccans gave up the fight and marched home, to the horror and dismay of the Banu Qurayza.

The Muslims now commenced a 25-day siege against the Banu Qurazya's fortress. Finally, both sides agreed to arbitration. A former ally of the Banu Qurayza, an Arab chief named Sa'd ibn Muadh, now a Muslim, was chosen as judge. Sa'd, one of the few casualties of battle, would soon die of his wounds. If the earlier tribal relations had been in force, he would have certainly spared the Banu Qurayza. His fellow chiefs urged him to pardon these former allies, but he refused. In his view, the Banu Qurayza had attacked the new social order and failed to honor their agreement to protect the town. He ruled that all the men should be killed. Muhammad accepted his judgment, and the next day, according to Muslim sources, 700 men of the Banu Qurayza were executed. Although Sa'd judged according to his own views, his ruling coincides with Deuteronomy 20:12-14.

Most scholars of this episode agree that neither party acted outside the bounds of normal relations in 7th century Arabia. The new order brought by Muhammad was viewed by many as a threat to the age-old system of tribal alliances, as it certainly proved to be. For the Banu Qurayza, the end of this system seemed to bring with it many risks. At the same time, the Muslims faced the threat of total extermination, and needed to send a message to all those groups in Medina that might try to betray their society in the future. It is doubtful that either party could have behaved differently under the circumstances.

It was treason because the Banu Qurayza had signed peace treaties with the Muslim community in Medina, and had guaranteed that they would not support any enemies of Muslim state. By siding with the Meccans during the Battle of the Trench, they specifically broke the treaty they had signed - which, if you're not aware, is the very definition of treason.

In any case, the way the Banu Qurayza was treated was common practice among the Arabs of the time, and is consistent with the punishment for people who break peace treaties as given in the Torah in Deuteronomy.

Re: Banu Qurayza

Thanks Supernova_girl, I never looked at this incident in depth. Where Prophet SAW showed mercy on numerous occassion and treated prisoners and slaves in the finest way, which was unusual in those days, there are times when one has to make difficult choices. And given the history of jewish ppl it was the righteous thing to do at that time which had a long lasting effect on the other jewish settlements around Medina and helped Him stablish a pure and peaceful state for Muslims which led to the tremendous growth of Islam in centuries to follow. My love and respect for Prophet SAW increase with every bit of knowledge I gain about Him and his acts. :) He did nothing but what Allah wanted for his Deen. He didn't gain any personal benefits from Medina establishment,

Re: Banu Qurayza

Madam Banu Qaurazah was a jewish tribe not the muslim first and second they broke the pact made between residents of Madina and so they were punished for what they did

Re: Banu Qurayza

supernova Girl Islam teaches every thing if Islam teaches to take care of orphans and poor people it also teaches people to fight and to wage war and in ISLAM ALSO teaches every thing it aslo gives clear commandment how to rule and run the goverment so politics is not seprated from Islam and finally go and Study Islam briefly

Re: Banu Qurayza

madam supernova Banu Qurazah helped the kafirs of Makkah broke their pact and were in murder of Muslims

Re: Banu Qurayza

visit these websites GUIDEUS.TV AND WATCHISLAM.COM

Re: Banu Qurayza

Everyone,
I know the story inside out, retiterating it won't help. I am trying to understand how any human could justify the Qurayza genocide but wouldn't justify what the Taliban are doing. To me, they are both really the same in almost all aspects. Regardless, it seems like whatever Muhammad SAW did had to be right because you believe he was ordered to do so by Allah, which I guess is the entire issue. You don't see how this was inhumane because it involved Muhammad and Allah. If it were anybody else, it would be considered one of the worst acts of violence in history. In any case, I am glad muslims have come a long way in terms of morality and justice and seems like the Taliban chose to follow the 7th century law & order. As long as we all learn to love and tolerate each other, there should be no issues.

Faith surely blinds you.. doesn't it? :)

Re: Banu Qurayza

mada what was done banu Qurazah was done is totally different with Banu Qurazah a pact was made they broke it helped others in murder of muslims so they got killed but what Taliban are doing is that there was not single pact beacuse every one in pakistan is already muslims and in Quran it is not justified to kill muslims who even have great Iman even jews dont betray you and harm you and lives nicely they cant also be harmed

Because:
1). They're fundamentally different actions
2). Even if if they weren't fundamentally different, they're taking place in entirely different eras and in under very different social, cultural, and political contexts
3). Most historians seem to agree that Ibn Ishaq's account was exaggerated and unreliable anyways
4). Even if we accept Ibn Ishaq's account at face value, this is the first time in my life that I have ever heard anyone refer to the killing of ~500 people as "genocide"

You seem to have some very strongly preconceived notions about all of this - which is why I wonder what was the point of this thread?

Re: Banu Qurayza

Faith is what the world was made for ALLAH MADE THIS WORLD SO WE PEOPLE CAN WORSHIP HIM this world was not made for dance parties having sex or only thinking of earning money this world was made so we establish a system guided by ALLAH

Re: Banu Qurayza

some people always need to be excuted who ever creats the fitna the catstrophe on the face of the earth he has to be punished

  1. Just because one was carried by the Prophet?
  2. Agree, but Islam was supposed to introduce peace to the Jahel Arabia not by killing but by simply preaching, which obviously didn't work so they turned to raiding.
  3. I would agree with that as well. That's why I would rather hear that you believe it never happened then accept that it did and condone it.
  4. It was a genocide because it was an ethnic group of Yathrib, the ENTIRE tribe was killed (except women and children) that in itself makes it a genocide.

Fight it all you want. You know it was wrong. You KNOW if it ever happens again you would be the first to go out int he streets and protest! I can smell the blood, I can hear their cries, I can feel the hot bloody ground, I can hear the swords as they cut through the flesh, I can sense the fear in the eyes of the victims, I can feel the sinking hearts of women as they lost their fathers, brothers, sons, I can see the smirking evil faces as they bought and sold the women and children.

I am lost... They didn't fight, they surrendered, they didn't want to get killed, so why did they get killed? To hell with the treaty! They invited him thinking he would settle the matter between the two enemy tribes not to get kicked out of their own homes and get killed. I am sorry but I don't see how any of this proves they deserved what they got.

Just wanted to see how Muslims feel about it. As expected, when it comes to Muhammad SAW, it can't be subject to any criticism and muslims should believe and accept it blindly... I have had dreams about this and I feel as if I were there when it happened. I don't know, I can somehow feel their pain. I think about this everyday, and just trying to reason with myself how people think it wasn't cruel. Maybe I am not seeing it from their point of view as I am not religious so I don't get the whole "So and so was what God ordained Muhammad to do so and so." To me, if Islam could show its ultimate peaceful nature, this was the one opportunity it surely missed. Anyways..

Like I said, it's amazing how faith blinds the most sane people who are otherwise very intelligent and approachable.

Re: Banu Qurayza

jeez....enough with the drama already...

you say you know the story inside out, but you you're obviously judging events from the 6th century context and comparing it into present day politics. If you're gonna mix the socio-polictical context, you're obviously going to get very confused.

A few points:

1) Banu Qurayzah were living peacefully and freely in madina, under an agreed treaty/constitution with the muslims, until they sided with the meccans, by deciding to attack the muslims from within. They first broke the treaty by refusing to participate in the defense itself, then they broke it by harrassing muslim women and chidren sent to the south for protection, as the frontline was in the north, and finally, they arranged for an attack from within, whilst meccans attacked from the north. Now however you like to dress banu qurayzahs behaviour, it was nothing short of treason, punishable by death by to this day.

2) When they surrendered, Banu Qurayzah point blank refused to accept a judgment from the Prophet (saw), and specifically chose saad ibn maad to decide thier fate, possibly because they trusted his judgment knowing him from previous alliances. The Prophet agreed to this and saad was brought over to pass the judgement, which he did according to thier own consitution. So this was not a personal vendetta of muslims against the jews as you would have us believe, but more a case of chopping your own feet with an axe, set by your own demands.

5) When two previous Jewish tribes, the banu Qaynuqa and the banu nazir also broke the treaty, they were merely deported by the Prophet to the outskirts of madina, and most likely it would have happend in this case, but due to thier own arrogance, they chose to keep the Prophet out of it. Now you can bauble all you want, why the Prophet didnt step in and overrule the judgement, but you forget that this was a joint muslim/nonmuslim agreement, you cant simply over rule it, as thats not how it works. You cant hold others responsible for not upholding agreements, if you're gonna end up breaking it yourself.

Even if it was a muslim/muslim agreement, the islamic system is, you are bound to abide by it. That is the whole point of keeping a treaty.

So this is not about blind faith, but knowing the some basic stuff..like history. Islam came to spread peace, but jihad is allowed in self defense, as is captial punishment when required.

Re: Banu Qurayza

LOL...do you approve of the thousands+ of taliban being killed? Or, being enlightened beings and all, should we just give em a hug and hope everything works out a-okay?

Re: Banu Qurayza

In truth, it baffled me a bit, until I found out just how high the stakes were.

In the grand context of things, the death of 600 men is no biggie. All fighting men and as far as we can tell men who were willing to march in with the meccans had the battle went their way.

Of the account itself, the history is sketchy. The Quran itself simply indicates that a group was killed, and a group was not...I don't see how this strictly refers to men and women but it may well be.

Second, when the Prophet pronounced judgment in such cases, it was invariably more lenient. This was clearly Sa'ad's decision and the B.Q. were the ones who refused to have the Prophet (pbuh) judge. As for the Prophet's (pbuh) approval? Consoling a dying man who made a touch decision, a reference to the torah, who knows...could be many things...or perhaps there are more details lost in history that speak to the exact nature of the treachery that merited such a harsh punishment. The bit about the punishment as a result from Sa'ad being upset at a mortal wound...laughable. Them being kicked out for their homes? Nah...could have happened at any point in time...why then? The fact is, had they even stayed neutral, things would have been hunky dory.

Bad dreams? Do you watch the news? I'm sorry, but that's a bit much...the BQ were, at the end of the day, content with the prospect of the genocide of Muslims at the hand of the Meccans.

At the end of the day, if the accounts are accurate, 600 fight-capable men died who were guilty of treason at a time when Muslims were particularly vulnerable. No, I won't be dreaming about that.

Also not convinced that had the Muslims not acted in such a way, other "allies" would have mistaken this for weakness and do what the Meccans failed to do.

The Muslims didn't start the war. That, in principle, started waaaay back with the Hijra.

You speak of love and tolerance on behalf of a "people"/tribe that were banking on the extension of Muslims. Nice.

Just curious what "faith" is blinding you....