tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post1226367536850284955..comments2023-07-03T04:12:39.810-07:00Comments on Forever Islam: Banu Qurayza – Massacre or MythHamza Hashemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12452294048389134943noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-30189496805601799692018-05-05T18:54:50.886-07:002018-05-05T18:54:50.886-07:00Above, when asked why you said you'd used all ...Above, when asked why you said you'd used all the hadiths, etc., regarding the Banus when you hadn't, you changed what you wrote & said "You are correct, I was wrong in this phrasing due to translations of my source material." How do you not understand that everything Islm translates into Arabic is made Shria-compliant at the same time. Hindu Numerals into Arabic, for example; 1001 Nights into Arabian Nights; Jesus, Christ to Chrstians, becomes a slave of Allah who will return to kil the Jws.<br /><br />"An event of magnitude would have surely been expounded upon for matter of jurisprudence. Why is the account of this so minimal?" Maybe it wasn't of magnitude to Mohammed. His not writing more doesn't mean or not mean anything. There are plenty of other sources. For example, the link below lists, on the pdf, information on the Banu Qurayza:<br /><br />"because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. One of Muhammad's companions decided that 'the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives.' Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment, after which all male members of the tribe who had reached puberty<br />were beheaded.<br />Muslims: 2 killed<br />Non-Muslims:<br />1. 600-900 beheaded (Tabari, Ibn Hisham)<br />2. All Males and 1 woman beheaded (Hadith)"<br /><br />https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/list-of-killings-ordered-or-endorsed-by-prophet-muhammad/<br /><br />Here's a version of Mohammed's relationship with the Banus from a point of view not translated into Arabic:<br />https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/muhammad/qaynuqa.aspx<br /><br />Your arguments don't prove there was no slaughter of the Banus. Vagueness in the q'ran doesn't prove your point. The Banu Tribe was kiled for not giving allegiance to Mohammed. What was the excuse for the attempted genocide against the Hindu People? Infants were slaughtered there on purpose. I've heard reports of between 400 million & 600 million Hindus being slaughtered. Any q'ranic verses calling for peace are not meant for non-Mohammedans.<br /><br />https://www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest-holocaust-world-history<br /><br />Grace Joyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10157862347030918591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-76253544654325143002017-12-25T17:28:44.218-08:002017-12-25T17:28:44.218-08:00Assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu ...Assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu brother Hamza. <br /><br />JazakAllaah khayr for your article and for taking such pain and effort to defend the points of evidence that you have raised. <br /><br />I am in agreement with you. A mass extermination of the Bani Quraiza is totally against the spirit of Islam. <br /><br />The sources where ibn ishaq got his information from is not to the standard that can be relied upon. <br /><br />Shabir Ali also makes a good point that if fresh trenches to bury the 800 bani quraizah men were dug in the market place of medina then why not just use the already dug trenches around Medina? Would that not have been more practical? Unless the the number of deaths was not as astronomical as claimed. <br /><br />May Allaah reward you abundantly for your efforts brother Hamza once again. <br /><br />Wasalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu <br /><br />Sister Afshan <br />Sister Afshanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16580808644247476992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-53369997885624180522016-12-11T06:42:21.272-08:002016-12-11T06:42:21.272-08:00http://www.sagawards2017.com/http://www.sagawards2017.com/Sag Awards Officialhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277477161656017122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-47088397438833751192016-12-11T06:41:32.999-08:002016-12-11T06:41:32.999-08:00Best awesome keep doing
Sag Awards 2017 ThanksBest awesome keep doing <br /><a rel="nofollow"> Sag Awards 2017 </a> ThanksSag Awards Officialhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277477161656017122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-76609642329406115442015-12-28T08:11:37.788-08:002015-12-28T08:11:37.788-08:00I know you may choose to ignore my answers and mak...I know you may choose to ignore my answers and make accusations since it is so easy to for people to come and attack my work by part, yet they ignore the whole, so let me ask you to answer my questions I asked at the end of the post, specifically:<br />1) al Quran clearly states the rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible for the sedition. A great article written by Abu Amina Elias can be found at http://abuaminaelias.com/collective-punishment-is-a-crime-in-islam/ - Given the overabundance of Islamic narrative against collective punishment, what basis aside from the only source (Sīrat Nabawiyya by Ibn Isḥaq) of this story do you have that contradicts this?<br /><br />2) An event of magnitude would have surely been expounded upon for matter of jurisprudence. Why is the account of this so minimal? <br /><br />3) Why would not the veracity of the work come under scrutiny after the authenticity of such events, and the integrity of the authors or their work has so clearly been shown to have substandard quality according to all contemporary standards?<br />Hamza Hashemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12452294048389134943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-62160220612619247142015-12-28T08:11:24.284-08:002015-12-28T08:11:24.284-08:00Anonymous
Thank you for taking the time to read my...Anonymous<br />Thank you for taking the time to read my post and offer your insight. I will endeavor to answer your questions however I am a bit taken by the “numerous glaring errors” in which you claim I made but state just 2.<br />First off let me reiterate as I have said countless times – I am not a scholar of Islam. I am a Muslim who does his best to address issues that have been addressed to him by others, offering my help and insight where I can. Now to the questions at hand:<br />1) You state that I “made a claim that the leader of Banu Qurayza was consulted by Mohamed and he wasn't. It was the Aus who were consulted not the Banu Qurayza and it says that in the actual quote you cite”<br /><br />You are correct, I was wrong in this phrasing due to translations of my source material. I stand corrected. So I will correct my post to reflect the following, based on The Life of Muhammad <br />by I. Ishaq (Author), A. Guillaume (Translator) page 463:<br /><br />“After the siege ended, the Quraish defeated again, Banu Qurayza submitted to the Prophets judgement for betraying the Muslims and going against virtually every principle outlined within the Covenant of Medina. The tribe of al Aus (al-Aws) stepped forward on behalf of their former allies (The Battle of Buath) and asked for the same favor the Prophet had shown Banu Qaynuqa when Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul. An ally of Banu Qaynuqa and member of Banu Khazraj as well as being an prominent and influential leader in Medina, Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul<br /> pleaded for leniency for Banu Qaynuqa. The leader of al-Aus was asked “Will you be satisfied, o Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them? When they agreed he said that Sa'd b. Mu'adh was the man...Sa'd said, Then I give judgement that the men should be killed, the property divide, and the women and children taken as captives.”<br /><br />2) In regards to the hadith your posted – Your first link to Sahih al-Bukhari (4028): Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 362 – This hadith does in fact mention the incident, and I was unaware of it in my research. That being said, it only confirms what has already been said and furthermore it states “He then killed their men” – It does not state he killed all of their men, nor their children. It is as most accounts, vague.<br /><br />Your second link to Sunan an-Nasa'i (3429): Vol. 4, Book 27, Hadith 3459 is also unknown to me and while a respected collection it is not among the top 4 Sahih collections so I am far less familiar with it. Furthermore it only relates that “The sons of Quraizah told me” – This is not a smoking gun by any measure. This hadith is relating what was told to the narrator, which is what was told to ibn Ishaq as well. <br /><br />The only version of Sīrat Nabawiyya by Ibn Isḥaq is based on Ibn Hisham’s work which is based upon that of al-Bakka’i. If you do hold value to this collection it is also interesting to note that even Al-Nasa’I viewed al-Bakka’i as an unreliable or weak narrator.<br /><br />In total this would bring it to (unless I am wrong) about 1 Quranic verse and 4 hadith.<br />Hamza Hashemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12452294048389134943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-22668760834793742272015-12-24T13:59:41.578-08:002015-12-24T13:59:41.578-08:00You have made numerous glaring errors in this piec...You have made numerous glaring errors in this piece.<br />Firstly, you made a claim that the leader of Banu Qurayza was consulted by Mohamed and he wasn't. It was the Aus who were consulted not the Banu Qurayza and it says that in the actual quote you cite.<br />Secondly, you claim in terms of authentic narrations only two exist alongside the Quran's verses and none talk about a mass killing.<br />But you failed to include one from Bukhari which is very clear that ALL men were killed, and all women and children enslaved.<br />http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/64/77<br /><br />And a second hadith telling us kids who had grown pubic hair were also killed<br />http://www.sunnah.com/nasai/27/41<br /><br />Can you explain why you ommitted these and on top of that, claimed they didn't exist?!<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-18225249099278221272015-12-08T16:55:07.247-08:002015-12-08T16:55:07.247-08:00I Sure That's What Hitler Said As He Put 6,000...I Sure That's What Hitler Said As He Put 6,000,000 Jews To Death :)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-4165257517355179982015-03-10T20:56:25.151-07:002015-03-10T20:56:25.151-07:00Maffi
Rather than just posting links without a w...Maffi <br /><br />Rather than just posting links without a word, why not actually contribute something to the conversation.<br /><br />Ny article has already covered this topic in depth so instead of posting links that shed no further evidence that can refute my position, I suggest perhaps offerinf your own original work instead of simply mimicing others.<br /><br />I hope you will take the time to read my article and all the pervious comments as I have adressed several questions already.<br /><br />Thank you<br /><br />HamzaHamza Hashemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12452294048389134943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-59281623005009395802015-03-10T17:42:21.701-07:002015-03-10T17:42:21.701-07:00http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-m...http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-qurayza.htmMaffihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03421290414058624906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-60778726653734991112014-12-29T13:19:42.552-08:002014-12-29T13:19:42.552-08:00Sam,
Thank you for your comment and the time to r...Sam,<br /><br />Thank you for your comment and the time to read my article. <br /><br />While I am familiar all to well with the story behind Numbers 31, I tried to stay away from comparisons and blame, prefering to refute this incident from a more accademic approach. however I do apreciate your comment.<br /><br />HamzaHamza Hashemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12452294048389134943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-33015145118438265662014-12-27T20:58:49.473-08:002014-12-27T20:58:49.473-08:00WE read in bible numbers 31 'Moses killed all ...WE read in bible numbers 31 'Moses killed all the midianites men women and children even livestock...leaving only 32000 virgin girls for himself as a war booty'...their crime?...bible says Israelites blamed them for a plague that hit the Israelites....even today most govt give death penalty for treason....thanxsamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-9450452583731849682014-06-30T13:26:28.911-07:002014-06-30T13:26:28.911-07:00Anonymous...
Thank you for presumably taking the ...Anonymous...<br /><br />Thank you for presumably taking the time to read my article... However I see you chose to rebuttal by means of simply posting 3 "hadith" while ignoring the entirety of my work and choosing to not refute anything specific.<br /><br />Now that being said, please allow me to briefly follow up your quoting...<br /><br />You chose to quote from Abu Dawud, which while respectable it is universally recognized as not as authentic as either Bukhari (whos is considered best) nor as Muslim (who is considered next best). Furthermore there is no mention of how many people were killed nor is there any other substantiation besides that 1 hadith in his book.<br /><br />Moving on to Ibn Majah - Again I will pay respect to the work, but offer the same criticism - in accordance to Ibn al-Qaisarani's ranking it is the 6th of 6 considered to be relevant, and prior to Ibn al-Qaisarani it was not held in the same regard - so there are obvious questions regarding some of the collection. That being said, there is also no further clarifications offered for this event in the collections in questions or at least none that you chose to offer up.<br /><br />Now - Lastly you chose the most authentic collection Sahih Al Bukhari, fine choice. But let us examine what it says. Banu Qurayza attacked the Prophet and his people thus violating an existing peace treaty... Even after that attack the prophet did nothing once hostilities ended. However, according to the hadith you posted, Banu Qurayza betrayed the prophet again and attacked him and it was not until then that he then killed the men. It does not indicate how many nor under what circumstance and it does not dictate this as law - This was a response to a people living in his lands attacking him and violating a treaty, not once, but twice.<br /><br />So I repeat my questioning that has not been answered to date ...<br /><br />1) Why is the Qur'anic refence to this event so minimal. An event of this magnitude would have surely been expounded upon for matter of jurisprudence.<br /><br />2) Had this slaughter actually happened, jurists would have adopted it as a precedent. In fact exactly the opposite has been the case. Why is this? <br /><br />So lastly, if you wish to read the account of Banu Qurayza then I must repeat - The veracity of the work must come under scrutiny after the authenticity of such events, and the integrity of the authors or their work has so clearly been shown to have substandard quality.<br /><br />Thank you for reading.Hamza Hashemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12452294048389134943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-60391756344331966102014-06-01T06:46:15.629-07:002014-06-01T06:46:15.629-07:00Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captiv...Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. <br />Abu Dawud 38:4390<br /><br /><br />It was narrated that 'Abdul-Malik bin`Umair said: “I heard 'Atiyyah Al-Quazi say: 'We were presented to the Messenger of Allah on the Day of Quraizah. Those whose public hair had grown were killed, and those whose public hair had not yet grown were let go. I was one of those whose pubic hair had not yet grown, so I was let go.” (Sahih)<br />Ibn Majah 3:20:2541<br /><br /><br />Narrated Abd-Allah ibn Umar: Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet again). He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam. He exiled all the Jews from Medina. They were the Jews of Banu Qaynuqa, the tribe of Abdullah bin Salam and the Jews of Bani Haritha and all the other Jews of Medina. <br />Sahih Bukhari 5:59:362Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-60382323867196558292013-09-14T06:36:05.131-07:002013-09-14T06:36:05.131-07:00One more thing to the author.
If there is somethi...One more thing to the author.<br /><br />If there is something that does not seem credible about the story, I would think that it's the part about a Jews himself prescribing that they all be murdered. i would think he would try to prescribe the lightest punishment he could get away with, and as substantiation, I point to the incident where Muhammad had them show him there own law about punishment in another matter, and the Jew gave him the book with his finger or thumb covered over the part about stoning. This is what we would expect them to do if a non Jew was asking them to prescribe punishment against a fellow Jew. That makes sense. The part in the story we are talking about makes no sense and more than likely seems like an added part or excuse to absolve Muslims of any culpability. But again, it makes no sense at all for Muslims to make up this entire story, but it could make sense for them to add small parts that absolve them of culpability. That would match general human nature and behavior.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-63685384403579645002013-09-14T06:24:02.944-07:002013-09-14T06:24:02.944-07:00Continued to author
You said
1.) As stated above,...Continued to author<br /><br />You said<br />1.) As stated above, the authority of Islam, al Quran clearly states the rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible for the sedition.<br /><br />I say<br />If they were fighting against Muslims, which they were in that battle, they are committing sedition. Therefore every fighter is committing sedition. How can someone fight in a battle against Muslims, kill some of them, and not be considered committing sedition? If they are defending the ones who committed any initial sedition alleged, then they too are committing sedition. Your logic is very unusual<br /><br />You said<br />2.) Qur'anic reference to this event is minimal. An event of magnitude would have surely been expounded upon for matter of jurisprudence.<br /><br />I say<br />And that's why I say the Quran was only quickly referencing the actual battle itself, just like in the case of Badr. That possibility is far from impossible and perhaps even likely, and yet you try to treat it as impossible while making blatant, unsubstantiated assumptions yourself.<br /><br />You said<br />3.) Had this slaughter actually happened, jurists would have adopted it as a precedent. In fact exactly the opposite has been the case. The attitude of jurists and their rulings have been more according to the Qur'anic rule in the verse, "No soul shall bear another's burden."<br /><br />I say<br />The answer lies in your article itself. You claim that it wasn't even Muslims who dictated the punishment, it was the Jews, while also claiming at the same time that it never happened anyway (contradictory). So if the punishment was prescribed by the Jews under their law, as you suggested, this would not fall under Muslim jurisprudence. So again, you contradict yourself.<br /><br />You said<br />4.) In the story of Qurayza specific people were named as having been put to death, thus it is a reasonable conclusion that those were the ones who led the sedition and who were consequently punished - not the whole tribe.<br /><br />I say<br />Well if I remember correctly, they all surrendered without a fight when Muhammad invaded Mecca. So there were no fighters to be also considered committing sedition like there was in the case of Banu. So only the plotters would be punished in this case. But if people resist a Muslim attack and kill Muslims, how could you not think they would be considered committing sedition as well? I don't think your reasoning skills are all there.<br /><br />But let's add some common sense to this. This account was written by Muslims themselves. Why would they make up something that makes them look brutal? And the answer would be that they didn't, and behavior like this was not considered brutal back then. Only modern sensibilities consider this brutal, and this is why you want the story to go away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-49363159910692261792013-09-14T06:14:27.537-07:002013-09-14T06:14:27.537-07:00Dear author, responses below
I said
You stated th...Dear author, responses below<br /><br />I said<br />You stated that it “Seems to me that the Quran was only referencing the battle itself, not what happened afterwards” –<br /><br />You responded<br />Your assertion is mere speculation with no foundation. You are making an ‘assumption’ without putting forth any evidence to support it.<br /><br />I say,<br />You don't have any evidence to support that it is talking about more than just the battle. The truth is, the verse doesn't specify either way, and I would think it's more likekly to be talking about the battle itself<br /><br />You said<br /> Furthermore it dampens your argument to say that Quran was referencing the battle alone, which specifically states, ‘some you slew, and some you made prisoners’, because why would the Quran tell them to take prisoners in battle only to slay them later. The idea of this argument is baseless.<br /><br />I say<br />Because it was talking about the battle only, which is usually the highlight or what someone would mention when giving a quick mention of something. So you make assumptions with little basis yourself and then call my assumptions baseless. You did nothing to substantiate why it must be talking about more than the battle. Again, the verses don't specify at all, but perhaps you are reading them the way you need them to be. When the Quran referenced the battle of Badrf, what was it talking about? The battle itself or everything that happened afterwards? Seems like it was talking about the battle itself because it was only making a brief reference. So that would substantiate my claim in this instance.<br /><br /><br />You said<br />I was rather making a possible explanation of the event “if” it had in fact happened. I never once actually state that it did and the overwhelming evidence I proposed (and you ignored) clearly states I am not in favor of accepting this event happened – especially as described.<br /><br />I say<br />If you want to make a point that it never happened and you are so sure it didn't, there is no reason to bring up an explanation explaining why it happened if it did happen. Seems like you aren't so sure of your conclusion and are therefore covering all of your bases. This is simply and basic logic. If something didn't happen, stick to your point and don't make contingencies for the case that it did happen almost as if to doubt your initial contention. I don't know why nobody has ever explained to you the logic fallacy of what you are doing. This is the equivalent of someone saying, it never happened, but let me tell you why it happened if it did happen. When put simply like that, this should seem to be an odd statement for one to make, but this is exactly what you are doing. <br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-22895401094085343892013-09-12T09:25:16.899-07:002013-09-12T09:25:16.899-07:00RijaR,
I am sorry for the late response, but I am...RijaR,<br /><br />I am sorry for the late response, but I am very glad that this article could help in an way clear up the misconceptions surrounding this event. Please feel free to come by any time, isnhAllah I will begin writing again very soon.<br /><br />Hamza Hashemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12452294048389134943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-18655988571486197902013-09-12T09:22:38.175-07:002013-09-12T09:22:38.175-07:00Anonymous,
Before moving to try and attack my oth...Anonymous,<br /><br />Before moving to try and attack my other readers, perhaps you should finish reading my entire post and examine the response I have posted. <br /><br />RijaR has clearly stated he did not know what happened and was disturbed by the very idea of it – as any Muslim should be. You go on to mention the author (me) and throw unfounded accusations that I have responded to – So to again be clear – I never contradicted myself.<br /><br />As for consistent reasoning, I would applaud your effort further if you applied the same ideals, rather you have simply made baseless accusations and offered no support for it. So before you come back and start attacking my work further I would expect you to actually read the entire work – because if you have not then your argument carries no weight and is amateurish, and if you have read the entire article then you are purposely choosing to misquote me as a means of deception. Either way it is unacceptable. <br /><br />I encourage you to come back for rational, and reasonable responses but I will no longer go on with baseless accusations especially against my other commenters.<br />Hamza Hashemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12452294048389134943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-51907932880800183962013-09-12T09:14:03.120-07:002013-09-12T09:14:03.120-07:00Anonymous,
I would like to thank you for reading ...Anonymous,<br /><br />I would like to thank you for reading my post and taking the time to comment on it even if you disagree. Now that you have had a chance to throw our voice into it, please allow me to respond in kind. First, Let me perfectly clear, so there is no misunderstanding – I am clearly denying it happened, especially as it is recorded now (the reasons being detailed within the post). <br /><br />You stated that it “Seems to me that the Quran was only referencing the battle itself, not what happened afterwards” – <br /><br />Your assertion is mere speculation with no foundation. You are making an ‘assumption’ without putting forth any evidence to support it. Furthermore it dampens your argument to say that Quran was referencing the battle alone, which specifically states, ‘some you slew, and some you made prisoners’, because why would the Quran tell them to take prisoners in battle only to slay them later. The idea of this argument is baseless.<br /><br />Now before you begin accusing one of making contradictory statements, perhaps you should finish reading the entire work. You go on to claim “Then, you contradict yourself and explain how this event could be the result of Jewish law found in Deuteronomy and therefore the massacre DID happen”<br /><br />Again, I could not be more clear – I began the next section directly after the quote from Deuteronomy by stating “If in fact this event happened as described” – which is in no way can be construed as an endorsement by me that it did happen. I was rather making a possible explanation of the event “if” it had in fact happened. I never once actually state that it did and the overwhelming evidence I proposed (and you ignored) clearly states I am not in favor of accepting this event happened – especially as described. <br /><br />Finally you leave off with - “So which is it? Did it happen or not? You contradict yourself. “ – so again, let me be clear (since I do not believe you read the entirety of my post - <br /><br />Amongst the reasons that this account of Banu Qurayza can clearly be refuted are:<br /><br />1.) As stated above, the authority of Islam, al Quran clearly states the rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible for the sedition.<br /><br />2.) Qur'anic reference to this event is minimal. An event of magnitude would have surely been expounded upon for matter of jurisprudence.<br /><br />3.) Had this slaughter actually happened, jurists would have adopted it as a precedent. In fact exactly the opposite has been the case. The attitude of jurists and their rulings have been more according to the Qur'anic rule in the verse, "No soul shall bear another's burden."<br /><br />4.) In the story of Qurayza specific people were named as having been put to death, thus it is a reasonable conclusion that those were the ones who led the sedition and who were consequently punished - not the whole tribe.<br /><br />5.) The veracity of the work must come under scrutiny after the authenticity of such events, and the integrity of the authors or their work has so clearly been shown to have substandard quality.<br /><br />While there are numerous other reasons to refute this account of the Banu Qurayza, I will simply leave off with the fact that nowhere before, or after has such an event happened. <br /><br />I hope I have better explain my point of view for your understanding whether or not you choose to agree. <br />Hamza Hashemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12452294048389134943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-75800891016423765482013-09-12T04:07:04.645-07:002013-09-12T04:07:04.645-07:00RijaR, you have basically admitted that the incide...RijaR, you have basically admitted that the incident DID happen, while the author was trying to deny it ever happened, even though he later contradicted himself and went on to explain possible reasons for why it happened. I can't understand why Muslims have such a hard time with consistent reasoning, and the rules change on the fly when they need them to, and then change back when they need them to.<br /><br />The author basically said the incident did not happen, and then said let me tell you why it happened. LOL!! That makes no sense at all.<br /><br />I will never understand how Muslims reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-71868679187276666182013-09-12T04:00:43.375-07:002013-09-12T04:00:43.375-07:00First you try to deny it happened here
"From...First you try to deny it happened here<br /><br />"From the Quran we have only a very brief mentioning of the subject, and in it we learn nothing of slaughtering the masses, on the contrary, we actually see the word of Allah stipulate only “so that some you slew, and some you made prisoners.” which can in no way be seen as an endorsement for mass slaughter."<br /><br />Now of course, you never mention the possibility that this was talking about them slaying some in the BATTLE and taking others captive and how the beheadings happened after they were already captives. Seems to me that the Quran was only referencing the battle itself, not what happened afterwards.<br /><br />Then, you contradict yourself and explain how this event could be the result of Jewish law found in Deuteronomy and therefore the massacre DID happen and it was because Jewish law dictates that it happen.<br /><br />So which is it? Did it happen or not? You contradict yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-38823514010804017612013-07-13T18:43:05.954-07:002013-07-13T18:43:05.954-07:00Jazak Allah!!
I was really disturbed by this argum...Jazak Allah!!<br />I was really disturbed by this argument that one of my friends put up. I tried to find any reasoning online for what they referred to as "massacre" everywhere.<br />The arguments I read made no mention whatsoever of the fact that Sa’ad b. Mu’adh was the one who came up with the punishment and that too, in accordance with the Jewish law.<br />Thank you so much for such a detailed analysis.<br />I really appreciate it!<br />And thank you also for mentioning the difference between Sirah and Hadith/ Fiqh. <br />It puts things in perspective.<br /><br />Assalam-o-alaikum!RijaRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00600244890397922407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-35707387574137747212013-04-16T14:39:42.988-07:002013-04-16T14:39:42.988-07:00 Samina Yasmin
I am honored if I was able to hel... Samina Yasmin <br /><br />I am honored if I was able to help your understanding of this event at all. Whether this event happened or not may be debatable, however what is not is that it most certainly did not happen as it is reported today as it goes against the very principles that the prophet taught us.<br /><br />Stay strong in your faith, and always question and use your mind as you walk through the endless hate monger and lies spread about Islam. It is only through our rational questioning and investigation can we begin to understand the complex tapestry of Islamic History. Please continue searching and seeking for the truth.Hamza Hashemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12452294048389134943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21236529.post-3598897975822096692013-04-14T11:01:49.388-07:002013-04-14T11:01:49.388-07:00Good article. Has removed several doubts in the ma...Good article. Has removed several doubts in the matter. This incident in all probability never took place in Islamic history.Samina Yasminnoreply@blogger.com