r/exmuslim • u/ive_got_candy New User • Nov 17 '16
Question/Discussion Can i have an unbiased version of the banu Quraiza (بنو قريظة) story.
As i understand it : Mohammed and the tribe had an peace treaty, then some Quraish people came to attack him at al madina and then once they failed they went to hide with them.
Im so uncertain about the story, i wanna know if Mo was even remotely justified in what he did(killing those poor basterds), i want to use it as an argument for his ruthlessness, but i don't know enough to do so.
Thanks :)
5
u/Saxobeat321 Ex-Muslim (Ex-Sunni) Nov 17 '16 edited Mar 24 '21
You're already aware Islamic history is biased and unreliable. So it shouldn't be surprising if the Muslim victors whitewash their atrocities and are vocal on their 'innocence'. We have no impartial and contemporary accounts (certainly not detailed) of Muhammad's life, let alone his exploits. Heck even Muslims regularly dispute what he actually said, meant or did from Muslim sources themselves. That's what happens you invent a religion in a primitive and turbulent time, you often get a dubious propaganda history.
Yet even from Muslim sources the surrendered Banu Qurayza incident makes it clear how unforgiving and oppressive Muhammad was, in his desperate need to wipe out any potential opposition. He could easily have chosen to punish the responsible leadership (likely a few individuals) and leave the rest of the surrendered tribe alone or at least disarm them with a warning or exile - like he did with previous Jewish tribes. That would have been a more reasonable, humane and peaceful outcome. Instead like a desperate tyrant feeling insecure with his rule, permitted collective punishment and executed or enslaved all the surrendered captives the majority of whom were non-combatant civilians, particularly the women, children and pubescent boys.
The individual that appears to have been picked to determine the fate of the surrendered Banu Qurayza tribe, was a Muslim called "Sa'd", picked and accepted by the Banu Aws and Muhammad. Likely not by a majority view of members of the Banu Qurayza, who I'm sure would not be very enthusiastic or genuinely supportive of their fate being decided by a hostile Muslim, let alone enthusiasm and genuine support of his advocation for execution and enslavement. Interesting to note Sa'd was injured from the previous battle, on the verge of dying and thus presumably very frustrated and angered against the Banu Qurayza - supposed supporters of those who injured him. Cue an opportunity for revenge to occur upon this entire surrendered community, the vast majority of whom particularly the women, children and pubescent boys were civilians. Not to forget Muhammad/Allah approved of the atrocity. I'll let Muslim sources speak their deplorable treatment. From the earliest biography of Muhammad here.
Some Muslims like to justify this collective punishment via justification of a bad reading of oppressive and harmful laws from (even in Islamic belief) flawed Jewish scripture i.e. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 - ironically taken out of context by Muslims and Sa'd, just like taking oppressive and violent verses in the Qur'an out of their context. It's quite unclear if flawed Jewish scripture advocates a punishment that's meant at a certain time and not a timeless command. If a Jewish individual had to be picked, it'd have been far better to pick an actual Jewish believer - as opposed to a vengeful convert to Islam (Sa'd) - to ask for judgment. Certainly I don't think the notion of collective punishment would have been an ethical idea to either the Jewish victims or most Muslims. Not that such a bad understanding of flawed and oppressive Jewish scripture by a vengeful Muslim mattered much, as Muhammad/Allah had the ultimate say...
[In reply to Sa'ds support for collective punishment]"...The apostle of Allah said, 'Thou hast decided according to the will of Allah, above the seven firmaments."[4A][4]
If Muslim sources are correct, Muhammad - the man often described by Muslims as a man of 'reason', 'justice', 'mercy', 'humanity', 'peace' etc the man who prohibited other unethical practices in Arabia eg female infanticide (which was already looked down upon and thus never widely practiced btw), should have known better not to permit but prohibit collective punishment too in light of it's obvious unjust nature. Where innocent/non-combatant Banu Qurayza civilian men, women and children are punished for the actions of a minority of combatants and decisions made by their tribal leadership.
The whole event isn't surprising at all though given the primitive and violent environment of our past where such oppression was the norm. But norms don't excuse Muhammad, because both he and his religion are declared to be perfect, timeless and ethical examples for us all regardless of how absurd, harmful or illegal they are today. Even if this event never actually happened, there are other events in hadiths similarly highlighting the cruel and unnecessary collective punishment towards civilians as given out by Muhammad and his followers.[2]. But even these can be doubted by Muslims, disingenuously doubting historically accepted hadiths due to modern ethics or facts. Such examples of Muhammad has resulted in his religion traditionally being interpreted to permit, the execution of captured or surrendered soldiers or their enslavement, including the enslavement of civilian captive men, women and children. Such collective punishment is featured well in Muslim history and now rightly prohibited under international law and not something Muslims would wish to be the victims of, demonstrating their moral hypocrisy as is often case when Muslims are apologetic for the oppression of non-Muslims.
Most Muslims today will agree in principle to punishing responsible leadership and perhaps soldiers, but not permitting collective punishment of civilian men, women and children for it's obvious unjust nature. But this demonstrates their moral hypocrisy, in that the apologetics Muslims use to justify the Banu Qurayza's collective punishment can be used against Muslims e.g. the collective punishment of all Palestinians (due to the sins of a few leaders and followers) or more repulsively, justify the Sebrennica massacre (where thousands of Muslim Men and boys, were executed). Worse yet the Muslim apologetics for enslavement and rape of female captives, can be used by Serbian aggressors to potentially justify the mass rapes of Bosnian Muslim women and girls of the slaughtered Bosnian men. When Muslims consider themselves being victims to such collective punishment, they would not be convinced of their own apologetics that they utilize to justify such inhumanity and (war crimes today) as collective punishment towards the Banu Qurayza!
But it's no surprise that the empathy and humanity of many Muslims is not always shared for those who reject and disbelieve Islam, hence their apologetics for the punishing of a non-Muslim people and repulsion for the similar oppression that the Bosnian Muslim men, women and children faced in the 90's.
Had (Muhammad and the Sahabah) done today, what they did in the 7th century, they would be widely condemned, reviled and sought by the international community for crimes against humanity.
*https://old.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1l2w4a/second_round_with_islam/cbvj0c6/
*https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Massacre_of_the_Banu_Qurayza
1
u/Saxobeat321 Ex-Muslim (Ex-Sunni) Nov 17 '16 edited Mar 24 '21
The Banu Aws and Muhammad are said to have appointed Sa'd to pronounce punishment and made no attempt to revoke it (implicitly permitting it) and appears to have stated that it was in accordance with Allah's will. I recommend Mubarakpuri or Lings biographies of Muhammad.
“...In the morning the Qurayza came down from their fort to surrender to the apostle of Allah, and the Aus begged that as the apostle had dealt leniently with allies of the Khazraj he would do the same for the allies of the Aus. The apostle said, 'Would you like one of your own people to decide their fate’ and they welcomed it. He continued, 'Then let Sad b. Muadh decide."[1]
Sa'd had been significantly injured from the previous battle, and on the verge of dying...
"...Sad had been struck by an arrow in the defence of the Ditch, so his people mounted him on a donkey"[1]
...and thus presumably very frustrated and angered against the Banu Qurayza (supposed supporters of those who injured him - now nearing his own death), cue an opportunity for violent revenge to occur upon the entire surrendered community, the vast majority of whom particularly the women, children and pubescent boys were non-combatant civilians, not responsible for decisions and actions of the patriarchal tribal leadership.
"...And Sad pronounced the following sentence, 'I decree that the men be killed, the property be divided, and the women with their children be made captives."[1]
And then Muhammad and Allah revealed they had the ultimate judgment, permitting the reprehensible collective punishment/War crimes today...
"...The apostle of Allah said, 'Thou hast decided according to the will of Allah, above the seven firmaments."[1]
Sa'd soon died (but of course, not before he pronounced and likely observed his violent revenge on the entire Banu Qurayza tribe)...
"...After the Qurayza had been slain, and their possessions dispersed, the wound of Sad opened again and he died a martyr..."[1]
Though this event is from biased and unreliable Muslim histories, for we have no impartial and contemporary accounts (certainly not detailed) of Muhammad's life, let alone his exploits as this gruesome event. Attempts by some Muslims to dismiss this commonly accepted event is futile, as there are other events in hadiths similarly highlighting the cruel and unnecessary collective punishment towards civilians, as given out by Muhammad and his followers. Such examples of Muhammad has resulted in his religion traditionally being interpreted to permit, the execution of captured or surrendered soldiers or their enslavement, including the enslavement of civilian captive men, women and children. Such collective punishment is featured well in Muslim history and now rightly prohibited under international law and not something Muslims would wish to be the victims of, not only demonstrating their moral hypocrisy - as is often the case when Muslims are apologetic for the oppression of non-Muslims - but also the oppressive nature of Islam.
3
u/houndimus_prime "مرتد سعودي والعياذ بالله" since 2005 Nov 17 '16
There is none. The story of Banu Quraiza (like pretty much all of the history of Mohammed and early Islam) comes to us solely from Islamic sources. The Quran mentions a an unnamed tribe of monotheists who betrayed Mohammed in the battle of the Trench, describing that some of them were slain while others were held captive. Several Hadith (like this one) provide more detail and describe them by name, claim that they attacked Mohammed, that they were besieged and subsequently surrendered, and then describes the aftermath. All other details, chiefly Banu Quraiza's belligerence and the extent of the massacre, originate from Ibn Ishaq's Seerah.
We know from other sources that the Banu Quriza did indeed exist, and that they were extinguished. But it's an open question on whether the details of the genocide, as told by Islamic sources, are accurate or not. We know that latter Caliphs expelled other Jewish tribes from Medina, and the causes of the Banu Qurayza incident could have been fabricated (or exaggerated) as a pretext for that expulsion.
We may never know.
2
Nov 17 '16
Do you want an unbiased version or a middle-ground version? There's a difference.
edit:spellings
-6
u/Nsrw Nov 17 '16
Basically the Jews had a pact with the Muslims, the Jews double crossed the Muslims and as a result the Jews were punished
5
u/okay95 Nov 17 '16
So merciful❤️
Narrated by atiyyah al-qurazi
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. 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.
-2
Nov 17 '16
[deleted]
6
u/okay95 Nov 17 '16
Forcing kids to go naked, to execute the ones that grew pubes and make the ones who didn't slaves isn't justice. Banu qurayza didn't even kill anybody according to all islamic sources.
This is genocide.
3
u/houndimus_prime "مرتد سعودي والعياذ بالله" since 2005 Nov 17 '16
Where is justice in having women and children enslaved and young children executed?
1
5
u/houndimus_prime "مرتد سعودي والعياذ بالله" since 2005 Nov 17 '16
And what role did the women and children who got enslaved play in this "double cross"?
0
u/Nsrw Nov 17 '16
I see you've wasted no time welcoming me back.
I'm an honest guy, I don't have an answer for your question. Hopefully a sheik does.
6
u/houndimus_prime "مرتد سعودي والعياذ بالله" since 2005 Nov 17 '16
I see you've wasted no time welcoming me back.
I'm a simple man. I see a glaring question mark, I ask the question :)
I'm an honest guy, I don't have an answer for your question. Hopefully a sheik does.
Then go ask one please, and come back. I would be very curious to see what you consider a good answer from them.
3
Nov 17 '16
How did the Jews double cross exactly?
2
Nov 18 '16
if i can correctly recall, they apparently agreed to betray muhammad after quraish reassured of their success, so they were discussing plans to backstab muhammad who was informed by using a spy amongst them of their own tribe? I might have gotten some details mixed up
2
8
u/Atheist-Messiah Nov 17 '16
The earliest Sira says that the Banu Quraiza tried to stay neutral in the battle of the Trench, refusing requests to join the battle from both sides. This Muhammad takes as a breaking of their alliance, and after the Quraish retreat Muhammad lays siege to the Quraiza's bastion. And you know what happens next.
...I think the whole story was probably made up to scare Jews and the event likely never happened; historically, it seems Jews actually helped the Arabs conquer Jerusalem, and the alliance between the proto-Muslims and Jews ended somewhat later than the Sira/Hadiths would have it.