Did prophet muhammed slaughter anyone in his life?
- Thread starter PSPdude
- Start date
what??? what are you trying to say?
a_stranger
Junior Member
The prophet :saw2: never do anything out of the will of the creator of all (Allah swt) , He was a mercy to humanity and a man of peace but if someone try to prevent him from his mission on earth he has to face that with wisdom and brave heart ....those people who tryed to stop the prophet from telling the words of Allah used every kind of oppresion , killing and tourture agaist the early muslems , they(the prophet and the early muslems) had to defend their new faith and the perfect message which Allah swt sent , That is why there has been some battles on the early days of Islam .....those were a must to defend faith, justice, equality,........all that is noble and good for humanity. Islam is a call to struggle against every kind of evil on earth.
Hard Rock Moslem
I'm your brother
Thank you bro, this will help me to debate with those kuffar out there who are tireless attacking our Prophet.
alkathiri
As-Shafaa'i(Brother)
Make sure you equip yourself before you have debates with them, because it might backfire on you and your eeman might decrease. One suggestion is to stick with brothers who have experience in making dawa' to the kuffar and learn something from them...Do lots of nawafil prayers also(but start smal and then slowly increase it, quality is more important than quantity)
alkathiri
As-Shafaa'i(Brother)
I am not sure whether he (PBUH) slaughter or not. But slaughtering is the least painful form of death compared to hanging and fastest way to die. Have you seen a person being hanged before?
salaam alikom
My advise is that you dont even debate with people you wont get any thing out of it specially if you dont have enough knowledge, you need to ask a scholar about it, to understand the whole situation just claiming it happened as it was wrong thing is not good as you giving indication that the prophet peace be up on him did something wrong, My advise since you dont even know the whole incident and you dont understand is NOT to debate with people you will never change thier mind but they (and Shaytan) might change and put doubts in your mind
Wa salaam alikom
My advise is that you dont even debate with people you wont get any thing out of it specially if you dont have enough knowledge, you need to ask a scholar about it, to understand the whole situation just claiming it happened as it was wrong thing is not good as you giving indication that the prophet peace be up on him did something wrong, My advise since you dont even know the whole incident and you dont understand is NOT to debate with people you will never change thier mind but they (and Shaytan) might change and put doubts in your mind
Wa salaam alikom
a_stranger
Junior Member
We are sure that if the prophet :saw2: did anything he do it because Allah swt ordered him to do, I read alot about the prophet:saw2: all i have read about him is forgiveness and patience towards people ........People of Makka did many kinds of harm toward the prophet still he was patient and calm........the prophet had the most pure noble heart the prophet never do anything for himself but for Allah swt(the creator of all) .....many tried to kill him and he forgive them , he had the power to take revange from those who were most cruel with him still he prayed for their guigance......if you study the life of the prophet you will feel ashemed and humble .....how can a man be in such noble high state ,.......... his life is an inspiration for every noble value.
look guys
no one here answered my question. Did he really slaughter the Banu Qurayzah
tribe or some of the inhabitants?
And I wasnt debating with anyone, I just wanted to read something about prophet muhammed (PBUH) and I came across the slaughter part somewhere in the passage.
Basicofislam
sister
:salam2:
From Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland,
(1976), pp. 100-107.
IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT at the advent of Islam there were three Jewish tribes who lived in Yathrib (later Medina), as well as other Jewish settlements further to the north, the most important of which were Khaybar and Fadak. It is also generally accepted that at first the Prophet Muhammad hoped that the Jews of Yathrib, as followers of a divine religion, would show understanding of the new monotheistic religion, Islam. However, as soon as these tribes realized that Islam was being firmly established and gaining power, they adopted an actively hostile attitude, and the final result of the struggle was the disappearance of these Jewish communities from Arabia proper.
The biographers of the Prophet, followed by later historians, tell us that Banu Qaynuqa.,1 and later Banu al-Nadir,2 provoked the Muslims, were besieged, and in turn agreed to surrender and were allowed to depart, taking with them all their transportable possessions. Later on Khaybar3 and Fadak4 were evacuated. According to Ibn Ishaq in the Sira,5 the third of the Jewish tribes, Banu Qurayza, sided with the Qura****es and their allies, who made an unsuccessful attack on Medina in an attempt to destroy Islam. This, the most serious challenge to Islam, failed, and the Banu Qurayza were in turn besieged by the Prophet. Like Banu al-Nadir, in time they surrendered, but unlike the Banu al-Nadir, they were subjected to the arbitration of Sa'd b. Mu'adh, a member of the Aws tribe, allies of Qurayza. He ruled that the grown-up males should be put to death and the women and children subjected to slavery. Consequentiy, trenches were dug in the market-place in Medina, and the men of Qurayza were brought out in groups and their necks were struck.6 Estimates of those killed vary from 400 to 900.
On examination, details of the story can he challenged. It can be demonstrated that the assertion that 600 or 800 or 9007 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. Indeed the source of the details in earlier Jewish history can be pointed out with surprising accuracy.
The Arabic sources will now be surveyed, and the contribution of their Jewish informants will be discussed. The credibility of the details will then be assessed, and the prototype in earlier Jewish history pin-pointed.
The earliest work that we have, with the widest range of details, is Ibn Ishaq's Sira, his biography of the Prophet. It is also the longest and the most widely quoted. Later historians draw, and in most cases depend on him.8 But Ibn Ishaq died in 151 A.H., i.e. 145 years after the event in question. Later historians simply take his version of the story, omitting more or less of the detail, and overlooking his uncertain list of authorities. They generally abbreviate the story, which appears just as one more event to report. In most cases their interest seems to end there. Some of them indicate that they are not really convinced, but they are not prepared to take further trouble. One authority, Ibn Hajar, however, denounces this story and the other related ones as "odd tales".9 A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik,10 the jurist, denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar"11 and "an impostor"12 just for transmitting such stories.
It must be remembered that historians and authors of the Prophet's biography did not apply the strict rules of the "traditionists". They did not always provide a chain of authorities, each of whom had to be verified as trustworthy and as certain or likely to have transmitted his report directly from his informant, and so on. The attitude towards biographical details and towards the early events of Islam was far less meticulous than their attitude to the Prophet's traditions, or indeed to any material relevant to jurisprudence. Indeed Ibn Ishaq's account of the siege of Medina and the fall of the Banu Qurayza is pieced together by him from information given by a variety of persons he names, including Muslim descendants of the Jews of Qurayza.
Against these late and uncertain sources must be placed the only contemporary and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There, the reference in Sura *!*!*!III, 26 is very brief:
"He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner." There is no reference to numbers.
Ibn Ishaq sets out his direct sources as he opens the relevant chapter on the siege of Medina. These were: a client of the family of al-Zubayr and others whom he "did not suspect". They told parts of the story on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Ka'b b. Malik, al Zuhri, 'Asim b. 'Umar b. Qatada, 'Abdullab b. Abi Bakr, Muhammad b. Ka'b of Qurayza, and "others among our men of learning", as he put it. Each of these contributed to the story, so that Ibn Ishaq's version is the sum total of the collective reports, pieced together. At a later stage Ibn Ishaq quotes another descendant of Qurayza, 'Attiyya13 by name, who had been spared, and, directly, a certain descendant of al-Zabir b. Bata, a prominent member of the tribe of Qurayza who figures in the narrative.
The story opens with a description of the effort of named Jewish leaders to organize against the Muslims an alliance of the hostile forces. The leaders named included three from the Banu al-Nadir and two of the tribe of Wa'il, another Jewish tribe; together with other Jewish fellow-tribesmen unnamed. Having persuaded the neighbouring Bedouin tribes of Ghatafan, Murra, Fazara, Sulaym, and Ashja' to take up arms, they now proceeded to Mecca where they succeeded in persuading the Quraysh. Having gathered together a besieging force, one of the Nadir leaders, Huyayy b. Akhtab, in effect forced himself on the third Jewish tribe still in Medina, the Banu Qurayza, and, against the better judgement of their leader, Ka'b b. Asad, he persuaded them to break faith with the Prophet in the hope, presented as a certainty, that the Muslims would not stand up to the combined attacking forces and that Qurayza and the other Jews would be restored to independent supremacy. The siege of Medina failed and the Jewish tribes suffered for their part in the whole operation.
The attitude of scholars and historians to Ibn lshaq's version of the story has been either one of complacency, sometimes mingled with uncertainty, or at least in two important cases, one of condemnatlon and outright rejection.
The complacent attitude is one of accepting the biography of the Prophet and the stories of the campaigns at they were received by later generations without the meticulous care or the application of the critical criteria which collectors of traditions or jurists employed. It was not necessary to check the veracity of authorities when transmitting or recording parts of the story of the Prophet's life.14 It was not essential to provide a continuous chain of authorities or even to give authorities at all. That is obvious in Ibn Ishaq's Sira. On the other hand reliable authority and a continuous line of transmission were essential when law was the issue. That is why Malik the jurist had no regard for Ibn Ishaq.15
One finds, therefore, that later historians and even exegetes either repeat the very words of Ibn Ishaq or else abbreviate the whole story. Historians gave it, as it were, a cold reception. Even Tabari, nearly 150 years after Ibn Ishaq, does not try to find other versions of the story as he usually does. He casts doubt by his use of the words, "Waqidi alleged (za'ama) that the Prophet caused trenches to be dug." Ibn ai-Qayyim in Zad al-ma'ad makes only the briefest reference and he ignores altogether the crucial question of numbers. Ibn Kathir even seems to have general doubt in his mind because he takes the trouble to point out that the story was told on such "good authority" as that of 'A'isha.16
Apart from mild complacency or doubtful acceptance of the story itself, Ibn Ishaq as an author was in fact subjected to devastating attacks by scholars, contemporary or later, on two particular accounts. One was his uncritical inclusion in his Sira of so much spurious or forged poetry;17 the other his unquestioning acceptance of just such a story as that of the slaughter of Banu Qurayza.
His contemporary, the early traditionist and jurist Malik, called him unequivocally "a liar" and "an impostor"18 "who transmits his stories from the Jews".19 In other words, applying his own criteria, Malik impugned the veracity of Ibn Ishaq's sources and rejected his approach. Indeed, neither Ibn Ishaq's list of informants nor his method of collecting and piecing together such a story would he acceptable to Malik the jurist.
In a later age Ibn Hajar further explained the point of Malik's condemnation of Ibn Ishaq. Malik, he said,20 condemned Ibn Ishaq because he made a point of seeking out descendants of the Jews of Medina in order to obtain from them accounts of the Prophet's campaigns as handed down by their forefathers. Ibn Hajar21 then rejected the stories in question in the strongest terms: "such odd tales as the story of Qurayza and al-Nadir". Nothing could be more damning than this outright rejection.
Against the late and uncertain sources on the one hand, and the condemning authorities on the other, must be set the only contemporary and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There the reference in Sura *!*!*!III, 26 is very brief: "He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner."
Exegetes and traditionists tend simply to repeat Ibn Ishaq's tale, but in the Qur'an the reference can only be to those who were actually in the fighting. This is a statement about the battle. It concerns those who fought. Some of these were killed. others were taken prisoner.
One would think that if 600 or 900 people were killed in this manner the significance of the event would have been greater. There would have been a clearer reference in the Qur'an, a conclusion to be drawn, and a lesson to be learnt. But when only the guilty leaders were executed, it would be normal to expect only a brief reference.
So much for the sources: they were neither uninterested nor trustworthy; and the report was very late in time. Now for the story. The reasons for rejecting the story are the following
(i) As already stated above, the reference to the story in the Qur'an is extremely brief, and there is no indication whatever of the killing of a large number. In a battle context the reference is to those who were actually fighting. The Qur'an is the only authority which the historian would accept without hesitation or doubt. It is a contemporary text, and, for the most cogent reasons, what we have is the authentic version.
(ii) The rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible for the sedition.
(iii) To kill such a large number is diametrically opposed to the Islamic sense of justice and to the basic principles laid down in the Qur'an - particularly the verse. "No soul shall bear another's burden."22 It is obvious in the story that the leaders were numbered and were well known. They were named.
(iv) It it also against the Qur'anic rule regarding prisoners of war, which is: either they are to be granted their freedom or else they are to be allowed to be ransomed.23
(v) It is unlikely that the Banu Qurayza should be slaughtered when the other Jewish groups who surrendered before Banu Qurayza and after them were treated leniently and allowed to go. Indeed Abu 'Ubayd b. Sallam relates in his Kitab al-amwal24 that when Khaybar felt to the Muslims there were among the residents a particular family or clan who had distinguished themselves by execesive unseemly abuse of the Prophet. Yet in that hour the Prophet addressed them in words which are no more than a rebuke: "Sons of Abu al-Huqayq (he said to them) I have known the extent of your hostility to God and to His apostle, yet that does not prevent me from treating you as I treated your brethren." That was after the surrender of Banu Qurayza.
(vi) If indeed so many hundreds of people had actually been put to death in the market-place, and trenches were dug for the operation, it is very strange that there should be no trace whatever of all that - no sign or word to point to the place, and no reference to a visible mark.25
(vii) 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.
From Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland,
(1976), pp. 100-107.
IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT at the advent of Islam there were three Jewish tribes who lived in Yathrib (later Medina), as well as other Jewish settlements further to the north, the most important of which were Khaybar and Fadak. It is also generally accepted that at first the Prophet Muhammad hoped that the Jews of Yathrib, as followers of a divine religion, would show understanding of the new monotheistic religion, Islam. However, as soon as these tribes realized that Islam was being firmly established and gaining power, they adopted an actively hostile attitude, and the final result of the struggle was the disappearance of these Jewish communities from Arabia proper.
The biographers of the Prophet, followed by later historians, tell us that Banu Qaynuqa.,1 and later Banu al-Nadir,2 provoked the Muslims, were besieged, and in turn agreed to surrender and were allowed to depart, taking with them all their transportable possessions. Later on Khaybar3 and Fadak4 were evacuated. According to Ibn Ishaq in the Sira,5 the third of the Jewish tribes, Banu Qurayza, sided with the Qura****es and their allies, who made an unsuccessful attack on Medina in an attempt to destroy Islam. This, the most serious challenge to Islam, failed, and the Banu Qurayza were in turn besieged by the Prophet. Like Banu al-Nadir, in time they surrendered, but unlike the Banu al-Nadir, they were subjected to the arbitration of Sa'd b. Mu'adh, a member of the Aws tribe, allies of Qurayza. He ruled that the grown-up males should be put to death and the women and children subjected to slavery. Consequentiy, trenches were dug in the market-place in Medina, and the men of Qurayza were brought out in groups and their necks were struck.6 Estimates of those killed vary from 400 to 900.
On examination, details of the story can he challenged. It can be demonstrated that the assertion that 600 or 800 or 9007 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. Indeed the source of the details in earlier Jewish history can be pointed out with surprising accuracy.
The Arabic sources will now be surveyed, and the contribution of their Jewish informants will be discussed. The credibility of the details will then be assessed, and the prototype in earlier Jewish history pin-pointed.
The earliest work that we have, with the widest range of details, is Ibn Ishaq's Sira, his biography of the Prophet. It is also the longest and the most widely quoted. Later historians draw, and in most cases depend on him.8 But Ibn Ishaq died in 151 A.H., i.e. 145 years after the event in question. Later historians simply take his version of the story, omitting more or less of the detail, and overlooking his uncertain list of authorities. They generally abbreviate the story, which appears just as one more event to report. In most cases their interest seems to end there. Some of them indicate that they are not really convinced, but they are not prepared to take further trouble. One authority, Ibn Hajar, however, denounces this story and the other related ones as "odd tales".9 A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik,10 the jurist, denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar"11 and "an impostor"12 just for transmitting such stories.
It must be remembered that historians and authors of the Prophet's biography did not apply the strict rules of the "traditionists". They did not always provide a chain of authorities, each of whom had to be verified as trustworthy and as certain or likely to have transmitted his report directly from his informant, and so on. The attitude towards biographical details and towards the early events of Islam was far less meticulous than their attitude to the Prophet's traditions, or indeed to any material relevant to jurisprudence. Indeed Ibn Ishaq's account of the siege of Medina and the fall of the Banu Qurayza is pieced together by him from information given by a variety of persons he names, including Muslim descendants of the Jews of Qurayza.
Against these late and uncertain sources must be placed the only contemporary and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There, the reference in Sura *!*!*!III, 26 is very brief:
"He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner." There is no reference to numbers.
Ibn Ishaq sets out his direct sources as he opens the relevant chapter on the siege of Medina. These were: a client of the family of al-Zubayr and others whom he "did not suspect". They told parts of the story on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Ka'b b. Malik, al Zuhri, 'Asim b. 'Umar b. Qatada, 'Abdullab b. Abi Bakr, Muhammad b. Ka'b of Qurayza, and "others among our men of learning", as he put it. Each of these contributed to the story, so that Ibn Ishaq's version is the sum total of the collective reports, pieced together. At a later stage Ibn Ishaq quotes another descendant of Qurayza, 'Attiyya13 by name, who had been spared, and, directly, a certain descendant of al-Zabir b. Bata, a prominent member of the tribe of Qurayza who figures in the narrative.
The story opens with a description of the effort of named Jewish leaders to organize against the Muslims an alliance of the hostile forces. The leaders named included three from the Banu al-Nadir and two of the tribe of Wa'il, another Jewish tribe; together with other Jewish fellow-tribesmen unnamed. Having persuaded the neighbouring Bedouin tribes of Ghatafan, Murra, Fazara, Sulaym, and Ashja' to take up arms, they now proceeded to Mecca where they succeeded in persuading the Quraysh. Having gathered together a besieging force, one of the Nadir leaders, Huyayy b. Akhtab, in effect forced himself on the third Jewish tribe still in Medina, the Banu Qurayza, and, against the better judgement of their leader, Ka'b b. Asad, he persuaded them to break faith with the Prophet in the hope, presented as a certainty, that the Muslims would not stand up to the combined attacking forces and that Qurayza and the other Jews would be restored to independent supremacy. The siege of Medina failed and the Jewish tribes suffered for their part in the whole operation.
The attitude of scholars and historians to Ibn lshaq's version of the story has been either one of complacency, sometimes mingled with uncertainty, or at least in two important cases, one of condemnatlon and outright rejection.
The complacent attitude is one of accepting the biography of the Prophet and the stories of the campaigns at they were received by later generations without the meticulous care or the application of the critical criteria which collectors of traditions or jurists employed. It was not necessary to check the veracity of authorities when transmitting or recording parts of the story of the Prophet's life.14 It was not essential to provide a continuous chain of authorities or even to give authorities at all. That is obvious in Ibn Ishaq's Sira. On the other hand reliable authority and a continuous line of transmission were essential when law was the issue. That is why Malik the jurist had no regard for Ibn Ishaq.15
One finds, therefore, that later historians and even exegetes either repeat the very words of Ibn Ishaq or else abbreviate the whole story. Historians gave it, as it were, a cold reception. Even Tabari, nearly 150 years after Ibn Ishaq, does not try to find other versions of the story as he usually does. He casts doubt by his use of the words, "Waqidi alleged (za'ama) that the Prophet caused trenches to be dug." Ibn ai-Qayyim in Zad al-ma'ad makes only the briefest reference and he ignores altogether the crucial question of numbers. Ibn Kathir even seems to have general doubt in his mind because he takes the trouble to point out that the story was told on such "good authority" as that of 'A'isha.16
Apart from mild complacency or doubtful acceptance of the story itself, Ibn Ishaq as an author was in fact subjected to devastating attacks by scholars, contemporary or later, on two particular accounts. One was his uncritical inclusion in his Sira of so much spurious or forged poetry;17 the other his unquestioning acceptance of just such a story as that of the slaughter of Banu Qurayza.
His contemporary, the early traditionist and jurist Malik, called him unequivocally "a liar" and "an impostor"18 "who transmits his stories from the Jews".19 In other words, applying his own criteria, Malik impugned the veracity of Ibn Ishaq's sources and rejected his approach. Indeed, neither Ibn Ishaq's list of informants nor his method of collecting and piecing together such a story would he acceptable to Malik the jurist.
In a later age Ibn Hajar further explained the point of Malik's condemnation of Ibn Ishaq. Malik, he said,20 condemned Ibn Ishaq because he made a point of seeking out descendants of the Jews of Medina in order to obtain from them accounts of the Prophet's campaigns as handed down by their forefathers. Ibn Hajar21 then rejected the stories in question in the strongest terms: "such odd tales as the story of Qurayza and al-Nadir". Nothing could be more damning than this outright rejection.
Against the late and uncertain sources on the one hand, and the condemning authorities on the other, must be set the only contemporary and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There the reference in Sura *!*!*!III, 26 is very brief: "He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner."
Exegetes and traditionists tend simply to repeat Ibn Ishaq's tale, but in the Qur'an the reference can only be to those who were actually in the fighting. This is a statement about the battle. It concerns those who fought. Some of these were killed. others were taken prisoner.
One would think that if 600 or 900 people were killed in this manner the significance of the event would have been greater. There would have been a clearer reference in the Qur'an, a conclusion to be drawn, and a lesson to be learnt. But when only the guilty leaders were executed, it would be normal to expect only a brief reference.
So much for the sources: they were neither uninterested nor trustworthy; and the report was very late in time. Now for the story. The reasons for rejecting the story are the following
(i) As already stated above, the reference to the story in the Qur'an is extremely brief, and there is no indication whatever of the killing of a large number. In a battle context the reference is to those who were actually fighting. The Qur'an is the only authority which the historian would accept without hesitation or doubt. It is a contemporary text, and, for the most cogent reasons, what we have is the authentic version.
(ii) The rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible for the sedition.
(iii) To kill such a large number is diametrically opposed to the Islamic sense of justice and to the basic principles laid down in the Qur'an - particularly the verse. "No soul shall bear another's burden."22 It is obvious in the story that the leaders were numbered and were well known. They were named.
(iv) It it also against the Qur'anic rule regarding prisoners of war, which is: either they are to be granted their freedom or else they are to be allowed to be ransomed.23
(v) It is unlikely that the Banu Qurayza should be slaughtered when the other Jewish groups who surrendered before Banu Qurayza and after them were treated leniently and allowed to go. Indeed Abu 'Ubayd b. Sallam relates in his Kitab al-amwal24 that when Khaybar felt to the Muslims there were among the residents a particular family or clan who had distinguished themselves by execesive unseemly abuse of the Prophet. Yet in that hour the Prophet addressed them in words which are no more than a rebuke: "Sons of Abu al-Huqayq (he said to them) I have known the extent of your hostility to God and to His apostle, yet that does not prevent me from treating you as I treated your brethren." That was after the surrender of Banu Qurayza.
(vi) If indeed so many hundreds of people had actually been put to death in the market-place, and trenches were dug for the operation, it is very strange that there should be no trace whatever of all that - no sign or word to point to the place, and no reference to a visible mark.25
(vii) 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.
xSharingan01x
TraVeLer
:salam2:
It's as if you almost want the accusation to be true.
Long story short, Banu Qurayzah committed treason by giving supplies and aid to Musrikhs of Mecca when Banu Qurayzah had a truce with the Islamic State of Madinah. Their treason was of great magnitude, because it occurred during the 'battle of the trench' when Madinah was being besieged by Qurayish.
Their fate was determined by Saud ibn Muad RA of Aws and Muhammad SAW did not hand down any punishment. The tribe of BAnu Qurayzah agreed to accept the arbitration of Saud Ibn Muad of Aws [since they were old allies], as far as I know this was one of the condition of their surrender, requested by them.
Saud Ibn Muad's ruling was that the men should be killed for their treason, and women and children [boys not reaching the age of puberty] should be enslaved. That's what happened.
This is was the most severe punishment handed out by the Muslims, and some historians say it is to serve as a deterrence.
The Prophet SAW was very lenient with the other Jews tribes that broke the treaty with the Muslims.
If you want to know all the details I suggest you hear about them from Muslim speaker or a writer
Hard Rock Moslem
I'm your brother
Thank you brother. For sure I will consider your advise before I plunge with them. I just can't take it when they keep attacking the Prophet without basis.
Amir_of_spain
Junior Member
Asalam wailkium/Hello to you.
Sister's xSharingan01x answer is the best and most concise. The jewish tribes
had several signed agreements with the muslims regarding what they would all do and contribute during times of war as they all lived within the same city, Medina.
Unfortunately for banu qurayzah, their limited vision and greed caused them to break their contract, they helped the invading armies against the muslims, the muslim's army survived that episode and the penalty of treason was dealt out to banu qurayzah. This was the right decision, because it sent a message out to the other alliances, that you should not take advantage of us, and you should be faithful to your agreements. And this penalty exists today in many countries, if you commit treason you recieve the death penalty because your actions endangered the entire country.
Amir
Sister's xSharingan01x answer is the best and most concise. The jewish tribes
had several signed agreements with the muslims regarding what they would all do and contribute during times of war as they all lived within the same city, Medina.
Unfortunately for banu qurayzah, their limited vision and greed caused them to break their contract, they helped the invading armies against the muslims, the muslim's army survived that episode and the penalty of treason was dealt out to banu qurayzah. This was the right decision, because it sent a message out to the other alliances, that you should not take advantage of us, and you should be faithful to your agreements. And this penalty exists today in many countries, if you commit treason you recieve the death penalty because your actions endangered the entire country.
Amir
xSharingan01x
TraVeLer
:salam2:
Thank you for your nice words. I'm actually a brother.
I think we can learn something very important from how the Prophet SAW and the Sahaba dealt with Banu Qurayzah.
We shouldn't allow our enemies to take advantage of our kindness and tolerance. This is illustrated by the incident with another man whom Prophet SAW pardoned but he committed the same trickery again and asked to be pardoned again. He, Prophet SAW said "I don't want you to go around and stroke your beard saying I've fooled Muhammad twice".
:salam2:
It's as if you almost want the accusation to be true.
Long story short, Banu Qurayzah committed treason by giving supplies and aid to Musrikhs of Mecca when Banu Qurayzah had a truce with the Islamic State of Madinah. Their treason was of great magnitude, because it occurred during the 'battle of the trench' when Madinah was being besieged by Qurayish.
Their fate was determined by Saud ibn Muad RA of Aws and Muhammad SAW did not hand down any punishment. The tribe of BAnu Qurayzah agreed to accept the arbitration of Saud Ibn Muad of Aws [since they were old allies], as far as I know this was one of the condition of their surrender, requested by them.
Saud Ibn Muad's ruling was that the men should be killed for their treason, and women and children [boys not reaching the age of puberty] should be enslaved. That's what happened.
This is was the most severe punishment handed out by the Muslims, and some historians say it is to serve as a deterrence.
The Prophet SAW was very lenient with the other Jews tribes that broke the treaty with the Muslims.
If you want to know all the details I suggest you hear about them from Muslim speaker or a writer
Mashallah!...what a wonderful answer..baraka allaho feek akhi...
The treason that tribe committed was so great...that if it wasn't for the endurance of the Muslims...all of the muslims...literally...ALL OF THE MUSLIMS...back in that period of time..would've been SLAUGHTERED at the hands of THE KUFFAR!...
The Prophet (pbuh) numerously forgave them...but they took his forgiveness for granted..and even when he (pbuh) found out that they were communicating with the kuffar secretly...he (pbuh) sent them warnings..but they denied..and insisted on committing treasonous acts...
Even if you look at *current non-islamic laws*...
I guarantee you...even the most ADVANCED..MODERNIZED..AND DEMOCRATIC..of countries...
You'll see that their punishment for treason...is EXECUTION!
It's great that you're asking questions about topics like this..as many enemies of Islam...take them..twist them around..spice them up...and then put them back out..only to cause fitnah in the minds and hearts of Muslims..and to scare off non-muslims...
Always remember that...Rasuluallah (pbuh)...whom Allah..ALLAH...in all of His Might..Exalt..Glory..and Holiness..PRAISED for his character...would not commit anything that would demean that praise and its truth!