Oddly enough, though, no Jewish tribes, Jewish historians, or Jewish scholars record this event. This is shocking because the Jewish people have recorded their history better than perhaps any people in history. Yet, in regards to such a massive execution, every Jewish historian, scholar, and tribe is silent.
Source/Credit: Muhammad Fact Check
Edited by Ahmadiyya Times | March 7, 2013
Editor's note: At a "Muhammad -- Messenger of Peace" events organized by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Students Association at University of California - Riverside, last Wednesday, one of the most common contemporary allegation levied against the Holy Founder of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad—that he killed 700 Jews—was brought up at the start of the Q&A session. The questioner was provided a brief answer by the organizers. However, due to the time constraints at such events, not all details could have been stated there. Therefore, to provide adequate details of the incident, the following is taken from MuhammadFactCheck.org and slightly edited/rearranged for the readers' clarity.
Did Prophet Muhammad kill 700 Jews?
This spurious allegation stems from an event which occurred during and after the largest battle ever held on Arabian soil in Medina during Prophet Muhammad’s life. The Confederate Army comprised of approximately 12,000 soldiers while the Muslims barricaded themselves in Medina, along with their sworn allies—per the Charter of Medina—numbered roughly 1,200 to 1,500. While the Muslims were eventually victorious, however, they came within moments of annihilation due to the Banu Quraizah tribe’s treason. The critics claim that the Prophet Muhammad blindly executed the entire tribe after the battle was over.
This allegation has no basis in fact.
History records that when Madina was formed into a nation-state, the Banu Quraizah tribe was a willing and equal party to the new constitution, the Charter of Medina, and that constitution explicitly required all parties' loyalty to the state of Medina, particularly in case of attacks from an external army. After committing to Medina, the Banu Quraizah twice violated that loyalty with treasonous acts - the second time in the heat of a battle.
Of the sentences on the three clans, that of exile, passed upon two of them, was clement enough. They were a turbulent set, always setting the people of Medina by the ears; and finally, a brawl followed by an insurrection resulted in the expulsion of one tribe; and insubordination, alliance with enemies and a suspicion of conspiracy against the Prophet’s life, ended similarly for the second. Both tribes had violated the original treaty, and had endeavored in every way to bring Muhammad and his religion to ridicule and destruction. The only question is whether their punishment was not too light. Of the third clan a fearful example was made, not by Muhammad, but by an arbiter appointed by themselves. When Quraish and their allies were besieging Medina and had well-nigh stormed the defences, this Jewish tribe [the Banu Quraizah] entered into negotiations with the enemy, which were only circumvented by the diplomacy of the Prophet. When the besiegers had retired, Muhammad naturally demanded an explanation of the Jews. They resisted in their dogged way and were themselves besieged and compelled to surrender at discretion. Muhammad, however, consented to the appointing of a chief of a tribe allied to the Jews as the judge who should pronounce sentence upon them. This chief gave sentence that the men, in numbers some 600, should be killed, and the women and children enslaved; and the sentence was carried out. It was a harsh, bloody sentence; but it must be remembered that the crime of these men was high treason against the State, during a time of siege; and one need not be surprised at the summary execution of a traitorous clan. [1]Now, first, as to the Lane-Poole's statement in the last part that "the sentence was carried out," a renowned scholar, Dr. Barakat Ahmad, author of “Muhammad and the Jews,” has raised doubts. Dr Ahmad argues, based on authentic sources, that it is highly probable that no execution took place at all.
However, as to the rest of the narration by Lane-Poole, one thing is fully established: The Prophet Muhammad did not order any execution, nor did he participate in the execution. On the contrary, actually, Prophet Muhammad graciously agreed to let the Banu Quraizah’s own ally, Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh of Aus, to be the arbitrator. The verdict was issued solely by Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh of Aus .
Adding to the injustice in blaming Prophet Muhammad is the fact that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh did not deliver his decision based on the Qur’an. Rather, he based the judgment for the Banu Quraizah--at their own stipulation--based on the punishment for treason that their book, the Torah, prescribes:
“When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.” [2]
Thus, if it happened at all, the Banu Quraizah sealed their own fate, with their own actions, according to their own Book. Prophet Muhammad had nothing to do with it—other than agreeing to let an ally to the Banu Quraizah arbitrate between them, and to bind himself to that arbiter’s decision.
Oddly enough, though, no Jewish tribes, Jewish historians, or Jewish scholars record this event. This is shocking because the Jewish people have recorded their history better than perhaps any people in history. Yet, in regards to such a massive execution, every Jewish historian, scholar, and tribe is silent.
It is now abundantly clear that Prophet Muhammad committed no wrong against the Banu Quraizah. The Banu Quraizah Tribe was an equal and willing party to this pact that they betrayed multiple times. The claimed execution that followed, if it happened, was the result of their choice to commit treason, per the judgment of a judge they demanded, according to the law elucidated in their book.
Prophet Muhammad, far from being responsible for any deaths, actually interceded and even forgave those Jews who asked for clemency directly or through their kin.
Lending credibility to Dr Ahmad's argument that perhaps no executions took place at all, is the logic that how can it be that 600 men stood to be executed but bothered not to ask for clemency.
To place even the slightest responsibility on anyone but the Banu Quraizah is nothing less than ridiculous.
--------------
[1] Stanley Lane-Poole, Studies in a Mosque, 68 (1883) (emphasis added).
[2] Deuteronomy 20: 10-18.
Read original post here: Did Prophet Muhammad kill 700 Jews?
This content-post is archived for backup and to keep archived records of any news Islam Ahmadiyya. The views expressed by the author and source of this news archive do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of Ahmadiyya Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. Any comments irrelevant to the post's subject matter, containing abuses, and/or vulgar language will not be approved.