Why Kill the Infidel?

samcdkey said:
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action."

-from the Prophet's last sermon
Click to expand...

Sounds very reasonable, except the Adam & Eve part.
 
wsionynw said:
Sounds very reasonable, except the Adam & Eve part.
Click to expand...

Adam and Eve are philosophical concepts in Islam; they represent the first humans with a sense of "consciousness"; who were banished from the Eden of "instinct" into the world of "intellect", that they may eat of the fruit of "knowledge" which they so desired.
 
samcdkey said:
Adam and Eve are philosophical concepts in Islam; they represent the first humans with a sense of "consciousness"; who were banished from the Eden of "instinct" into the world of "intellect", that they may eat of the fruit of "knowledge" which they so desired.
Click to expand...

I've no problem with Adam & Eve being used as a metaphor for early humans, or human ancestors. The literal Adam & Eve is nonesense, I guess I was just nit picking. I personally regard all life as equal, human or otherwise, when it comes to the right to life (but that's a different thread).
 
You're mixing up between Christian and Islamic theology; there are a lot of differences between the philosophy in the two. The Quran is part philosophy, part history, part sociology and part allegory. So its easy for non-Muslims to get confused about its meaning. A lot of Muslims also make the same mistakes.

According to the Quran, Adam was also a Prophet, the first "human", and there were 100,000 prophets sent after him. However, their history and the histories of their tribes are not known to us. According to Islam therefore, all religions came from Adam and started with monotheism.
 
all mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action."

-from the Prophet's last sermon
Click to expand...

This quote basically still puts superiority dependent on a couple pieces of criteria.

Look- An arab has no superiority over a non arab nor a non-arab has any superiority over an arab...., except by piety and good action. (Piety to who...What religion? Any?) (Good action in one mans eyes is hatred in the eyes of another. Who has the right good action? Some see following Christ and denying Muhammed as a good action)

The quote could and probably is personally interpretted to suit the followers either to the extreme or the level headed person own level.
 
Quigly said:
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action."

-from the Prophet's last sermon

This quote basically still puts superiority above others.

Look- An arab has no superiority over a non arab nor a non-arab has any superiority over an arab, except by piety and good action. (Piety to who...What religion? Any?) (Good action in one mans eyes is hatred in the eyes of another. Who has the right good action? Some see following Christ and denying Muhammed as a good action)

The quote could and probably is personally interpretted to suit the followers either to the extreme or the level headed person own level.
Click to expand...


It should not be because Mohammed also preached religious freedom for others. After he conquered Mecca, Jews and Christians were allowed to practice their religion and paid tax equivalent to the religious duties paid by Muslims for the upkeep of their places of worship
 
samcdkey said:
It should not be because Mohammed also preached religious freedom for others. After he conquered Mecca, Jews and Christians were allowed to practice their religion and paid tax equivalent to the religious duties paid by Muslims for the upkeep of their places of worship
Click to expand...

It would seem that his life of war paints a better story and how about the massacre in AD 627? 700 jewish of the tribe of Qurayza were slaughtered in the towns marketplace and the woman were spared and sold off as slaves. He gave them their freedom of religion alright when he said to them "Koran or the sword".

Not but 3 years later he takes mecca and you want me to believe he had a change of heart?
 
Quigly said:
It would seem that his life of war paints a better story and how about the massacre in AD 627? 700 jewish of the tribe of Qurayza were slaughtered in the towns marketplace and the woman were spared and sold off as slaves. He gave them their freedom of religion alright when he said to them "Koran or the sword".

Not but 3 years later he takes mecca and you want me to believe he had a change of heart?
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for the 700 Jews being killed?

This is the information I have:

http://www.jews-for-allah.org/jewish-mythson-islam/muhammad_900_jews_notkilled.htm
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza
After the Aws pleaded to Muhammad for Banu Qurayza, Muhammad suggested Sa'd ibn Mu'adh as a judge who will make the final decision, and the Aws agreed. Ibn Ishaq says that before the war, Ibn Mu'adh had amiable relations with the Banu Qurayza. But it seems his sentiments had changed. He believed that the Banu Qurayza were wrong to break their agreement with the Muslims. When the arrow hit him, according to Ibn Ishaq, he had said "O God, seeing that you have appointed war between us and them grant me martyrdom and do not let me die until I have seen my desire upon the Banu Qurayza." It is not clear that Muhammad knew that Sa'd desired revenge -- or indeed, if this story is true, or merely a later embroidery suggesting a reason for Sa'd's change of heart.
Sa'd ruled that all the adult males of the Banu Qurayza should be killed. His fellow chiefs urged him to pardon these former allies, but he refused. One report says Muhammad approved the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment. This ruling was taken to refer to all males over puberty, some 600-900 individuals according to Ibn Ishaq. A few converted to Islam, and were spared.
Click to expand...

http://www.drshirley.org/hist/hist11.html
AD 624-627 Mohammed attacks and destroys Jewish Arabians who did not convert to Islam
Click to expand...
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/islam.htm
After the Meccans withdrew, Muhammad had an incident with the remaining Jewish clan, the Qurayza, where he felt they had threatened him and Islam. The Jews eventually surrendered to Muhammad, and all of the men [around 800] were executed and the women and children sold into slavery. This episode was given some superficial justification by having a trial and judge, but Muhammad chose the judge and encouraged and sanctioned the verdict. Muhammad sat and watched as groups of five or six Jews at a time were brought out, beheaded and pushed into a mass grave, with the process beginning in the morning and continuing by torchlight into the night. Afterwards, Muhammad took a beautiful girl, Rihana, to enjoy her charms, as her husband and all her male relatives had just been massacred in that way. Muhammad immediately thereafter received a revelation (sura 33.25) which justified these horrendous actions. (Critics wonder about the Character of a God Who would condone and even encourage such barbarity.)
Click to expand...
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza
Click to expand...

See the controversy regarding Ibn Ishaq, the only historian to give this account, in the previous link I just gave you.

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 XXXIII, 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 XXXIII, 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."
Click to expand...




http://www.drshirley.org/hist/hist11.html
Click to expand...

Probably using the Ibn Ishaq sources, since he is the only one giving the account.


From this link:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/islam.htm
Click to expand...


As a Protestant Christian Church...
Click to expand...

i.e. A Christian website

The link I gave you is from a Jewish website, Jews who believe in Mohammed but practise Judaism and have a more accurate history of Jews than the Christians or Ibn Ishaq.
 
I have three sites saying the same thing, but obviously yours is more correct, welcome to the world of illusion.
 
Muhammad - After the siege of Medina, Muhammad attacked the Jewish clan of Qurayzah, which had probably been intriguing against him. When they surrendered, the men were all executed and the women and children sold as slaves." - Britannica.com
Click to expand...


I guess the many many sites I came across as I looked it up must all be wrong and your site correct.
 
Quigly said:
I guess the many many sites I came across as I looked it up must all be wrong and your site correct.
Click to expand...

Does not matter how many sites you came across; historically Ibn Ishaq (born in 707, died in 767) is the ONLY one to record those deaths and he did it 100 years after Mohammed ( 571-632); and his account is considered suspect by established and accredited historians; besides if it were true, such as important event would surely have at least one other record.
 
Last edited:
Changed my mind on responding to this any longer because there isn't a reason too. You will keep your illusion on the peace of muslims, while it will just be that...an illusion. It's like you guys pick and choose which is "made" up and which is correct based on your interpretation of what you want to believe.
 
Last edited:
Quigly said:
Changed my mind on responding to this any longer because there isn't a reason too. You will keep your illusion on the peace of muslims, while it will just be that...an illusion.
Click to expand...

Were we discussing peace of Muslims? I was discussing historical evidence related to killing of non-Muslims, with citations.

There are complete records of all the wars with dates, number of people who fought on each side, the tribes involved and the fate of the tribes. All the deaths and killings are on record except for the one by Ibn Ishaq which was recorded 100 years after the war. Guillames translation of Hisham's translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sira (i.e. translation of a translation) also contains further inaccuracies and is used as the main source of information by the sites you gave me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq
 
Last edited:
A PERFECT EXAMPLE... of how the west, wont accept the east.

and the east gets so upset about it...

thats why there is conflict.... as demonstrated here.

-MT
 
NO... the muslim is usually not upset... its the west that is...

because islamic teachings contradict their own.... hence the conflict.


mohammed, may have killed many.... and may have sold off the women and children as slaves...

but the white christian world..... was doing the exact same thing, at the same time.

selling slaves... and killing for proFIT, is not a muslim thing.

it is a human thing, and jews did it... and christians did it.

so nobody has clean hands.. LETS BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS.


-MT
 
Read the links about Mohammed in the thread "how peaceful is Islam"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top