This issue came up in the Cambden thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211882321/83#83

Apparently Muhammed had some Jews killed for committing treason, but offered them clemency if they converted. Sprint seems to think this is the same as threatening to kill an innocent person if they don't convert. He also insists he has a different version of history that states that the jews involved did not commit treason. He refused to give the source for this alternative history unless a new thread was started.

Fire away Sprint.

Its not a different version, its the version that the politically correct dont want to hear. I have found the same references that sprint has found, just because it doesnt conform to your thinking, doesnt mean it aint true. The jews were charged with treason because they didnt like Mohammads violent ways and his corruption of the scriptures, Muslims were once told to look to Jeruselem, after this they were told that the Jews corrupted the scriptures and were driven from Medina and the Muslims now turned their eyes to Mecca. When Mohammed moved to Medina, many followed creating food shortages, so Mohammad carried out raids on the rich caravans, stole money and food from anyone, this upset the Jews and they said so.

Check out the history of Banu Qurayza for more information.

pope urban 2 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2008 at 6:38pm:


1. we want to see your links to it, neither you or sprint has shown us your documents.

2. the banu qurayza were not charged with treason because of that, they openly conspired with the pagans against the muslims and other jews during the battle of the trench breaking the agreement they made which was the madinah constitution..

3. the muslims were initially told to face jerusalem and then told to face mecca.. i don't see why you have a problem with that?

4. the Muslims didn't raid just any trade caravan. the raids were against pagan trade caravans that were coming out of mecca, the reason for that was because all of the muslims from mecca who migrated to medina's possessions was stolen by the pagans and they were sent to syria to be sold in the markets so that the pagans could buy weapons to fight the muslims.. the caravans were raided to gain some compensation for the theft of their goods and also to prevent the pagans the ability to fight the muslims effectively. these incidents were at a time of war and the muslims were well within their rights to try and take back the worth that was theirs..

Did Will make it all up, or are there alternative accounts that survived from the period? There's no need to get an entire book just to find a single reference. The fact that both of you are unable to back up your claim makes me think Will's book can't either.

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2008 at 9:48am:

Although this is not on the topic of the battle of the trench, I will answer it briefly and ask if you have more questions to begin a thread about it if you like.

The woman you are referring to was not killed for questioning Muhammad pbuh. MANY people questioned him, MANY people openly disagreed with him.. MANY people also insulted him and no harm came to them. Even his own next door neighbour would insult him and even throw his rubbish into Muhammad pbuh's yard, while Muhammad pbuh was the Head of State in Medina and still no harm came to him.. In fact, when this neighbour stopped throwing rubbish into Muhammad pbuh's yard Muhammad pbuh grew worried about why his neighbour had not thrown rubbish into his yard for a few days and went over there to find that the neighbour was ill, and personally nursed his neighbour back to good health.

Asma bint Marwan however along with her 'colleagues' did far more than that.. They were people who tried to incite the pagans to go to war with the Muslims and she and others were pinnacle in the fighting in many battles. Her slaying, if ordered by the prophet Muhammad pbuh was definitely a major contributor to the defeat of the Pagan armies and had she and her colleagues not been killed, the taking of Mecca by the Muslims would have incurred far more death on both sides. It was a strategic move done during a time of war. Any army would have done this and has done similar things even today. Let's not forget that the Pagans also tried assassinating Muhammad pbuh several times during his life.

The reason why I question whether she was actually ordered to be murdered by Muhammad pbuh is because the account that was related in a historical text claims that she was murdered by a man named Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi, who came into her house, removed her suckling child from her and then drove his sword through her.. The odd thing about that is that Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi was actually blind.. So I find it somewhat confusing on how this could actually take place under such circumstances, in addition to that there are claims that the hadiths relating to this incident are from a weak chain of narrators so I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't true.

I might also add that there were three Jewish tribes in Medina, two of them the Banu Qainuka'a and the Banu Nadhir had already been expelled from Medina for their crimes in the battles of Badr and Uhud respectively and were able to leave with their safety, possessions and herds of animals and settled in Khybar. That is because they were judged by Muhammad pbuh himself.

The Banu Qurayza however, chose their judge to be Sa'ad ibn Muadh who was previously their ally as he was the leader of the Banu Aus. It was HE who ordered them to be punished according to Jewish Law by having their men put to the sword and women and children put into slavery and that punishment was fulfilled.

Had they chosen the Prophet Muhammad pbuh as their judge then he would have treated them with the same mercy as he treated the Banu Qainuka'a and the Banu Nadhir by allowing those not guilty of murder to leave Medina with their possessions and herds of animals to also settle in Khyber.

The prophet Muhammad pbuh in his mercy tried to give them one last opportunity to escape their punishment by accepting Islam and being free from the judgement of Jewish laws and escape such a punishment but they refused. Thus the punishment was applied.

Why Freediver are you willing to believe the Muslim account when you say that your knowledge of the subject is limited.

I'm just asking for the source for the alternative account. Obviously the account Malik has comes from the Koran. If there are other sources, name them.

Also the historians and authors of the Prophets biographies did not always supply information that can be varified or trustworthy.

That's a lot better than making up your own version of events over a millenia later. It's a bit hypocritical to criticise the accuracy of the Koran when the alternative is a secret document that cannot be named.