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.

I did say the Bibles stories are just as unreliable as the so called prophet biographers, I personally believe its all made up rubbish. People with a gift for the gab, who can at the time could spin a good yarn that people believed. Maybe in another 1000 years we will be worshiping Steven King or Ron L Hubbard. You can see how scientology has become a religion, I think all religions began in a similar way. There is no God, Muhammad, Buddha and anyone else you care to name. Gods were made up by scared people unable to answer questions and not wanting to die. In olden times any megolomaniac called himself a God.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 7^th, 2008 at 6:01pm:


It IS a sin to lie in Islam, and it is also a sin to murder people who are innocent and are not fighting you.. It isn't a sin to fight those who fight you on the battlefield though, that is war.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 7^th, 2008 at 6:01pm:


Actually, the Shah of Iran reigned from 1941 until the Iranian Revolution in 1979 (approx 38 years). Amnesty International estimates that the number of political prisoners during his reign was 60-100,000 people. There are many speculations to the true number of casualties ranging from 3,000 to 60,000. However, it has been established by various sources including Amnesty International that at least 2,500 accounted people died between 1963 and 1978 (the time frame that you've cited). I don't know where you got "over 300" from.

OK, I will re-phrase it for the pedants.
From the time of the 'White Revolution', in Jan 1963, when the Shah instituted major reforms to the political system, where officials no longer had to swear on the Koran, to take public office.

This was when Khomeini and his lot went into violent opposition, and it was this period, from '63 onwards, that they falsely claim, produced 60-70,000, Islamic martyrs under the Shah's rule.
The figures were, as I previously stated, just over 300 from, '63 to '78, and another 2,800 killed during the fighting just prior to Khomeini's return.

The point is that the Islamists are not the most honest when reporting these numbers, hence due skepticism should be used when listing any of their figures.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 11:54pm:


I knew it! LOL.

So, I guess now we have to rely on jfk to provide a link to the mysterious documents.

I agree. If you aren't going to expose the secret documents that are the source of your claims about the 'trench trechery', please don't try to turn this into another random 'quote the Koran' thread. If you recall, I even invoted you sprint to start a new thread just for quoting the Koran and getting alternative interpretations.

Want some precursor to the treachery of the trenches ?

No Sprint. All we want is some info on this mysterious document you referred to.

Battle of the Trench 5 A.H. (627 CE), This was a Pagan instigated battle, the Pagans assembled the largest army ever seen in Arabia at the time, they brought 10,000 well equipped men and cavalry forces with the intent of invading Madinah and wiping out the Muslims. They enlisted the help of the Banu Qurayza who attacked the Muslims from within the southern borders of Madinah. To prevent the Makkans from invading Madinah, Salman the Persian a.s. suggested to dig a giant trench to the north of Madinah which resulted in a 2 week stalemate that prevented the Pagans from invading. The Banu Qurayza were put under siege and upon surrendering they chose Sa'd bin Muad'h to be their judge as he was previously the leader of the Banu Aws. Sa'd judged them according to Jewish Law, that being :

Deutronomy 20:10-15

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

The Muslims at this stage were a force to be reckoned with both in Military might and tactical prowess. Muhammad pbuh, according to the ritual of the time and understanding between all Arabs made the intention to take the Muslims to Makkah for the pilgramage and to circle the Ka'aba 7 times. The Muslims did not bring armour or spears or any warhorses but only carried their own swords as protection. Once arriving to Makkah the Muslims were not allowed in and sent an emissary into Makkah. After some time the emissary came back and announced that the Pagans would not allow the Muslims to conduct the pilgramage. The Muslims at this time were outraged that they would be denied any Arab's right and wanted to fight the Pagans. Had they done so, it would have been a bloody battle which would have unnecessarily wasted many lives from both the Muslim and Pagan sides. So Muhammad pbuh offered a truce to the Pagans. It was called the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. The treaty was so offensive and unfair to the Muslims that the very agreement by Muhammad pbuh to the treaty made it seem as if he was weak and the Muslims had surrendered. The treaty was as follows:

"In the name of God. These are the conditions of Peace between Muhammad (SAW), son of Abdullah and Suhayl ibn Amr the envoy of Mecca. There will be no fighting for ten years. Anyone who wishes to join Muhammad (SAW) and to enter into any agreement with him is free to do so. Anyone who wishes to join the Quraish and to enter into any agreement with them is free to do so. A young man, or one whose father is alive, if he goes to Muhammad without permission from his father or guardian, will be returned to his father or guardian. But if anyone goes to the Quraish, he will not be returned. This year Muhammad (SAW) will go back without entering Mecca. But next year he and his followers can enter Mecca, spend three days, perform the circuit. During these three days the Quraish will withdraw to the surrounding hills. When Muhammad and his followers enter into Mecca, they will be unarmed except for sheathed swords which wayfarers in Arabia always have with them."

As you can see, the Muslims were insulted by this as it was not fair for both sides. The Muslims returned to Madinah after this, they believed they had been defeated and were angry, but Muhammad pbuh called it the Great Victory, and it was as we will see later. With this peace between the Muslims and Pagans, Muhammad pbuh was able to focus on inviting others to Islam. He sent emissaries out to all of the known world to invite the leaders to accept Islam. We will get to these later.

The next battle was the Battle of Khaybar 7 A.H. (629 CE), after signing the abovementioned treaty, the Muslims had been seen to have almost surrendered to the Pagans, in seeing this the Jews that were expelled from Madinah previously for breaking the Constitution which they agreed to had thought it would be easy to go and attack the Muslims and take over Madinah. They launched an attack on Madinah which was bloody and many innocent people died, in response Muhammad pbuh mobilized his army and they marched on Khaybar. The Muslims had an army of roughly 1400 infantry and 200 horses and the Jewish armies had a force of more than 14,000. The Jews also had the advantage of having huge fort that they could repel the Muslims from. On two attempts the Muslims tried to attack but were repelled. On the next attempt Muhammad pbuh sent his own son in law and cousin Ali ibn abi Talib a.s. with some men to take the fort. Ali a.s. who was the hero of every Muslim battle led the Muslims in and conquered the forts. Again even though the Jews had attacked the Muslims, the Muslims allowed them all to leave on their surrender. This time however they kept their wealth as compensation for their attack on Madinah.

I'll continue in the next post

Muhammad pbuh launched two more expeditions before his death. One was led by his cousin and son in law Ali ibn abi Talib a.s, where he went deep into Yemen and preached Islam. Previously Khalid bin Walid (who had converted after he defeated the Muslims in The Battle of Uhud) had gone there but no one accepted Islam, in fact they Yemenis were repulsed by him and refused to accept Islam. Ali a.s. went there with a small army and preached Islam. The army's purpose was for the defence of those preaching Islam and after they had been attacked by some pagan tribes and repelled them, they did not pursue as their goal or intention was not to fight their. When the Yemeni's listened to what Ali a.s. had to say, they accepted Islam en masse. In fact, the whole of Yemen can owe their acceptance of Islam to the efforts of Ali a.s. through the guidance and blessings of God.

Muhammad pbuh also wanted to send an expedition to the Byzantine's to fight them led by an 18 year old named Usama bin Zayd, who was the son of a slave. His father was murdered by the Byzantine army during the battle of Mutah. Under Usama's command he put the most seasoned generals and companions of the Prophet pbuh, who all protested against being put under the command of someone not only so young, but the son of a slave. But Muhammad pbuh rejected their pleas. Firstly because Usama was, like his father a brilliant tactician. But for two more reasons. Firstly that he wanted to get rid of this primitive class system that the Arabs had still held on to, where they thought they were better than Usama because he was the son of a slave, thus putting them under his command to teach them some humility. And also as an attempt to get those who would in the future try and usurp Ali ibn abi Talib's right to lead the Caliphate out of Madinah and prevent them from doing so. But the expidition never left and as a result Ali a.s' right to the Caliphate was usurped 'companions' of the Prophet pbuh.

That concludes my explanation of the major battles of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, may God bless him and his family.

Ameen.

I am going to get some sleep now I think because I have work in the morning.

Massalaama

Adz

LOL These Forums can take up a lot of your time.  It's so frustrating when somebody posts a half truth that you just know is not quite right, but to actually get your point understood takes a huge investment in personal time. I find the same frustration on explaining Climate Change.

If you want an expert on Islam, listen to a Muslim. An Imam is probably better of course, but hey.

We have a multicultural society today in Australia. That's how it is. We need to live together with people of all races and religions, and the lifeblood of any such relationship is communication.

Communication is always two way. Each party can learn from the other and maybe even trust will develop as a result.

Now about that Nobel Peace prize ....

muso wrote on Jun 10^th, 2008 at 10:41am:

Hey thanks Muso, thats very nice of you.

While I am not exactly an Imam, I am studying a Diploma of Islamic Theology.

muso wrote on Jun 10^th, 2008 at 10:41am:


I agree, muso. However and unfortunately,  there are a lot of critics of multiculturalism. Then, there are those who are determined not to allow it to work.

As for the Nobel Peace Prize, I second your nomination.

pope urban 2 wrote on Jun 10^th, 2008 at 6:43pm:


True. Its an outrage that his name stands among the likes of Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa.

Are you going to reveal the mysterious document sprint?

pope urban 2 wrote on Jun 10^th, 2008 at 6:43pm:


His name is a blemish on the integrity of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Multiculturism in most cases works quite well but the Islamic cause is a difficult one, with so many differences between us. Thousands of years of mistrust cannot be forgotten over night. And after September 11, it will be another thousand years added on.

You get rid of the terrorists, suicide bombers and every jihadist moron from Islam, then you have a case but until then you dont. If Muslims are so peace loving, why dont they try it fot a change.

Malik is half Turkish, half Greek, therefor not an Arab, Turkey is moderate and secular, with all due respect, you cannot compare Turkish Muslims with thr Arab Muslims, they are different and closer to us than most people think.

jfk - thanks for that.

yes, i am sure all peoples of the world are quite individuals.
you are quite correct and good on you for bringing this point to order

malik - saudi arabia financially supports terrorists.
Lybia has supported terrorists for decades.
Syria supports terrorists.
they are ok with it, cause it agrees with them, and the koran.
If it did not, they would oppose it.

is there a muslim country with any spare cash that does not ???


the idea of any religion running a political system is directly opposed to freedom of speech.


how could blood be that deep ? It is liquid.
Unless it is in trenches prepared for beheading.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 11^th, 2008 at 11:34pm:

libya, saudi, syria.. all are dictatorships, syria had western support and saudi still does..
the people dont support their governments and if they speak out against them they get tortured and killed..

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 11^th, 2008 at 11:34pm:

im sorry.. define freedom of speech and how islam forbids it?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 11^th, 2008 at 11:34pm:

as i mentioned, those arent my words.. it just goes to show how much of a massacre ur precious christian savages perpetrated in the holy land against it's innocent inhabitants.

Malik - the west does not support lybia, syria or saudai.
They live with them, in the best way they see fit.
i would like to point out, the west is not a christian government.
The west is a democratic capitalist society.

islam forbids freedom of speech by banning comments against mohammad. As a simple example.


just answer the question, how could blood logically be that deep.
You gave that quote, now validate it in your own words.

islam demands control over everything.
whats the most muslim country ? saudi arabia.

the west gives saudi petrodollars. That is all.
They have a business relationship.
The west does NOT enjoy great relations with saudi.
saudi's desire is to rule the world. As is stated in the koran.
At least be honest and admit it.

the west is not christian. it is a democracy.
In muslim countries, there is no option.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 1:23am:

are you a bit slow sprint or just really ignoring what i said?

saudi is NOT an islamic state. an islamic state has certain criteria to be considered so, saudi doesn't fulfil such criteria.

saudi is as much an islamic state as western countries are christian ones.

so.. time for you to show your evidence regarding the battle of the trench sprint..

so which one is it, are you are liar and have no evidence at all? or a coward and too scared to put it up?

sorry malik,
i have been slow in answering.

Will post my info when i can find it !! It's gone awol, will be somewheres though.
might have to google for it again.

Whole lot of muslims live in saudi for it to not be islam. thought it was the centre of the muslim world ?
Or do the bad ones not count ?

thing is, in "christian" coountries, the religion does not run the govt.
in muslim countries, it does. and there is no escaping it.


yet again, I agree with mozzaok. 
As I said earlier, the victor decides the history. mohammad won, he wrote it. he was not stupid, he knew how to control the media.
eg, the poet he had murdered. sends out a clear strong message..

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 11:38am:


Do you think? Try getting anywhere in US politics without flashing your Christian credentials...

mozzaok wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 9:05am:


I can say with great certainty that God created the world and Adam and Eve 6000 years ago.  



http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070129091638AAqSFMX&show=7

It's funny how a society can go for less than a lifetime without mass slaughter and suddenly they all think they are better than everyone else - they can ignore the lessons of history and pick and choose whatever reason suits them for explaining why other societies aren't living in peace.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 11:38am:

I see.. how convenient.. please find it soon or withdraw your comments with regards to the battle of the trench, if you spent as much time backing up your accusations of islam as u do writing them, you would at least have some credibility.

u said there was a verse in the quran that said the trenches were dug for the jews to be beheaded in.. so at least bring that information.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 11:38am:

islam DOESNT run the saudi government.. we do not have kings or royal families in islam. we do not accept the saudi extremist ideology.

to be an islamic state it has to fit the criteria of one.. which it certainly doesn't
Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 11:38am:

again.. why was that poet assasinated? it wasn't for speaking out against muhammad pbuh, even his own companions disagreed with him openly in certain situations and he didn't execute them, his jewish neighbour would insult him and throw his trash in Muhammad pbuh's yard every day and muhammad pbuh didn't have him executed..

those poets tried to incite the pagans to fight the muslims, they were the drum beaters of the war, assasinating them prevented major wars between the muslims and pagans because the pagans lost heart and had no will to fight without such poets..

i wont apologise for that.. the muslims and pagans were still at war and assasinating those poets prevented further wars and battles.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 1:27pm:


Fair go, sprint.

I'm sure that Mailk knows his Quran well enough. However, it's your quote which you say was from the Quran. You should back it up by providing the evidence. Its unfair that you should question his knowledge of the Quran by asking him to search it himself when the onus is on you to do so.

muso wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 2:45pm:


Agree.

Turkey is as much a Islamic state as Australia is a Christian one, which is of course not the case.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 1:27pm:

Yes.. not only is it not convenient, but in reality it only makes you look like a liar. I suggest you devote some more time to finding the evidence so you don't look like a liar.

All praises are due to God, I have read the Qur'an many times and never come across what you are referring to. It is you making such accusations regarding the Qur'an and I have never seen such a thing, Thus the onus is on you to provide evidence of it.

I also did a search in three different Qur'anic translations for the words 'trench' or 'trenches' and came up with no results. Surely if there was an order in the Qur'an to construct a trench for any purpose  it would at least have come up with one result for either word.

As mentioned, Salman Al-Farsi was the one who suggested to dig the trenches as a means to protect Madinah from the army of 10,000 pagan soldiers who had left Mecca to attack the Muslims in Medina.


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 1:27pm:


You don't seem to be able to comprehend what I'm saying sprint. Regardless if Saudi only has Muslims in it, it still doesn't fit the criteria of being an ISLAMIC STATE. There is a difference between what a Muslim is and what Islam is. You see a Muslim is human, they are imperfect and prone to make mistakes. Islam however is different. It's the religion and a set of criteria to live by. Saudi Arabia doesn't follow that criteria. Are you aware how Saudi Arabia came to be? It was the betrayel of the Arab tribes against the Ottoman empire, supported by Britain who sent people like TE Lawrence (ie lawrence of arabia) to go and promise Arab tribes kingship of the land if they rebelled against the Ottoman empire.
Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 1:27pm:

I have already mentioned that was what has been written in hadith regarding that situation, I myself would be surprised if that is indeed the case, because the very same hadith states that the man who did it was actually blind. Don't you find that a bit odd?

I will also mention that the hadith in question mentions that the baby was removed from her before the woman was assasinated.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 1:27pm:

I beg your pardon? Can you elaborate?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 1:27pm:

I don't support your views at all. You see the wars as being ones which were started by the Muslims. If the Muslims hadn't been persecuted simply for preaching the worship of One God instead of pagan idols, exiled and all of their possessions sold in addition to the pagans trying to wipe them off of the face of the planet then there would have been no wars. Muslims simply would have preached Islam and that was it. It was the Pagans who brought violence into the equation.

When Mohammed first entered Yathrib (Al-Madina Al-Munawwarah), he was counting on the support of its people. One particular ethnic group he thought would give more authority to his prophethood were the Jews because they had the Torah and all the previous Prophets were Jewish.

The Jews were many in Yathrib and its suburbs. There were the Bani Al-Nadheer Jews, the Bani Qaynuqa' Jews, the Bani Quraytha Jews, and several more. The Jews were rich and successful in their businesses. A great asset to the young Islamic Nation.

At first, Mohammed was trying to befriend the Jews and get them on his side. He insisted that the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) worship the same God [Quran Surah 29:46]. He said that the same God sent down the Torah [Quran Surah 5:48]. He ordered the Muslims to fast Aashoora' or the Passover [Saheeh Bukhari - 2004]. Even the Qibla (the direction the Muslims face in prayer) was towards Jerusalem - the same direction the Jews faced in prayer [Saheeh Bukhari - 41].

But no matter how hard Mohammed tried to convince them that he is a prophet he just couldn't. Once he even barged into a Jewish Synagogue in Yathrib (Al-Madina Al-Munawwarah) and said that if only twelve Jews would believe in him then Allah would spare them his wrath [Musnad Ahmad - 23464].

When he realized that the Jews wouldn't believe in him, and that their unbelief would turn against him, because they have the Torah which has the criteria for any prophet, he realized that they should be eliminated. So at first he switched the Qibla (the direction the Muslims face in prayer) from Jerusalem to Mecca [Quran Surah 2:144 and Saheeh Bukhari - 41]. Then warned them; they either become Muslims and be safe, or sell their possessions and leave their land [Saheeh Muslim - 1765 & 1767 and Sunan Abi Dawood - 3003].

Mohammed marched towards the Jews in order to either exile them or make a treaty with them. The Bani Al-Nadheer Jews refused to make a treaty with Mohammed so they fought against him, lost, and subsequently were exiled. The Bani Quraytha Jews saw the fate of their Bani Al-Nadheer brethren so they had no choice but to make a peace treaty with him [Saheeh Muslim - 1766 and Sunan Abi Dawood - 3004].

Yet Mohammed was determined that all Jews should be either exiled or killed - he was set on their elimination. He cannot simply break the treaty with Bani Quraytha though because it would be bad for his image as a Prophet who's supposed to keep his promises and treaties. He strongly emphasized the importance of keeping treaties [Quran Surah 9:4 and Saheeh Bukhari - 33]. So his only way out was to make it appear as though Bani Quraytha were the ones who broke the treaty.

Ghazwat Al-Khandaq (The Battle of the Trench or Ditch) came. The Pagan Arab tribes retreated and Mohammed was ready for battle. Mohammed went to the Bani Quraytha Jews and eliminated them because it was claimed that they betrayed the Muslims and renounced the treaty, but did they?

The Battle of Al-Khandaq (Trench) and The Battle of Bani Quraytha

Quraysh and Ghatfan, encouraged by the exiled Bani Al-Nadheer Jews, wanted to eliminate Mohammed once and for all. They gathered up a great army and put Yathrib under siege [Saheeh Bukhari - 4103]. Mohammed , based on a suggestion by Salman Al-Farisi, dug a trench around Yathrib [Saheeh Bukhari - 2837], except for the Bani Quraytha side that is, because they had great fortresses and it would be practically impossible for the Pagan Arabs to get through their fortresses unless Bani Quraytha allowed it. Now since Mohammed and Bani Quraytha had a treaty, Mohammed had nothing to fear [Saheeh Muslim - 1766 and Sunan Abi Dawood - 3004]. Thus all was set.

Now the siege has started, Mohammed was running low on food and resources [Saheeh Bukhari - 4101 and Musnad Ahmad - 13808], his companions were terrified [Saheeh Bukhari - 4103 and Musnad Ahmad - 10613], and above all that it was rumored that Bani Quraytha were going to break the treaty between them and Mohammed and let the Pagan Arabs come through their side. But after a while, a sandstorm hit the armies of the Pagan Arabs, and since Bani Quraytha refused to let them in through their fortresses, the armies had no choice but to retreat [Musnad Ahmad - 22823].

Mohammed on the other hand was ready for battle, he had a full army equipped and eager to fight in the name of Allah. The rumors that Bani Quraytha wanted to betray him were his only excuse, that and an order sent from Allah via Jibreel (Gabriel). He went to them, put them under siege for 14 days. Finally they surrendered. So Mohammed killed all their men, enslaved their women and children [Saheeh Muslim - 1769]. Now there was one less Jewish tribe to worry about.

Traitors or Betrayed?

Now it all comes down to this; are the Bani Quraytha Jews traitors or were they betrayed?

First of all, how do we know if a treaty is broken? We cannot simply assume that a treaty is broken because of mere rumors [Quran Surah 49:12]. We can only assume that a treaty is broken if:-
1. The other side officially renounces the treaty
2. The other side does an action which is a direct violation of the treaty

Does any one of the former apply to the Bani Quraytha Jews?

to be contd

malik

"Ishaq:464 "The Jews were made to come down, and Allah's Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men."

pope urban 2 wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 6:47pm:

Wow. You have never met me yet you still make such big assumptions? Obviously you don't know a single thing about me at all then don't you?

Not only have I and many others done what you've said. But we have done far more than that too.

Perhaps you should get your facts straight before you judge

Stop quoting the Quaran, its bullshit, you all like to believe you are educated men, yet still believe in this mostly unproven rubbish.

Really, in which country are you talking about, Like I said before, you name me someone, dont just generalize.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 6:53pm:

Can you elaborate on that? On exactly what context we are talking about?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 6:53pm:

You mean the same criteria of a prophet that the Jews applied to Jesus pbuh and then wanted him crucified? Yeah.. Very reliable lol..

Also there were a number of those belonging to the Jewish tribes who did become Muslim on hearing about Islam, just like many Jews also accepted Jesus phuh's message.

Both Jesus and Muhammad pbut spoke out against the deviation of the Jews and the Jews responded with hatred and animosity.

The Jews according to the bible had Jesus crucified for his speaking out against their behaviour.

All three Jewish tribes DID break the Constitution of Madinah, and they were dealt with fairly. Consider this question. Why, if Muhammad pbuh was unfair did the Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza sit by and allow him to exile the Banu Qaynuqa and not respond to that? As the Banu Qurayza allowed Muhammad pbuh to exile the Banu Nadir. It's because it was they acknowledged the the other tribes had broken the Constitution.

Also the Banu Qurayza did initially refuse to join the Pagans in their attack on the Muslims. But they did finally accept the deal the pagans gave, thus breaking the treaty.. They banu Qurayza's forces did also raid a house where Muslim women and children were seeking refuge against the army of the Pagans. They killed everyone in there.

Anyway this thread is about the fictional Mohammad and his followers, I just mentioned Turkey because Malik was taking the usual stand of Mohammad being enlightened and bringing peace to the world, yet peace is not in their part of the world, never has been. I have also wondered why Muslims name their children Mohammad, why is that allowed, surely that is taking his name in vain.

pope urban 2 wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 11:04pm:


I agree with you regarding people naming their children Muhammad, I don't understand why so many people do it, but then raise their children to be monsters who make Islam look bad. The least they could do would be to raise them properly as Good Muslims.

Your example of Turkey really was a bad example though, considering that they are so staunchly secular and infringe on Muslims rights to practice their religion in some cases.

you accept he was a massmurderer and involved in assassainations?

I dont mean to offend you malik.
Sorry, I'll delete that, ok ?

no, i did not see your comments on the some other thread.
I dont see everything and topics get lost easily.
so you can either point me to it, or delete your comments on this thread that allude to the same topic.

helian - apparently so, it is a very common name.
Jesus means "Who is with us" from memory.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 14^th, 2008 at 12:34am:

yes, but they name them after Jesus pbuh

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 14^th, 2008 at 1:21am:


well if you wont accept it, then fine.. ill delete mine.. and you delete yours.. i find your comments disgusting and incredibly offensive..

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 14^th, 2008 at 1:21am:


Sprint, why use the right of free speech to insult or make inflammatory  remarks? Is that really what you value with this right?

There are many insulting remarks that can be made against Christian holy figures (ever hear the one about Jesus being unmarried because he was a fag and John 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' was his gay lover... and those quotes about Jesus and kids... a lot of interest in kids for an unmarried man)... and on it goes... But how does this kind of crap build understanding and respect?

Make no mistake about it, Islam is as much a force for good in the world as Christianity. Don't confuse those very few who would politicise Islam or subvert its meaning to justify violence any more than you would give credence to Nazi soldiers commitment to Christianity because they had 'Gott mit uns' emblazoned on their helmets and belt buckles.

helian - yes, there are as many insulting remarks made about christian figures as you would like to see.
All made in complete safety.
That is freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is not about being nice or not.
It's about saying what one feels to be the truth.

Try saying a few remarks agaisnt mohammad in a muslim country, see how malik reacts even here !!!!!!



Malik, yes I have invited a number of muslims here to say their piece.
So was happy when you arrived.
I hope you notice I have not abused you.
Any comments I have made have been supported by a number of quotes and by comments by other muslims.
If I'm badly mistaken, perhaps you could go to the extremists and show them where they have it wrong too?



This is typical. Muslims say they encourage freedom of speeh and it is the religion of peace.
Query them about mohammad and whant is in the koran, and we all have it wrong !!
Query them some more and they pull out the underdog status or lose their rag entirely and insult us.
They will not accept any criticism.

What do the people of england and denmark think of the muslim culture there ?

Malik, there are a lot of members here who genuinely appreciate your contribution and are not just out to attack Islam and disguise it as enquiry or open minded debate. I have often found that it helps to just ignore some members completely, if you cannot see how their questions could be genuine. I certainly hope you don't let sprint drive you off here. I will defend his right to attack Islam, even if I don't defend his choice to exercise that right. Concentrate on those members you feel able to make a connection with, share knowledge and learn from. That's where these sorts of forums have genuine value.

Sprint, you made some erroneous claims. You said you had documents to back them up. You said you would produce such documents if a new thread was started. So far you have produced nothing to back up those specific claims. Instead you just changed the subject by copying and pasting irrelevant stuff. Hence the 'secret documents' tag. If you just made it all up, say so and we will start referring to them as 'non-existing' documents rather than secret documents.

no.. freedom of speech is the right to express yourself and your beliefs, but when your expressing yourself in a way which oppresses others and incites violence or hate against them it goes beyond freedom of speech, it becomes incitement. your particular brand of free speech is not only inciting hatred, but completely without fact.

Malik, I don't think what sprint is saying goes beyond freedom of speech. He is not expressing himself in a way which oppresses others. Criticising someone or someone's religion is not oppression. You do a disservice to those who are genuinely oppressed.

your slander of the prophet pbuh is incredibly offensive. that isn't free speech, that is slander of his name and i find it so abhorrent.

Yes it is freedom of speech. It is not slander. This is a big part of what scares people about Islam, or Arab culture or whatever makes you say this. No religion or part of religion should be beyond criticism. Once you put religion above freedom of speech, it becomes oppression. These are non-negotiable values and freedoms that are part of living in Australia, and it scares me that you seem to be an Australian but do not realise this.