Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article "The Bani Quraytha Jews: Traitors or Betrayed?

 

By

 

Bassam Zawadi

 

 

Answering Islam's article could be located here.

 

I have already written an article about the issue over here and have shown that the Jews deserved and even accepted the punishment imposed upon them.


However, there are a few points that I would like to address here that might not have been addressed in the previous article.

 

Answering Islam said:

 

 

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].

 

My Response:

 

When the Prophet (peace be upon him) told the Jews that they must become Muslims in order to be safe, this could have two possible meanings.

 

First, either it meant that the Jews needed to convert to Islam in order to be safe from Allah's wrath on the Day of Judgment.

 

Secondly, it meant that they physically needed to be safe from the Muslims if they didn't convert to Islam and the Prophet (peace be upon him) also wanted to have them exiled from their land.

 

Imam Nawawi in his commentary on the hadith stated...

 

 

وإنما قال لهم هذا , لأنهم حاربوا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كما ذكره ابن عمر في روايته التي ذكرها مسلم بعد هذه

 

And he uttered this statement to them because they waged war against the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) just as Ibn Umar mentioned in his narration, which Imam Muslim mentions after this. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Jihad wal Sayr, Bab: Ejlaa' al Yahood min al-Hijaaz, Commentary on Hadith no. 3311, Source)

 

 

And the narration that Imam Nawawi is speaking about is...

 

Saheeh Muslim

 

Book 019, Number 4364:

 

It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar that the Jews of Banu Nadir and Banu Quraizi fought against the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) who expelled Banu Nadir, and allowed Quraiza to stay on, and granted favour to them until they too fought against him Then he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

 

 

Thus, when we now examine the context of when the Prophet (peace be upon him) uttered this statement it becomes understandable (and justifiable as well).

 

Answering Islam said:

 

 

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].

 

My Response:

 

Banu Al Nadheer already had a peace treaty with the Muslims, until they broke it (see http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/the-expulsion-of-banu-al-nadir/)

 

So let's not try to portray Banu Al Nadheer as some innocent tribe.

 

 

 

Answering Islam said:

 

 

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?

 

My Response:

 

Absolutely...

 

The chief criminal of Bani Nadir, Huyai, headed for the habitations of Banu Quraiza to incite their chief Ka'b bin Asad Al-Qurazi, who had drawn a pact with the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to run to his aid in times of war. Ka'b, in the beginning resisted all Huyai's temptation, but Huyai was clever enough to manipulate him, speaking of Quraish and their notables in Al-Asyal, as well as Ghatfan and their chieftains entrenched in Uhud, all in one mind, determined to exterminate Muhammad [pbuh] and his followers. He, moreover, promised to stay in Ka'b's fort exposing himself to any potential danger in case Quraish and Ghatfan recanted. The wicked man went on in this manner until he later managed to win Ka'b to his side and persuade him to break his covenant with the Muslims. [Ibn Hisham 3/337] Banu Quraiza then started to launch war operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the women and children of the Muslims. On the authority of Ibn Ishaq, Safiyah [R], daughter of 'Abdul Muttalib happened to be in a garrison with Hassan bin Thabit as well as some women and children. Safiyah said: "A Jew was spotted lurking around our site, which was vulnerable to any enemy attacks because there were no men to defend it. I informed Hassan that I was suspicious of that man's presence near us. He might take us by surprise now that the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] and the Muslims are too busy to come to our aid, why don't you get down and kill him? Hassan answered that he would not do it, so I took a bar of wood, went down and struck the Jew to death. I returned and asked Hassan to loot him but again Hassan refused to do that.[ibid 2/228] This event had a far reaching effect and discouraged the Jews from conducting further attacks thinking that those sites were fortified and protected by Muslim fighters. They, however, went on providing the idolaters with supplies in token of their support against the Muslims.

On hearing this bad news, the Messenger [pbuh] despatched four Muslim prominent leaders Sa'd bin Mu'adh, Sa'd bin 'Ubada, 'Abdullah bin Rawaha and Khawat bin Jubair for investigation but warning against any sort of spreading panic amongst the Muslims and advising that they should declare in public that the rumours are groundless if they happen to be so. Unfortunately the four men discovered that the news was true and that the Jews announced openly that no pact of alliance existed any longer with Muhammad [pbuh]. (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (THE SEALED NECTAR), Chapter: Al-Ahzab (the Confederates) Invasion, Source)

 

So yes, the Muslims verified the rumours and the Jews did do an action that broke the treaty.

 

 

Answering Islam said:

 

As a matter of fact, the only Hadeeth I found regarding Bani Quraytha's position was one Hadeeth [Musnad Ahmad - 22823] which says that Bani Quraytha actually refused to assist the Pagan Arabs in any way in their assault against Mohammed.

 

My Response:

 

This is the main reason why I wrote this article. To expose Answering Islam's distortion of this hadith from Musnad Ahmad. Read it over here.

 

The author highlights this specific part of the hadith...

 

 

Bani Quraytha has turned us down - we received from them what we don't like [meaning they refused to let them in through their fortresses],

 

 

in order to prove that the Jews of Bani Quraytha refused to assist the pagans against the Muslims.

 

This is a perfect example of quoting a statement out of context. Let us read the full story and see in what context Abu Sufyan uttered this statement...

 

"You are only one person among us," observed the Prophet. "So go to your people and act as if you have nothing to do with us for indeed war is treachery." 

"Yes, O Messenger of God," replied Nuaym. And if God wills, you shall witness what pleases you." Without losing any time, Nuaym went to the Banu Qurayzah. He was, as was mentioned earlier, a close friend of the tribe. "O Bani Qurayzah," he said. "You have known my love for you and my sincerity in advising you." 

"Yes," they agreed, "but what are you suspicious of so far as we are concerned?" Nuaym continued: "The Quraysh and the Ghatafan have their own interests in this war which are different from your interests." "How so?" they queried. 

"This is your city," Nuaym asserted. "You have your wealth, your children and your womenfolk here and it is not in your power to flee and take refuge in another city. On the other hand, the Quraysh and the Ghatafan have their land, their wealth, their children and their womenfolk away from this city. They came to fight Muhammad. They urged you to break the treaty you had with him and to help them against him. So you responded positively to them. If they were to be victorious in their encounter with him, they would reap the booty. But if they fail to subdue him, they would return to their country safe and sound and they would leave you to him and he would be in a position to exact the most bitter revenge on you. You know very well that you would have no power to confront him." 

"You are right," they said. "But what suggestion do you have?" "My opinion," Nuaym suggested, "is that you should not join forces with them until you take a group of their prominent men as hostages. In that way you could carry on the fight against Muhammad either till victory or till the last of your men or theirs perish. (They would not be able to leave you in the lurch)." "You have advised well," they responded and agreed to take up his suggestion. 

Nuaym then left and went to Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, the Quraysh leader and spoke to him and other Quraysh leaders. "O Quraysh," said Nuaym, "You know my affection for you and my enmity towards Muhammad. I have heard some news and I thought it my duty to disclose it to you but you should keep it confidential and do not attribute it to me" 

"You must inform us of this matter," insisted the Quraysh. 

Nuaym continued: "The Banu Qurayzah now regret that they have agreed to participate in the hostilities against Muhammad.  They fear that you would turn back and abandon them to him. So they have sent a message to Muhammad saying: 'We are sorry for what we have done and we are determined to return to the treaty and a state of peace with you. Would it please you then if we take several Quraysh and Ghatafan nobles and surrender them to you? We will then join you in fighting them - the Quraysh and the Ghatafan - until you finish them off.' The Prophet has sent back a reply to them saying he agrees. If therefore the Jews send a delegation to you demanding hostages from among your men do not hand over a single person to  them. And do not mention a word of what I said to you." 

"What a good ally you are. May you be rewarded well," said Abu Sufyan gratefully. 

Nuaym then went to his own people the Ghatafan, and spoke to them in a similar vein. He gave them the same warning against expected treachery from the Banu Qurayzah. 

Abu Sufyan wanted to test the Banu Qurayzah so he sent his son to them. "My father sends greetings of peace to you," began Abu Sufyan's son. "He says that our siege of Muhammad and his companions has been a protracted affair and we  have become weary...We are now determined to fight Muhammad and finish him off. My father has sent me to you to ask you to join battle with Muhammad tomorrow." 

"But tomorrow is Saturday," said the Jews of Banu Qurayzah, "and we do not work at all on Saturdays. Moreover, we would not fight with you until you hand over to us seventy of your nobles and nobles from the Ghatafan as hostages. We fear that  if the fighting becomes too intense for you would hasten back home and leave us alone to Muhammad. You know that we have no power to resist him..." 

When Abu Sufyan's son returned to his people and told them what he had heard from the Banu Qurayzah, they shouted in unison! 

"Damned be the sons of monkeys and swine! By God, if they were to demand from us a single sheep as a hostage, we would not give them". 

And so it was that Nuaym was successful in causing disharmony among the confederates and splitting their ranks.  (Source)

 

 

Apparently, Abu Sufyan's exact statement as recorded in Musnad Ahmad is not presented in the above citation, however if one refers to Dr. Madhi's Rizqullah Ahmad's book A Biography of the Prophet of Islam: In the Light of the Original Sources An Analytical Study, Volume 2, p .560 you would see that he places Abu Sufyan's statement at the same time when he thinks (due to being deceived by Nu'aym) that the Bani Quraytha betrayed him.

 

This exposes the distortion of the facts by the author, for he is trying to use this statement by Abu Sufyan to show that Bani Quraytha never accepted to help the pagans, which is false. Abu Sufyan only uttered this statement when he thought that the Bani Quraytha Jews broke the pact with the pagan Meccans. But thanks to the cleverness of one Muslim (with Allah's assistance), their plans foiled.

 

 

Also, I don't believe that the author properly translated Abu Sufyan's statement when he said...

 

 

Bani Quraytha has turned us down

 

 

The Arabic statement is the following...

 

 

وأخلفتنا ‏ ‏بنو قريظة

 

 

The Arabic word وأخلفتنا should be better translated as either 'deceived' or 'broke their promise'.

 

Since it means that someone has not fulfilled his promise.

 

 

The Arabic dictionary Al Muheet states...

 

 

وعده: لم يف بوعده.- رجاءه: خَيَّب أمله

 

 

He didn't keep his promise, he made him lose hope. (Source)

 

 

The Arabic diciontary Al Ghanee states...

 

 

أَخْلَفَ وَعْدَهُ

 

 

He didn't keep his promise. (Source)

 

 

Looking at the historical context, it seems more appropriate to understand that Abu Sufyan's statement meant that he believed that the Jews deceived the pagans and were not willing to keep their agreement with them. This is indirect, yet clear evidence that the Jews were already conspiring with the Meccan pagans against the Muslims.

 

Appendix

 

 

Sam Shamoun wrote a response to my article.

 

I will also only be replying to half of Shamoun's article since it directly addresses my arguments, while the other half is only filled with red herrings.  

 

Shamoun said:

 

There can only be one possible meaning from these narratives. Muhammad threatened to kill or expel these Jews from the homes and lands which they had owned long before he had ever set foot in Medina to make their lives miserable, unless they converted to his religion.

 

Shamoun ignores the citation I provided from Ibn Umar who put things in context and perspective. He said that this statement was made in the context when the Jews were fighting the Muslims. This is what I stated above in my article:

 

Imam Nawawi in his commentary on the hadith stated...

 

 

وإنما قال لهم هذا , لأنهم حاربوا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كما ذكره ابن عمر في روايته التي ذكرها مسلم بعد هذه

 

And he uttered this statement to them because they waged war against the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) just as Ibn Umar mentioned in his narration, which Imam Muslim mentions after this. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Jihad wal Sayr, Bab: Ejlaa' al Yahood min al-Hijaaz, Commentary on Hadith no. 3311, Source)

 

 

And the narration that Imam Nawawi is speaking about is...

 

Saheeh Muslim

 

Book 019, Number 4364:

 

It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar that the Jews of Banu Nadir and Banu Quraizi fought against the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) who expelled Banu Nadir, and allowed Quraiza to stay on, and granted favour to them until they too fought against him Then he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

 

 

The Prophet (peace be upon him) did not go utter these statements to the Jews while they had a peace treaty with each other!

 

Shamoun says:

 

Zawadi has obviously confused the treaty that Muhammad initially made with all the residents of Medina and the one mentioned by the AI author, since these treaties are not the same just as the following narrative proves:

 

What relevance does knowing which treaty was broken make? What matters is that the Banu Nadheer broke the treaty!

 

Shamoun then states:

 

Zawadi accuses the author of quoting out of context and of distorting facts on the grounds that the Banu Qurayza did conspire against the Muslims, and that Abu Sufyan's statement that the Jews turned the Quraysh down was only uttered after he suspected that they wouldn't go through with their plan to attack Muhammad and his followers. Zawadi is hoping to prove form this that Abu Sufyan's comments do not mean that the Banu Qurayza refused to attack the Muslims.

Yet in order to prove his assertion Zawadi doesn't quote from this specific hadith but appeals to a completely different source, one where Muhammad is reported to have approved of a man from the tribe of Ghatafan called Na'im bin Mas'ud who had secretly become a Muslim to lie and deceive the Quraysh and Banu Qurayza in order to pit them against each other!

However, Zawadi is forced to admit that the narrative in question does not record these pertinent details:

Apparently [sic], Abu Sufyan's exact statement as recorded in Musnad Ahmad is not presented in the above citation, however if one refers to Dr. Madhi's Rizqullah Ahmad's book [sic] A Biography of the Prophet of Islam: In the Light of the Original Sources An Analytical Study, Volume 2, p .560 you would see that he places Abu Sufyan's statement at the same time when HE THINKS [sic] (due to being deceived by Nu'aym) that the Bani Quraytha betrayed him. (Emphasis ours)

In light of this admission one is left wondering how Zawadi could accuse the author of the AI article of distorting anything when he has done nothing more than accurately quote what is found in Musnad Ahmad? And why should we assume that a later Muslim biographer has accurately pieced these disparate reports together and that he has correctly understood their relationship with one another?

Has Zawadi provided any proof from the collection of Musnad Ahmad itself to prove his assertion? Absolutely not! Zawadi has simply assumed that these varying narrations are complementary, as opposed to being in conflict with one another, a rather gratuitous assumption in light of all the blatant irreconcilable contradictions that exists within the Islamic corpus.

 

Shamoun argues that I have no evidence to prove the proposed chronology of Abu Sufyan's statement. He assumes that the Musnad Ahmad narration is giving a full account of what has happened. However, if one were to read the Seerah by Ibn Katheer, Ibn Hisham and the Maghazi of Al Waaqidi (here and here) one could clearly see just by reading 1 or 2 pages before the Abu Sufyan's statement that the context clearly shows that Abu Sufyan was saying that the Banu Qurayda deceived him because the Prophet (peace be upon him) sent Nu'aym to deceive the two sides making them think that each side betrayed the other. This in and of itself proves that there was an original agreement between the two parties.

 

Shamoun then makes the following silly remark:

 

If anything, one can actually take Zawadi's proposed explanation to prove the exact opposite point, namely, by deceiving the pagans the Banu Qurayza showed that they had no intention of assisting the Quraysh in their attack upon the Muslims. Zawadi's proposed interpretation demonstrates that this Jewish tribe was simply telling the pagans what they wanted to hear in order to get them off their case since they may have recalled how the Quraysh had threatened to kill the Banu Nadir if they did not cooperate with them:

The Quraysh infidels wrote to the Jews after the Battle of Badr, "You are the people of the arms and fortresses. You will either fight our friend [Mohammad], or we will do to you so and so and nothing will come between us and the servants of your women except for Al-Khalakheel [bracelets for women worn around the ankle] [in other words, Quraysh is threatening the Jews here]." . (Sunan Abu Dawood, Number 3004)

With this threat fresh in their minds the tribe may have told the pagans that they would assist them but their actions later on showed that they had no intention of turning on the Muslims.

Unbelievable! Shamoun is saying that it's possible that the Jews were only pretending to betray the Muslims. Wow simply amazing! We ask Shamoun: how come the Jews didn't let the Muslims in on their plan? How come there is no record of the Jews denying their true association with the Quraysh and intention to conspire against the Muslims?

 

Furthermore, the Prophet (peace be upon him) sent people to verify the news as I stated earlier:

 

On hearing this bad news, the Messenger [pbuh] despatched four Muslim prominent leaders Sa'd bin Mu'adh, Sa'd bin 'Ubada, 'Abdullah bin Rawaha and Khawat bin Jubair for investigation but warning against any sort of spreading panic amongst the Muslims and advising that they should declare in public that the rumours are groundless if they happen to be so. Unfortunately the four men discovered that the news was true and that the Jews announced openly that no pact of alliance existed any longer with Muhammad [pbuh]. (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (THE SEALED NECTAR), Chapter: Al-Ahzab (the Confederates) Invasion, Source)

The Prophet (peace be upon him) had to verify what was happening and the news was confirmed. Why weren't any of the people that the Prophet (peace be upon him) sent to confirm the news figure out that the Jews were just pretending? Shamoun's silliness is clearly obvious here.

Also, I thought Shamoun loves to refer to Ibn Ishaq. He can find that Ibn Ishaq also states that it was the Jews who broke the treaty. See Ibn Hisham (Volume 3, pages 307-308) and it was also related by Al Bayhaqi in his Dalail (Volume 3, pages 400-401). Not only that, but the Prophet (peace be upon him) sent Sa'd ibn Muadh, Sa'd ibn Ubadah, Abdullah ibn Ruwaha and Khawat bin Jubayr to the Jews who informed them that indeed they did break the treaty with the Muslims. See Ibn Hisham (Volume 3, pages 329-330).

 

Also Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri cites the following from Ibn Hisham's Seerah:

 

Banu Quraiza then started to launch war operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the women and children of the Muslims. On the authority of Ibn Ishaq, Safiyah [R], daughter of ?Abdul Muttalib happened to be in a garrison with Hassan bin Thabit as well as some women and children. Safiyah said: "A Jew was spotted lurking around our site, which was vulnerable to any enemy attacks because there were no men to defend it. I informed Hassan that I was suspicious of that man's presence near us. He might take us by surprise now that the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] and the Muslims are too busy to come to our aid, why don't you get down and kill him? Hassan answered that he would not do it, so I took a bar of wood, went down and struck the Jew to death. I returned and asked Hassan to loot him but again Hassan refused to do that. [Ibn Hisham 3/337], (Source)

 

The above from Ibn Hisham's Seerah clearly shows that the Jews were against the Muslims. But let me guess, Shamoun only likes to cite from these Seerah sources when they favor his position right?

 

Shamoun says:

 

More importantly, one wonders why did Muhammad and his warriors lay down their arms if the Banu Qurayza were really so treacherous?

Narrated 'Aisha:
When Allah's Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, "You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet." Allah's Apostle said, "Where (to go now)?" Gabriel said, "This way," pointing towards the tribe of Bani Quraiza. So Allah's Apostle went out towards them. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52,
Number 68)

 

The Muslims were absolutely exhausted from the one month siege. They were starving, thirsty and tired. There were even reports that the Prophet (peace be upon him) would tie a rock to his belly during the siege due to hunger because of the lack of food (this was because the Muslims had to build a trench around a key part of city and were surrounded and there was a shortage of supplies coming into the city). Furthermore, they knew that the Jews were not an immediate threat when their allies ran away. Is it really such a big surprise for us to see that the Muslims wanted to relax a little bit before proceeding on to the next battle? Shamoun, really needs to start working his brain a little better, for he is asking very stupid questions.

 

After several red herrings, states:

 

According to the so-called sound ahadith a Muslim named Sa'd bin Muadh was appointed to determine the fate of the Banu Qurayza. He decided that the men should all be killed and the women and children taken captive.

 

Well actually, it's not certain that EVERYONE was killed. There were possibly those who abided by the treaty that were not killed. Bismikaallahuma and Dr. Madhi Rizqullah Ahmad in his A Biography of the Prophet of Islam: In the Light of the Original Sources An Analytical Study, Volume 2, page 568 show that it may be possible that some may have not been punished because it was proven that they abided by the treaty and remained loyal.

 

Shamoun thinks he is smart and tries to point out an inconsistency by Muslim apologists and states:

 

Why are Muhammad and his companions accepting the judgment of Deuteronomy 20 as righteous and just when on other occasions Muslim dawagandists attack such OT injunctions as being cruel and harsh, claiming that these Biblical verses are vile and wicked for supposedly condoning the mass genocide of peoples?

 

I would like Shamoun to point out where Muslim apologists such as myself, Sami Zaatari or others declared this specific OT injunction to be cruel and harsh. This specific command specifically speaks about adult men being killed, while all the criticisms of the OT coming from Muslim apologists have to do with killing of women and children, raping of women, bashing babies heads against rocks and excessive forms of torture. So Shamoun hasn't shown any inconsistency. On the contrary, it is only him and his colleagues who are being inconsistent for rejecting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for allegedly committing acts, which are nowhere near as grotesque as those found in the OT.

 

Shamoun said:

 

The Islamic sources say that Muhammad didn't only have the warriors or those responsible killed, such as the leaders of Banu Quraiza, but even young men who had reached puberty were massacred despite the fact that they didn't have anything to do with the decisions of their leaders/elders.

The Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should be killed. (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII, p. 38)

Why were these innocent boys therefore killed?

During that time reaching puberty was a sign of adulthood and responsibility. The teenagers back in those times were not like the ones we have today. They would have been trained to fight during that age. For instance, the Prophet (peace be upon him) appointed the seventeen year old Usama on his death bed to lead the Muslim army against the Romans. The brave sixteen year old brother of Saad ibn Abi Waqaas was one of the fourteen brave martyrs during the Battle of Badr. Two teenagers Muawwaz ibn Amr and Muaaz ibn Amr were responsible for killing Abu Jahl in the Battle of Badr. Basically, during that culture they were viewed as young adults. Also notice that Saad himself viewed them as warriors:

 

I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners

 

In conclusion, Shamoun's arguments got refuted as usual.

 

Appendix 2

 

 

Shamoun responded to my appendix over here and here.

 

Shamoun begins with his usual "Qur'an Confirming the Bible" argument, which we have already addressed several times before and have stopped entertaining.

 

Shamoun then appeals to Surah 2:246-251 and hadiths which speak about the stories of the people of Israel asking the prophet Samuel for a king and his wars and Joshua's wars, etc. However, Shamoun erroneously assumes that his Bible is correct when it states that God ordered for the massacre of women and children. No where does the Qur'an even state that it is appealing to the Biblical version of the story or that it supports its contents fully.


Shamoun said:

 

In fact, there isn't a single statement in the Quran which forbids the killing of old men, women, children, rabbis or priests. A careful reading of the Quran actually shows that Muslims are commanded to actually fight against all classes of people.

 

Even if this claim were true, Shamoun erroneously assumes that the Qur'an is the only source of religious authority for Muslims. Notice that he admits (bold emphasis mine):

 

Therefore, if we were to base our understanding of Jihad on the Quran alone then we must conclude that Muslims can fight and kill all unbelievers and all idolaters, including non-combatants, like women and children and the elderly.

 

He completely ignores the crystal clear and explicit narrations forbidding the killing of old men, women, children, priests, etc. and that we are supposed to understand the Qur'an in light of these hadith and in light of their historical context. Shamoun should take these arguments to the Qur'anite heretics who adhere to the innovation of Qur'an only theology and not to orthodox Muslims.

 

Shamoun then posts Qur'anic verses that speak in a general sense regarding fighting the unbelievers, but ignores the historical context in which these verses came down and how they have been traditionally understood by Muslims. Isn't it amazing that none of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) ever understood that we are supposed to go and kill all disbelieving women and children just for the sake of their disbelief, yet Shamoun somehow figured out the right understanding of these passages more than 1400 years after the Prophet's time? Isn't it amazing that Shamoun claims that Islam teaches that women and children should be fought until they pay the jizyah yet there is a consensus amongst our scholars that jizyah is not required from priests, women, children, old people or even poor people? Again, we will not entertain these unscholarly and pathetic arguments, which no person with half a mind who academically and professionally studies these passages would ever put forth. For crying out loud, even Osama bin Laden doesn't understand the Qur'anic passages this way! Osama bin Laden's extremism stems from his belief that women and children could be killed in order to fulfill a specific task or agenda, but he doesn't believe that women and children could be killed for the simple reason that they are disbelievers!

 

Shamoun then states:

In fact, this text served as a basis for allowing Muslims to kill children whom they suspected would turn out to be disbelievers!

This tradition has been narrated by the same authority (Yazid b. Hurmus) through a different chain of transmitters with the following difference in the elucidation of one of the points raised by Najda in his letter to Ibn Abbas: The Messenger of Allah used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know WHAT KHADIR HAD KNOWN about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to be a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4457)

Khadir is the name traditionally given to this unnamed companion of Moses, the one that killed the child.

How disturbing. Muhammad gives Muslims the leeway to use their fallible discretion to determine whether a child may grow up to be an unbeliever, which in turn could result in the child being murdered on the mere grounds of suspicion!

 

Doesn't Shamoun get it? This hadith refutes Shamoun. The story of Khadir teaches that Khadir only did what he did because he received revelation from Allah. However, the revelation has stopped. The hadith is emphasizing that we should not kill children because we would never be like Khadir who knew the future and fate of the boy only through Allah's revelation and not from his own self since us humans don't have knowledge of the unseen and the future. 

 

Shamoun provides this narration:

 

According to Hajjaj- Ibn Jurayj: When Salih told the eight evildoers that a boy would be born at whose hands they would be destroyed, they said, "What do you command us?" He said, "I command you to kill THEM" (that is their male children). SO THEY KILLED THEM except one... (The History of Al-Tabari: Prophets and Patriarchs, translated by William M. Brinner [State University of New York Press (SUNY), 1987], Volume II, p. 43; capital and underline emphasis ours)

 

I didn't bother checking the authenticity of this report for the simple reason that Shamoun hasn't demonstrated where this story came from. Was it from Israeiliyat reports or from the hadith and Qur'an?

 

Shamoun then provides false analogies comparing his belief in God ordering the massacre of people, while the Qur'an shows that Allah could kill people through natural disasters. I won't waste my time addressing - with all due respect - such a retarded argument. Readers could refer to Sami's rebuttal to Shamoun on this issue over here and here.

 

Do we really have to take such statements such as the following from Shamoun seriously:

 

Besides, the above verses seem to speak mostly about infants, and only speak about not killing for fear of poverty, but leaves open to kill them for other reasons.

 

All I really have to say is: no comment to this utter wickedness and determination to attack Islam at all costs. Truly none other than Satan himself could possibly be driving Shamoun to utter such garbage.

 

Shamoun then presents narrations showing the permissibility of killing women and children during war, which has been already addressed over here.

 

Shamoun said:

 

A true God-inspired prophet would be more cautious and not allow such night raids so as to prevent the unnecessary killing of women and children.

 

Wow, Shamoun is so practical. According to Shamoun one's army should attack the tribe during the day and risk obtaining more casualties. We ask Shamoun the following question: if you were in a difficult situation where you would have to choose having women and children killed from the enemy side in order to minimize the casualties of your own men (who have women and children to go back to), would you do it? Or are you willing to have more of your men (who are dearer to you) killed in order to spare women and children from the enemy side?

 

This is a difficult question with no easy answer. Who is Shamoun to argue what is clearly right and wrong in this case?

 

Also, does that mean that Shamoun is willing to condemn the state of Israel who use laser guided missiles that don't get affected by the dark or have no significant standard of error of missing its target to kill Palestinian women and children?

 

You see, there is a big difference between Muslims and these Zionist Christians such as Kenneth Richard Samples, William Lane Craig, John Haggee, etc. Christians treat these people with respect and give them respectable positions within their societies despite their support for the state of Israel, which is known to be illegally occupying land and killing and ruining the lives of innocent people. While Muslim governments on the other hand hunt down and condemn Muslim terrorists and those who support them. 

 

Shamoun then provides a story from Imam Al-Tabari's book of history, but it is not reliable because of the presence of Ibn Humayd (a known weak narrator). There are other versions of the story, but they are either fabricated or have disconnected isnads (see here).

 

Shamoun said that one of the women from Bani Qurayza was killed:

 

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:


No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I. I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2665)

 

But he forgets to inform the reader the crucial detail that she was killed because she murdered one of the Muslims.

 

Shamoun then presents the old worn and torn Abu Afak argument, which has already been demonstrated to be a weak narration. Also the story about Ibn Khattal's singing girls is also weak.

 

Furthermore, let us assume that the Ibn Khattal slave girls story is true. What was their crime? Their crime was blasphemy of the Prophet (which is as good as blaspheming the one who sent him since the Prophet is a representative of God), which even according to the Old Testament is worthy of death. So here we see that these women were supposedly killed for a specific crime. But what about the God of the Bible who ordered the massacre of masses of women and children and even had babies' heads smashed into the rocks? What was their crime? Were those babies blaspheming God while sucking on their pacifiers? Again, when is Shamoun going to bring up solid analogies here?

 

Shamoun then talks about raping of slave girls, which I have already addressed here.

 

Shamoun then talks about Mutah marriage. What does Mut'ah have to do with rape when Mutah by definition means that two people consent to a temporary marriage contract? Of course I find it immoral. What I also find immoral is drinking alcohol and committing fornication. But guess what, the companions performed all these acts before they were prohibited in Islam. They won't be held accountable for that, but we will since the revelation came down prohibiting it. The laws were revealed gradually to them so we can't refer to acts that they committed before the divine revelation forbade it. Plus, Mutah was a practice common amongst the Arabs at the time and was eventually declared to be forbidden in Islam.

 

Shamoun then talks about child marriages, which I see no problem with. One could marry during that age, but consummation of sex only occurs when the person is physically and psychologically ready as all scholars have agreed. No harm should be done to either party. How is this comparable to women and children being killed and tortured by the commands of the God of the Old Testament?

 

Shamoun then speaks about the Prophet's alleged cruelty to those who killed the shepherd, which is already dealt with here, here and here.

 

Shamoun then ends by saying:

 

Since these are the very issues which Zawadi criticizes the Holy Bible for this means that he must condemn Allah and Muhammad as well for teaching similar things. Zawadi must take a stand against Muhammad and his deity and speak out against Islam's morally reprehensible teachings. If Zawadi fails to do so, or tries to justify such immoral and vile prescriptions, then he is simply providing further evidence that he is dishonest and doesn't really care about integrity or consistency. He is only concerned with believing in a false prophet and a false god even if this means that he must pervert the truth or hypocritically condemn the Holy Bible in order to do so.

 

Wow, the absolute hypocrisy of this man! Shamoun is the one who continuously tries to call people away from Islam and continues to bash Islam for false things, which even were true don't amount up to the grotesque nature of his Bible. Furthermore, I have made my intentions extremely clear on my website in regards to using arguments on OT atrocities (which has been on my site for the past 3 years ever since I started it):

 

It is very ironic how many Christian missionaries attempt to discredit Islam by trying to point out that Islam condones terrorism and barbarity. Not only are these accusations false, but things that are worse than these false accusations are to be found in the Bible allegedly commanded by God. We do not encourage Muslims to use this material in order to bash the Bible. Rather, this material should only be used in retaliation after refuting the Christian missionaries who throw false accusations about Islam promoting terrorism. (Source)

 

I even made the following clear to Shamoun in one of my rebuttals to him:

 

I don't know who these Muslims are that Shamoun is referring to; however I personally don't believe that these arguments serve as evidence against the inspiration of the Bible even if they are proven to be true. (Source)

 

I have made myself very clear that I don't reject the Bible because of these emotional arguments and reasons. It is people like Shamoun who do that. It is people like Shamoun who like to bash, while I simply like to retaliate and expose double standards.

 

In conclusion, Shamoun has not pointed out any inconsistency on my part, but has only given us more reasons to believe that he is guilty as charged of this habit.

 

 

 

 

Return to Refuting General Articles by Answering-Islam.org

 

Return to Homepage

 

 

 

click here to view site

HomeWhat's new?IslamChristianityRefutations LanguagesMultimediaE BooksLinksContact Me