[Honealals]

the real question is why do you care so much about the jews?

brother,

what garet122 asked is a valid question. Surely the Prophet wouldn't just kill people without valid reasons. And not answering question properly will result in misunderstanding.

Hi,

I want to know if the massacre of Banu Qurayza really took place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

You can't just rely on wikipedia to make a generalization about the event. Most of the sites/internet didn't detail the event accurately. Many of them, especially islamophobic sites would omit the details of what happened. Some of them would just dismiss the details as just merely the Islamic version to protect and justify the punishment meted out against Banu Qurayzah. But if that's the case, then why don't these skeptics come up with "their version" of the event supported by historical documentations?

Basically the detail of the event is as the following;

- There was an agreement between the Muslims in Medina with other non-Muslim tribes in the area that is known as The Medina Charter. Please google about this agreement. It is a very famous declaration and is touted as the first human rights declaration known in human history.

- According to the agreement, anyone who attacks the Muslim ally would be like attacking the Muslim themselves, so the Muslims must take arms to protect their allies. And vice versa.

- However, during the third war (khandaq war), Banu Qurayzah conspired with the Quraish to attack the Muslims from behind the lines. The plan was leaked to the Prophet who was the commander in chief. Then a companion whose conversion was not known to the Quraish at the time then started the rumours that the Quraish would abandon Banu Qurayzah and vice versa to split any agreement between the two parties.

Quote:
"When the Banu Nadir had been banished, their leading chiefs, Huyayy Ibn Akhtab, Abu Rafi and Sallam Ibn Abi Al-Huquaiq had migrated to Khaibar and got recognised as leading chiefs. The battle of the Trenches was but the results of their machinations. They travelled far and near agitating the tribes till the whole country rose up in arms and attacked Medina in alliance with the Quraish. The Jews of the Banu Quraiza had a mind to stick to the treaty, but Huyayy Ibn Akhtab won them over with his guiles, promising to re-establish himself at Medina in case the Quraish abandoned the attack; and this promise he fulfilled."
link: http://www.answering-christianity.co...aiza_stuff.htm

- After the Quraish siege was over, then the Muslim army laid siege on Banu Qurayzah. Banu Qurayzah then agreed to surrender under the condition that they can choose their own candidate to judge the matter instead of be judged by the Prophet . The man chosen to judge the Bani Qurayzah was Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, leader of the Aws, a tribe which had always protected Bani Qurayzah in the past.

- During the trial, they admitted that they agreed to a proposal by the Quraish after they were influenced by their leaders to setup an ambush on the Muslims from behind, and for that the judge who was also proficient with the talmudic laws, judged them according to what was prescribed in Talmud, which is;

“When the Lord thy God hath delivered it unto thy hands, thou shalt smite every male therein with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.” (Deuteronomy 20:12)

In essence, it wasn't the Muslims who betrayed and committed genocide on Banu Qurayzah, but Bany Qurayzah betrayed the agreement with the Muslims, and they were punished according to their own Talmudic law.

Hypothetical question:
"But couldn't the Prophet intervene and forgive them?"
answer:
1. The law of the land at the time for Banu Qurayzah was Talmudic laws. So to the Banu Qurayza tribe, since they didn't recognize the Prophet as a prophet, they would see their Talmudic laws as the only legitimate laws that they must follow. And since the betrayal was judged according to the Talmudic laws, then from law technicality point of view, that makes the most sense to ensure the legitimacy of the punishment. Also, we also must remember that martial law is different from civil law.

2. The betrayal wasn't directed towards the Prophet per se, but towards the Muslim ummah in Medina at the time. In case of forgiving, the Prophet did forgive several acts directed towards him by other perpetrators in many other cases in Medina. Even if he did forgive Banu Qurayza, that still won't wash the crime away towards the other Muslims during the war. Plus, this was not the first time that a jew tribe betrayed the Muslim community in Medina.