How was it 'out of context' according to you then?
The Banu Qurayza chose Sa'd ibn Mu'adh to judge and said they would agree with his decision.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Islamic Jihad
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
The Banu Qurayza chose Sa'd ibn Mu'adh to judge and said they would agree with his decision.
Really, the law calls it Islamophobia? I doubt it.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I'm not an expert on Jewish Law, but I don't believe there is such a law in Judaism. There are a few problems i could think of:
- From 40 years before the destruction of the Temple and onward, even Jewish courts did not have the authority to perform capital punishment. The only occasion I can think of since that point where killing ex curia would be permitted is in the case of killing a pursuant during the pursuit.
- The case described in Deut. 20:12-14 refers to what we call a "permitted war" (as opposed to a commanded war). It requires a king who needs permission from the court to wage it. Contextual to the passage, it's obvious that the case refers to the Jewish nation in relation to surrounding non-Jewish cities, not a Gentile of a different country conquering a random city. From what I understand, Muhammad is a was acting in the capacity of a rebel, not the legitimate local ruler. I'm not even sure we have such a concept in Jewish Law.
- Deut. 20:12-14 is not describing a Noahide Law. A Gentile is not commanded to follow the Laws of "permitted war" when going out to war and that includes killing Jewish people he captures in war. Which means that if a non-Jew does kill his Jewish captives, he's not following Jewish Law, which makes it murder under Jewish Law.
- I'm not sure if the Banu Qurayza transgressed the Law against breaking a treaty, since that refers again to the nation making a treaty with a Gentile city. So at worst we're talking about lying. Regardless, neither of these Laws are punished with death.
- There's an imperative on Jewish people to save the lives of other Jews (this applies even to Jewish courts). There's nothing in this entire narrative that would counter that imperative.
- Assuming the story was true, Sa'd ibn Mu'adh would probably have the status of a mōser (along with an heretic, as he was a convert to Islam). A mōser refers to a Jewish person who informs on another Jewish person to a non-Jewish ruler, putting his person or possession at risk. (There are exceptions, such as if the person he's informing on is himself a danger to the community, such as with Jesus or pedophiles.)
Alternatively, only parts of the story are true and they were used to fabricate a polemic (from ignorance of actual Jewish Law) where Jews are guilty under their own Law (there is precedent for this type of polemic by way of the NT) or to justify their murder.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
You're right. The law does not specifically use the name 'Islamophobia'; this is still an unofficial definition legally but it is gaining traction (for reasons I cannot fathom). What is worse, numerous political parties here have recently endorsed a very flawed definition of the term; one which equates criticism of Islam with racism.
"Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness"
Well the verse you quoted was revealed to the Jews in relation to their wars with non-Jewish cities they were trying to conquer. Not for non-Jews to deal with Jews who had just lost.
Did they though? Did they really? The explanation that the Jews chose a Gentile close to Muhammad to decide their punishment according to Jewish law is a very convenient explanation since it absolves Muhammad of any wrongdoing - basically by implying the Qurayza pretty much asked for it - and this allows Muslims to continue with the frankly strange idea that an Arab warlord with a track record of religious intolerance, banditry (and who was about to add mass-murder and slavery to that track record at this point) is a moral exemplar Muslims should emulate.
It reads as nothing more than a victim-blaming narrative lined with 'piety' written by the victors to lend their prophet the air of moral credibility as he executes unarmed prisoners en masse and gives their women to his warriors to rape.
Last edited:
That's extremely hypocritical. If the Jews can do it to non-Jews the non-Jews can do it to the Jews. Which law did they want to be punished by do you think?
It was indeed the most correct thing for them to be judged according to their own law.
They committed treason. Kind of they did ask for it.
Are the Jews commanded in the Torah to commit mass murder of non-Jews?
Slavery wasn't exactly new thing in those days.
Treason - being caught - defeated - punished justly. If you want to call it victim blaming narrative go for it. It won't change the past.
'unarmed prisoners'. Are you making sense to yourself? Rape of female captives was also a punishable offence.
Nevertheless it could all have been avoided if the Banu Qurayza had been wiser with their decisions and a little less arrogant.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Does this mean non-Muslims can slaughter Muslims using the sword verse of the Quran as the justification? Do you really want to go down that road?
I suspect they didn't want to be punished for trying to get rid of a power-mad demagogue.
Not by someone who
- Was not a Jew;
- Had no authority to render judgement;
- Did not understand their scripture;
What treason? Muhammad wasn't their liege nor their ruler. They owed him no fealty - especially since he claimed to be a prophet of their god but could not fit the criteria. No they aren't generally. Verses like the one you quoted have a specific historical context.
And so? That hardly makes it a moral practice. This is one thing I don't get with Muslims: you put Muhammad up on a pedestal as some sort of moral exemplar but when given an example of him engaging in immoral behaviour you immediately appeal to the lowest common denominator - 'everybody else was doing it'.
You can't have both! You can't have a man being held as morally superior to others while at the same time using their base immorality to justify his own immoral actions! That is trying to have your cake and eat it.
It may not. But it might change how willing other people are to buy into a narrative written by the victors to lend their actions some moral credence.
Yes. See the part where the Qurayza surrendered and threw down their weapons? They became both 'unarmed', and 'prisoners'.
Unless they were slaves taken in war.
You're right. Maybe they could have slit Muhammad's throat in his sleep. Or poisoned him. Or not let him into Medina in the first place. But then again he arrived with a warband at his back so they probably didn't have much choice but to accept him.
Clearly you don't understand the 'sword verse'. Of course it can be abided by non-Muslims against Muslims so long as they follow the entire surah it is found in. Strange it might be to follow the word of God one doesn't believe in.
The Muslims had a treaty with the Jews.
From the way you mentioned slavery one might have gotten the impression someone like Muhammad had to 'establish' it, but that wasn't the case.
It is still punishable.
A Jew did poison him in the end.
Wonder why so many descendants of the Banu Qurayza converted to Islam?