Since childhood, I knew Muhammad (pbuh) as the most peaceful and forgiving man ever created by Allah. I've heard stories (true stories) about him being kind to a old woman who was bad-mouthing him in front of him, helping her carry her bag. I've heard of him visiting a sick woman who used to place thorns on his way. I've heard of him denying the offer by Gabriel to kill those who were stoning him.
But recently, I've stumbled upon the following all over the internet:
- http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/mohwar1.html
- Here is a quote from the well known Sira of Ibn Hisham;
“The apostle had ordered that every adult of Banu Qurayza (Jewish tribe) should be killed... Then the apostle went out to the market of Madina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches... There were 600 or 700... Then the apostle divided the property, wives and children of Banu Qurayza among the Muslims... The apostle had chosen one of the women for himself, Rayhana daughter of Amr"
- Tabari IX:128 "When the Prophet married Aisha she very young and not yet ready for consummation."
Tabari IX:134 "Muhammad took Zaynab [his daughter-in-law] but Allah did not find any fault in the [incestuous] relationship and ordered the marriage."
Tabari VII:7 "The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At the time she was six." Ishaq:281 "When the Apostle came to Medina he was fifty-three."\
- Quran 24.33: Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.
Following hadiths shows that prophet of islam and other jihadis used to capture women in raids and had sex with them (which is technically raping of helpless captives)
Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
Bukhari yol 3,Book46, No. 717
"Narrated Ibn Aun:
Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day.
My question to you is, can you please clarify all the above mentioned? Are they taken out of context? Are those justified? Are those fabricated hadiths? Please let me know in details.
I don't have any doubts that Islam is the one and only true religion. But I would like to know the truth behind all that I've been seeing recently.
Only respond if you have anything worthy to say. Or else, don't. I don't need anyone to tell me that I'm being misled by the devil, I've heard that a million times, thx.
Full Version: Was Muhammad (pbuh) A Murderer?
QUOTE
Since childhood, I knew Muhammad (pbuh) as the most peaceful and forgiving man ever created by Allah. I've heard stories (true stories) about him being kind to a old woman who was bad-mouthing him in front of him, helping her carry her bag. I've heard of him visiting a sick woman who used to place thorns on his way. I've heard of him denying the offer by Gabriel to kill those who were stoning him.
But recently, I've stumbled upon the following all over the internet:
- http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/mohwar1.html
- Here is a quote from the well known Sira of Ibn Hisham;
"The apostle had ordered that every adult of Banu Qurayza (Jewish tribe) should be killed... Then the apostle went out to the market of Madina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches... There were 600 or 700... Then the apostle divided the property, wives and children of Banu Qurayza among the Muslims... The apostle had chosen one of the women for himself, Rayhana daughter of Amr"
But recently, I've stumbled upon the following all over the internet:
- http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/mohwar1.html
- Here is a quote from the well known Sira of Ibn Hisham;
"The apostle had ordered that every adult of Banu Qurayza (Jewish tribe) should be killed... Then the apostle went out to the market of Madina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches... There were 600 or 700... Then the apostle divided the property, wives and children of Banu Qurayza among the Muslims... The apostle had chosen one of the women for himself, Rayhana daughter of Amr"
It is good to ask such questions to find the truth from an objective position rather than bottle up such questions and hope they go away while your faith will be weakening.
With regard to the prophet killing the Jews, this is a lie.
What really happened was that the tribe of banu qurayza assisted the polytheists attack on the prophet
when the prophet was in medina even though the leaders of the tribe banu qurayza had signed a peace treaty with the prophet stating that they would not help the polytheists and the treaty even said that it was the muslims responsibility to defend the jews and that the jews would not even have to defend the prophet from an attack from meccan polytheists. The problem with these jews were that they broke the peace treaty with the prophet and thus were subject to be executed for their breach in line with the terms of the very treaty they signed.After they were arrested - they were asked whether they want Prophet Muhammad
to deal with them or if they would like someone else from the prophets army to decide their punishment and they opted for an alternative person to the prophet .There are conflicting reports - some which say that the person who passed judgement ordered for the whole tribe to be killed whereas other reports say that it was only the leaders of the tribe that were executed.
One of the biggest lies against Islam and the prophet
is that the religion was spread by sword but if you study history - the prophet started preaching at 43, was persecuted for 10 years, then moved to medina.. then at the age of something like 55 fought his first battle.We also hear of countless incidents of his justice and mercy. Do not be deceived by people wishing to destroy Islam. If he was a terrorist, then he would not have transformed Mecca from the jahiliya state it was and made islam continue to be the fastest growing religion till today.
QUOTE
- Tabari IX:128 "When the Prophet married Aisha she very young and not yet ready for consummation."
There is no confirmed age for aisha when she married the prophet
.The prophet had something like 10 wives in his lifetime. the first of them was Hazrat Khadija (sa) whom he was married to for the majority of his life.
The remaining wives were all married after the prophet was in his 50's. if he was a lustful man (astagfirullah!) - then he would have married all the women when he was in his prime. Furthermore, most the wives he married were divorcees or widows. He married them because their husbands had died in battle or because they had accepted islam and their husbands had not and thus they had no one to look after them.
Again - if this was true, then surely he would not have gathered the followers that he did as his morality would be questioned!
Lastly - islam and prophet muhammad
set and explain the laws to us. Once you believe in Allah and you accept the prophethood of prophet Muhammad based on logic and looking at his life - you have to accept that everything he did was right because otherwise he can no longer be followed as an example defeating the purpose of prophethood.QUOTE
Tabari IX:134 "Muhammad took Zaynab [his daughter-in-law] but Allah did not find any fault in the [incestuous] relationship and ordered the marriage."
This marriage was not to his daughter in law! Zainab had been married to his *adopted son*. Allah ordered this marriage *after* the marriage between Zainab and the prophets adopted son Zaid did not work out to set an Islamic law that your adopted son is not like your real son!
Prior to this - arabians treated their adopted sons like their real sons to the extent that their adopted sons would inherit over and above an arab persons *real* daughters.
QUOTE
Tabari VII:7 "The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At the time she was six." Ishaq:281 "When the Apostle came to Medina he was fifty-three."
I felt I have dealt with this already. Sayed Ammar Nakshawani delivers an excellent lecture on the wives of the prophet
where he discusses the age of Aisha as well.Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-3xvJYcyms
It is lengthy but worth listening to - especially if it inshallah relieves you of your doubts.
QUOTE
- Quran 24.33: Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.
Islam came to reform the position of slavery. Nowhere in Islamic economics does it talk about how to go about buying slaves. It always talks about freeing slaves. The prophet
could not abolish slavery all in one go because the slaves would have nowhere to go and would not know what to do with their lives if they were all freed up and put out onto the streets to fend for themselves with no experience.The slaves that the prophet
and the ahlul bayt kept were not mistreated - rather it was their privilege to be given the opportunity to serve the prophet and his family. If you were asked to be the prophets slave - would you look at it as a degradement or an honour that he chose you to take into his house?I know where i stand.
With regard to raping slaves - i do not think that is what the verse is trying to say. Slaves are lawful for us and they are our property islamically.. but it came to perfect our morals... i think something must be lost in translation.
QUOTE
Following hadiths shows that prophet of islam and other jihadis used to capture women in raids and had sex with them (which is technically raping of helpless captives)
Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
Bukhari yol 3,Book46, No. 717
"Narrated Ibn Aun:
Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day.
My question to you is, can you please clarify all the above mentioned? Are they taken out of context? Are those justified? Are those fabricated hadiths? Please let me know in details.
Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
Bukhari yol 3,Book46, No. 717
"Narrated Ibn Aun:
Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day.
My question to you is, can you please clarify all the above mentioned? Are they taken out of context? Are those justified? Are those fabricated hadiths? Please let me know in details.
Imam Bukhari came 100 years after the prophet
and so naturally his collection of hadith cannot be 100 guaranteed authentic. The criteria for measuring hadith should be whether it aligns itself to the quran.The quran tells us that Prophet Muhammad
is of sublime morality and that he is an excellent example for us and that if he was hard hearted, nobody would follow him.Therefore "hadith" telling us he was a rapist (astagfirullah!) goes against the Quran.
Furthermore, Islam has honoured the status of women very highly and gained a lot of women followers from its early days and in fact even today there are more female converts than males.
If the prophet
behaved in this way and allowed this as part of the religion - then surely he would not have found females coming towards Islam.Whenever you have questions, it is always good to ask and take an intellectual approach based on logic, history and the quran because exclusion of any of these things will always lead to erroneous beliefs.
Peace be with you.
such a predictable answer.
Brother iv checked those hadith and they do not exist. it is obviously h8 propoganda on the net by someone trying to sully the contents of Bukhari shareef. no such sick Hadith exists. its best not to believe everything on the net; try and read a translation of Bukhari shareef bro, you won't find these hadith there.
its a sunni-shia thing; people post disgusting hadith attributing to shia faith, which the shia deny exist in their books. in the same way we have silly people who in their h8 make up false tales to take others astray.
Brother iv checked those hadith and they do not exist. it is obviously h8 propoganda on the net by someone trying to sully the contents of Bukhari shareef. no such sick Hadith exists. its best not to believe everything on the net; try and read a translation of Bukhari shareef bro, you won't find these hadith there.
its a sunni-shia thing; people post disgusting hadith attributing to shia faith, which the shia deny exist in their books. in the same way we have silly people who in their h8 make up false tales to take others astray.
Thank you for clarifying man. Btw, weren't those mentioned as the Prophet's slaves more like servants? Because, slaves are considered property, which I don't think Muhammad (pbuh) thought of his servants as.
You posed a lot of questions so i hope that our answers alleviated you of all the doubts you were harboring. If you are still not perfectly happy or if anything crops up in the future, then please do feel free to ask.
One thing I will say is that i suggest you direct your questions to a person who has knowledge rather than in an open forum such as this as this is not a place where scholars spend their time.
You may end up causing others to doubt their faith rather than alleviating your own doubts even though it is the case that there are perfectly good answers for your questions and it is only that nobody has them on the forum to provide you with them.
With regard to the prophets servants.... there was a slave trade in arabia... and i am sure the prophet bought slaves... it may be that he freed them having purchased them but they loved him so much and he respected them enough to keep him in his house working as servants.. its terminology... dont trouble yourself with it too much.
The bottom line is that our prophet was not sent but as a mercy to the worlds so whether you call the people who worked for him his 'slaves' or his 'servants' - you can be sure that he treated them all with love mercy and kindness.
Which muslim would not want to call themself the slave of muhammad?
calling oneself a slave or a servant of our prophet is an honour!
That is the beauty of islam - it transformed the word 'slave' into a word of honour - as everyone was seeking to be slave of Allah whereas before everyone wanted to be a 'master' or 'lord' of as many slaves as possible. Yet Islam made both slaves and their 'masters' seek to become slaves of Allah.
Glory be to Allah for sending such a beautiful messenger to guide and teach us.
May Allah bless Muhammad and his family.
One thing I will say is that i suggest you direct your questions to a person who has knowledge rather than in an open forum such as this as this is not a place where scholars spend their time.
You may end up causing others to doubt their faith rather than alleviating your own doubts even though it is the case that there are perfectly good answers for your questions and it is only that nobody has them on the forum to provide you with them.
With regard to the prophets servants.... there was a slave trade in arabia... and i am sure the prophet bought slaves... it may be that he freed them having purchased them but they loved him so much and he respected them enough to keep him in his house working as servants.. its terminology... dont trouble yourself with it too much.
The bottom line is that our prophet was not sent but as a mercy to the worlds so whether you call the people who worked for him his 'slaves' or his 'servants' - you can be sure that he treated them all with love mercy and kindness.
Which muslim would not want to call themself the slave of muhammad
?calling oneself a slave or a servant of our prophet is an honour!
That is the beauty of islam - it transformed the word 'slave' into a word of honour - as everyone was seeking to be slave of Allah whereas before everyone wanted to be a 'master' or 'lord' of as many slaves as possible. Yet Islam made both slaves and their 'masters' seek to become slaves of Allah.
Glory be to Allah for sending such a beautiful messenger to guide and teach us.
May Allah bless Muhammad
and his family.
Yeah, but it's hard to argue against non-muslims when you use that term. I posed the questions here because I don't know any other place where "scholars" hang around 
Thanks for your time though. It was really helpful.
Thanks for your time though. It was really helpful.
Do not trouble yourself with arguing against non-muslims.
It is not a good idea to discuss religion unless you are confident that you understand your own faith properly.
That is not to say that we have anything to hide or that you should be a blind believer - only that you should do things in the right manner or it could end up badly.
Remember no matter how knowledgable or pious you think you have become, you must never consider yourself too knowledgable to have to worry to continue to learn because that is a sign of ignorance rather than knowledge!
Also remember that whatever you believe must always be open to be challenged from a logical, quranic and historical perspective because if someone proves you to be wrong from these angles and you maintain your position, it then becomes blind belief.
With regard to not knowing where scholars hang out, you do not have to. Simply send one person you trust in this forum a private message with your queries and insha allah they will be able to answer you and if not - ask them to find the answers for you. If you are happy with the answers and want to share them in a thread on the site - i am sure nobody will mind and if nobody has an answer - at least you wont have caused others to doubt their faith without meaning to.
Once you do start discussing with non muslims, i find it is better to start by discussing the necessity of religion and the proof of the existence of god followed by the necessity of prophethood before studying the life of prophet muhammad.
If you would like to discuss these things in private, feel free to contact me.
As for thanking me for my time, i thank you for giving me the opportunity to help a fellow brother.
Peace be with you and hope that you find all the answers you are looking for on muslimonline.
It is not a good idea to discuss religion unless you are confident that you understand your own faith properly.
That is not to say that we have anything to hide or that you should be a blind believer - only that you should do things in the right manner or it could end up badly.
Remember no matter how knowledgable or pious you think you have become, you must never consider yourself too knowledgable to have to worry to continue to learn because that is a sign of ignorance rather than knowledge!
Also remember that whatever you believe must always be open to be challenged from a logical, quranic and historical perspective because if someone proves you to be wrong from these angles and you maintain your position, it then becomes blind belief.
With regard to not knowing where scholars hang out, you do not have to. Simply send one person you trust in this forum a private message with your queries and insha allah they will be able to answer you and if not - ask them to find the answers for you. If you are happy with the answers and want to share them in a thread on the site - i am sure nobody will mind and if nobody has an answer - at least you wont have caused others to doubt their faith without meaning to.
Once you do start discussing with non muslims, i find it is better to start by discussing the necessity of religion and the proof of the existence of god followed by the necessity of prophethood before studying the life of prophet muhammad
.If you would like to discuss these things in private, feel free to contact me.
As for thanking me for my time, i thank you for giving me the opportunity to help a fellow brother.
Peace be with you and hope that you find all the answers you are looking for on muslimonline.
On Slavery,
From Napoleon Bonaparte:
"The slave inherits his master's property and marries his daughter. The majority of the Pashas had been slaves. Many of the grand viziers, all the Mamelukes, Ali Ben Mourad Beg, had been slaves. They began their lives by performing the most menial services in the houses of their masters and were subsequently raised in status for their merit or by favour. In the West, on the contrary, the slave has always been below the position of the domestic servants; he occupies the lowest rug. The Romans emancipated their slaves, but the emancipated were never considered as equal to the free-born. The ideas of the East and West are so different that it took a long time to make the Egyptians understand that all the army was not composed of slaves belonging to the Sultan al-Kabir."[25]
When you think of 'slaves' in Islam think of 'servants' in western countries, except we(practicing muslims) don't treat servants like crap.
From Napoleon Bonaparte:
"The slave inherits his master's property and marries his daughter. The majority of the Pashas had been slaves. Many of the grand viziers, all the Mamelukes, Ali Ben Mourad Beg, had been slaves. They began their lives by performing the most menial services in the houses of their masters and were subsequently raised in status for their merit or by favour. In the West, on the contrary, the slave has always been below the position of the domestic servants; he occupies the lowest rug. The Romans emancipated their slaves, but the emancipated were never considered as equal to the free-born. The ideas of the East and West are so different that it took a long time to make the Egyptians understand that all the army was not composed of slaves belonging to the Sultan al-Kabir."[25]
When you think of 'slaves' in Islam think of 'servants' in western countries, except we(practicing muslims) don't treat servants like crap.
Slavery in islam is strictly referring to prisoners of war, Those who wage war upon the Muslims. it is not to be confused with black slavery, islam forbids any form of racism.
Every country establishes itself in a certain way, and the Quran as a constitution has done so. 1) Having Slaves is not obligatory nor is it something that islam brought about nor is it something that islam condones. 2) ISlam goes out of its way, if we read the prophets seerah to end slavery, There are Quranic verses that tell us to free our slaves. 3) There are no slaves today.
Every country establishes itself in a certain way, and the Quran as a constitution has done so. 1) Having Slaves is not obligatory nor is it something that islam brought about nor is it something that islam condones. 2) ISlam goes out of its way, if we read the prophets seerah to end slavery, There are Quranic verses that tell us to free our slaves. 3) There are no slaves today.
Hazrat Ayesha's age at the time of her marriage:
http://www.aaiil.org/text/acus/islam/aishahage.shtml
Slavery in Islam
This was not the same as the American slavery. Salahuddin was a slave! Indeed in India there was a string of rulers knows as "Dynasty of Slaves" where each "king" was succeded not by his son but by his ablest slave.
Hazrat Zainab's marriage
Just read Marting Lings description of how she married the holy Prophet (pbuh) and weep. According to classical sources Zaid divorced Zainabl and without waiting for the "waiting period" to make sure she was not pregnant and WITHOUT A NIKAH, Zainab went to the Holy Prophet's house and started to live with him as his wife!
This is a most disgraceful charge against our beloved prophet but when people try and reform such ideas the orthodox jump up and start calling them heretics
http://www.aaiil.org/text/acus/islam/aishahage.shtml
Slavery in Islam
This was not the same as the American slavery. Salahuddin was a slave! Indeed in India there was a string of rulers knows as "Dynasty of Slaves" where each "king" was succeded not by his son but by his ablest slave.
Hazrat Zainab's marriage
Just read Marting Lings description of how she married the holy Prophet (pbuh) and weep. According to classical sources Zaid divorced Zainabl and without waiting for the "waiting period" to make sure she was not pregnant and WITHOUT A NIKAH, Zainab went to the Holy Prophet's house and started to live with him as his wife!
This is a most disgraceful charge against our beloved prophet but when people try and reform such ideas the orthodox jump up and start calling them heretics
QUOTE(Ovi @ Jul 18 2008, 08:43 PM) 
Thank you for clarifying man. Btw, weren't those mentioned as the Prophet's slaves more like servants? Because, slaves are considered property, which I don't think Muhammad (pbuh) thought of his servants as.
Greetings
In pre-Islamic Arabia slaves were treated as...slaves in accordance with how you'll acknowledge it upon research of that era. During and right after the prophethood of Muhammad pbuh, you can relate live-in servants to what were once known as slaves. This is because they were given the respect and basic rights every human being is entitled to. Therefore, you'd consider them servants.
Let me explain a few things in this regard. Islam used the gradual approach when dealing with a change in habits and practices apart from the fundamental purpose of monotheism - which was uncompromising, immediate and straight-cut. Every other habit or practice came into play gradually, unlike the conveyance of the Oneness of God.
Take note that the Qur'an was revealed over 23 years and that in itself is only 23 years, not a whole lifetime. God didn't send down His laws all at once. In the first 13 years of revelations that took place in the Meccan period, it mainly (not entirely) focused on tawheed, shirk, judgement day, heaven, hell etc in order to establish faith in the believers first. Then onto the Madinah period laws were sent down such as that of alcohol so that people may change gradually. This is the wisdom - people can't change overnight, it is a gradual process both for the individual and society at large. Including slavery. Keep bearing in mind revelations were sent in just a period of 23 years.
Salat (prayer) was mandated 11 years into the prophethood. Over the 11 years people prayed at irregular intervals. Therefore prayer was a gradual process. People also fasted, but the rule of fasting for a whole month was mandated after prayer.
Alcohol was a part of people's lives at the time, a majority of people drank it including Muslims. God in His divine wisdom had them quit it gradually. It's prohibition came in three steps: 1) warning against it's consumption, 2) prohibition of praying while drunk and 3) a final complete prohibition.
I can give you more examples of gradual prohibitions but these examples will suffice for now. This will hopefully enable you to understand the subject-matter of slavery better. The slavery insitution was gradually dealt with as it was an integral part of the Pre-Islamic Arabia. In these conditions slavery was a constituent of Arabia and so Islam took a gradual approach in eliminating it. Islam: 1) accepted the slavery institute with the goal of reforming it, 2) presumed freedom of people as basic right of human beings, 3) a person that is already freed cannot be slaved.
From an article:
QUOTE
An immediate order of prohibition would have created immense social and economic problems. It would have become impossible for the society to cater for the needs of a large army of slaves, who were, otherwise, dependent on various families. Also, the national treasury was in no position to provide them all on a permanent basis. A large number among them were old and incapable of supporting themselves. The only alternative left for them, if they were instantly freed, would have been to turn to beggary and become an economic burden for the society. The question of slave girls and women was even more critical, keeping in view their own low moral standards. Freeing them, all of a sudden, would have only resulted in a tremendous increase in brothels.
1. In the early Makkan period, it pronounced that slave emancipation was a great deed of piety. The very initial Makkan surahs appealed to the Muslims to liberate as many slaves as they could.
2. The Prophet (sws), unequivocally, directed the Muslims to raise the standard of living of the slaves and bring it equal to their own standard. This, of course, was meant to discourage people from persisting with them.
3. For the atonement of many sins manumission of slaves was divinely ordained.
4. All slave men and women who could support themselves in the society were directed to marry one another, in order to raise their moral and social status.
5. A permanent head in the public treasury was fixed to set free slave men and women.
6. Prostitution, which was largely carried out through slave women, who were mostly forced by their masters do so, was totally prohibited.
7. The affronting names of `abd and amah by which slave men and women were called, were abrogated so that people should stop regarding them as slaves. In their place, the words fata (boy) and fatat (girl) were introduced.
8. Finally, the law of mukatibat provided very easy access for the slaves to the gateway to freedom. Every slave who was capable of supporting himself was allowed by law to free himself, provided that he either gave a certain monetary amount to his master or carried out certain errands for him. After this, he could live as a free man. A special head in the treasury was fixed for this purpose; also, wealthy people were urged to help the slaves in this regard. The net result of this law was that only handicapped and old slaves were left to be provided for by their masters, which not only went in their own favour but also prevented them from becoming an economic burden on the society.
1. In the early Makkan period, it pronounced that slave emancipation was a great deed of piety. The very initial Makkan surahs appealed to the Muslims to liberate as many slaves as they could.
2. The Prophet (sws), unequivocally, directed the Muslims to raise the standard of living of the slaves and bring it equal to their own standard. This, of course, was meant to discourage people from persisting with them.
3. For the atonement of many sins manumission of slaves was divinely ordained.
4. All slave men and women who could support themselves in the society were directed to marry one another, in order to raise their moral and social status.
5. A permanent head in the public treasury was fixed to set free slave men and women.
6. Prostitution, which was largely carried out through slave women, who were mostly forced by their masters do so, was totally prohibited.
7. The affronting names of `abd and amah by which slave men and women were called, were abrogated so that people should stop regarding them as slaves. In their place, the words fata (boy) and fatat (girl) were introduced.
8. Finally, the law of mukatibat provided very easy access for the slaves to the gateway to freedom. Every slave who was capable of supporting himself was allowed by law to free himself, provided that he either gave a certain monetary amount to his master or carried out certain errands for him. After this, he could live as a free man. A special head in the treasury was fixed for this purpose; also, wealthy people were urged to help the slaves in this regard. The net result of this law was that only handicapped and old slaves were left to be provided for by their masters, which not only went in their own favour but also prevented them from becoming an economic burden on the society.
Peace and blessings.
Assalamu alaikum (Peace be upon you)
Answer of this :
"The apostle had ordered that every adult of Banu Qurayza (Jewish tribe) should be killed... Then the apostle went out to the market of Madina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches... There were 600 or 700... Then the apostle divided the property, wives and children of Banu Qurayza among the Muslims... The apostle had chosen one of the women for himself, Rayhana daughter of Amr"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
courtesy to
http://islamic-answers.com/did_prophet_muh...to_be_killed___
Answer of this :
"The apostle had ordered that every adult of Banu Qurayza (Jewish tribe) should be killed... Then the apostle went out to the market of Madina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches... There were 600 or 700... Then the apostle divided the property, wives and children of Banu Qurayza among the Muslims... The apostle had chosen one of the women for himself, Rayhana daughter of Amr"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
courtesy to
http://islamic-answers.com/did_prophet_muh...to_be_killed___
Did Prophet Muhammad order 900 Jews to be killed ?
[/font]
From: "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland " [ 1976 ] , pp. 100-107
It is well known that at the advent of Islam there were three Jewish tribes who lived in Yathrib (later Medina), as well as other Jewish settlements further to the north, the most important of which were Khaybar and Fadak. It is also generally accepted that at first the Prophet Muhammad hoped that the Jews of Yathrib, as followers of a divine religion, would show understanding of the new monotheistic religion, Islam. However, as soon as these tribes realized that Islam was being firmly established and gaining power, they adopted an actively hostile attitude, and the final result of the struggle was the disappearance of these Jewish communities from Arabia proper.
The biographers of the Prophet, followed by later historians, tell us that Banu Qaynuga, 1 and later Banu al-Nadir 2 provoked the Muslims, were besieged, and in turn agreed to surrender and were allowed to depart, taking with them all their transportable possession. Later on Khaybar 3 and Fadak 4 were evacuated. According to Ibn Ishaq in the Sira 5 the third of the Jewish tribed, Banu Qurayza, sided with the Qura****es and their allies, who made an unsuccesful attack on Medina in an attempt to destroy Islam. This, the most serious challenge to Islam, failed, and the Banu Qurayza were in turn besieged by the Prophet. Like Banu al-Nadir, in the time they surrendered, but unlike the Banu al-Nadir, they were subjected to the arbitration of Sa'd b. Mu'adh, a member of the Aws tribe, allies of Qurayza. He ruled that the grown-up males should be put to death and the women and children subjected to slavery. Consequentiy, trenches were dug in the market-place in Medina, and the men of Qurayza were brought out in groups and their necks were struck. 6 Estimates of those killed vary from 400 to 900.
On examination, details of the story can be challenged. it can be demonstrated that the assertion that 600 or 800 or 900 7 men of Banu Qurayza were put to death in cold blood can not be true; that it is a later invention; and that it has its source i Jewish traditions. Indeed the source of the detailes in earlier jewish history can be pointed out with surprising accuracy. The Arabic sources will now be surveyed, and the contribution of their jewish informants will be discussed. The credibility of the details will then be assessed, and the prototype of the earlier jewish history pin-pointed.
The earliest work that we have, with the widest range of details, is Ibn Ishaq's Sira, his biography of the Prophet. It is also the longest and the most widely quoted. Later historians draw, and in most cases depend on him. 8
, But Ibn Ishaq died in 151 A.H., i.e. 145 years after the event in question. Later historians simply take his version of the story, omitting more or less of the detail, and overlooking his uncertain list of authorities. They generally abbreviate the story, which appears just as one more event to report. In most cases their interest seems to end there. Some of them indicate that they are not really convinced, but they are not prepared to take further trouble. One authority, Ibn Hajar, however, denounces this story and the other related ones as "odd tales". 9 A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik, 10 the jurist denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar" 11 and "an impostor" 12 just for transmitting such stories. It must be remembered that historians and authors of the Prophet's biography did not apply the strict rules of the "traditionists". They did not always provide a chain of authorities, each of whom had to be verified as trustworthy and as certain or likely to have transmitted his report directly from his informant, and so on. The attitude towards biographical details and towards the early events of Islam was far less meticulous than their attitude to the Prophet's traditions, or indeed to any material relevant to jurisprudence. Indeed Ibn Ishaq's account of the siege of Medina and the fall of the Banu Qurayza is pieced together by him from information given by a variety of persons he names, including Muslim descendants of the Jews of Qurayza. Against these late and uncertain sources must be placed the only contemporary and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There, the reference in Sura XXXIII, 26 is very brief: "He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them [ i.e. the Quraysh ] to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner." There is no reference to numbers.
Ibn Ishaq sets out his direct sources as he opens the relevant chapter on the siege of Medina. These were: a client of the family of al-Zubayr and others whom he "did not suspect". They told parts of the story on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Ka'b b. Malik, al Zuhri, 'Asim b. 'Umar b. Qatada, 'Abdullab b. Abi Bakr, Muhammad b. Ka'b of Qurayza, and "others among our men of learning", as he put it. Each of these contributed to the story, so that Ibn Ishaq's version is the sum total of the collective reports, pieced together. At a later stage Ibn Ishaq quotes another descendant of Qurayza, 'Atiyya 13 by name, who had been spared, and, directly, a certain descendant of al-Zabir b.Bata, a prominent member of the tribe of Qurayza who figures in the narrative.
The story opens with a description of the effort of named Jewish leaders to organize against the Muslims an alliance of the hostile forces. The leaders named included three from the Banu al-Nadir and two of the tribe of Wa'il, another Jewish tribe; together with other Jewish fellow-tribesmen unnamed. Having persuaded the neighbouring Bedouin tribes of Ghatafan, Murra, Fazara, Sulaym, and Ashja' to take up arms, they now proceeded to Mecca where they succeeded in persuading the Quraysh. Having gathered together a besieging force, one of the Nadir leaders, Huyayy b. Akhtab, in effect forced himself on the third Jewish tribe still in Medina, the Banu Qurayza, and, against the better judgement of their leader, Ka'b b. Asad, he persuaded them to break faith with the Prophet in the hope, presented as a certainty, that the Muslims would not stand up to the combined attacking forces and that Qurayza and the other Jews would be restored to independent supremacy. The siege of Medina failed and the Jewish tribes suffered for their part in the whole operation. The attitude of scholars and historians to Ibn lshaq's version of the story has been either one of complacency, sometimes mingled with uncertainty, or at least in two important cases, one of condemnatlon and outright rejection.
The complacent attitude is one of accepting the biography of the Prophet and the stories of the campaigns at they were received by later generations without the meticulous care or the application of the critical criteria which collectors of traditions or jurists employed. It was not necessary to check the veracity of authorities when transmitting or recording parts of the story of the Prophet's life. 14 It was not essential to provide a continuous chain of authorities or even to give authorities at all. That is obvious in Ibn Ishaq's Sira. On the other hand reliable authority and a continuous line of transmission were essential when law was the issue. That is why Malik the jurist had no regard for Ibn Ishaq. 15
One finds, therefore, that later historians and even exegetes either repeat the very words of Ibn Ishaq or else abbreviate the whole story. Historians gave it, as it were, a cold reception. Even Tabari, nearly 150 years after Ibn Ishaq, does not try to find other versions of the story as he usually does. He casts doubt by his use of the words, "Waqidi alleged [ za'ama ] that the Prophet caused trenches to be dug." Ibn ai-Qayyim in Zad al-ma'ad makes only the briefest reference and he ignores altogether the crucial question of numbers. Ibn Kathir even seems to have general doubt in his mind because he takes the trouble to point out that the story was told on such "good authority" as that of 'A'isha. 16
Apart from mild complacency or doubtful acceptance of the story itself, Ibn Ishaq as an author was in fact subjected to devastating attacks by scholars, contemporary or later, on two particular accounts. One was his uncritical inclusion in his Sira of so much spurious or forged poetry; 17 the other his unquestioning acceptance of just such a story as that of the slaughter of Banu Qurayza. His contemporary, the early traditionist and jurist Malik, called him unequivocally "a liar" and "an imposter" 18 "who transmits his stories from the Jews". 19 In other words, applying his own criteria, Malik impugned the veracity of Ibn Ishaq's sources and rejected his approach. Indeed, neither Ibn Ishaq's list of informants nor his method of collecting and piecing together such a story would he acceptable to Malik the jurist.
In a later age Ibn Hajar further explained the point of Malik's condemnation of Ibn Ishaq. Malik, he said, 20 condemned Ibn Ishaq because he made a point of seeking out descendants of the Jews of Medina in order to obtain from them accounts of the Prophet's campaigns as handed down by their forefathers. Ibn Hajar 21 then rejected the stories in question in the strongest terms: "such odd tales as the story of Qurayza and al-Nadir". Nothing could be more damning than this outright rejection. Against the late and uncertain sources on the one hand, and the condemning authorities on the other, must be set the only contemporary and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There the reference in Sura XXXIII, 26 is very brief: "He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them [ i.e. the Quraysh ] to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner."
Exegetes and traditionists tend simply to repeat Ibn Ishaq's tale, but in the Qur'an the reference can only be to those who were actually in the fighting. This is a statement about the battle. It concerns those who fought. Some of these were killed. others were taken prisoner. One would think that if 600 or 900 people were killed in this manner the significance of the event would have been greater. There would have been a clearer reference in the Qur'an, a conclusion to be drawn, and a lesson to be learnt. But when only the guilty leaders were executed, it would be normal to expect only a brief reference. So much for the sources: they were neither uninterested nor trustworthy; and the report was very late in time. Now for the story. The reasons for rejecting the story are the following:
1:
As already stated above, the reference to the story in the Qur'an is extremely brief, and there is no indication whatever of the killing of a large number. In a battle context the reference is to those who were actually fighting. The Qur'an is the only authority which the historian would accept without hesitation or doubt. It is a contemporary text, and, for the most cogent reasons, what we have is the authentic version.
2:
The rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible for the sedition.
3: To kill such a large number is diametrically opposed to the Islamic sense of justice and to the basic principles laid down in the Qur'an - particularly the verse. "No soul shall bear another's burden" 22 It is obvious in the story that the leaders were numbered and well known. They were named.
4:
It it also against the Qur'anic rule regarding prisoners of war, which is: either they are to be granted their freedom or else they are to be allowed to be ransomed. 23
5:
It is unlikely that the Banu Qurayza should be slaughtered when the other Jewish groups who surrendered before Banu Qurayza and after them were treated leniently and allowed to go. Indeed Abu 'Ubayd b. Sallam relates in his Kitab al-amwal 24 that when Khaybar felt to the Muslims there were among the residents a particular family or clan who had distinguished themselves by execesive unseemly abuse of the Prophet. Yet in that hour the Prophet addressed them in words which are no more than a rebuke: "Sons of Abu al-Huqayq [ he said to them ] I have known the extent of your hostility to God and to His apostle, yet that does not prevent me from treating you as I treated your brethren." That was after the surrender of Banu Qurayza.
6:
If indeed so many hundreds of people had actually been put to death in the market-place, and trenches were dug for the operation, it is very strange that there should be no trace whatever of all that - no sign or word to point to the place, and no reference to a visible mark. 25
7:
Had this slaughter actually happened, jurists would have adopted it as a precedent. In fact exactly the opposite has been the case. The attitude of jurists, and their rulings, have been more according to the Qur'anic rule in the verse, "No soul shall bear another's burden."
Indeed, Abu 'Ubayd b. Sallam relates a very significant incident in his book Kifab al-amwal, 26 which, it must be noted, is a book of jurisprudence, of law, not a sira or a biography. He tells us that in the time of the Imam al-Awza'i 27 there was a case of trouble among a group of the People of the Book in the Lebanon when 'Abdullab b. 'All was regional governor. He put down the sedition and ordered the community in question to be moved elsewhere. Al-Awza'i in his capicity as the leading jurist immediately objected. His argument was that the incident was not the result of the cormmunity's unanimous agreement. "At far as I know [ he argued ] it is not a rule of God that God should punish the many for the fault of the few but punish the few for the fault of the many." Now, had the Imam al-Awza'i accepted the story of the slaughter of Banu Qurayza, he would have treated it as a precedent, and would not have come out with an argument against Authority, represented in 'Abdullah b. 'Ali. Al-Awza'i, it should be remembered, was a younger contemporary of Ibn Ishaq.
8:
In the story of Qurayza a few specific persons were named as having been put to death, some of whom were described as particularly active in their hostility. It is the reasonable conclusion that those were the ones who led the sedition and who were consequently punished - not the whole tribe.
9:
The details given in the story clearly and of necessity imply inside knowledge, i.e. from among the Jews themselves. Such are the details of their consultation when they were besieged, the harangue of Ka'b b. Asad as their leader; and the suggestion that they should kill their women and children and then make a last desperate attack against the Muslims.
10:
Just as the descendants of Qurayza would want to glorify their ancestors, so did the descendants of the Madanese connected with the event. One notices that that part of the story which concerned the judgement of Sa'd b. Mu'adh against Qurayza, was transmitted from one of his direct descendants. According to this part the Prophet said to Mu'adh: "You have pronounced God's judgement upon them [as inspired] through Seven Veils." 28 Now it is well known that for the purposes of glorifying their ancestors or white washing those who were inimical to Islam at the beginning, many stories were invented by later generations and a vast amount of verse was forged, much of which was transmitted by Ibn Ishaq. The story and the statement concerning Sa'd are one such detail.
11:
Other details are difficult to accept. How could so many hundreds of persons he incarcerated in the house belonging to a woman of Banu al-Najjar ? 29
12:
The history of the Jewish tribes after the establishment of Islam is not really clear at all. The idea that they all departed on the spot seems to be in need of revision, as can be seen on examining the sources. For example, in his Jamharat al-ansab , 30 Ibn Hazm occasionally refers to Jews still living in Medina. In two places al-Waqidi 31 mentions Jews who were still in Medina when the Prophet prepared to march against Khaybar - i.e. after the supposed liquidation of all three tribes, including Qurayza. In one case ten Madanese Jews actually joined the Prophet in an excursion to Khaybar, and in the other the Jews who had made their peace with him in Medina were extremely worried when he prepared to attack Khaybar. Al-Waqadi explains that they tried to prevent the departure of any Muslim who owed them money.
Indeed Ibn Kathir 32 takes the trouble to point out that 'Umar expelled only those Jews of Khaybar who had not made a peace agreement with the Prophet. Ibn Kathir then proceeds to explain that at a much later date, i.e. after the year 300 A.H., the Jews of Khaybar claimed that they had in their possession a document allegedly given them by the Prophet which exempted them from poll-tax. He said that some scholars were taken in by this document so that they ruled that the Jews of Khaybar should be exempted. However, that was a forged letter and had been refuted in detail. It quoted persons who were already dead, it used technical terms which came into being at a later time, it claimed that Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan witnessed it, when in fact he had not even been converted to Islam at that time, and so on. So then the real source of this unacceptable story of slaughter was the descendants of the Jews of Medina, from whom Ibn Ishaq took these "odd tales". For doing so Ibn Ishaq was severely criticized by other scholars and historians and was called by Malik an impostor.
The sources of the story are, therefore, extremely doubtful and the details are diametrically opposed to the spirit of Islam and the rules of the Qur'an to make the story credible. Credible authority is lacking, and circumstantial evidence does not support it. This means that the story is more than doubtful. However, the story, in my view, has its origins in earlier events. Is can be shown that it reproduces similar stories which survived from the account of the Jewish rebellion against the Romans, which ended in the destruction of the temple in the year AD. 73, the night of the Jewish zealots and sicarii to the rock fortress of Masada, and the final liquidation of the besieged. Stories of their experience were naturally transmitted by Jewish survivors who fled south. Indeed one of the more plausible theories of the origin of the Jews of Medina is that they came after the Jewish wars. This was the theory preferred by the late Professor Guillaume. 33
As is well known, the source of the details of the Jewish wars is Flavius Josephus, himself a Jew and a contemporary witness who held office under the Romans, who disapproved of certain actions which some of the rebels committed, but who nevertheless never ceased to be a Jew at heart. It is in his writings that we read of details which are closely similar to those transmitted to us in the Sira about the actions and the resistance of the Jews, except that now we see the responsibility for the actions placed on the Muslims. In considering details of the story of Banu Qurayza as told by the descendants of that tribe, we may note the following similar details in the account of Josephus:
1:
According to Josephus, 34 Alexander, who ruled in Jerusalem before Herod the Great, hung upon crosses 800 Jewish captives, and slaughtered their wives and children before their eyes.
2:
Similarly, large numbers were killed by others.
3:
Important details of the two stories are remarkably similar, particularly the numbers of those killed. At Masada the number of those who died at the end was 960. 35 The hot-headed sicarii who were eventually also killed numbered 600. 36 We also read that when they reached the point of despair they were addressed by their leader Eleazar (precisely as Ka'b b. Asad addressed the Banu Qurayza), 37 who suggested to them the killing of their women and children. At the ultimate point of complete despair the plan of killing each other to the last man was proposed. Clearly the similarity of details is most striking. Not only are the suggestions of mass suicide similar but even the numbers are almost the same. Even the same names occur in both accounts. There is Phineas, and Azar b. Azar, 38 just as Eleazar addressed the Jews besieged in Masada.
There is, indeed, more than a mere similarity. Here we have the prototype - indeed, I would suggest, the origin of the story of Banu Qurayza, preserved by descendants of the Jews who fled south to Arabia after the Jewish Wars, just as Josephus recorded the same story for the Classical world. A later generation of these descendants superimposed details of the siege of Masada on the story of the siege of Banu Qurayza, perhaps by confusing a tradition of their distant past with one from their less remote history. The mixture provided Ibn Ishaq's story. When Muslim historians ignored it or transmitted it without comment or with cold lack of interest, they only expressed lack of enthusiasm for a strange tale, as Ibn Hajar called it.
One last point. Since the above was first written, I have seen reports 39 of a paper given in August 1973 at the World Congress of Jewish Studies by Dr. Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, in which she challenges Josephus' assertion that 960 besieged Jews committed suicide at Masada. This is highly interesting since in the story of Qurayza the 960 or so Jews refused to commit suicide. Who knows, perhaps the Story of Banu Qurayza is an even more accurate form of the original version.
The biographers of the Prophet, followed by later historians, tell us that Banu Qaynuga, 1 and later Banu al-Nadir 2 provoked the Muslims, were besieged, and in turn agreed to surrender and were allowed to depart, taking with them all their transportable possession. Later on Khaybar 3 and Fadak 4 were evacuated. According to Ibn Ishaq in the Sira 5 the third of the Jewish tribed, Banu Qurayza, sided with the Qura****es and their allies, who made an unsuccesful attack on Medina in an attempt to destroy Islam. This, the most serious challenge to Islam, failed, and the Banu Qurayza were in turn besieged by the Prophet. Like Banu al-Nadir, in the time they surrendered, but unlike the Banu al-Nadir, they were subjected to the arbitration of Sa'd b. Mu'adh, a member of the Aws tribe, allies of Qurayza. He ruled that the grown-up males should be put to death and the women and children subjected to slavery. Consequentiy, trenches were dug in the market-place in Medina, and the men of Qurayza were brought out in groups and their necks were struck. 6 Estimates of those killed vary from 400 to 900.
On examination, details of the story can be challenged. it can be demonstrated that the assertion that 600 or 800 or 900 7 men of Banu Qurayza were put to death in cold blood can not be true; that it is a later invention; and that it has its source i Jewish traditions. Indeed the source of the detailes in earlier jewish history can be pointed out with surprising accuracy. The Arabic sources will now be surveyed, and the contribution of their jewish informants will be discussed. The credibility of the details will then be assessed, and the prototype of the earlier jewish history pin-pointed.
The earliest work that we have, with the widest range of details, is Ibn Ishaq's Sira, his biography of the Prophet. It is also the longest and the most widely quoted. Later historians draw, and in most cases depend on him. 8
, But Ibn Ishaq died in 151 A.H., i.e. 145 years after the event in question. Later historians simply take his version of the story, omitting more or less of the detail, and overlooking his uncertain list of authorities. They generally abbreviate the story, which appears just as one more event to report. In most cases their interest seems to end there. Some of them indicate that they are not really convinced, but they are not prepared to take further trouble. One authority, Ibn Hajar, however, denounces this story and the other related ones as "odd tales". 9 A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik, 10 the jurist denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar" 11 and "an impostor" 12 just for transmitting such stories. It must be remembered that historians and authors of the Prophet's biography did not apply the strict rules of the "traditionists". They did not always provide a chain of authorities, each of whom had to be verified as trustworthy and as certain or likely to have transmitted his report directly from his informant, and so on. The attitude towards biographical details and towards the early events of Islam was far less meticulous than their attitude to the Prophet's traditions, or indeed to any material relevant to jurisprudence. Indeed Ibn Ishaq's account of the siege of Medina and the fall of the Banu Qurayza is pieced together by him from information given by a variety of persons he names, including Muslim descendants of the Jews of Qurayza. Against these late and uncertain sources must be placed the only contemporary and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There, the reference in Sura XXXIII, 26 is very brief: "He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them [ i.e. the Quraysh ] to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner." There is no reference to numbers.
Ibn Ishaq sets out his direct sources as he opens the relevant chapter on the siege of Medina. These were: a client of the family of al-Zubayr and others whom he "did not suspect". They told parts of the story on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Ka'b b. Malik, al Zuhri, 'Asim b. 'Umar b. Qatada, 'Abdullab b. Abi Bakr, Muhammad b. Ka'b of Qurayza, and "others among our men of learning", as he put it. Each of these contributed to the story, so that Ibn Ishaq's version is the sum total of the collective reports, pieced together. At a later stage Ibn Ishaq quotes another descendant of Qurayza, 'Atiyya 13 by name, who had been spared, and, directly, a certain descendant of al-Zabir b.Bata, a prominent member of the tribe of Qurayza who figures in the narrative.
The story opens with a description of the effort of named Jewish leaders to organize against the Muslims an alliance of the hostile forces. The leaders named included three from the Banu al-Nadir and two of the tribe of Wa'il, another Jewish tribe; together with other Jewish fellow-tribesmen unnamed. Having persuaded the neighbouring Bedouin tribes of Ghatafan, Murra, Fazara, Sulaym, and Ashja' to take up arms, they now proceeded to Mecca where they succeeded in persuading the Quraysh. Having gathered together a besieging force, one of the Nadir leaders, Huyayy b. Akhtab, in effect forced himself on the third Jewish tribe still in Medina, the Banu Qurayza, and, against the better judgement of their leader, Ka'b b. Asad, he persuaded them to break faith with the Prophet in the hope, presented as a certainty, that the Muslims would not stand up to the combined attacking forces and that Qurayza and the other Jews would be restored to independent supremacy. The siege of Medina failed and the Jewish tribes suffered for their part in the whole operation. The attitude of scholars and historians to Ibn lshaq's version of the story has been either one of complacency, sometimes mingled with uncertainty, or at least in two important cases, one of condemnatlon and outright rejection.
The complacent attitude is one of accepting the biography of the Prophet and the stories of the campaigns at they were received by later generations without the meticulous care or the application of the critical criteria which collectors of traditions or jurists employed. It was not necessary to check the veracity of authorities when transmitting or recording parts of the story of the Prophet's life. 14 It was not essential to provide a continuous chain of authorities or even to give authorities at all. That is obvious in Ibn Ishaq's Sira. On the other hand reliable authority and a continuous line of transmission were essential when law was the issue. That is why Malik the jurist had no regard for Ibn Ishaq. 15
One finds, therefore, that later historians and even exegetes either repeat the very words of Ibn Ishaq or else abbreviate the whole story. Historians gave it, as it were, a cold reception. Even Tabari, nearly 150 years after Ibn Ishaq, does not try to find other versions of the story as he usually does. He casts doubt by his use of the words, "Waqidi alleged [ za'ama ] that the Prophet caused trenches to be dug." Ibn ai-Qayyim in Zad al-ma'ad makes only the briefest reference and he ignores altogether the crucial question of numbers. Ibn Kathir even seems to have general doubt in his mind because he takes the trouble to point out that the story was told on such "good authority" as that of 'A'isha. 16
Apart from mild complacency or doubtful acceptance of the story itself, Ibn Ishaq as an author was in fact subjected to devastating attacks by scholars, contemporary or later, on two particular accounts. One was his uncritical inclusion in his Sira of so much spurious or forged poetry; 17 the other his unquestioning acceptance of just such a story as that of the slaughter of Banu Qurayza. His contemporary, the early traditionist and jurist Malik, called him unequivocally "a liar" and "an imposter" 18 "who transmits his stories from the Jews". 19 In other words, applying his own criteria, Malik impugned the veracity of Ibn Ishaq's sources and rejected his approach. Indeed, neither Ibn Ishaq's list of informants nor his method of collecting and piecing together such a story would he acceptable to Malik the jurist.
In a later age Ibn Hajar further explained the point of Malik's condemnation of Ibn Ishaq. Malik, he said, 20 condemned Ibn Ishaq because he made a point of seeking out descendants of the Jews of Medina in order to obtain from them accounts of the Prophet's campaigns as handed down by their forefathers. Ibn Hajar 21 then rejected the stories in question in the strongest terms: "such odd tales as the story of Qurayza and al-Nadir". Nothing could be more damning than this outright rejection. Against the late and uncertain sources on the one hand, and the condemning authorities on the other, must be set the only contemporary and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There the reference in Sura XXXIII, 26 is very brief: "He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them [ i.e. the Quraysh ] to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner."
Exegetes and traditionists tend simply to repeat Ibn Ishaq's tale, but in the Qur'an the reference can only be to those who were actually in the fighting. This is a statement about the battle. It concerns those who fought. Some of these were killed. others were taken prisoner. One would think that if 600 or 900 people were killed in this manner the significance of the event would have been greater. There would have been a clearer reference in the Qur'an, a conclusion to be drawn, and a lesson to be learnt. But when only the guilty leaders were executed, it would be normal to expect only a brief reference. So much for the sources: they were neither uninterested nor trustworthy; and the report was very late in time. Now for the story. The reasons for rejecting the story are the following:
1:
As already stated above, the reference to the story in the Qur'an is extremely brief, and there is no indication whatever of the killing of a large number. In a battle context the reference is to those who were actually fighting. The Qur'an is the only authority which the historian would accept without hesitation or doubt. It is a contemporary text, and, for the most cogent reasons, what we have is the authentic version.
2:
The rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible for the sedition.
3: To kill such a large number is diametrically opposed to the Islamic sense of justice and to the basic principles laid down in the Qur'an - particularly the verse. "No soul shall bear another's burden" 22 It is obvious in the story that the leaders were numbered and well known. They were named.
4:
It it also against the Qur'anic rule regarding prisoners of war, which is: either they are to be granted their freedom or else they are to be allowed to be ransomed. 23
5:
It is unlikely that the Banu Qurayza should be slaughtered when the other Jewish groups who surrendered before Banu Qurayza and after them were treated leniently and allowed to go. Indeed Abu 'Ubayd b. Sallam relates in his Kitab al-amwal 24 that when Khaybar felt to the Muslims there were among the residents a particular family or clan who had distinguished themselves by execesive unseemly abuse of the Prophet. Yet in that hour the Prophet addressed them in words which are no more than a rebuke: "Sons of Abu al-Huqayq [ he said to them ] I have known the extent of your hostility to God and to His apostle, yet that does not prevent me from treating you as I treated your brethren." That was after the surrender of Banu Qurayza.
6:
If indeed so many hundreds of people had actually been put to death in the market-place, and trenches were dug for the operation, it is very strange that there should be no trace whatever of all that - no sign or word to point to the place, and no reference to a visible mark. 25
7:
Had this slaughter actually happened, jurists would have adopted it as a precedent. In fact exactly the opposite has been the case. The attitude of jurists, and their rulings, have been more according to the Qur'anic rule in the verse, "No soul shall bear another's burden."
Indeed, Abu 'Ubayd b. Sallam relates a very significant incident in his book Kifab al-amwal, 26 which, it must be noted, is a book of jurisprudence, of law, not a sira or a biography. He tells us that in the time of the Imam al-Awza'i 27 there was a case of trouble among a group of the People of the Book in the Lebanon when 'Abdullab b. 'All was regional governor. He put down the sedition and ordered the community in question to be moved elsewhere. Al-Awza'i in his capicity as the leading jurist immediately objected. His argument was that the incident was not the result of the cormmunity's unanimous agreement. "At far as I know [ he argued ] it is not a rule of God that God should punish the many for the fault of the few but punish the few for the fault of the many." Now, had the Imam al-Awza'i accepted the story of the slaughter of Banu Qurayza, he would have treated it as a precedent, and would not have come out with an argument against Authority, represented in 'Abdullah b. 'Ali. Al-Awza'i, it should be remembered, was a younger contemporary of Ibn Ishaq.
8:
In the story of Qurayza a few specific persons were named as having been put to death, some of whom were described as particularly active in their hostility. It is the reasonable conclusion that those were the ones who led the sedition and who were consequently punished - not the whole tribe.
9:
The details given in the story clearly and of necessity imply inside knowledge, i.e. from among the Jews themselves. Such are the details of their consultation when they were besieged, the harangue of Ka'b b. Asad as their leader; and the suggestion that they should kill their women and children and then make a last desperate attack against the Muslims.
10:
Just as the descendants of Qurayza would want to glorify their ancestors, so did the descendants of the Madanese connected with the event. One notices that that part of the story which concerned the judgement of Sa'd b. Mu'adh against Qurayza, was transmitted from one of his direct descendants. According to this part the Prophet said to Mu'adh: "You have pronounced God's judgement upon them [as inspired] through Seven Veils." 28 Now it is well known that for the purposes of glorifying their ancestors or white washing those who were inimical to Islam at the beginning, many stories were invented by later generations and a vast amount of verse was forged, much of which was transmitted by Ibn Ishaq. The story and the statement concerning Sa'd are one such detail.
11:
Other details are difficult to accept. How could so many hundreds of persons he incarcerated in the house belonging to a woman of Banu al-Najjar ? 29
12:
The history of the Jewish tribes after the establishment of Islam is not really clear at all. The idea that they all departed on the spot seems to be in need of revision, as can be seen on examining the sources. For example, in his Jamharat al-ansab , 30 Ibn Hazm occasionally refers to Jews still living in Medina. In two places al-Waqidi 31 mentions Jews who were still in Medina when the Prophet prepared to march against Khaybar - i.e. after the supposed liquidation of all three tribes, including Qurayza. In one case ten Madanese Jews actually joined the Prophet in an excursion to Khaybar, and in the other the Jews who had made their peace with him in Medina were extremely worried when he prepared to attack Khaybar. Al-Waqadi explains that they tried to prevent the departure of any Muslim who owed them money.
Indeed Ibn Kathir 32 takes the trouble to point out that 'Umar expelled only those Jews of Khaybar who had not made a peace agreement with the Prophet. Ibn Kathir then proceeds to explain that at a much later date, i.e. after the year 300 A.H., the Jews of Khaybar claimed that they had in their possession a document allegedly given them by the Prophet which exempted them from poll-tax. He said that some scholars were taken in by this document so that they ruled that the Jews of Khaybar should be exempted. However, that was a forged letter and had been refuted in detail. It quoted persons who were already dead, it used technical terms which came into being at a later time, it claimed that Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan witnessed it, when in fact he had not even been converted to Islam at that time, and so on. So then the real source of this unacceptable story of slaughter was the descendants of the Jews of Medina, from whom Ibn Ishaq took these "odd tales". For doing so Ibn Ishaq was severely criticized by other scholars and historians and was called by Malik an impostor.
The sources of the story are, therefore, extremely doubtful and the details are diametrically opposed to the spirit of Islam and the rules of the Qur'an to make the story credible. Credible authority is lacking, and circumstantial evidence does not support it. This means that the story is more than doubtful. However, the story, in my view, has its origins in earlier events. Is can be shown that it reproduces similar stories which survived from the account of the Jewish rebellion against the Romans, which ended in the destruction of the temple in the year AD. 73, the night of the Jewish zealots and sicarii to the rock fortress of Masada, and the final liquidation of the besieged. Stories of their experience were naturally transmitted by Jewish survivors who fled south. Indeed one of the more plausible theories of the origin of the Jews of Medina is that they came after the Jewish wars. This was the theory preferred by the late Professor Guillaume. 33
As is well known, the source of the details of the Jewish wars is Flavius Josephus, himself a Jew and a contemporary witness who held office under the Romans, who disapproved of certain actions which some of the rebels committed, but who nevertheless never ceased to be a Jew at heart. It is in his writings that we read of details which are closely similar to those transmitted to us in the Sira about the actions and the resistance of the Jews, except that now we see the responsibility for the actions placed on the Muslims. In considering details of the story of Banu Qurayza as told by the descendants of that tribe, we may note the following similar details in the account of Josephus:
1:
According to Josephus, 34 Alexander, who ruled in Jerusalem before Herod the Great, hung upon crosses 800 Jewish captives, and slaughtered their wives and children before their eyes.
2:
Similarly, large numbers were killed by others.
3:
Important details of the two stories are remarkably similar, particularly the numbers of those killed. At Masada the number of those who died at the end was 960. 35 The hot-headed sicarii who were eventually also killed numbered 600. 36 We also read that when they reached the point of despair they were addressed by their leader Eleazar (precisely as Ka'b b. Asad addressed the Banu Qurayza), 37 who suggested to them the killing of their women and children. At the ultimate point of complete despair the plan of killing each other to the last man was proposed. Clearly the similarity of details is most striking. Not only are the suggestions of mass suicide similar but even the numbers are almost the same. Even the same names occur in both accounts. There is Phineas, and Azar b. Azar, 38 just as Eleazar addressed the Jews besieged in Masada.
There is, indeed, more than a mere similarity. Here we have the prototype - indeed, I would suggest, the origin of the story of Banu Qurayza, preserved by descendants of the Jews who fled south to Arabia after the Jewish Wars, just as Josephus recorded the same story for the Classical world. A later generation of these descendants superimposed details of the siege of Masada on the story of the siege of Banu Qurayza, perhaps by confusing a tradition of their distant past with one from their less remote history. The mixture provided Ibn Ishaq's story. When Muslim historians ignored it or transmitted it without comment or with cold lack of interest, they only expressed lack of enthusiasm for a strange tale, as Ibn Hajar called it.
One last point. Since the above was first written, I have seen reports 39 of a paper given in August 1973 at the World Congress of Jewish Studies by Dr. Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, in which she challenges Josephus' assertion that 960 besieged Jews committed suicide at Masada. This is highly interesting since in the story of Qurayza the 960 or so Jews refused to commit suicide. Who knows, perhaps the Story of Banu Qurayza is an even more accurate form of the original version.
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________
References and Notes:
[1]
Ibn Ishaq, Sira [ ed. Wustenfeld, Gottingen, 1860 ] , 545-7; [ ed. Saqqa et al., Cairo, 1955 ] , II, 47-9. See also al-Waqidi, Kitab al-maghazi [ ed. M. Jones, London, 1966 ] , II, 440 ff.; Suhayl, al-Rawd al-unuf [ Cairo, 1914 ] , I, 187 et passim; Ibn Kathir, al-Sira al-Nabawiya [ ed. Mustafa `Abd al-Wahid, Cairo, 1384-5 / 1964-6 ] , II, 5, et passim.
[2]
Sira, 545-56, 652-61 / II, 51-7, 190-202; Ibn Kathir, oop. cit., III, 145 ff.
[3]
Sira, 755-76, 779 / II, 328-53, 356, etc. More on Khaybar follows below
[4]
ibid., 776 / II, 353-4.
[5]
ibid., 668-84 / II, 214-33.
[6]
ibid., 684-700 / II, 233-54.
[7]
ibid., 689 / II, 240; `Uyun al-athar [ Cairo, 1356 A.H. ] , II, 73; Ibn Kathir, II, 239.
[8]
In his introduction to `Uyun al-athar, I, 7, Ibn Sayyid al-Nas [ d. 734 A.H. ] , having explained his plan for his biography of the Prophet, expressly states that his main source was Ibn Ishaq, who indeed was the chief source for everyone.
[9]
Tahdhib al-tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 17, where the author uses the same words, without giving a reference, in his introduction on the veracity of Ibn Ishaq and the criteria he applied.
[10]
d. 179.
[11]
Uyun al-athar, I, 12.
[12]
ibid, I, 16.
[13]
Sira, 691-2 / II, 242, 244; `Uyun al-athar, II, 74, 75.
[14]
Ibn Sayyid al-Nas [ op. cit., I, 121 ] makes precisely this point in relation to the story of the Banu Qaynuqa' and the spurious verse which was said to have appeared in Sura LIII of the Qur'an and at the time was taken by polytheist Meccans as a recognition of their deities. The author explains how various scholars disposed of the problem and then sums up by stating that in his view, this story is to be treated on the same level as tales of the maghazi and accounts of the Sira [ i.e. not to be accorded unqualified acceptance ]. Most scholars, he asserts, usually treated more liberally questions of minor importance and any material which did not involve a point of law, such as stories of the maghazi and similar reports. In such cases data would be accepted which would not be acceptable as a basis of deciding what is lawful or unlawful.
[15]
See n. 18 below.
[16]
Tabari, Tarikh, I, 1499 [ where the reference is to al-Waqidi, Maghazi, II, 513 ] ; Zad al-ma`ad [ ed. T. A. Taha, Cairo, 1970 ] , II, 82; Ibn Kathir, op. cit., IV, 118.
[17]
[font="Times New Roman"]
On this see W. Arafat, "Early critics of the poetry of the Sira", BSOAS, XXI, 3, 1958, 453-63.
[18]
Kadhdhab and Dajjal min al-dajajila.
[19]
Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7. In his valuable introduction Ibn Sayyid al-Nas provides a wide-ranging survey of the controversial views on Ibn Ishaq. In his full introduction to the Gottingen edition of the Sira, Wustenfeld in turn draws extensively on Ibn Sayyid al-Nas.
[20]
Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7.
[21]
ibid.
[22]
Qur'an, XXXV, 18.
[23]
Qur'an, XLI, 4.
[24]
ed. Khalil Muhammad Harras, Cairo, 1388 / 1968, 241.
[25]
Significantly, little or no information is to be found in general or special geographical dictionaries, such as al-Bakri's, Mu`jam ma'sta`jam; al-Fairuzabadi's al-Maghanim al-mutaba fi ma`alim taba [ ed. Hamad al-Jasir, Dar al-Yamama, 1389 / 1969 ] ; Six treatises [ Rasa'il fi tarikh al-Madina ed. Hamad al-Jasir, Dar al-Yamama, 1392 / 1972 ] ; al-Samhudi, Wafa' al-wafa' bi-akhbar dar al-Mustafa [ Cairo, 1326 ] , etc. Even al-Samhudi seems to regard a mention of the market-place in question as a mere historical reference, for in his extensive historical topography of Medina he identifies the market-place [ p. 544 ] almost casually in the course of explaining the change in nomenclature which had overtaken adjacent landmarks. That market-place, he says, is the one referred to in the report (sic) that the Prophet brought out the prisoners of Banu Qurayza to the market-place of Medina, etc.
[26]
p. 247. I am indebted to my friend Professor Mahmud Ghul of the American University, Beirut, for bringing this reference to my attention
[27]
d. 157/774. See EI, sub nomine
[28]
Sira, 689 / II, 240; al-Waqidi, op. cit., 512.
[29]
Sira, 689 / II, 240; Ibn Kathir, op. cit., III, 238.
[30]
e.g., Nasab Quraysh [ ed. A. S. Harun, Cairo, 1962 ] , 340.
[31]
op. cit., II, 634, 684.
[32]
op. cit., III, 415.
[33]
A. Guillaume, Islam [ Harmondsworth, 1956 ] , 10-11.
[34]
De bello Judaico, I, 4, 6.
[35]
ibid., VII, 9, 1.
[36]
ibid., VII, 10, 1
[37]
Sira, 685-6 / II, 235-6.
[38]
Sira, 352, 396 / I, 514, 567.
[39]
The Times, 18 August 1973; and The Guardian, 20 August 1973.
________________________
References and Notes:
[1]
Ibn Ishaq, Sira [ ed. Wustenfeld, Gottingen, 1860 ] , 545-7; [ ed. Saqqa et al., Cairo, 1955 ] , II, 47-9. See also al-Waqidi, Kitab al-maghazi [ ed. M. Jones, London, 1966 ] , II, 440 ff.; Suhayl, al-Rawd al-unuf [ Cairo, 1914 ] , I, 187 et passim; Ibn Kathir, al-Sira al-Nabawiya [ ed. Mustafa `Abd al-Wahid, Cairo, 1384-5 / 1964-6 ] , II, 5, et passim.
[2]
Sira, 545-56, 652-61 / II, 51-7, 190-202; Ibn Kathir, oop. cit., III, 145 ff.
[3]
Sira, 755-76, 779 / II, 328-53, 356, etc. More on Khaybar follows below
[4]
ibid., 776 / II, 353-4.
[5]
ibid., 668-84 / II, 214-33.
[6]
ibid., 684-700 / II, 233-54.
[7]
ibid., 689 / II, 240; `Uyun al-athar [ Cairo, 1356 A.H. ] , II, 73; Ibn Kathir, II, 239.
[8]
In his introduction to `Uyun al-athar, I, 7, Ibn Sayyid al-Nas [ d. 734 A.H. ] , having explained his plan for his biography of the Prophet, expressly states that his main source was Ibn Ishaq, who indeed was the chief source for everyone.
[9]
Tahdhib al-tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 17, where the author uses the same words, without giving a reference, in his introduction on the veracity of Ibn Ishaq and the criteria he applied.
[10]
d. 179.
[11]
Uyun al-athar, I, 12.
[12]
ibid, I, 16.
[13]
Sira, 691-2 / II, 242, 244; `Uyun al-athar, II, 74, 75.
[14]
Ibn Sayyid al-Nas [ op. cit., I, 121 ] makes precisely this point in relation to the story of the Banu Qaynuqa' and the spurious verse which was said to have appeared in Sura LIII of the Qur'an and at the time was taken by polytheist Meccans as a recognition of their deities. The author explains how various scholars disposed of the problem and then sums up by stating that in his view, this story is to be treated on the same level as tales of the maghazi and accounts of the Sira [ i.e. not to be accorded unqualified acceptance ]. Most scholars, he asserts, usually treated more liberally questions of minor importance and any material which did not involve a point of law, such as stories of the maghazi and similar reports. In such cases data would be accepted which would not be acceptable as a basis of deciding what is lawful or unlawful.
[15]
See n. 18 below.
[16]
Tabari, Tarikh, I, 1499 [ where the reference is to al-Waqidi, Maghazi, II, 513 ] ; Zad al-ma`ad [ ed. T. A. Taha, Cairo, 1970 ] , II, 82; Ibn Kathir, op. cit., IV, 118.
[17]
[font="Times New Roman"]
On this see W. Arafat, "Early critics of the poetry of the Sira", BSOAS, XXI, 3, 1958, 453-63.
[18]
Kadhdhab and Dajjal min al-dajajila.
[19]
Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7. In his valuable introduction Ibn Sayyid al-Nas provides a wide-ranging survey of the controversial views on Ibn Ishaq. In his full introduction to the Gottingen edition of the Sira, Wustenfeld in turn draws extensively on Ibn Sayyid al-Nas.
[20]
Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7.
[21]
ibid.
[22]
Qur'an, XXXV, 18.
[23]
Qur'an, XLI, 4.
[24]
ed. Khalil Muhammad Harras, Cairo, 1388 / 1968, 241.
[25]
Significantly, little or no information is to be found in general or special geographical dictionaries, such as al-Bakri's, Mu`jam ma'sta`jam; al-Fairuzabadi's al-Maghanim al-mutaba fi ma`alim taba [ ed. Hamad al-Jasir, Dar al-Yamama, 1389 / 1969 ] ; Six treatises [ Rasa'il fi tarikh al-Madina ed. Hamad al-Jasir, Dar al-Yamama, 1392 / 1972 ] ; al-Samhudi, Wafa' al-wafa' bi-akhbar dar al-Mustafa [ Cairo, 1326 ] , etc. Even al-Samhudi seems to regard a mention of the market-place in question as a mere historical reference, for in his extensive historical topography of Medina he identifies the market-place [ p. 544 ] almost casually in the course of explaining the change in nomenclature which had overtaken adjacent landmarks. That market-place, he says, is the one referred to in the report (sic) that the Prophet brought out the prisoners of Banu Qurayza to the market-place of Medina, etc.
[26]
p. 247. I am indebted to my friend Professor Mahmud Ghul of the American University, Beirut, for bringing this reference to my attention
[27]
d. 157/774. See EI, sub nomine
[28]
Sira, 689 / II, 240; al-Waqidi, op. cit., 512.
[29]
Sira, 689 / II, 240; Ibn Kathir, op. cit., III, 238.
[30]
e.g., Nasab Quraysh [ ed. A. S. Harun, Cairo, 1962 ] , 340.
[31]
op. cit., II, 634, 684.
[32]
op. cit., III, 415.
[33]
A. Guillaume, Islam [ Harmondsworth, 1956 ] , 10-11.
[34]
De bello Judaico, I, 4, 6.
[35]
ibid., VII, 9, 1.
[36]
ibid., VII, 10, 1
[37]
Sira, 685-6 / II, 235-6.
[38]
Sira, 352, 396 / I, 514, 567.
[39]
The Times, 18 August 1973; and The Guardian, 20 August 1973.
Answer to this
- Quran 24.33: Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.
Following hadiths shows that prophet of islam and other jihadis used to capture women in raids and had sex with them (which is technically raping of helpless captives)
Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
Bukhari yol 3,Book46, No. 717
"Narrated Ibn Aun:
Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day.
My question to you is, can you please clarify all the above mentioned? Are they taken out of context? Are those justified? Are those fabricated hadiths? Please let me know in details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy to Islamonline.net
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544596
When Islam was reveled to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam. Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a civilized society without slaves.
In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social illness that needed to be addressed. Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam treated slavery in the same manner it treated other social illnesses. Islam followed the same methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses, for example: the prohibition of alcohol in three steps.
Concerning having slave women, we would like to let you know that it happens to be a practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims found themselves vis-a-vis non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women or milk al-yameen are referred to in the Qur'an as “Those whom your right hand possess” or “ma malakat aymanukum”; they are those taken as captives during conquests and subsequently became slaves, or those who were descendants of slaves.
Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims.
But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant. What's more, her child would also become free.
Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family environment, she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom for she could be ransomed.
In the light of the above-mentioned facts, and the nature of the question posed by people, it's clear that some people misunderstand the wisdom behind the permissibility of having female slaves and think that it is meant to unleash men’s desires and give them more enjoyment. Never! That is not the point! It is, rather, means of freeing slaves; and this is clarified above in the fact that if a master got a female slave pregnant, then he could neither sell her nor give her away as a present. And if he died, she would not be considered part of his property. She'd receive her freedom and her baby would also be free.
But, we have to stress that this case should not be confused with that of female servants or maids, for they are free and not slaves. Therefore, it is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with them except through an Islamic marriage.
Slavery has been abolished by international conventions, and goes in line with aims and objectives of Islam, as it has called for centuries ago.
As for marrying slaves, it is something permissible under two conditions: first, if one is unable to pay the dowry of a free woman. Second, if there is fear of committing adultery if one doesn’t get married. This is clarified by the following verse: “And whose is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you.” (An-Nisaa’: 25)
This verse shows that Muslim men should abstain from illicit relations and seek enjoyment through marriage to free women or through their female slaves.
In conclusion, Allah has forbidden certain types of behavior and permitted other kinds of behavior as a safeguard to the individual and to the society. Allah has forbidden fornication and adultery. However, in the case of captives whom your right hands posses, it's something necessitated by the special circumstances which were created when the Muslims were at war.”
more info are here :
http://www.answering-christianity.com/kari...male_slaves.htm
- Quran 24.33: Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.
Following hadiths shows that prophet of islam and other jihadis used to capture women in raids and had sex with them (which is technically raping of helpless captives)
Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
Bukhari yol 3,Book46, No. 717
"Narrated Ibn Aun:
Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day.
My question to you is, can you please clarify all the above mentioned? Are they taken out of context? Are those justified? Are those fabricated hadiths? Please let me know in details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy to Islamonline.net
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544596
When Islam was reveled to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam. Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a civilized society without slaves.
In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social illness that needed to be addressed. Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam treated slavery in the same manner it treated other social illnesses. Islam followed the same methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses, for example: the prohibition of alcohol in three steps.
Concerning having slave women, we would like to let you know that it happens to be a practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims found themselves vis-a-vis non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women or milk al-yameen are referred to in the Qur'an as “Those whom your right hand possess” or “ma malakat aymanukum”; they are those taken as captives during conquests and subsequently became slaves, or those who were descendants of slaves.
Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims.
But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant. What's more, her child would also become free.
Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family environment, she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom for she could be ransomed.
In the light of the above-mentioned facts, and the nature of the question posed by people, it's clear that some people misunderstand the wisdom behind the permissibility of having female slaves and think that it is meant to unleash men’s desires and give them more enjoyment. Never! That is not the point! It is, rather, means of freeing slaves; and this is clarified above in the fact that if a master got a female slave pregnant, then he could neither sell her nor give her away as a present. And if he died, she would not be considered part of his property. She'd receive her freedom and her baby would also be free.
But, we have to stress that this case should not be confused with that of female servants or maids, for they are free and not slaves. Therefore, it is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with them except through an Islamic marriage.
Slavery has been abolished by international conventions, and goes in line with aims and objectives of Islam, as it has called for centuries ago.
As for marrying slaves, it is something permissible under two conditions: first, if one is unable to pay the dowry of a free woman. Second, if there is fear of committing adultery if one doesn’t get married. This is clarified by the following verse: “And whose is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you.” (An-Nisaa’: 25)
This verse shows that Muslim men should abstain from illicit relations and seek enjoyment through marriage to free women or through their female slaves.
In conclusion, Allah has forbidden certain types of behavior and permitted other kinds of behavior as a safeguard to the individual and to the society. Allah has forbidden fornication and adultery. However, in the case of captives whom your right hands posses, it's something necessitated by the special circumstances which were created when the Muslims were at war.”
more info are here :
http://www.answering-christianity.com/kari...male_slaves.htm
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.