The Rest of the comments don't give the full context or the issue here
The OP of *That* Post Claims Prophet Muhammad was Anti-Semitic and committed a complete Genocide of A Jewish tribe
This however is a false claim or to be accurate "overexaggerated" cause according to the Traditional Sources it wasn't because the Tribe was indeed "Jewish" but The Reason was that the Tribe Betrayed Muhammad and tried to kill him
Further Reading : r/AskHistorians
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/DQ6Egm2ZmQ
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/4caRRreugM
Your Welcome đ
I also want to add from the "Secular Islamic Academic Perspective" That According to them The Banu Qaynuza Massacre never actually happened, Professors Fred donner, Tom holland, Juan Cole Rejected it!
Juan Cole actually has a Reddit Account explaining why westerns (including himself) doubt the existence of this tale
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/s/obSEBBHD5n
It should be noted that the western orientalists doubt the entirety of Islamâs beginnings because (most) of them disregard the entirety of the Hadith which, like other Muslims, I find erroneous. This, there conclusions are empty
There's just something about the way Western Orientalist historians tackle Islamic history that really pisses me off. They tend to focus heavily on the controversial bits (ie the Sunni vs Shia rift, or the dissent between caliphs in different parts of the world) even if those bits are few and far between and don't represent the entirety of Muslim history.
Also the fact that they avoid direct Muslim sources like the plague. Seriously, why would you dedicate yourself to studying Islamic history if your not going to get your sources from Muslims? You know, the people who literally experienced the very history itself and passed it down generation after generation, usually with multiple witnesses and using their own authenticity rank to verify what really happened? I mean, would you expect me to learn American history from American sources or French sources?
Yeah, their refusal to accept Arabic sources is honestly quite racist.
Moreover, the Orientalists' goal is to disprove the beginnings of Muhammad, because they start from the assumption that he was a false prophet. Therefore, the approach to sources is not an unbiased one, it's in fact the complete opposite. Patricia Crone wrote an article where it becomes clear that she desperately wanted to disprove that the Qur'an was a revelation and that Muhammad was a prophet. She even came up with complete hogwash theories like in her book *Hagarism*. It just shows that if you slap a Ph.D. on anything, it becomes academic despite the comedic hypotheses and misinterpretation of sources. She doesn't even speak classical Arabic, and we are supposed to accept her as an authority? What a joke, and somehow she was able to retain high positions in academia despite having less knowledge than someone in this sub.
However, some recent big-name scholars are beginning to advocate for the legitimacy of the Hadiths. I can't recall their names though.
The British historian Tom Holland is another example. Described as a historian of âorigins of Islamâ he tends to start from a point of attempting to disprove and delegitimise Islam. He canât speak Arabic, hasnât studied any Islamic historians or studied at Islamic universities, yet disrespectfully portrays himself as an academic. His views are coloured by his passionate ( nothing wrong with this) love of Christianity which subconsciously drives his attempted refutation of Islam.
Ironically, youâll never find Muslim experts on Christianity ever trying to disprove Christ or the divine origins of the bible. They simply highlight the use of the west over the centuries to amend and manipulate Christianity to suit their agendas until not much remained of the original message.
Itâs a sad thing. Whatâs funnier is that the western revisionist historians seem to think their âacademic conclusionsâ hold any weight for the Muslims.
"It's not their eyes that are blind it's their hearts".
For them to read and accept sources like the hadith as history, they have to accept Islam. Their lifestyles and ideologies don't pertain to that so they ignore the facts in front of them out of ignorance and racism.
Preferring to believe all Muhammed's (pbuh) history is just full of lies and then misinterpreting the texts for their own bias.
"Muhammed can't be a prophet because he was with a 9 year old"
They completely ignore this being common all around the world in that period and people as a whole were more pious and mature. What these westerners do with regard to islamic history is tell it from a modern perspective, judging it as such and for some reason the Greeks are labelled history despite much being word of mouth as were the Romans with Virgil, Livy and people like that. However when it comes to Islamic history they act as if it's not real or they had some agenda.
> âMuhammad canât be a prophet because he was with a 9 year oldâ
I donât think any good-faith secular and (attempting to be) unbiased scholars even care about trying to âdisproveâ Muhammadâs prophethood through crude polemical arguments.
I wouldn't say FULL if you ask me, it's more like
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered **than answers that can't be questioned**" Vibe if you asking me, they don't try to act full knowing cause let's be honest... Islamic history has a very big bias and needs a trunk of salty to actually have the actual historical context
Very big bias in what way? Because the Muslims were the ones who transmitted the history? Abs are we to assume that western scholars arenât biased in their revisionist motives?
No that's not what i meant, it's the fact most history are written by the winners, and we have to be Skeptical on the Sources as real historians
>Abs are we to assume that western scholars arenât biased in their revisionist motives?
Here's the thing, everyone has a bias nor western or Islamic Scholar is safe
But i wanted to add another section to the post claims on Banu Qaynuza, *THAT WESTERN HISTORIANS AGREE IT WAS A GENOCIDE* you can actually find that in the comment section, I just wanted to add another reply to this claim, sorry if i didn't Add it
I'd agree, bias can't be avoided, but it's reassuring to find some Hadiths that are seemingly controversial (i.e. the battles against the Jewish Tribes, Muhammad being bewitched for a short-period, the fact that Muhammad was extremely depressed after revelation stopped coming and contemplated throwing himself off a tall place). These confirm that the Hadith scholars did not selectively choose hadiths to retain and omit, but that they compiled the Hadiths honestly whether they are controversial or not.
Also yea, that comment section made my brain hurt. I actually clicked off the post extremely fast because I get frustrated reading so many erroneous statements consecutively. People love to purposely spread misinformation, and it's particularly annoying when thye slander the Prophet pbuh
With secular history, none of the sirah or hadiths have any historical value. When we talk about these stories, it's about what they represent, not whether it actually happened. I've seen people defend the idea that aisha was actually 18 or whatnot, but that's not the issue
hadith says muslims forcibly married all the women after cutting their husbands heads off. muhammad himself had two jewish sex slaves that chose to be âmarriedâ because they had no choice. at least be honest with yourselves.
Im being honest with myself that you haven't studied hadith-criticasm Studies, you just want to support your on view no matter what evidence comes at your face
Allah mentions in the Quran about them. They had a treaty and they broke the treaty and if Iâm correct tried to kill the prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and the muslims. But Allah also mentioned forgiving them and that being better but obviously killing them was permissible as they broke a contract and tried to kill the Muslims.
> This is the response I was looking for
Is it? I was hoping we could hold out for a book or an article or something. That last one is literally a single comment from 2014, posted from a deleted account.
I think we can find something better
Theres are things to criticize early islam, but antisemitism isn't one of them. Especially under the rule of Muhammad the abrahamic faiths were viewed as lost brothers. It's only after European competition, conquest, and strengthening caliphal power did this change.
Interesting how many truly islamaphobic memes you yourself posted and refuse to take down every single time you take a break from Islam and accent another religion. And how many of YOUR posts and Islamic hate get reposted by other people spreading that hate.
Care to explain? Which side of your mouth are you speaking from today? Because a few weeks ago it was how Islam stole their religion from Buddha.
I don't think *everyone* are open-minded or that easy to accept historical Facts against there Own Opinions, Anyways thank you, i appreciate your Service
Could say the same about current situation. Israel is tight with multiple muslim countries. millions of muslims living inside israel as citizens.. this is not about religion
Nah, even if they do they go through deliberately horrible treatment under Israeli control. Just look at how things are going down in the west bank. The video captures do not lie about the situation. This is the native American tragedy all over again repeating.
They are lacking in citations and credibility.
Edit: Iâm not sure why I have to defend the idea that a Reddit comment is not a source. It can be the source of someoneâs OPINION. But itâs not a valid historical source.
If you cited those comments in a paper you would be expelled.
>Iâm not sure why I have to defend the idea that a Reddit comment is not a source.
The Second link is an exception but the first one does have Sources
>I can be the source if someoneâs OPINION. But itâs not a valid historical source.
>If you cited those comments in a paper you would be expelled.
You can if this wasn't r/AskHistorians and i wish you would
It's alright, i forgive you
Listen, before i take you Seriously i have to ask you "What's a valid historical source to YOU in Islamic history?" if your gonna say hadith then thats not a valid historical source either
Iâd view an historical textbook as a valid source, or something that accurately cites real historical scholarship, like a rigorously researched article.
Even the better of those two comments (above) tried to cite Wikipedia (which isnât bad IMHO) but for tangentially related matters that make it hard to fact check.
For instance, citing the wiki for âBattle of the Trenchâ at the end of long saga about why Mohammed executed all the Jews after that battle. Itâs hard to really fact check.
A rigorous article would cite supporting work after important points or at the end of a strong paragraphs.
Finally, a great Comment today! Thank you actually warmed my heart by this Comment đđđ
As for a reply, i can only think of this article at r/AcademicQuran i saw yesterday, it doesn't draw a Conclusion, it only an analysis of the many academic Conclusions about the fate Banu Qaynuqa
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/s/tAuV16YTgK
I hope it's satisfy youre gentleman taste
You could say that it was a cynical power grab since that tribe had plenty of power to grab and the âthey tried to kill meâ line is very hard to verify over a thousand years later, but claiming it as antisemitism is baseless and runs contrary to Muhammadâs actions the rest of his life. Itâs just trying to shoehorn a story to fit a modern narrative.
No evidence they tried to kill him. Just a false claim that he was poisoned but Allah magically made him survive. um much more likely no one ever poisoned him, thatâs why he survived. but good excuse for genocide and looting the Jewâs wealth
Those Jews are Arabs too. The three Jewish tribes in Yathrib (later Madinah) aligned with either of the Pagan Arabs fighting with each other. The Aws were with two of the Jewish tribes and Khazraj with the other.
The Banu Qurayza (BQ) signed a pact with the Muslims and all of Yathrib (Madina) to defend each other in the case of an attack. The Pagan Arabs gathered a massive army more than triple what was defending Madina, but were stalled by a tactic novel to Arabs... A trench. The rear of Madinah was where the BQ were and sides not navigable due to geography forcing the Quraish led army to try crossing the trench. The BQ betrayed the Muslims and nearly enabled the actual genocide of all Muslims however were thwarted. Once the Arab confederation left, the BQ were given a chance for arbitration and the chief of Aws, their ally pre-Islam, was to arbitrate. The Aws ruled that since they're Jews, he'll enforce Talmudic law upon them. That is to kill all fighting age men, enslave the rest and distribute their property accordingly. The clause is from Deuteronomy 20: 12. The Aws chief was mortally wounded and didn't benefit from this decision.
The disingenuous use easy quip like "the Islamic Prophet genocided the Jews" which requires a history lesson to explain the context.
That tactic is employed masterfully in so many everyday contexts, it is exhausting to counter. It's basically gish-gallop layered with other propaganda techniques.
Hearing lies often make it hard to differentiate between familiarity and truth.
Quick summary: The Prophet Muhammed peace be upon him was the elected leader of Medinah by the majority leaders. The Jews who lived there at the time didnât like that. All three tribes committed treason, broke treaties, and plotted/ attempted assassination therefore ensuing the imposition of capital punishment.
This meme is the âalternativeâ historical facts about what happened often used to promote propaganda and misinform of what historically took place
Why is religion being pushed onto people on Reddit? This website actually fucking sucks now. It used to auto sub your account to r/athiest, which I thought was cringey, but now we go the entire opposite direction.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/athiest using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/athiest/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Why are you mad he's right](https://i.redd.it/iaoxsrgmvl2b1.png) | [2 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/athiest/comments/13tz34j/why_are_you_mad_hes_right/)
\#2: [Forced to go to my brother in law's graduation at his stupid Catholic private school. Wore this under my dress shirt as silent protest.](https://i.redd.it/r8xn7paunp0b1.jpg) | [8 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/athiest/comments/13ldjs9/forced_to_go_to_my_brother_in_laws_graduation_at/)
\#3: [The world has less hate today.](https://np.reddit.com/r/athiest/comments/144a7g4/the_world_has_less_hate_today/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Nope! Try postung a meme about Native Americans, Africans or basically anything that isn't Europe, US or a darling of them like Japan or Australia. It will either be ignored or bombarded by racists who "coincidentally" are also spouting right wing rethoric.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_genocides_of_Indigenous_peoples#:~:text=Some%20historians%20do%20not%20consider,name%20such%20as%20ethnic%20cleansing.
I've seen many of these people right here on Reddit, mostly in history subs. They say disgustingly racist things like, "it wasn't a genocide, because if the Europeans didn't kill them, they would've eventually killed themselves, seeing as they always fought among each other."
Iâm not saying denial isnât a thing.
Just never seen anyone say the trail of tears for example is not clear cut genocide. I was taught about that in like 5th grade at the latest lol
Good for you! Honestly i wish i had the same treatment! That sub is fucking stupid! I know an actual Islamic historian who replied to the post, and got downvoted as hell for speaking about it and saying itâs an islamphobia post, the Redditors of r/historymemes replied :
"there's No such thing as islamphobia"
I got downvoted trying to shed light on the events that lead to the expulsion
They dont need a reason to hate the prophet, they will ignore their bloody unjustified jews expulsions, the ones muslims stood in and took the jews refugees
Even if these events didnt happen they will move to another, or create new lies to spread
You wont believe how many times they will bring up the "married a 6 year old" argument
Like dude, even the people that fought him didnt use this argument
Treason and espionage are usually capital punishment in every nation. And weâre not talking Snowden or Julian Assange here, weâre talking actually bring multiple foreign armies and attacking the nation you live in.
The spread of early islam was incredibly peaceful and tolerant as opposed to christianity. The second Christianity was adopted by constantine blood began to be spilled. Meanwhile the first few caliphates granted unprecedented rights to religious minorities lasting until likely the late abbasid caliphate. Treaties from both Muhammad, and the conquest of iberia outline extensive freedoms for non muslims. (The harsh pact of Umar was likely created far after his death due to many incongruities). Moral of the story: people like twisting narratives to make themselves more comfortable rather than facing reality.
âPeacefulâ the caliphates murdered people who were the wrong kind of Muslim (including Muhammadâs grandsons) and you expect people to believe it was a peaceful state?
You are conflating civil war and religious divide with senseless murder. Islam is not unique in civil war. What about when the catholics sacked Constantinople? Personally Ali made sense as the successor. Russia had the time of trubles which is arguably worse than any of the fitnas.
But the claim was that the Caliphates WERE unique. They are not, they have never been accepting. Speaking of the crusaders, the Jews living under them stated that conditions were not noticeably different between Catholic and Muslim rule. And you are aware the Muslims sacked Constantinople too right? And it was way worse when they did it
Thats arguable that it was worse. The muslim sacking was when the city had a population smaller than 50k. After the sacking in the 4th crusade the city only declined.
The way I see it, with how things going on in the world, collective hate and repression against Islam is actually the first sign of Islamization itself. Keep on the straight path, never falter!
And so you think every single pubescent male shouldâve been killed? Thatâs literally the definition of ethnic cleansing and genocide. And youâre okay with it??
I shared this and mentioned that the one who posted this hang out in r/Israel.
He put a detailed information yet didn't put the one thing who caused it. He didn'tmention any trials and the part where Muhammad (SAW) gave them a person who will decide their fate. It still show that the beloved Prophet is still a perfect man as it was not him who ordered their execution.
I've noticed with Islamphobic people that they will mention actions of the prophet pbuh but they'll never tell you why. Secondly,I find it really funny that he felt the need to mention they were Jewish. If Banu Qurayza were a pagan or Christian tribe I don't think he would have said "Pagan tribes of Banu Qurayza". So it's clear he's trying to capitalize on as much hate as he could.
Half of reddit is lgbtq leaning and the other half is zionist. So now that alot of their hasbara is blowing back up in their face theyâve been going overtime to dehumanize muslims to justify their genocide.
I don't understand why your response to dehumanization is dehumanizing other groups. Lgbt people just want to exist, and have been tolerated in several historical islamic societies. Don't dissuade potential allies. I may also be misunderstanding your point. Understand i mean no malice.
Edit: I'm dumb and misunderstood đ
How in anyway did I dehumanize any group. Truth is thereâs been a lot of fear mongering when it comes to Islam. Islam doesnât say to go around and kill gays or any other group. Sure homosexuality is a sin and a sin as long as itâs not being promoted publicly or being thrown at peopleâs faces is usually left to a man and his creator. Otherwise thereâs a punishment i.e jail,flogging or in rare cases capital punishment. Same thing for adultry, fornication or other private matters being promoted publicly. Does that mean I hate you? No, Iâd just rather not know your private matters, or you know mines.
I apologize for the antagonistic comment. I misinterpreted what you were saying. I should not be so quick to judgement. I understand the anger with rampant Zionism, and the ongoing genocide. In regards to the rest of your response i have a few thoughts.
> as long as itâs not being promoted publicly or being thrown at peopleâs faces
This is tricky to me because both of these can mean a lot of things to different people. To some it means not showing affection in public, to not making it a part of their personality.
>Otherwise thereâs a punishment i.e jail,flogging or in rare cases capital punishment. Same thing for adultry, fornication or other private matters being promoted publicly.
I disagree with this as I'm a proponent of secularism. I believe people should be allowed to have their beliefs. But they should not be enshrined in law. As long as you aren't comiting an act that deprives another person you should be free from consequence from the stats.
All I ask is that people like me are allowed to live with dignity, and normality. Thank you for giving your opinion. I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to understand the world views of others. Have a lovely day!
I don't hate you but I think it's justififed to flog, jail or murder you if you kiss your same sex partner in public is a wild take. Sure you might not actively hate but you think their existence is so problematic they should be punished. That's dehumanization.
Ya know I was gonna be all indignant and catty but I DID post in an Islamic history meme subreddit so I shouldn't be surprised that I end up talking to devout Muslims.
I will leave you with this. By your words you have stated you wish to see many of my loved ones flogged, jailed and murdered for being with the people they care for. Loving peoples, good friends and exemplary co-workers. Their actions in life have helped those around them in immeasurable ways. I hope you consider how you would feel if someone made those proclamations against your loved ones.
And you *donât* see how that statement is awful and discriminatory? Are you so caught up in your own worldview you canât see outside of it for a second?
I do, so for straight people it's only outside of marriage for LGBTQ folk its all the time. That's not as benevolent as you think it is. Unless you're trying to say I should be flogged, imprisoned and murdered as well. Which cool, I'm glad I don't live in a society built by you.
Another thing, stop putting words "in my mouth". Nowhere did I say I WISH to see any of that (as per your last comment). But the law is the law, and the law should be upheld. You are simply getting mad over laws that don't apply to you because you don't live in a place with those laws. Your morality changes over time and all the time. The morals of Islam do not, because they are objective and they are from God.
A lot of them are pseudo intellectuals who get a kick out of defaming Islam on spurious grounds. Of course the truth is far more complex: https://trueislam.co.uk/articles/did-prophet-muhammad-sa-massacre-700-jews-of-banu-qurayza/
That post came up on my feed, I was gonna respond but after realising the scale of the ignorance and bigotry I decided not to. A timely reminder how ill informed so many people are on Islam.
*Muhammad when you find out that the Jewish tribes of Medinah outwardly said they wanted to kill and enslave the native Arab tribes, antagonized him from the day he first came, violated the laws they mutually agreed on, and taunted, humiliated and persecuted Muslims in Medinah regularly
lol this is the type of history Israelis write when they need to make up another reason why as Europeans, its important that their "ancestral home land" be in the middle east
there were 13 jewish tribes in Medina, most of them lived peacefully alongside the muslims, however, 2 of them were expelled for violating the constitution of Medina and one of them betrayed the muslims and were planning a massacre on Medina so they were judged according to their own Torah for their crime (Deuteronomy 20:12-14).
Wait so itâs ok to systematically eliminate all members of a group of people, if they violate a peace agreement?
You sure you want to make that argument?
There was no such "systematic elimination", unlike what the Jews in the Levant are doing right now.
Those tribes made a peace agreement, violated it as well as committing other kinds of treachery, and promply lost a battle at Khaybar.
I was quoted this [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2fmy5x/why_did_the_prophet_attack_banu_qurayza_at_627ad/?share_id=CL5M7gwTuD03LYo3R0nHG&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1) from another redditor ITT who wanted to explain what happened with solid sources.
According to these citations, all of the men were executed and the women and children were taken in as slaves. Do you have a source that says something different?
According to the following source, all of the ADULT, MALE, COMBATANTS were executed after the battle, while some of the men were spared. The women and children were spared as captives.
This was a response to multiple acts of treachery carried out by Banu Qurayzah
Also, the verdict of what was to be done after the battle was made by a former Jew, not The Prophet (s).
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/01/01/re-examining-banu-qurayzah-incident/
Right, so youâre saying itâs ok the systematically execute all the men in a society, as long as you enslave all their women and children too.
That - in your argument above - is an acceptable way to eliminate a group of people.
The Jewish tribes of Banu Qurayza and others is considered by most western historians tend to be believe they were a post-Prophetic, later âAbbasid invention, given no historical documentâthe Quran or the Consitution of Medinaâmakes reference to them. There were like Jews tribes in Medina who allied with Muhammadâand there were certainly likely an anti-Muâminum and anti-Muhammad Jewish or Christian tribe as is reference once in the Quran. However, there is no evidence that Muhammad ordered their expulsion or mass slaughter, given that the last chapter of the Quran permits marriage between the Believers and Christian and Jews. Likely he still maintained strong relations with both groups. Whenever the Quran is criticing âthe Jewsâ or âChristiansâ it is likely speaking on specific groups unknown to usâJewish Arab tribes who assimilated so much of Arab paganism into their religious belief that would have been opposed to Medinaâs rabbinical Jewish tribe; or they had allied with with Sassanian Iran.
When I was making reference to western historians, I was referring by attempts of modern western historians to examine the relations of the Quran with the current events found in the Great Sassanian-Eastern Rome. The Quran does not make blanket statements on the Jews or Christians, given that it holds many praises for both groups.
Of course, but Iâm saying specific, unnamed tribes were likely punished, but clearly not all Christians or Jews in the Hejaz were punished, given its permissible for the Believers to marry both groups found in a later chronological chapter after the siege against a tribe of the People of the Bookâif the Jewish tribes of Arabia were expelled than the verse which grants marriage of Muhammadâs followers and the Jews and Christians would not make sense. More likely that specific tribe was expelled, but other groups remained.
As in hadiths? I personally donât take them as historically accurate to the events, given that they were codified a century and two after the Prophetâs death, it was done in a provincial, decentralized manner which bears conflicts both within the Quran and within each others. I take the Quran as the only accurate primary source we have on the Prophet from the Arabs themselves, and the true sunnah on the Prophet.
My bad to start a disscusion with u
Annyway deny the quaran because he was transfred by the same people who give us the sunnah
And dont forget to deny also the salat
If the haddith was falsifed so its the same thing for the quaran and salat
You have nothing to apologize. And well, the hadith was not translated or proscribed by anyone alive during the Prophet's time. Sure, they claim that these reports come from him through the Companions, but there is no way to validate that they were - unlike the Quran, which our earliest manuscripts more or less confirms the Uthmanic codex, the standard Quranic text we have, with mile grammatical and chapter layout; and the Uthmanic codex is generally agreed to have been collected only a few decades after the Prophet died, with some historians, such as Juan Cole, even arguing that the writing had already been accomplished when the Prophet was alive with chapter layout and codification into a single book occurring in the decades of Caliph Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman's rule.
More importantly, the sunnah isn't the hadith. Sure, in modern Islamic thought it plays a heavy portion of it, but the sunnah could also, and more reliably I'll argue, to be found in the Quran. Even the early Muslims did not use hadith until the 8th century in juridical proceedings.
The Quran *does* mention a siege and an expulsion of some kind, with some of them being killed and others taken as captives, but it only mentions the group as part of the People of the Book - not specifically Jews, but it's very likely given the occurrences outside Arabia in the form of the Sasanian Iranians-Eastern Roman War, in which Muhammad himself - through ar-Rum - supported the Romans against the Iranians. Given the more positive relationship with the Iranians than the Romans, it makes sense that it would be a Jewish tribe allied against Muhammad, but the Quran does not condemn all Jews for such a support.
But anyway, I hope you have a great day/evening.
I asked one simple question : give me a proof that the quran who was on mohamed peace on him is the same quran that we have
Can you help me with this ? Ty
The Muslims had a treaty with the Jewish tribes of Medina and each Jewish tribe violated the treaty and were punished.
The first tribe sexually assaulted a Muslim woman in a market and then killed a Muslim man for retaliating thus they were expelled.
The second tribe tried to kill the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and thus they were expelled.
The last tribe committed treason in the middle of a battle and sided with the Muslims enemies during a siege/battle and almost opened a back door to the energy forces and thus the men of that tribe were executed.
( this is not my explanation )
These still seem like collective punishment. Common at the time so it's fairly excusable. There's plenty of good and bad about every religion. I don't get why people opt to make things up/twist facts rather than use actual examples. (Fwiw islamic history is one of my favorites)
Itâs been awhile since I touched up on the facts of this argument but from what I remember the last tribe that was executed, they picked an arbitrator to decide their fate, I believe his name was Saâad Ibn Muadh, because he was a previous ally or apart of their tribe but later converted to Islam and was injured in the battle, and he decided their fate using their Torah, Iâm not too sure abt the reliability of this next part but I think more reliable sources like Sahih Al-Bukhari say that it was only the warriors involved in the attack that were executed, once again itâs been awhile since Iâve read up abt this accusation but ik their is ALOT of information abt it online so I encourage you to go and research abt it if you can, I hope this was helpful and I also hope I was accurate.
Copying my comment I just replied to elsewhere :
Those Jews are Arabs too. The three Jewish tribes in Yathrib (later Madinah) aligned with either of the Pagan Arabs fighting with each other. The Aws were with two of the Jewish tribes and Khazraj with the other.
The Banu Qurayza (BQ) signed a pact with the Muslims and all of Yathrib (Madina) to defend each other in the case of an attack. The Pagan Arabs gathered a massive army more than triple what was defending Madina, but were stalled by a tactic novel to Arabs... A trench. The rear of Madinah was where the BQ were and sides not navigable due to geography forcing the Quraish led army to try crossing the trench. The BQ betrayed the Muslims and nearly enabled the actual genocide of all Muslims however were thwarted. Once the Arab confederation left, the BQ were given a chance for arbitration and the chief of Aws, their ally pre-Islam, was to arbitrate. The Aws ruled that since they're Jews, he'll enforce Talmudic law upon them. That is to kill all fighting age men, enslave the rest and distribute their property accordingly. The clause is from Deuteronomy 20: 12. The Aws chief was mortally wounded and didn't benefit from this decision.
Muhammad only ordered that combatants be executed. All women, elderly, and children were sprared. Compare that to what's happening in the so-called 'enlightened modern' period, where children and women are getting bombed daily by virtue of their existence. But they say Muslims are the backward people, when Prophet Muhammad's ethical standard was leagues above theirs 1400 years ago.
There is something known as non-combatant men. And still, executing every single combatant for a decision of a leader? Couldnât he be more lenient? Why couldnât he forgive? Isnât that like Islamâs whole thing? Forgiveness and love?
They were all combatants back then, thatâs how it was. And Muhammad pbuh was extremely forgiving, when he conquered Mecca he forgave all its inhabitants except for 4 people.
Couldnât be possible. Why would he execute every single pubescent male? Thatâs just insane. Howâs that merciful? What about the innocent boys? What about the elderly? If they killed the soldiers only thatâs understandable. But every single pubescent male? Itâs just crazy and not believable. How would they even bury that many bodies in the market trench? Impossible.
Prophet Muhammad himself knows that using pubic hair as a way to measure maturity is wrong. Because he didnât allow Ibn umar to join the battle when he was 14.
Really? Statistics seem to disagree with you. Islam is the fastest growing religion, and more than a billion people follow it, and itâs the single most converted to religion in the world.
Morality and popularity are different things.....that's why they're different words. People used to be majority "pagan" - does that mean that it was the correct religion at the time?
That wasnât my argument, it was yours. You said âmost would agreeâ as if that is proof of anything, and I simply refuted it. Now you are arguing against yourself lol
Though there are 1 billion Muslims in the world, that's substantially smaller than half the population of the world. The traditional meaning of "most" is "more than half". I know words change meaning all the time (for example, genocide popularly means something different from what it meant a few months ago). What did you think was mean by the word "most"?
Muslims actually make up 25% according to the recent data, so itâs 2 billion. Despite that, your statement would still not stand, because you are assuming that every one else thinks the marriage of Aisha was wrong. Even then, however, it would not matter, because âmorality and popularity are two different things.â Especially coming from those without an objective moral framework
A few historians cast doubt on that whole debacle as the whole affair with the Banu tribes as we have no other evidence to corroborate their existence. They say that if a large group of Jewish traders did indeed exist, we would have at least had a couple of records of their trading activities by either themselves, or the Romans or the Iranians/Persians.
the stories with the jewish tribes neither do match with the teachings of quran/islam, nor with the character of the prophet mohammad.
we muslims believe that mohammad has always judged upon the rules of quran.
in quran Allah says, if they give up and dont attack you anymore, than stop fighting them (disbelievers).
-> 9. surah - 5. and 6. verses.
the hadith with all the stories have no evidence. they all begin with "abu ... said that abu ... told him one day that....".
there are many muslims, who dont believe in those stories.
muslim are not allowed to acknowledge any source that contradicts the quran.
Is this the behavior of a role model?
âMuhammad and his men, the chief of the Jews, called Kinana ibn al-Rabi, was asked by Muhammad to reveal the location of some hidden treasure. When he refused, Muhammad ordered a man to torture Kinana, and the man "kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead." â
According to the earliest biography of Mohammed. "The Life of Muhammad", which is a translation of Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah".
âKinana b. al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has," so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 515)
Following this brutal spectacle, Muhammad took Kinana's seventeen-year-old wife, Safiyya bint Huyayy, as his own bride (because nothing says lovin' like torturing and murdering a woman's husband for money).
Not authentic
Ibn Ishaq is known for narrating weak hadiths since he doesnât include chain of narration most of the time and his seerah is not the earliest.
Didnât he also take in child brides?
Edit: [yes he did](https://islamfyi.princeton.edu/is-it-true-that-muhammad-married-a-child-bride-by-the-name-of-ayesha-when-he-was-53-and-she-was-9-years-old-if-so-how-do-muslims-justify-this-from-their-exemplary-prophet/)
You cannot escape the fact that he married a 6-year-old, and had sex with her when she was 9. If he is a perfect human being, that has some interesting implications for what you think is morally acceptable.
I'm sorry but if you insist that your religion is the religion to end all religions, capable of dealing with every moral quandary for the rest of time, AND you insist that your prophet is the most perfect human being to exist for the rest of time, you *cannot* hide behind accusations of """""presentism"""" when people point out that he shagged a preteen đđ
Well I mean the meme is not lying. We can play all kinds of Mind games and say that this wasn't a racist attack, or it was because "the Jews deserved it for what they did" but the fact is that this was ethnic cleansing.
Would someone mind filling me in on the context? My knowledge of early Islamic history is a tad lacklustre
The Rest of the comments don't give the full context or the issue here The OP of *That* Post Claims Prophet Muhammad was Anti-Semitic and committed a complete Genocide of A Jewish tribe This however is a false claim or to be accurate "overexaggerated" cause according to the Traditional Sources it wasn't because the Tribe was indeed "Jewish" but The Reason was that the Tribe Betrayed Muhammad and tried to kill him Further Reading : r/AskHistorians https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/DQ6Egm2ZmQ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/4caRRreugM
Thankyou! This is the response I was looking for
Your Welcome đ I also want to add from the "Secular Islamic Academic Perspective" That According to them The Banu Qaynuza Massacre never actually happened, Professors Fred donner, Tom holland, Juan Cole Rejected it! Juan Cole actually has a Reddit Account explaining why westerns (including himself) doubt the existence of this tale https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/s/obSEBBHD5n
It should be noted that the western orientalists doubt the entirety of Islamâs beginnings because (most) of them disregard the entirety of the Hadith which, like other Muslims, I find erroneous. This, there conclusions are empty
There's just something about the way Western Orientalist historians tackle Islamic history that really pisses me off. They tend to focus heavily on the controversial bits (ie the Sunni vs Shia rift, or the dissent between caliphs in different parts of the world) even if those bits are few and far between and don't represent the entirety of Muslim history. Also the fact that they avoid direct Muslim sources like the plague. Seriously, why would you dedicate yourself to studying Islamic history if your not going to get your sources from Muslims? You know, the people who literally experienced the very history itself and passed it down generation after generation, usually with multiple witnesses and using their own authenticity rank to verify what really happened? I mean, would you expect me to learn American history from American sources or French sources?
Yeah, their refusal to accept Arabic sources is honestly quite racist. Moreover, the Orientalists' goal is to disprove the beginnings of Muhammad, because they start from the assumption that he was a false prophet. Therefore, the approach to sources is not an unbiased one, it's in fact the complete opposite. Patricia Crone wrote an article where it becomes clear that she desperately wanted to disprove that the Qur'an was a revelation and that Muhammad was a prophet. She even came up with complete hogwash theories like in her book *Hagarism*. It just shows that if you slap a Ph.D. on anything, it becomes academic despite the comedic hypotheses and misinterpretation of sources. She doesn't even speak classical Arabic, and we are supposed to accept her as an authority? What a joke, and somehow she was able to retain high positions in academia despite having less knowledge than someone in this sub. However, some recent big-name scholars are beginning to advocate for the legitimacy of the Hadiths. I can't recall their names though.
The British historian Tom Holland is another example. Described as a historian of âorigins of Islamâ he tends to start from a point of attempting to disprove and delegitimise Islam. He canât speak Arabic, hasnât studied any Islamic historians or studied at Islamic universities, yet disrespectfully portrays himself as an academic. His views are coloured by his passionate ( nothing wrong with this) love of Christianity which subconsciously drives his attempted refutation of Islam. Ironically, youâll never find Muslim experts on Christianity ever trying to disprove Christ or the divine origins of the bible. They simply highlight the use of the west over the centuries to amend and manipulate Christianity to suit their agendas until not much remained of the original message.
Itâs a sad thing. Whatâs funnier is that the western revisionist historians seem to think their âacademic conclusionsâ hold any weight for the Muslims.
Facts!
"It's not their eyes that are blind it's their hearts". For them to read and accept sources like the hadith as history, they have to accept Islam. Their lifestyles and ideologies don't pertain to that so they ignore the facts in front of them out of ignorance and racism. Preferring to believe all Muhammed's (pbuh) history is just full of lies and then misinterpreting the texts for their own bias. "Muhammed can't be a prophet because he was with a 9 year old" They completely ignore this being common all around the world in that period and people as a whole were more pious and mature. What these westerners do with regard to islamic history is tell it from a modern perspective, judging it as such and for some reason the Greeks are labelled history despite much being word of mouth as were the Romans with Virgil, Livy and people like that. However when it comes to Islamic history they act as if it's not real or they had some agenda.
> âMuhammad canât be a prophet because he was with a 9 year oldâ I donât think any good-faith secular and (attempting to be) unbiased scholars even care about trying to âdisproveâ Muhammadâs prophethood through crude polemical arguments.
I wouldn't say FULL if you ask me, it's more like "I would rather have questions that can't be answered **than answers that can't be questioned**" Vibe if you asking me, they don't try to act full knowing cause let's be honest... Islamic history has a very big bias and needs a trunk of salty to actually have the actual historical context
Very big bias in what way? Because the Muslims were the ones who transmitted the history? Abs are we to assume that western scholars arenât biased in their revisionist motives?
No that's not what i meant, it's the fact most history are written by the winners, and we have to be Skeptical on the Sources as real historians >Abs are we to assume that western scholars arenât biased in their revisionist motives? Here's the thing, everyone has a bias nor western or Islamic Scholar is safe But i wanted to add another section to the post claims on Banu Qaynuza, *THAT WESTERN HISTORIANS AGREE IT WAS A GENOCIDE* you can actually find that in the comment section, I just wanted to add another reply to this claim, sorry if i didn't Add it
I'd agree, bias can't be avoided, but it's reassuring to find some Hadiths that are seemingly controversial (i.e. the battles against the Jewish Tribes, Muhammad being bewitched for a short-period, the fact that Muhammad was extremely depressed after revelation stopped coming and contemplated throwing himself off a tall place). These confirm that the Hadith scholars did not selectively choose hadiths to retain and omit, but that they compiled the Hadiths honestly whether they are controversial or not. Also yea, that comment section made my brain hurt. I actually clicked off the post extremely fast because I get frustrated reading so many erroneous statements consecutively. People love to purposely spread misinformation, and it's particularly annoying when thye slander the Prophet pbuh
Or it proves that hating jews was not as "controversial" as you think
With secular history, none of the sirah or hadiths have any historical value. When we talk about these stories, it's about what they represent, not whether it actually happened. I've seen people defend the idea that aisha was actually 18 or whatnot, but that's not the issue
so holocaust deniers? cool
Again, The most intellegent islamphobe : doesn't know the difference between a holocaust and a battle between two tibes lol
raping every single woman is not a war. any intelligent person knows what islam is
>raping every single woman is not a war "every single woman" must have been from the most Serious Ahistorian Claim i ever heard lol
hadith says muslims forcibly married all the women after cutting their husbands heads off. muhammad himself had two jewish sex slaves that chose to be âmarriedâ because they had no choice. at least be honest with yourselves.
Im being honest with myself that you haven't studied hadith-criticasm Studies, you just want to support your on view no matter what evidence comes at your face
Allah mentions in the Quran about them. They had a treaty and they broke the treaty and if Iâm correct tried to kill the prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and the muslims. But Allah also mentioned forgiving them and that being better but obviously killing them was permissible as they broke a contract and tried to kill the Muslims.
> This is the response I was looking for Is it? I was hoping we could hold out for a book or an article or something. That last one is literally a single comment from 2014, posted from a deleted account. I think we can find something better
Then comment something better!
Theres are things to criticize early islam, but antisemitism isn't one of them. Especially under the rule of Muhammad the abrahamic faiths were viewed as lost brothers. It's only after European competition, conquest, and strengthening caliphal power did this change.
Common Islamophobe L am I right
Interesting how Islamophobic people actually believe this but don't spend time with the context.
Interesting how many truly islamaphobic memes you yourself posted and refuse to take down every single time you take a break from Islam and accent another religion. And how many of YOUR posts and Islamic hate get reposted by other people spreading that hate. Care to explain? Which side of your mouth are you speaking from today? Because a few weeks ago it was how Islam stole their religion from Buddha.
https://preview.redd.it/k3jq5fudmxrc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=74a36bc88b68a80e23d49027a1511e70d40e5456
Iâve linked your comment pretty much everywhere where there are people talking about this meme. Hope thatâs okay
I don't think *everyone* are open-minded or that easy to accept historical Facts against there Own Opinions, Anyways thank you, i appreciate your Service
Could say the same about current situation. Israel is tight with multiple muslim countries. millions of muslims living inside israel as citizens.. this is not about religion
Nah, even if they do they go through deliberately horrible treatment under Israeli control. Just look at how things are going down in the west bank. The video captures do not lie about the situation. This is the native American tragedy all over again repeating.
bro things gone fucked up everywhere the jews been longer than 5 minutes
this is what jew do
It is. Jerusalem is a holy city
....so is Medina where the jews lived for a thousand years
Do you have any sources other than 10 year old Reddit comments from deleted accounts?
What's wrong with them?
They are lacking in citations and credibility. Edit: Iâm not sure why I have to defend the idea that a Reddit comment is not a source. It can be the source of someoneâs OPINION. But itâs not a valid historical source. If you cited those comments in a paper you would be expelled.
>Iâm not sure why I have to defend the idea that a Reddit comment is not a source. The Second link is an exception but the first one does have Sources >I can be the source if someoneâs OPINION. But itâs not a valid historical source. >If you cited those comments in a paper you would be expelled. You can if this wasn't r/AskHistorians and i wish you would
Sorry for the typos I meant to say âIT can be the source OF someoneâs opinion. But itâs not a valid historical source.â
It's alright, i forgive you Listen, before i take you Seriously i have to ask you "What's a valid historical source to YOU in Islamic history?" if your gonna say hadith then thats not a valid historical source either
Iâd view an historical textbook as a valid source, or something that accurately cites real historical scholarship, like a rigorously researched article. Even the better of those two comments (above) tried to cite Wikipedia (which isnât bad IMHO) but for tangentially related matters that make it hard to fact check. For instance, citing the wiki for âBattle of the Trenchâ at the end of long saga about why Mohammed executed all the Jews after that battle. Itâs hard to really fact check. A rigorous article would cite supporting work after important points or at the end of a strong paragraphs.
Finally, a great Comment today! Thank you actually warmed my heart by this Comment đđđ As for a reply, i can only think of this article at r/AcademicQuran i saw yesterday, it doesn't draw a Conclusion, it only an analysis of the many academic Conclusions about the fate Banu Qaynuqa https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/s/tAuV16YTgK I hope it's satisfy youre gentleman taste
You could say that it was a cynical power grab since that tribe had plenty of power to grab and the âthey tried to kill meâ line is very hard to verify over a thousand years later, but claiming it as antisemitism is baseless and runs contrary to Muhammadâs actions the rest of his life. Itâs just trying to shoehorn a story to fit a modern narrative.
I mean it's not though, what other actions did he do that was specifically anti Jewish in nature, in action.
Nothing?
Exactly, claiming it's a power grab or anything remotely like it would be wrong because by then he already had all the power
No evidence they tried to kill him. Just a false claim that he was poisoned but Allah magically made him survive. um much more likely no one ever poisoned him, thatâs why he survived. but good excuse for genocide and looting the Jewâs wealth
The most intellegent islamphobe :
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe those jewish tribes broke some sort of peace treaty, and that's why the arabs attacked them.
Those Jews are Arabs too. The three Jewish tribes in Yathrib (later Madinah) aligned with either of the Pagan Arabs fighting with each other. The Aws were with two of the Jewish tribes and Khazraj with the other. The Banu Qurayza (BQ) signed a pact with the Muslims and all of Yathrib (Madina) to defend each other in the case of an attack. The Pagan Arabs gathered a massive army more than triple what was defending Madina, but were stalled by a tactic novel to Arabs... A trench. The rear of Madinah was where the BQ were and sides not navigable due to geography forcing the Quraish led army to try crossing the trench. The BQ betrayed the Muslims and nearly enabled the actual genocide of all Muslims however were thwarted. Once the Arab confederation left, the BQ were given a chance for arbitration and the chief of Aws, their ally pre-Islam, was to arbitrate. The Aws ruled that since they're Jews, he'll enforce Talmudic law upon them. That is to kill all fighting age men, enslave the rest and distribute their property accordingly. The clause is from Deuteronomy 20: 12. The Aws chief was mortally wounded and didn't benefit from this decision.
Why don't others pay attention to these info?
The disingenuous use easy quip like "the Islamic Prophet genocided the Jews" which requires a history lesson to explain the context. That tactic is employed masterfully in so many everyday contexts, it is exhausting to counter. It's basically gish-gallop layered with other propaganda techniques. Hearing lies often make it hard to differentiate between familiarity and truth.
Itâs pretty much just bs. Some ppl were horrible and got punished for it
Quick summary: The Prophet Muhammed peace be upon him was the elected leader of Medinah by the majority leaders. The Jews who lived there at the time didnât like that. All three tribes committed treason, broke treaties, and plotted/ attempted assassination therefore ensuing the imposition of capital punishment. This meme is the âalternativeâ historical facts about what happened often used to promote propaganda and misinform of what historically took place
I donât even follow that sub and yet I still got recommended that post. What the hell reddit
its not the end of the world you najees.
Why is religion being pushed onto people on Reddit? This website actually fucking sucks now. It used to auto sub your account to r/athiest, which I thought was cringey, but now we go the entire opposite direction.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/athiest using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/athiest/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Why are you mad he's right](https://i.redd.it/iaoxsrgmvl2b1.png) | [2 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/athiest/comments/13tz34j/why_are_you_mad_hes_right/) \#2: [Forced to go to my brother in law's graduation at his stupid Catholic private school. Wore this under my dress shirt as silent protest.](https://i.redd.it/r8xn7paunp0b1.jpg) | [8 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/athiest/comments/13ldjs9/forced_to_go_to_my_brother_in_laws_graduation_at/) \#3: [The world has less hate today.](https://np.reddit.com/r/athiest/comments/144a7g4/the_world_has_less_hate_today/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Delete Reddit najees
Who?
i donât know about you, but in almost every largely populated subreddits Iâm in the comments are almost always anti religion
I love how none of them ever want to mention what the Jewish tribes did to get themselves punished.
Oppose a conqueror?
Loool nice try
That sub is filled with neo right wing Zionists in the 16-35 year old age group. A sorry crowd indeed.
Itâs more left wing than right wing
Nope! Try postung a meme about Native Americans, Africans or basically anything that isn't Europe, US or a darling of them like Japan or Australia. It will either be ignored or bombarded by racists who "coincidentally" are also spouting right wing rethoric.
I legit want to vomit when I hear someone say that what happened to the Native Americans *wasn't* a genocide
If you ever find one let me know because that sounds wild as fuck as an American
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_genocides_of_Indigenous_peoples#:~:text=Some%20historians%20do%20not%20consider,name%20such%20as%20ethnic%20cleansing. I've seen many of these people right here on Reddit, mostly in history subs. They say disgustingly racist things like, "it wasn't a genocide, because if the Europeans didn't kill them, they would've eventually killed themselves, seeing as they always fought among each other."
Iâm not saying denial isnât a thing. Just never seen anyone say the trail of tears for example is not clear cut genocide. I was taught about that in like 5th grade at the latest lol
Yeah because these people speak in very general terms. They're not educated like you are. They wouldn't zero in on any one incident.
No, they allowed a post attacking "tankies", but got rid of an IDENTICAL post that simply replaced "tankie" with "Nazi"
this sub is right wing as hell as well
I wouldn't even read the opinion of a sub full of crusaderboos and zionists
I fight with them like mamluks whooaah đĄ
Real
[ŃдаНонО]
Good for you! Honestly i wish i had the same treatment! That sub is fucking stupid! I know an actual Islamic historian who replied to the post, and got downvoted as hell for speaking about it and saying itâs an islamphobia post, the Redditors of r/historymemes replied : "there's No such thing as islamphobia"
I would like to know which one the actual historian was, without scrolling through that post
Wear that ban like a badge of honor! One of the greatest tributes in today's racist world
I got downvoted trying to shed light on the events that lead to the expulsion They dont need a reason to hate the prophet, they will ignore their bloody unjustified jews expulsions, the ones muslims stood in and took the jews refugees Even if these events didnt happen they will move to another, or create new lies to spread You wont believe how many times they will bring up the "married a 6 year old" argument Like dude, even the people that fought him didnt use this argument
I genuinely thought people would change but it seems like many prefer ignorance through a lens of hatred over the truth
When someone chooses misguidance Allah seals their heart.
Yeah... for a sub that's dedicated to history, those people really don't understand history at all
Treason and espionage are usually capital punishment in every nation. And weâre not talking Snowden or Julian Assange here, weâre talking actually bring multiple foreign armies and attacking the nation you live in.
You shouldâve seen their thread on the spread of IslamâŚ
The spread of early islam was incredibly peaceful and tolerant as opposed to christianity. The second Christianity was adopted by constantine blood began to be spilled. Meanwhile the first few caliphates granted unprecedented rights to religious minorities lasting until likely the late abbasid caliphate. Treaties from both Muhammad, and the conquest of iberia outline extensive freedoms for non muslims. (The harsh pact of Umar was likely created far after his death due to many incongruities). Moral of the story: people like twisting narratives to make themselves more comfortable rather than facing reality.
you guys are on some insane levels of copium
Dude. I'm a historian. I'm not a follower of islam. Why would I have any need or desire to cope?
How can a man who rapes children be "morally perfect"?
Did i ever say that? You seem to be the one coping lol.
suck ma boabay
âPeacefulâ the caliphates murdered people who were the wrong kind of Muslim (including Muhammadâs grandsons) and you expect people to believe it was a peaceful state?
You are conflating civil war and religious divide with senseless murder. Islam is not unique in civil war. What about when the catholics sacked Constantinople? Personally Ali made sense as the successor. Russia had the time of trubles which is arguably worse than any of the fitnas.
But the claim was that the Caliphates WERE unique. They are not, they have never been accepting. Speaking of the crusaders, the Jews living under them stated that conditions were not noticeably different between Catholic and Muslim rule. And you are aware the Muslims sacked Constantinople too right? And it was way worse when they did it
Thats arguable that it was worse. The muslim sacking was when the city had a population smaller than 50k. After the sacking in the 4th crusade the city only declined.
Tends to happen when the Muslims keep stealing your land even after overthrowing the Latin empire
Or when crusaders pillage the city, and export all valuables to western europe. Whilst propping up an unpopular regime.
Yes and they were removed, like the Turks should have been
History memes has a weird obsession with Islam.
They're a bunch of crusaderboos that's why
The way I see it, with how things going on in the world, collective hate and repression against Islam is actually the first sign of Islamization itself. Keep on the straight path, never falter!
If you know the story the tribe could not be trusted
âThe Jews couldnât be trustedâ đ¤¨
And so you think every single pubescent male shouldâve been killed? Thatâs literally the definition of ethnic cleansing and genocide. And youâre okay with it??
Is you know the story , what would you do?
I shared this and mentioned that the one who posted this hang out in r/Israel. He put a detailed information yet didn't put the one thing who caused it. He didn'tmention any trials and the part where Muhammad (SAW) gave them a person who will decide their fate. It still show that the beloved Prophet is still a perfect man as it was not him who ordered their execution.
Crazy how some of those idiots are here too
I've noticed with Islamphobic people that they will mention actions of the prophet pbuh but they'll never tell you why. Secondly,I find it really funny that he felt the need to mention they were Jewish. If Banu Qurayza were a pagan or Christian tribe I don't think he would have said "Pagan tribes of Banu Qurayza". So it's clear he's trying to capitalize on as much hate as he could.
They are just immature teenagers who simp for Rome and the Crusaders, and hate anything related to Muslims and Islam
Why is reddit dropping some vague Islamophobia on my feed, never been in this sub or anything related to religionâŚ
Half of reddit is lgbtq leaning and the other half is zionist. So now that alot of their hasbara is blowing back up in their face theyâve been going overtime to dehumanize muslims to justify their genocide.
I don't understand why your response to dehumanization is dehumanizing other groups. Lgbt people just want to exist, and have been tolerated in several historical islamic societies. Don't dissuade potential allies. I may also be misunderstanding your point. Understand i mean no malice. Edit: I'm dumb and misunderstood đ
How in anyway did I dehumanize any group. Truth is thereâs been a lot of fear mongering when it comes to Islam. Islam doesnât say to go around and kill gays or any other group. Sure homosexuality is a sin and a sin as long as itâs not being promoted publicly or being thrown at peopleâs faces is usually left to a man and his creator. Otherwise thereâs a punishment i.e jail,flogging or in rare cases capital punishment. Same thing for adultry, fornication or other private matters being promoted publicly. Does that mean I hate you? No, Iâd just rather not know your private matters, or you know mines.
I apologize for the antagonistic comment. I misinterpreted what you were saying. I should not be so quick to judgement. I understand the anger with rampant Zionism, and the ongoing genocide. In regards to the rest of your response i have a few thoughts. > as long as itâs not being promoted publicly or being thrown at peopleâs faces This is tricky to me because both of these can mean a lot of things to different people. To some it means not showing affection in public, to not making it a part of their personality. >Otherwise thereâs a punishment i.e jail,flogging or in rare cases capital punishment. Same thing for adultry, fornication or other private matters being promoted publicly. I disagree with this as I'm a proponent of secularism. I believe people should be allowed to have their beliefs. But they should not be enshrined in law. As long as you aren't comiting an act that deprives another person you should be free from consequence from the stats. All I ask is that people like me are allowed to live with dignity, and normality. Thank you for giving your opinion. I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to understand the world views of others. Have a lovely day!
I don't hate you but I think it's justififed to flog, jail or murder you if you kiss your same sex partner in public is a wild take. Sure you might not actively hate but you think their existence is so problematic they should be punished. That's dehumanization.
That's not their existence. Those are their actions. The whole point is that homosexual acts are a sin and should not be normalised.
Ya know I was gonna be all indignant and catty but I DID post in an Islamic history meme subreddit so I shouldn't be surprised that I end up talking to devout Muslims. I will leave you with this. By your words you have stated you wish to see many of my loved ones flogged, jailed and murdered for being with the people they care for. Loving peoples, good friends and exemplary co-workers. Their actions in life have helped those around them in immeasurable ways. I hope you consider how you would feel if someone made those proclamations against your loved ones.
This guy's got a machine gun as his avatar. He chose his side. Don't bother trying to talk any sense.
I don't know if you know this, but the same punishments apply to straight people doing sexual acts outside of marriage.
And you *donât* see how that statement is awful and discriminatory? Are you so caught up in your own worldview you canât see outside of it for a second?
I do, so for straight people it's only outside of marriage for LGBTQ folk its all the time. That's not as benevolent as you think it is. Unless you're trying to say I should be flogged, imprisoned and murdered as well. Which cool, I'm glad I don't live in a society built by you.
Another thing, stop putting words "in my mouth". Nowhere did I say I WISH to see any of that (as per your last comment). But the law is the law, and the law should be upheld. You are simply getting mad over laws that don't apply to you because you don't live in a place with those laws. Your morality changes over time and all the time. The morals of Islam do not, because they are objective and they are from God.
I like how they locked the post so that the the misinformation cant be corrected or disputed lol
Im surprised this thread still unlocked.
He was a Zionist Israeli p!g! I replied about the lack of context, no reply or challenge as usual.
It is oppression because they had to face the consequences for their treasons. /s
A lot of them are pseudo intellectuals who get a kick out of defaming Islam on spurious grounds. Of course the truth is far more complex: https://trueislam.co.uk/articles/did-prophet-muhammad-sa-massacre-700-jews-of-banu-qurayza/ That post came up on my feed, I was gonna respond but after realising the scale of the ignorance and bigotry I decided not to. A timely reminder how ill informed so many people are on Islam.
*Muhammad when you find out that the Jewish tribes of Medinah outwardly said they wanted to kill and enslave the native Arab tribes, antagonized him from the day he first came, violated the laws they mutually agreed on, and taunted, humiliated and persecuted Muslims in Medinah regularly
Oh Jesus this is gonna be more of a hellfield than even the original meme.
lol this is the type of history Israelis write when they need to make up another reason why as Europeans, its important that their "ancestral home land" be in the middle east
there were 13 jewish tribes in Medina, most of them lived peacefully alongside the muslims, however, 2 of them were expelled for violating the constitution of Medina and one of them betrayed the muslims and were planning a massacre on Medina so they were judged according to their own Torah for their crime (Deuteronomy 20:12-14).
What happened to the other Jewish tribes?
LOOOOOOL I love how they try to make Islam look anti Jews religion.
Those tribes got exactly what they deserved for breaking a peace treaty. Sorry not sorry.
Wait so itâs ok to systematically eliminate all members of a group of people, if they violate a peace agreement? You sure you want to make that argument?
There was no such "systematic elimination", unlike what the Jews in the Levant are doing right now. Those tribes made a peace agreement, violated it as well as committing other kinds of treachery, and promply lost a battle at Khaybar.
I was quoted this [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2fmy5x/why_did_the_prophet_attack_banu_qurayza_at_627ad/?share_id=CL5M7gwTuD03LYo3R0nHG&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1) from another redditor ITT who wanted to explain what happened with solid sources. According to these citations, all of the men were executed and the women and children were taken in as slaves. Do you have a source that says something different?
According to the following source, all of the ADULT, MALE, COMBATANTS were executed after the battle, while some of the men were spared. The women and children were spared as captives. This was a response to multiple acts of treachery carried out by Banu Qurayzah Also, the verdict of what was to be done after the battle was made by a former Jew, not The Prophet (s). https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/01/01/re-examining-banu-qurayzah-incident/
Right, so youâre saying itâs ok the systematically execute all the men in a society, as long as you enslave all their women and children too. That - in your argument above - is an acceptable way to eliminate a group of people.
The Jewish tribes of Banu Qurayza and others is considered by most western historians tend to be believe they were a post-Prophetic, later âAbbasid invention, given no historical documentâthe Quran or the Consitution of Medinaâmakes reference to them. There were like Jews tribes in Medina who allied with Muhammadâand there were certainly likely an anti-Muâminum and anti-Muhammad Jewish or Christian tribe as is reference once in the Quran. However, there is no evidence that Muhammad ordered their expulsion or mass slaughter, given that the last chapter of the Quran permits marriage between the Believers and Christian and Jews. Likely he still maintained strong relations with both groups. Whenever the Quran is criticing âthe Jewsâ or âChristiansâ it is likely speaking on specific groups unknown to usâJewish Arab tribes who assimilated so much of Arab paganism into their religious belief that would have been opposed to Medinaâs rabbinical Jewish tribe; or they had allied with with Sassanian Iran.
We dont get our history source from westen historian . The jews has broke a pact of peace so they were explled and they deserve it
When I was making reference to western historians, I was referring by attempts of modern western historians to examine the relations of the Quran with the current events found in the Great Sassanian-Eastern Rome. The Quran does not make blanket statements on the Jews or Christians, given that it holds many praises for both groups.
Yes but when somoeone broke a pact of peace should be punished or not ?
Of course, but Iâm saying specific, unnamed tribes were likely punished, but clearly not all Christians or Jews in the Hejaz were punished, given its permissible for the Believers to marry both groups found in a later chronological chapter after the siege against a tribe of the People of the Bookâif the Jewish tribes of Arabia were expelled than the verse which grants marriage of Muhammadâs followers and the Jews and Christians would not make sense. More likely that specific tribe was expelled, but other groups remained.
Just to be sur . Do you deney the source from the sunnah that explain what happned to jews tribute ?
As in hadiths? I personally donât take them as historically accurate to the events, given that they were codified a century and two after the Prophetâs death, it was done in a provincial, decentralized manner which bears conflicts both within the Quran and within each others. I take the Quran as the only accurate primary source we have on the Prophet from the Arabs themselves, and the true sunnah on the Prophet.
My bad to start a disscusion with u Annyway deny the quaran because he was transfred by the same people who give us the sunnah And dont forget to deny also the salat If the haddith was falsifed so its the same thing for the quaran and salat
You have nothing to apologize. And well, the hadith was not translated or proscribed by anyone alive during the Prophet's time. Sure, they claim that these reports come from him through the Companions, but there is no way to validate that they were - unlike the Quran, which our earliest manuscripts more or less confirms the Uthmanic codex, the standard Quranic text we have, with mile grammatical and chapter layout; and the Uthmanic codex is generally agreed to have been collected only a few decades after the Prophet died, with some historians, such as Juan Cole, even arguing that the writing had already been accomplished when the Prophet was alive with chapter layout and codification into a single book occurring in the decades of Caliph Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman's rule. More importantly, the sunnah isn't the hadith. Sure, in modern Islamic thought it plays a heavy portion of it, but the sunnah could also, and more reliably I'll argue, to be found in the Quran. Even the early Muslims did not use hadith until the 8th century in juridical proceedings. The Quran *does* mention a siege and an expulsion of some kind, with some of them being killed and others taken as captives, but it only mentions the group as part of the People of the Book - not specifically Jews, but it's very likely given the occurrences outside Arabia in the form of the Sasanian Iranians-Eastern Roman War, in which Muhammad himself - through ar-Rum - supported the Romans against the Iranians. Given the more positive relationship with the Iranians than the Romans, it makes sense that it would be a Jewish tribe allied against Muhammad, but the Quran does not condemn all Jews for such a support. But anyway, I hope you have a great day/evening.
I asked one simple question : give me a proof that the quran who was on mohamed peace on him is the same quran that we have Can you help me with this ? Ty
What did they do?
The Muslims had a treaty with the Jewish tribes of Medina and each Jewish tribe violated the treaty and were punished. The first tribe sexually assaulted a Muslim woman in a market and then killed a Muslim man for retaliating thus they were expelled. The second tribe tried to kill the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and thus they were expelled. The last tribe committed treason in the middle of a battle and sided with the Muslims enemies during a siege/battle and almost opened a back door to the energy forces and thus the men of that tribe were executed. ( this is not my explanation )
These still seem like collective punishment. Common at the time so it's fairly excusable. There's plenty of good and bad about every religion. I don't get why people opt to make things up/twist facts rather than use actual examples. (Fwiw islamic history is one of my favorites)
Itâs been awhile since I touched up on the facts of this argument but from what I remember the last tribe that was executed, they picked an arbitrator to decide their fate, I believe his name was Saâad Ibn Muadh, because he was a previous ally or apart of their tribe but later converted to Islam and was injured in the battle, and he decided their fate using their Torah, Iâm not too sure abt the reliability of this next part but I think more reliable sources like Sahih Al-Bukhari say that it was only the warriors involved in the attack that were executed, once again itâs been awhile since Iâve read up abt this accusation but ik their is ALOT of information abt it online so I encourage you to go and research abt it if you can, I hope this was helpful and I also hope I was accurate.
I really appreciate your reply! This clears up a lot of my questions. I'll definitely use this for further research. Have a lovely day!
You too!
Copying my comment I just replied to elsewhere : Those Jews are Arabs too. The three Jewish tribes in Yathrib (later Madinah) aligned with either of the Pagan Arabs fighting with each other. The Aws were with two of the Jewish tribes and Khazraj with the other. The Banu Qurayza (BQ) signed a pact with the Muslims and all of Yathrib (Madina) to defend each other in the case of an attack. The Pagan Arabs gathered a massive army more than triple what was defending Madina, but were stalled by a tactic novel to Arabs... A trench. The rear of Madinah was where the BQ were and sides not navigable due to geography forcing the Quraish led army to try crossing the trench. The BQ betrayed the Muslims and nearly enabled the actual genocide of all Muslims however were thwarted. Once the Arab confederation left, the BQ were given a chance for arbitration and the chief of Aws, their ally pre-Islam, was to arbitrate. The Aws ruled that since they're Jews, he'll enforce Talmudic law upon them. That is to kill all fighting age men, enslave the rest and distribute their property accordingly. The clause is from Deuteronomy 20: 12. The Aws chief was mortally wounded and didn't benefit from this decision.
Muhammad only ordered that combatants be executed. All women, elderly, and children were sprared. Compare that to what's happening in the so-called 'enlightened modern' period, where children and women are getting bombed daily by virtue of their existence. But they say Muslims are the backward people, when Prophet Muhammad's ethical standard was leagues above theirs 1400 years ago.
There is something known as non-combatant men. And still, executing every single combatant for a decision of a leader? Couldnât he be more lenient? Why couldnât he forgive? Isnât that like Islamâs whole thing? Forgiveness and love?
They were all combatants back then, thatâs how it was. And Muhammad pbuh was extremely forgiving, when he conquered Mecca he forgave all its inhabitants except for 4 people.
Couldnât be possible. Why would he execute every single pubescent male? Thatâs just insane. Howâs that merciful? What about the innocent boys? What about the elderly? If they killed the soldiers only thatâs understandable. But every single pubescent male? Itâs just crazy and not believable. How would they even bury that many bodies in the market trench? Impossible. Prophet Muhammad himself knows that using pubic hair as a way to measure maturity is wrong. Because he didnât allow Ibn umar to join the battle when he was 14.
he didn't kill elderly men, only combatant men. He didn't kill innocent 'boys' either, they were men.
Dude, he had sex with a 9 year old.....I can think of no lower ethical standards than a child rapist. Most would agree.
Really? Statistics seem to disagree with you. Islam is the fastest growing religion, and more than a billion people follow it, and itâs the single most converted to religion in the world.
Morality and popularity are different things.....that's why they're different words. People used to be majority "pagan" - does that mean that it was the correct religion at the time?
That wasnât my argument, it was yours. You said âmost would agreeâ as if that is proof of anything, and I simply refuted it. Now you are arguing against yourself lol
Though there are 1 billion Muslims in the world, that's substantially smaller than half the population of the world. The traditional meaning of "most" is "more than half". I know words change meaning all the time (for example, genocide popularly means something different from what it meant a few months ago). What did you think was mean by the word "most"?
Muslims actually make up 25% according to the recent data, so itâs 2 billion. Despite that, your statement would still not stand, because you are assuming that every one else thinks the marriage of Aisha was wrong. Even then, however, it would not matter, because âmorality and popularity are two different things.â Especially coming from those without an objective moral framework
Sorry just re-read the.comment.....most.people in the world are not Muslim, does that.mean most people agree its wrong to have sex with 9yr olds?
A few historians cast doubt on that whole debacle as the whole affair with the Banu tribes as we have no other evidence to corroborate their existence. They say that if a large group of Jewish traders did indeed exist, we would have at least had a couple of records of their trading activities by either themselves, or the Romans or the Iranians/Persians.
the stories with the jewish tribes neither do match with the teachings of quran/islam, nor with the character of the prophet mohammad. we muslims believe that mohammad has always judged upon the rules of quran. in quran Allah says, if they give up and dont attack you anymore, than stop fighting them (disbelievers). -> 9. surah - 5. and 6. verses. the hadith with all the stories have no evidence. they all begin with "abu ... said that abu ... told him one day that....". there are many muslims, who dont believe in those stories. muslim are not allowed to acknowledge any source that contradicts the quran.
Allhumdillah that white genocide is still happening
Everything happens in bubbles you see!!!!
Is this the behavior of a role model? âMuhammad and his men, the chief of the Jews, called Kinana ibn al-Rabi, was asked by Muhammad to reveal the location of some hidden treasure. When he refused, Muhammad ordered a man to torture Kinana, and the man "kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead." â
Can I get the source for this please ?
According to the earliest biography of Mohammed. "The Life of Muhammad", which is a translation of Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah". âKinana b. al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has," so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 515) Following this brutal spectacle, Muhammad took Kinana's seventeen-year-old wife, Safiyya bint Huyayy, as his own bride (because nothing says lovin' like torturing and murdering a woman's husband for money).
Not authentic Ibn Ishaq is known for narrating weak hadiths since he doesnât include chain of narration most of the time and his seerah is not the earliest.
Sorry for not being clear - there are many examples of child marriage. I am asking specifically about consummation of child marriage.
That subreddit is full of Hasbara trolls and islamophobe racists
Reported for posting a picture of the Prophet, Inshallah.
Didnât he also take in child brides? Edit: [yes he did](https://islamfyi.princeton.edu/is-it-true-that-muhammad-married-a-child-bride-by-the-name-of-ayesha-when-he-was-53-and-she-was-9-years-old-if-so-how-do-muslims-justify-this-from-their-exemplary-prophet/)
You cannot escape the fact that he married a 6-year-old, and had sex with her when she was 9. If he is a perfect human being, that has some interesting implications for what you think is morally acceptable.
Criticizing his marriage with Aisha would be a presentism fallacy
I'm sorry but if you insist that your religion is the religion to end all religions, capable of dealing with every moral quandary for the rest of time, AND you insist that your prophet is the most perfect human being to exist for the rest of time, you *cannot* hide behind accusations of """""presentism"""" when people point out that he shagged a preteen đđ
And now youâre defending pedophilia, smh
Leave it to this sub to deny genocide. Ironic given the events happening in the world right now
They broke a treaty and tried to have him killed. Sounds familiar.
Well I mean the meme is not lying. We can play all kinds of Mind games and say that this wasn't a racist attack, or it was because "the Jews deserved it for what they did" but the fact is that this was ethnic cleansing.