Who is Prophet Muhammad?

Sephiroth

Battle of Khandaq (a.k.a Battle of the Trenches).

The Battle of Khandaq began on March 31, 627 and lasted for two weeks. The Quraisy leader on this campaign against the Muslims was Abu Sufyan. He had contacted the exiled Jewish tribe, Banu Nadir and able to gather 10,000 men to lay a siege on Medina. Muslim forces had mounted to 3,000 men.

Medina laid with hills on east and west side, while another Jewish tribe, the Banu Qurayza laid to the South of Medina. Therefore, the coalition of Quraisy and Jews came from the North in order to laid siege to Medina and perhaps force the Medina people to give up on Muhammad and Muslims.

The real credit for winning this battle does not fall to Muhammad and his leadership. Instead, it falls to Salman al-Farsi or Salman the Persian, who was the first Persian to convert to Islam and was referred to as Abu Abdullah or Father of Abdullah.

It was Salman who had given an idea that they should dig trenches toward the north and west in order to protect the northern and western flanks where the majority of the Coalition attacks will be concentrated from. Muhammad agreed and the Muslims have started to dig trenches where they held the defense. The Arabic Coalitions had never had to face such tactics (of battling in trenches and holes) before as most warfare in the desert were fought on backs of camels and horses and had suffered a heavy lost.

Because of what appears to be a losing battle for the Coalitions, they approached Banu Qurayza located in the South and coaxed them to attack Medina from the South, forcing Muslims to fight at three corner (north, South and West). There is no records that Banu Qurayza had actually accepted (or declined) the invitation from the Coalition to attack.

This is because, while Banu Qurayza had held a great military importance among the Arabic tribes and were known as Ahl al-haiqa (People of the Weapons) for having a large stockpile of weapons, there were only a small amount of fighting men among them. It was possible that the Banu Qurayza were nothing more than weapon dealers for all the tribes of Arabs at that time. Therefore, even if they had attacked, they could not have done much damage to Muslims and Medina due to small number of armed men.

Muhammad moved forward with Diplomacy and had stopped the Banu Qurayza from joining the Coalition and therefore managed to protect his southern flank. And with that, the battle of Khandaq had came to an end and the Coalition had broken and returned back. However, the bloodshed did not end.

Even so the Banu Qurayza did not attack the Muslims and had stopped themselves due to Diplomacy, Muhammad did not feel safe with their tribe being stationed to the south. He knows that he cannot pull another trench tactics again and this time, if he was to allow Banu Qurayza to exist, it is very possible that the Quraisy could coax them against Muslims again. Therefore, as soon as the battle ended, Muhammad turn his army around and marched south, beseiging the Banu Qurayza's lands

It was an open history of conflict between two main tribes - the Aws and the Khazraj even before the coming of Muhammad to Medina. Banu Qurayza had supported the Aws and there had been four wars prior to Muhammad in Medina. Therefore, when Muhammad preached Islam and a lot of people had joined him, many of them had grudged against Banu Qurayza due to these warfare and called out for punishment toward the tribe after the Battle of Khandaq.

Muhammad laid seige to Banu Qurayza and force them to surrender. And when they did, Muhammad laid the charge of treason toward the whole tribe - even so he himself had diplomatic negotiations with them during the Battle of Khandaq where he managed to talk them down from attacking from the South. So therefore, Muhammad had charged Banu Qurayza based on a crime he himself had stopped them from committing. The result was a total genocide of Banu Qurayza in hands of Muslims.

sam1528

Sephiroth replied at 10-2-2015 11:45 AM
Battle of Khandaq (a.k.a Battle of the Trenches).

The Battle of Khandaq began on March 31, 627 an ...

LOL , why are you so fond of revisionist history with no source whatsoever? All you have is the cut and paste of someone's rambling with no reference to any historical fact.

In the battle of the Trench , the coalition who came for a battle in Madinah struck a pact with Banu Quraiza (pg 141/142 of 225)

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

On hearing this bad news, the Messenger [pbuh] despatched four Muslim prominent leaders Sa'd bin Mu'adh, Sa'd bin 'Ubada, 'Abdullah bin Rawaha and Khawat bin Jubair for investigation but warning against any sort of spreading panic amongst the Muslims and advising that they should declare in public that the rumours are groundless if they happen to be so. Unfortunately the four men discovered that the news was true and that the Jews announced openly that no pact of alliance existed any longer with Muhammad [pbuh].

Historical evidence points to the fact that Banu Quraiza broke the pact. This is further supported with Sahih Muslim book 19 no 4364

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

LOL , as far as proper history goes , it was Sa'd Mua'dh NOT Prophet Muhammad(saw) who sentenced Banu Quraiza (pg 144 of 225)

He suggested that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, a former ally, be deputed to give verdict about them, and they agreed.

Sa‘d meanwhile stayed behind in Madinah due to a serious wound he sustained in the Confederates Battle. He was summoned and brought on a donkey. On his way to the Prophet (Peace be upon him) , the Jews used to exhort him to be lenient in his judgement on account of former friendship. Sa‘d remained silent but when they persisted he uttered: “It is time for Sa‘d not to be afraid of the blame of the blamers.” On hearing this decisive attitude, some of them returned to Madinah waiting fa desperate doom.

145
On arrival, he alighted with the help of some men. He was informed that the Jews had agreed to accept his verdict about them

On all accounts of proper history , Banu Quraiza agreed for Sa'd to be the judge as they hoped for a lenient sentence as Banu Aws was their staunchest ally.

Which Hindu temple taught you that Prophet Muhammad(saw) was the one passing judgement on Banu Quraiza?

According to Cyril Glasse (The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam, Revised Edition, Cyril Glasse, Stacey International, 2001 p374) , their laws of the Torah is being used to judge them as in accordance with the Charter of Madinah , the Jews have their religion. The law invoked was deut 20:12-14 (bible NIV)

12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.
13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.
14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.

Why are you blaming the muslims and Prophet Muhammad(saw) in light of proper history?

LOL , I am not surprised ..... you are a just a hater , a racist , a religious bigot and a Hindoo supremacist.

Sephiroth

Bottomline - Muhammad had committed GENOCIDE toward Banu Qurayza by killing ALL the men and enslaving WOMEN AND CHILDREN. The reasons are IRRELEVANT.

FULLSTOP.

sam1528

Sephiroth replied at 11-2-2015 09:37 AM
Bottomline - Muhammad had committed GENOCIDE toward Banu Qurayza by killing ALL the men and enslavin ...

Can you now explain just how Prophet Muhammad(saw) committed genocide when
(1) the person who did the sentencing was Sa'd Mua'dh
(2) S'ad Mua'dh was from Bani Aws , a staunch ally of Bani Quraiza
(3) The law he referred to was from the Torah (deut20:12-14)

In other words , you only believe what you want to believe and discard proper historical facts. This again affirm that you are just a hater , racist , religious bigot in addition to being Hindoo supremacist.

Wonder why you still live in a multiracial and multireligious society. India don't want you or what?