Why did the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayze get killed?
Daniel talks to Abbas on why Muhammad killed the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayza.
Narrated ‘Aisha: When Allah’s Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, “You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet.” Allah’s Apostle said, “Where (to go now)?” Gabriel said, “This way,” pointing towards the tribe of Banu Qurayza. So Allah’s Apostle went out towards them. Bukhari 4:52:68
To support the work of DCCI https://paypal.me/dcciministries0717
Since when has Sa’ad bin Muadh become a new Prophet chosen by silly Banu Qurayza for their silly blunder of deciding their genocidal fate?
Banu Qurayza itself decides to ethnically cleanse its clan members when – in a silly blunder – choosing Sa’ad bin Muadh.
Sa’d Bin Muadh is the person whom Banu Qurayza chose, and he was a member of the Qurayzan’s tribal allies.
Prophet Muhammad is not responsible of what Banu Qurayza did and what Sa’d did.
What the early Moslem did is just lying a siege on Banu Qurayza. Moreover, Prophet Muhammad has no initial plan to conquer Banu Qurayza. That was Gabriel who firstly suggested our fainted Prophet to proceed laying a siege on the Banu Qurayza.
Afterward, it was a shocking decision of Sa’d Bin Muadh whom the Jews chose that ironically killed the Jews themselves in a blunder of the day.
Jews have no one else to blame except themselves on that such a silly bloody blunder.
At the first impression, Sa’d was likely a puppet of Banu Qurayza because Sa’d’s Madinah tribe happened to be the ally of Banu Qurayza, but somehow somewhat he turned against the Jews. Prophet Muhammad did not object the Jewish decisive blunder of preferring and appointing Sa’d Bin Mudh whose tribe is their tribal ally.
Laying a siege doesn’t do harm to the Jews either. I suppose, based on pattern of the Prophet’s previous decisions, the Banu Qurayza should have been expelled alive, that’s all, nothing less.
That law “thou shalt not kill” can’t be applied during the wartime and against the traitors in war. The event or case of laying a siege on Banu Qurayza was preceded by a reason of war, a Jewish treason, a siege, and a blunder. Every Law always has its exceptional event and exceptional case. The reason for both laying a siege and the land’s conquest is plain to see: there’s a legitimate siege against the treasonous Jews.
The bad consequence is: Jews of Banu Qurayza should have demanded their “new” ally the Makkah’s pagans to come help them in the siege, but, once again, a price of the blunder of “trusting” the deceitful pagans is so deadly.
Biblical Law sets the death penalty for crime of a treason which has nothing to do with a murder:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14487-treason
– Shimei the son of Gera was accused of treason because of his insult on David (II Sam. xvi. 5-8), and king Solomon avenged his father (I Kings ii. 46).
– Sheba the son of Bichri refused to give the allegiance to David, and was lynched by the Jews of Abel city (II Sam. xx. 22).
– Adonijah sought Abishag for his wife as a political pretext to overthrow king Solomon, and was executed along with his followers and Joab (I Kings i. 5, ii. 25) by Benaiah.
It still looks like Mohammed killed prisoners of war. The Jews were besieged for about three weeks before surrendering. The idea that they accepted the judgement of a third party still looks like blaming the victims.
Even if this were true, this was the right thing to do given the circumstances. How many Egyptians were killed and buried in Sinai in 1967 by the Israeli Jews