Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

event horizon · Sep 20, 2009

This thread is for discussing the collective punishment against the Banu Nadir tribe.

In a few days, I can quote Western historians, such as Montgomery Watt and Maxime Rodinson pertaining to the ethnic cleansing of this tribe from the Yathrib and also discuss the so far unsubstantiated assertions made by the Ahmadi author shafique has cited.

Shafique can also explain what 'crimes against humanity' the B. Nadir tribe were 'guilty' of.

shafique · Sep 21, 2009

I'm surprised it will take a few days to pick out the quotes to support 'eh's version of history.

Perhaps this time he will surprise us all and not provide the discredited Orientalist view, but I don't hold out much hope for this.

But, the whole Banu Nadhir expulsion background is given in full here and I'll leave it to eh to provide evidence that the account is erroneous. I suspect he will only be able to provide extracts which do not contradict the full account, but only highlight certain aspects of it. Again let's see whether the quotes he gives are selective or not.

When Amr bin Umayya arrived in Medina, he narrated all the details of the tragedy of Be’r Ma’oona to the Holy Prophet and also mentioned the execution by him of the two men of Banu Aamir. The Holy Prophet rebuked him severely over what he had done and immediately arranged to send the blood money for them to their heirs. As Banu Aamir were confederates of Banu Nadhir, and the latter were confederates of the Muslims, they were responsible for a proportionate share of the blood money that had been paid by the Holy Prophet. Accordingly, the Holy Prophet went with some Companions to the settlement of Banu Nadhir and, putting the whole matter before them, demanded from them their share of the blood money. The Banu Nadhir welcomed the Holy Prophet and requested him to wait so that they might collect the amount and pay it to him. The Holy Prophet and his Companions sat down in the shade of a wall, and the leaders of Banu Nadhir withdrew to one side, pretending that they would arrange to collect the amount, which had to be paid to the Holy Prophet. Instead, however, they began to conspire that they should take advantage of this welcome opportunity and kill the Holy Prophet by someone mounting to the roof of the house against the wall of which the Holy Prophet was then sitting, and dropping a heavy stone on top of him. One of the Jews, Salam bin Mashkim, opposed this whole project and condemned it as treachery and a breach of their treaty with the Holy Prophet. But they did not listen to him, and, eventually, Amr bin Hajjash who was one of them carried a heavy stone to the top of the house, intending to drop it over the Holy Prophet. When he was about to carry out his foul design the Holy Prophet stood up suddenly and moved away, as if he had recalled something urgent that needed to be attended to immediately.

While both parties waited for him he returned to Medina, and after a short while his Companions who had been left behind became curious over his sudden departure and set out in search of him and, eventually, arrived in Medina. The Holy Prophet informed his Companions of the dangerous conspiracy that had been hatched by Banu Nadhir against his life, and sent for Muhammad bin Maslamah, of Aus, and directed him to go to Banu Nadhir and speak to them about the matter and tell them that as their mischief and their treachery had reached the extreme limit, it was not safe to permit them to continue in Medina and that it would be better for them to leave Medina and to settle elsewhere. He was to allow them ten days for their withdrawal from Medina. When Muhammad bin Maslamah went and spoke to the leaders of Banu Nadhir, they told him arrogantly to tell his master that they were not prepared to leave Medina and that he was free to do whatever he wished. When their reply was communicated to the Holy Prophet he observed involuntarily, ‘God is Great; the Jews appear to be bent on fighting.’ He thereupon asked the Muslims to get ready, and with a company of his followers he marched against Banu Nadhir.

An alternative version narrated by some of the historians is that, sometime after the battle of Badr, though it is not specifically stated how long after the battle, the chiefs of Quraish had sent a letter to Banu Nadhir that they should expel Muhammad and his followers from Medina, by force if necessary, else Quraish would take the field against Banu Nadhir. Upon receipt of this letter Banu Nadhir held a consultation and decided that the best way out of the situation would be to kill Muhammad through some device, whereby he could be persuaded to visit them and they could take advantage of the opportunity to kill him. In pursuance of their device, they sent a message to the Holy Prophet that they desired to arrange an exchange of views between him and their divines and that if in consequence of the exchange, his truth was established, they would believe in him. They suggested that he should go to them accompanied by thirty followers and that there would be thirty divines on their side to take part in the exchange of views. In the meantime they arranged that when the Holy Prophet should arrive the pseudo-divines, who would have daggers hidden under their clothes, should find a suitable opportunity to kill him. But a woman of Banu Nadhir sent word of this design to an Ansari to whom she was related, and being informed of it, the Holy Prophet, who was about to set out from his house, cancelled his projected visit and told his followers to get ready, and marched with a company of them against Banu Nadhir and besieged their settlement. He sent a message to their leader that, in view of the development that had taken place, he could not let them continue on in Medina unless they made a new treaty with him assuring him that, in future, they would not embark upon any treacherous design. But they rejected his offer and thus a confrontation came about. Banu Nadhir retired arrogantly behind their fortifications and a siege began. The next day the Holy Prophet received intimation that Banu Quraidhah were also bent upon mischief, upon which he marched at the head of some of his Companions to the settlement of Banu Quraidhah and set siege to it. Banu Quraidhah, finding that their design had been discovered, were frightened, and offered to renew their treaty with the Holy Prophet. He agreed and raised the siege, where after he reverted to Banu Nadhir, who persisted in their hostility, and a situation of confrontation arose. At this stage Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul sent a message to Banu Nadhir that they should not give way to the Muslims, and that he and his followers would lend them their active support and would fight on their behalf. But when fighting began Banu Nadhir looked in vain for support from Abdullah bin Ubayy and his followers. Banu Quraidhah also, though in sympathy with Banu Nadhir, did not come out openly in their support. Banu Nadhir had great confidence in the strength of their fortifications and were certain that the Muslims would not be able to do them any serious harm and would eventually get tired and lift the siege.

The confidence of Banu Nadhir appeared to be justified and though the siege continued for several days, it produced no change in their attitude. At last the Holy Prophet directed that some of the date trees of Banu Nadhir, which were outside their fortifications, may be cut down. These trees were of an inferior kind, the fruit of which was generally fed to animals and was not used for human consumption. The purpose of the Holy Prophet’s direction was that Banu Nadhir, apprehending a large-scale destruction of their fruit trees, might become inclined to make terms, and thus a large number of human lives might be saved and peace and order might be restored at the sacrifice of a few inferior type of fruit trees. This served its purpose and by the time six date trees had been cut down Banu Nadhir, fearing large-scale damage, offered, after a siege lasting a fortnight, to open their gates on condition that they should be permitted to depart together with all their movables. This was what the Holy Prophet had himself offered them in the beginning, and as his sole purpose was the restoration of peace and security he accepted the offer, subject only to the condition that Banu Nadhir would not be permitted to take away their arms. This was agreed to, and the Holy Prophet appointed Muhammad bin Maslamah to supervise the departure of Banu Nadhir from Medina. Accordingly they departed with great pomp and show, with music playing and their camels loaded with all their movables. They had demolished their houses and carried away with them even the doors and lintels, which were made of wood. Their arms and immovable properties, land and gardens, fell into the hands of Muslims, but as there had been little or no fighting these were not treated as spoils and the greater part of them were distributed among the poorer section of Emigrants who had hitherto been supported by their brethren of Ansar and thus, indirectly, Ansar also shared in these properties.

When Banu Nadhir were about to set out from Medina, some Ansar sought to detain those Ansar children, now grown up, who, in fulfilment of the vows of their parents, had been committed to the guardianship of members of Banu Nadhir and had been brought up in the Jewish faith. Banu Nadhir desired to take these young men with them. The Holy Prophet rejected the demand of Ansar as being opposed to the Divine command: ‘There shall be no compulsion in matters of faith’ (2:257). Two of Banu Nadhir, however, embraced Islam voluntarily and stayed on in Medina.

It had been understood that Banu Nadhir would depart from Medina and settle somewhere in the north beyond the boundaries of Arabia. Yet some of their leaders like Salam bin Abi Huqaiq, Kananah bin Rabi’, Huyay bin Akhtab, and others, together with some of their followers, settled in the well known Jewish town, Khaibar, in the north of Hedjaz, where they were eagerly welcomed, and where they started conspiring against the Muslims, with dire results, as will be set out later.

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/mu ... er_09.html

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 21, 2009

Great, in the meantime, what were the 'crimes against humanity' the Banu Nadir tribe were 'guilty' of?

I assume this to be an alleged assassination attempt. Hopefully anyone with half a brain will realize that an alleged and very convenient assassination attempt (why didn't the Jews just kill Muhammad when he was in their walled compound???) is not a crime against humanity.

Perhaps shafique can explain if he agrees that the men and women Muhammad assassinated were also crimes against humanity. At least with Muhammad, he was a military leader and, therefore, a legitimate target for assassination.

shafique · Sep 21, 2009

The crimes that led to their banishment are listed in the extract - I appreciate that the long quote looks a bit daunting, but have a little patience and read it sentence, by sentence. I'll be happy to explain any difficult bits to you.

As for 'crimes against humanity' - I only used this in the context of Islamphobic accusations of Muslims committing 'crimes against humanity' - you seem to be confusing what I wrote and think I was referring to the crimes of the Banu Nadhir. Easily done, given you are working hard to not answer questions I'm posing - but here take your time and read through the full account for a change.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 21, 2009

Ok, cool. I now have Watt's, Rodinson's, Tabari's and some other scholar's book on my person. When I have time, I will type out their accounts on the ethnic cleansing of the Banu Nadir tribe.

In the meantime, what crime against humanity was the tribe guilty of?

Your claim, not mine.

shafique · Sep 22, 2009

Knock yourself out - as I said, let's examine the quotes you provide and hopefully you'll give the full contexts.

Interesting that you have faith in these historians of the past, but choose to ignore the latter day historians' conclusions such as Kung, Kennedy et al (whom you have also selectively quoted from).

But hey - I won't prejudge and I'll wait for you to type out the full accounts and trust you won't be just picking up the quotes from the aforementioned websites.

Perhaps you'll find some time to answer the pending questions?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 22, 2009

Which pending questions are in this thread that you want answered? I thought I asked to tell me what 'crimes against humanity' the Banu Nadir tribe was 'guilty' of. I see my question has not been answered, maybe you'll get around to it in your next reply.

It certainly is interesting to compare Watt's account with what shafique claims the Banu Nadir tribe were 'guilty' of 'crimes against humanity'. I guess even Watt, sympathetic to Muhammad, did not see such 'flimsy evidence' as any proof of guilt, let alone as a crime against humanity, which Watt later says such an attempt against an individual life did not merit the expulsion ('out of proportion to the offence'), ethnic cleansing, of an entire people.

Oh, and here's Watt's version of events:

p211

Almost exactly a year after Ka'b's death, a second Jewish clan, Banu n-Nadir, were expelled from Medina. The story is that Muhammad went to the settlement of an-Nadir to demand a contribution towards the blood-money due to B. 'Amir b. Sa'sa'ah for the two men killed by the survivor of Bi'r Ma'unah. As an-Nadir were in the alliance with 'Amir, there may been complications, though the sources say nothing of these; Muhammad may have thought that the Jews ought to do more than the average of the inhabitants of Medina, and they may have thought they ought to do less. Whatever the precise point was, an-Nadir professed themselves ready to give a satisfactory answer, but bade Muhammad make himself comfortable while they prepared a meal. He and his companions seated themselves with their backs to the wall of one of the houses. Presently Muhammad slipped quietly away and did not return, and his companions also eventually left. When they found him at his house, he explained that he had had a Divine warning that an-Nadir were planning a treacherous attack on him - they could easily have rolled a stone onto his head and killed him as he sat by the house. He therefore at once dispatched Muhammad b. Maslamah to an-Nadir with an ultimatum' they were to leave Medina within ten days on pain of death, though they would still be regarded as owners of their palm-trees and receive part of the produce. Such an ultimatum seems out of proportion to the offence, or rather to the apparently flimsy grounds for supposing that treachery was meditated. Yet perhaps the grounds were not so flimsy as they appear at first sight to the Westerner of today. Both parties knew how some Muslims had treated Ka'b b. al-Ashraf, and, in accordance with the ideas of the Arabia of that day, Muhammad was bound to expect that, if he gave his opponents and opprtunity, they would kill him. And-Nadir's postponement of a reply created such an opportunity, and was therefore tantamount to a hostile act.

Basically, Muhammad receives a 'divine' revelation that the Jews in the settlement he traveled to had planned to kill him when he was with a few companions.

One wonders why Allah did not warn Muhammad ahead of time to save his prophet a trip?

Strangely, the Jews did not cut Muhammad and his few companions down when they were in the heart of their walled compound and the Jews must have been so busy talking to themselves that Muhammad was able to walk out of their compound without so much as a single Jew even noticing.

Those Jews must have been watching Muhammad like a hawk!...or not.

Muhammad then uses his 'divine' revelation of an alleged assassination attempt as a pretext to expel the entire B. Nadir tribe, in which he wastes no time in doing - immediately sending out troops to besiege the tribe.

Now, a normal person might say, 'woah, since when are 'divine' revelations enough evidence for an alleged assassination attempt and since when do *rational* people expel an entire people, i.e., ethnically cleanse an entire people, over this alleged assassination attempt?'

Well, the answer is that you have to think like a Muslim. In doing so, you have to throw common sense ('flimsy evidence' to boot) out of the window and unconditionally accept that Muhammad really did have a 'divine' revelation, as opposed to a made up excuse, and, unfortunately, the Muslims following Muhammad uncritically accepted Muhammad's account and his advice for 'dealing' with the problem.

So, how would a 'rational', 'normal' person such as you now do? Again, you must think like a Muslim. Throw common sense out of the window, now.

Does it make sense to forcibly expel an entire tribe within, presumably, a few hours based on an alleged assassination plot, you might ask? Well, no, it doesn't. Even historians sympathetic to Muhammad, such as Montgomery Watt, seem baffled over this *very* convenient 'divine' revelation, based on 'flimsy evidence' and must rationalize the ethnic cleansing of the tribe based on their interpretation of the cultural values of Muhammad's time.

Watt tacitly acknowledges that there was not a *real* assassination plot. No, this was, like many other things, a figment of Muhammad's imagination. The assassinaiton plot was, instead, what Muhammad was expecting the Banu Nadir tribe to eventually carry out to avenge Ka'b's death - who was murdered on orders from Muhammad for writing poetry of Muslim women and sympathizing with the Meccans killed at the battle of Badr.

So, Muhammad, in fact, pre-emptively expelled, i.e., ethnically cleansed, an *entire* tribe of people - hundreds (well over one thousand) of men, women and children to save his own skin from some future assassination attempt.

Well then! That certainly turns things around. Now, a rational, normal Westerner may ask, so Muhammad is basically a tyrant who expels tribes - entire peoples, based on his whims and desires and, of course, profits from their expulsion?

Of course! One does not need to have shafique's level of IQ to see that this assassination plot was a convenient invention of Muhammad's. Surely, it sounds odd that Muhammad could just sneak out of the Banu Nadir walled compound if the Jews were really plotting to kill the prophet. If the Jews really wanted to kill Muhammad, would they hatch and argue over a silly plan of dropping a millstone on Muhammad when they could arm their men and cut Muhammad and his few companions down in a matter of minutes? Think not.

But alas! We are not Western, rational, normal people. We are Muslims and we are unable to see the 'duh' parts of this story which, when put together, illustrate how ridiculous this story is. Unfortunately, the sad part is that as a result of Muhammad, an entire tribe was ethnically cleansed due to his Stalin like paranoia.

shafique · Sep 22, 2009

event horizon wrote:Which pending questions are in this thread that you want answered?

I'd like your answers to the pending questions I asked before this thread - eg. who Paul was referring to when he said 'your women' are blonde, and whether you denounce Goldstein as a religious terrorist - to name the two main ones I can recall right now.

event horizon wrote:I thought I asked to tell me what 'crimes against humanity' the Banu Nadir tribe was 'guilty' of.

I answered this in my previous post - correcting your misconception - please try and keep up.

It is interesting to compare Watt's account and the fuller account I quoted earlier - and we can see why eh chooses to give more weight to the less full account.

event horizon wrote:Basically, Muhammad receives a 'divine' revelation that the Jews in the settlement he traveled to had planned to kill him when he was with a few companions.

Is it shocking that a Prophet of God receives revelations? Is this news for you?

event horizon wrote:Muhammad then uses his 'divine' revelation of an alleged assassination attempt as a pretext to expel the entire B. Nadir tribe, in which he wastes no time in doing - immediately sending out troops to besiege the tribe.

An interesting spin on what the accounts say - but then again, no one doubts your active imagination!

event horizon wrote:So, how would a 'rational', 'normal' person such as you now do? Again, you must think like a Muslim. Throw common sense out of the window, now.

I choose not to ignore the facts and let my imagination run riot - but hey that's just me.

event horizon wrote:Does it make sense to forcibly expel an entire tribe within, presumably, a few hours based on an alleged assassination plot, you might ask? Well, no, it doesn't.

I agree. Your interpretation doesn't make sense -the punishment is one that befits a larger crime than just an assassination attempt on one person (even if he is the Prophet of God).

event horizon wrote:Even historians sympathetic to Muhammad, such as Montgomery Watt, seem baffled over this *very* convenient 'divine' revelation, based on 'flimsy evidence' and must rationalize the ethnic cleansing of the tribe based on their interpretation of the cultural values of Muhammad's time.

See previous comment about 'imagination' - but I see that Watt is only 'tacitly' agreeing with 'eh's interpretation.

Let me quote Watt from above:
Yet perhaps the grounds were not so flimsy as they appear at first sight to the Westerner of today

Give a guy enough rope and he hangs himself! Tell me that you understood what Watt said is this sentence when you cut and pasted the above?

event horizon wrote:But alas! We are not Western, rational, normal people. We are Muslims and we are unable to see the 'duh' parts of this story which, when put together, illustrate how ridiculous this story is.

Careful, the Islamophobia is showing through the veil of argument.

event horizon wrote:Unfortunately, the sad part is that as a result of Muhammad, an entire tribe was ethnically cleansed due to his Stalin like paranoia.

Glad to see the Orientalist conclusions weren't lost on you.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 22, 2009

Sorry shafique, but Watt's accounts say that Muhammad 'immediately' sent out his henchmen to give their 'eviction' notice to the Banu Qaynuqa tribe.

He therefore at once dispatched Muhammad b. Maslamah to an-Nadir with an ultimatum' they were to leave Medina within ten days on pain of death

Somehow, I don't think the pain of death part and an ultimatum to send an entire tribe 'packing' over an alleged revelation was a paper threat.

The account says that the tribe shuttered itself in their compound and Muhammad and his men immediately laid siege.

You're free to believe that Muhammad and his henchmen took their time to surround the B. Nadir tribe, but I have a feeling that it was pretty much immediate.

Oh, and I see you have not addressed why the Jews simply did not murder Muhammad right there and then and how did Muhammad slip away?

Was this another one of Muhammad's miracles, such as splitting the moon?

shafique · Sep 22, 2009

I forgot to point out that Watt's conclusion was (in eh's quote above)

And-Nadir's postponement of a reply created such an opportunity, and was therefore tantamount to a hostile act.

Watt says the Nadhir's actions were a 'hostile act'. An inconvenient quote eh?

I have given the full account of what Banu Nadhir's actions were in my quote - asking me to endorse your interpretation based on misreading Watt's quote is a little bit rich. However, if there was part of the long post that confused you, let me know and I'll try to explain more clearly.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 22, 2009

Let me quote Watt from above:
Yet perhaps the grounds were not so flimsy as they appear at first sight to the Westerner of today

Give a guy enough rope and he hangs himself! Tell me that you understood what Watt said is this sentence when you cut and pasted the above?

I didn't cute and paste the quote, I typed them out. If you have any evidence that I cute and paste the quote, after I told you I had to type the quotes out, please bring them forward.

I see that you must have missed what Watt goes on to say.

He does not appeal to evidence but that Muhammad must have 'expected' an assassination attempt based on the customs of those days.

Muhammad was bound to expect that, if he gave his opponents and opprtunity, they would kill him.

So, there was no 'real' assassination attempt, only a potential one Muhammad could expect in the future.

I understand this is difficult for you, kind of like getting confused over the meaning of 'contemporary sources'.

event horizon · Sep 22, 2009

shafique wrote:I forgot to point out that Watt's conclusion was (in eh's quote above)

And-Nadir's postponement of a reply created such an opportunity, and was therefore tantamount to a hostile act.

Watt says the Nadhir's actions were a 'hostile act'. An inconvenient quote eh?

I have given the full account of what Banu Nadhir's actions were in my quote - asking me to endorse your interpretation based on misreading Watt's quote is a little bit rich. However, if there was part of the long post that confused you, let me know and I'll try to explain more clearly.

Cheers,
Shafique

Sure, in the mind of a paranoid man, a postponement of a reply is 'tantamount' to a hostile act.

Do you think someone is acting hostilely towards you if they don't answer your question on a message board? Perhaps Muhammad is not the only one who needed to see a shrink.

shafique · Sep 22, 2009

So you typed out the quote from Watt saying the Banu Nadhir committed a hostile act and that Westerners may wrongly think the grounds he lists are flimsy.

It appears therefore that your issue is with Watt (or rather with basic comprehension of what he wrote).

As I stated earlier, the fuller account I gave gives more detail. Watt's account does not contradict the quote I gave.

Let me know where you think the fuller account contradicts what Watt has said.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 22, 2009

Is your book scholarly reviewed by any chance?

It seems strange that Watt doesn't include the conversion of a Jewish man to Islam who later says that the Jews conspired to kill Muhammad.

Why do you think Watt doesn't include that part?

shafique · Sep 22, 2009

I asked whether Watt's account contradicted the fuller account I quoted. You now are asking about whether the book was reviewed and why the quote you gave is shorter and less detailed than the one I gave.

I'm afraid that both authors are now dead, and that the quote I gave was from a more recent book - and Khan actually quotes Watt a few times in his book, but also had access to all the primary sources available when he wrote the book.

But the accounts speak for themselves - if there are factual errors in the account given, I'll be happy to look into them.

Cheers,
Shafique

Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

For Shafique - Muhammad's War Crimes Against The Nadir Tribe

Go To

Dubai Discussions

Dubai Expat Forums

Dubai Business

Dubai Tech Discussions

Dubai Classifieds