The religion of peace website and the Dunning-Kruger effect, was Banu Qaynuqa slaughtered unjustly?

Introduction:

I have decided to take on the religion of peace and dedicate a series to refute their so called responses to DTT (discover the truth),TORP made several poor and very badly worded “refutations” to DTT, the majority of them were actually commentary and not actual refutation, here I will address their sources one by one and I will provide arguments as to why their “refutation” is a work of a teenager

this is going to be the only first article i publish here on this blog in relation to TROP, the next articles will no longer be published here, go to Discover the truth for my next refutations

The Banu Qaynuqa incident

The first article TROP created to DTT was in regards to banu Qaynuqa incident, where the jews attempted to assassinate the muslims, betrayed them, and waged war on them

TROP decided to take the approached of commentary on some of DTT’s arguments, but later decided to cite Al-Tabari without authenticating what he said or giving sanad to what narrations he is citing, I have already shown why we should take whatever tabari said with grain of salt in my responses to TMA with that being said let us proceed

Their commentary on DTT sources goes as follows

“DTT quotes from five historians, each of whom seems to be repeating what the one before says.  The earliest is probably Ibn Ishaq's account, since the next most reliable account (Kitab Futuh al-Buldan) directly references it.  One of their sources, al-Waqidi, is widely regarded as a fabricator.”

Apart from the part regarding Al-Waqidi being fabricator which can be regarded as correct we should not leave out ibn ishaq and several other sources DTT used

We will comment later on, but one comment they made that send the most shock to me is the following

“None of these accounts say that the Qaynuqa killed Muslims.  None even name a third party, much less say that the Qaynuqa took sides against the Muslims in a battle.  In fact, the tribe seem to have been on friendly terms with other Muslims”

We will explore how wrong this is later, but first let’s see what Ka’ab bin ashraf did

“when the prophet was done from the battle of badir he sent zaid bin harith and Abdullah bin rowaha to tell the ummah of muslims victory, and when this reached ka’ab bin ashraf he told the one who informed him of it: how could you say that, these are the kings of arabs and masters of the people (referring to quraish), the he left to Makkah and he was crying over the corpses of quraish dead soldiers and he was instigation to fight the prophet[1]

However is it correct that they never killed a muslim? This is not correcting let’s explore some sources apart from their treason

“a muslim woman was selling something in banu qaynaqua market  for a gold and jewry maker, so the jews wanted her to uncover her face, so the muslim women didn’t allow this, so the jewry maker took part of her clothes and torn it from back and when she stood up her privte parts were exposed naked so they laughed, so she screamed, so a man of muslims went to the jewry maker and killed him, and the jews gathered around the muslim and killed him, and the muslims saw this and was enraged and a fight happened between the jews and muslims”[2]

However, many have doubted the authenticity of this narration ibn ishaq never mentioned, neither did tabari or tabaqt ibn sa’ad, and the name of the woman was not given[3]

TROP makes the following childish comment in light of growing evidence

“If the Banu Qaynuqa actually broke the agreement in some meaningful way, then it would have been included in the historical account.  Against this reality, the statement that they "violated" the treaty seems to be an editorial comment that got repeated without supporting detail.  “

The part regarding tabari which as I said before should always be taken with grain of salt was the following

" Tabari, whom DTT quotes as proof that the Qaynuqa 'violated' the agreement actually uses a word that can be interpreted as 'disagree.'  This is important because the full account offered in his work suggests that Muhammad required that he be recognized as a prophet, and they refused:

What happened with regard to the Banu Qaynuqa' was that the Messenger of God assembled them in the Market of the Banu Qaynuqa' and said, "0 Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you." They replied, "Muhammad, do you think that we are like your people? Do not be deluded by the fact that you met a people with no knowledge of war and that you made good use of your opportunity. By God, if you fight us you will know that we are real men!" (Tabari v.7 p.85)

"

Let’s forget the fact that they didn’t give the sanad of the narration, let’s forget the fact that no where did the narration suggest that they disagreed but rather when they refused they instigated to go to war with him, but let’s forget that, let’s explore TROP ability to do research and find if a narrator is regarded as authentic, did they do that with tabari? Or did they treat it as authentic as sunnis view sahih bukhari? The answer is no, infact this narration is regarded as non-authentic because of ibn Hamid (which they removed from chain of narration list, Muhammad bin hamid bin hyan was one of the narrators of this story and he is regarded as matruk meaning not authentic or literally (dropped)[4]

Infact what makes it funnier is that if we read further (using the same weak narrations) we actually see that tabari refutes TROP”

“According to Ibn Humayd-Salamah-Muhammad b. Ishaq-'Asim b. 'Umar b.Qatadah: The Banu Qaynuqa' were the first Jews to infringe the agreement between them and the Messenger of God; they took to arms between Badr and Uhud.”[5]

Wow, TROP, your own source just affirmed what DTT said even with a weak narrator, this is quite sad and pathetic

More childish citations of tabari by Trop goes as follows

“Here is how Tabari explains it:

According to Al-Zuhri-'Urwah : Gabriel [the angel] brought the following verse down to the Messenger of God : "And if thou fearest treachery from any folk, then throw back to them their treaty fairly. "'When Gabriel had finished delivering this verse, the Messenger of God said, "I fear the Banu Qaynuga'." 'Urwah says: It was on the basis of this verse that the Messenger of God advanced upon them. (Tabari v.7 p.86

Hmmm...  An angel tells Muhammad that if he simply fears treachery then it's OK to break the treaty.  Why say that if the treaty were already broken?  Muhammad promptly says he fears treachery and then advances on the Qaynuqa community with an army.  This is a very strange way of saying that he was under attack, as Discover the Truth fantasizes.”

Yet another citation of tabari with no authentication or verification at all, but let’s have a comment on this like how TROP loves to do to DTT, Muhammad here simply implied that Qaynuqa might break the treaty and se he advanced upon them, TROP seams to make the argument that this was the only motivation Muhammad had to attack them, but that is funny because if I recall few paragraph earlier Tabari state, now what is most important here is that is this narration authentic? The answer might shock you because it laughs at the credibility of TROP, remember when they discredited DTT for using Waqidi? Youp, here they used a narration that was narrated through Waqidi

According to Sahih wa da’if tarikh Tabari in da’if section vol.7 page.101:

“within it’s sanad exist waqidi, and he is matruk”

How funny, TROP criticize DTT for using Waqidi and then they use him themselves

“According to Ibn Humayd-Salamah-Muhammad b. Ishaq-'Asim b. 'Umar b.Qatadah: The Banu Qaynuqa' were the first Jews to infringe the agreement between them and the Messenger of God; they took to arms between Badr and Uhud.”

So here tabari clearly state that they took arms preparing to infringe the agreement between them and the messenger and uphold it between badr and uhud

So clearly if we piece it together, Muhammad based on this verse advanced to the jews when they took arms against him and infringed the agreement, but somehow TROP dodged this narration in tabari to fool their gullible audience? So much for “The Qaynuqa were fighting defensively according to every account”

TROP later continue

“Tabari continues:

The Messenger of God besieged them for fifteen days and prevented any of them from getting out. They then surrendered at the discretion of the Mesenger of God . They were fettered, and he wanted to kill them, but 'Abd Allah b. Ubayy spoke to him on their behalf... Four hundred men without armour and three hundred with coats of mail, who defended me from the Arab and the non-Arab alike, and you would mow them down in a single morning? By God, I do not feel safe and am afraid of what the future may have in store (Tabari v.7 p.86)

Muhammad "fears" treachery, has a private conversation with an "angel" and the next thing you know, 700 people are tied up and waiting to be beheaded.  Which party would you fear? “

I don’t know, the party that instigated a war? The party that threatened to fight Muhammad? The party that took arms in preparation for battle? The party that humiliated the muslims by attacking an innocent woman?

Let’s see yet again if this is an authentic narration

According to Sahih Wa Da’if Tarikh Tabari vol.7 page.102

“it contains Waqidi and he is matruk”

Isn’t it ironic for the second time TROP use waqidi after criticizing DTT for using him?

So far TROP have not shown what part of the agreement or treaty did Muhammad broke or invoked

“The Qaynuqa were fighting defensively according to every account”

No they were not, they saw the might of the prophet who defeated the quraishi tribe and instigated to fight him, remember ka’ab bin ashraf?

But let us see the full account and not take parts of what TROP deceptively left out

“The Messenger of God besieged them until they surrendered at his discretion. 'Abd Allah b . Ubayy b. Salul rose up when God had put them in his power, and said, "Muhammad, treat my mawdli well"; for they were the confederates of al-Khazraj . The Prophet delayed his answer, so 'Abd Allah repeated, "Muhammad, treat my mawali well." The Prophet turned away from him, and he put his hand into (the Messenger's) collar. The Messenger of God said, "Let me go! "-he was so angry that they could see shadows in his face (that is, his face coloured ). Then he said, "Damn you, let me go!" He replied, "No, by God, I will not let you go until you treat my mawali well. Four hundred men without armour and three hundred with coats of mail, who defended me from the Arab and the non-Arab alike, and you would mow them down in a single morning? By God, I do not feel safe and am afraid of what the future may have in store ." So the Messenger of God said, “They are yours.”[6]

Hold on, so Muhammad actually let them go and didn’t keep them on besiege and didn’t behead them? Hmmmmmm sounds like TROP is hiding something

However, the account I gave above is also weak for having waqidi in it’s narration

“If the Banu Qaynuqa actually broke the agreement in some meaningful way, then it would have been included in the historical account”

Either TROP are blind or acting blatantly stupid

In conclusion for this section

TROP cited a weak narration by tabari regarding jews of Qaynaqua claiming they will fight back, misquoted and bluntly took two a narration out of context, removed a complete narration from the section in the book, cited tabari without sanad and based on the work of waqidi who is a weak narrator as they admitted, made some childish stupid comments to DTT, failed to tackle DTT sources (apart from waqidi), cited Yet another weak narration by tabari, used waqidi twice after criticizing DTT for using him, there is littraly not a single valid narration TROP made here, almost all of their citations of Tabari have been discridited, and almost all their objections were mere comments, there is no indication of "self defense" as they so foolishly make, and they ignored all DTT's citations to how Jews of banu Qaynaqua broke the treaty, and on top of that, they ignored a similar narration that refutes their argument and clearly state that the jews took arms after infringing the treaty.

---

[1] Sunnan Al-Kubra by Baihaqi vol.9 page.183

[2] Sira Ibn Hisham vol.2 page.47

[3] Muhammad prophet of god by Muhammad ritha page.174

[4] http://library.islamweb.net/hadith/RawyDetails.php?RawyID=6930

[5] Tabari vol.7 page.85-86

[6] Tabari vol.7 page.86