The Religion of Peace and the Dunning-Kruger Effect Banu Qurayza incident

Introduction:

I have taken a quick skim through TROP response to DTT regarding The Banu Qurayza incident, and I started to think that TROP responses to DTT are starting to get worse and worse with fewer sources and footnotes, first they Cite weak sources in their responses to Banu Qaynuqa incident, then cite two sources one is weak another is misquoted in Banu nadir incident, and now in a response to an incident that they consider to be “ the most embarrassing” incident in Islam history, they (spoiler alert) do the worse, make commentary in response without citing a single source, not even a weak one, if you only care for criticism to an accurate and worthy response don’t bother reading the rest of this article, because we are responding to an author in TROP website who waste our time with commentary with no actual sources to back up his claims, if you wish to see just who bad TROP at responding to Muslims please feel free to continue reading

the Author of TROP as I came to learn from DTT is named Glen Roberts

now let us processed with this “response” to DTT

TROP's arguments:

“The story of Muhammad beheading all of the men (and boys as young as 12) of a tribe known as the Banu Qurayza is one of the most embarrassing for contemporary apologists.  It occurred after the Battle of the Trench.  Those who were not beheaded were mostly enslaved, mainly the children and women.”

“as young as 12”? Citation needed

“one of the most embarrassing for contemporary apologists”? the only most embarrassing attempt by apologists like this Christian apologist is this sorry excuse of a response to DTT, so far the author is preconceiving his conclusions, calling the story embarrassing long before he demonstrates why it’s embarrassing, we didn’t see this argument yet, we didn’t even start with the article and already TROP makes this silly incident as embarrassing to Muslim apologist.

“The challenge for Discover the Truth is to shift blame from Muhammad to the victims.  DTT poses that the Qurayza broke a treaty and "fought" Muhammad, even "openly taking sides" during the Battle of the Trench.  In other words, they were treacherous and posed a threat that had to be eliminated.”

Shift the blame? the blame is directly on those who threaten your life and instigate your enemies on you, it’s beyond me how can TROP defend such treacherous tribe like Banu qurayza, apparently they have no problem when a tribe fight the prophet, but they have a problem when Muslims defend themselves

“Since the punishment (of mass execution) was excessive, DTT argues that it was determined by someone other than Muhammad, who was simply performing his humble duties in carrying it out.  Enslaving the women and children was an act of humanitarianism since their men had been executed and could no longer take care of them.”

it's actually kinda dishonest making statements regarding DTT without quoting them directly or giving a link to their website, but yes, Muhammad was not the one who made the order to execute the tribe men (we will get to the details on wither combatants were executed or not)

“What They Offer as Proof

Discover the Truth posts several articles to mitigate the slaughter, rape, and enslavement of the Banu Qurayza.  The most detailed frames the argument with snippets of Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Abu Dawud and Sahih verses from Sunan an-Nasai'i and Jami at-Tirmidhi - which are accepted as generally reliable sources.

History is written by the winners, however, and each of these sources is a devout Muslim who wants to portray Muhammad in a flattering light.  Understanding what really happened sometimes means reading between the lines and considering events from the perspective of the other side.”

“History is written by the winners, however, and each of these sources is a devout Muslim who wants to portray Muhammad in a flattering light. “

so the sources are wrong because they are devout Muslims who might portray Muhammad in “flattering light”? this is a confirmation bias fallacy or vested interest fallacy

if you don’t accept sources because they might be biased or rather they belong to one side that you don’t trust them based on this fallacy not a single source is trusted, I’m biased as a source of Islam meaning I’m a Muslim who have tendencies to be biased toward the religion, based on this fallacy my sources regarding Islam no matter how authentic it’s can’t be trusted, the same thing applies to the author of TROP as he is a Christian and by definition he does not trustworthy regarding Christianity because of his affiliation

TROP author need to try better than commit such insane fallacies in their articles

“When Muhammad breaks a treaty, for example, we are told that he has "permission from Allah" - which constitutes thin reasoning in the real world.  When there is even a hint that someone else hasn't lived up to the letter of an agreement, however, it's called "treachery" and the entire tribe is subject to eviction or extermination”

this is a non-sequitur fallacy

just because he receives visions or words from God doesn’t mean they he is immune to treachery, this doesn’t logically follow

“The conclusions reached by DTT with which we disagree are as follows:

1) The Banu Qurayza broke an agreement unjustifiably

2) The Banu Qurayza fought Muslims at the Battle of the Trench

3) The Banu Qurayza helped other tribes kill Muslims

4) The Banu Qurayza were deserving of their fate

5) Muhammad was powerless to stop the beheadings and thus bore no blame

Obviously, if one or more of these is false, then the apologist case collapses.”

let us focus on the last statement

“Obviously, if one or more of these is false, then the apologist case collapses”

this is again a non sequitur fallacy, if one premise of a series of statement is false that doesn’t lead to the collapse of the main argument, let’s take for example 2 “The Banu Qurayza fought Muslims at the Battle of the Trench” if this was false and they didn’t fight Muslims at the battle of the trench then that doesn’t mean that the entire 5 arguments series collapse at all, they could be still treacherous and fought against Muslims on other occasions other than the battle of trench

let’s take a look at 3 “The Banu Qurayza helped other tribes kill Muslims” if this was false and they didn’t help other tribes in killing Muslims that still won’t rebuke DTT arguments, they could be responsible for killing Muslims themselves directly, and they will still be considered guilty

this TROP author appears to have a poor grasp of critical thinking and logical analysis

“The pretext for the Banu Qaynuqa was that a Muslim woman had been harassed by a member of the tribe.  The Banu Nadir were accused (in some accounts) of plotting to kill Muhammad.  This is quite tenuous given that information in both cases came from an angel seen only by Muhammad.  Each eviction also followed the assassination of prominent members of the Jewish community at Medina by the Muslims.”

it didn’t come from an angle, DTT made several sources regarding these accounts, I shall leave links to their articles

https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/13/invasion-of-banu-qaynuqa/

https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/13/scholars-on-the-banu-qaynuqa-incident/

https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/05/13/banu-nadirs-treachery-quran-592-14/

https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/10/analysing-the-banu-nadir-incident/

https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/09/treachery-of-jewish-tribe-banu-nadir/

as you can see there are more than 1 article to each incident each cites different sources almost all of them reference narrators rather than saying this came from wahy (angel Gabriel)

there is not a single mention of angle Gabrial among the narrators of any source in this incident, TROP is trying so desperately here

“The Battle of the Trench occurred when the Quraish sent an army against the Muslims at Medina.  Although DTT does not mention it, the conflict owed its origins to caravan raids against the Quraish.  Prior to Muhammad's arrival, trade to and from Mecca passed unmolested by the tribes in Medina: everyone played by the rules.  Muhammad quickly changed that - and there is no indication that he warned the Jewish tribes prior to signing the pact that he would be provoking a war.”

“although DTT does Not mention it” this is false, in fact DTT dedicated a complete article to the battle of Trench

https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/18/battle-of-the-trench-al-khandaq-al-ahzab/

“While DTT paints the picture of a man struggling to get along in a treacherous world, the reality is that Muhammad was at the center of every conflict with everyone who would not agree to be his subordinate.  A victim of circumstance... trouble just has a way of finding him, right?”

Not right, you will have to cite evidence and sources for this nonsense

“This is the context in which the Banu Qurayza's alleged "betrayal" of Muhammad occurs. “

citation needed

“Amidst this, a leader from the Banu Nadir arrives (one of the tribes that had been evicted) and tricks the Qurayza leader, Ka'b, into letting him in.  Far from scheming with the 'enemies of Muhammad', it is obvious, even from the account quoted liberally by DTT, that Ka'b does not want to have a conversation and wants no involvement in the conflict.”

there is literally not a single reference to any of DTT articles let alone quotes, so how can we confirm this nonsensical claim

the following account of Ka’b comes Directly from DTT’s re-examining Banu qurayza incident

““The enemy of God Huyayy b. Akhtab al-Nadri went out to Ka’b b. Asad al-Qurazi who had made a treaty with the apostle. When Ka’b heard of Huyayy’s coming he shut the door of his fort in his face, and when he asked permission to enter he refused to see him, saying that he was a man of ill omen and that he himself was in treaty with Muhammad and did not intend to go back on his word because he had always found him loyal and faithful. Then Huyayy accused him of shutting him out because he was unwilling to let him eat his corn. This so enraged him that he opened his door. He said ‘Good heavens, Ka’b, I have brought you immortal fame and a great army. I have come with Quraysh with their leaders and chiefs which I have halted where the torrent-beds of Ruma meet; and Ghatafan with their leaders and chiefs which I have halted in Dhanab Naqma towards Uhud. They have made a firm agreement and promised me that they will not depart until we have made an end of Muhammad and his men.’ Ka’b said: ‘By God, you have brought me immortal shame and an empty cloud which has shed its water while it thunders and lightens with nothing in it. Woe to you Huyayy, leave me as I am, for I have always found him loyal and faithful.’ Huyayy kept on wheedling Ka’b until at last, he gave way in giving him a solemn promise that if Quraysh and Ghatafan returned without having killed Muhammad he would enter his fort with him and await his fate. Thus Ka’b broke his promise and cut loose from the bond that was between him and the apostle.””

while TROP was right on this occasion they need to cite the source and the quote, and nevertheless, ka’b was guilty as charged

“Talked into believing that the city will be overrun, Ka'b still refuses to join the fight against the Muslims but does agree to stay out of it.  This is ironic because had his tribe led a true revolt from within the city, Muhammad would have suffered defeat, the Qurayza men would have lived, their women would not have been raped nor their children enslaved.”

women raped? children enslaved? citation needed

“To justify what happened afterward, apologists desperately need a Hadith verse or Sira account stating that the Qurayza attacked the Muslims in battle or participated substantially in the fight against them.  Unfortunately, none exists.”

this is false, DTT Provided with sources, in fact, he dedicated 4 articles to banu qurayza

I cited a hadith earlier regarding Banu nadir incident where Banu Qurayza was cited

““Ibn ‘Umar said ‘The Jews Al Nadir and Quraizah fought with the Apostle of Allah, so the Apostle of Allah expelled Banu Al-Nadir and allowed the Quraizah to stay and favored them. The Quraizah thereafter fought (with the Prophet)‘. So he killed their men and divided their women, property, and children among Muslims except some of them who associated with the Apostle of Allah. He gave them protection and later on they embraced Islam. The Apostle of Allah expelled all the Jews of Madeenah in toto, Banu Qainuqa, they were the people of ‘Abd Allah bin Salam, the Jews of Banu Harith and any of Jews who resided in Madeenah”[1]

DTT cites Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq:

“Abd al-Razzaq on the authority of Musa b. Uqba: The Nadir and Qurayza fought the Prophet; the Prophet expelled the Nadir and agreed that Qurayza should stay. Later QURAYZA FOUGHT THE PROPHET. They were defeated, the men were executed, the women, children, and property were divided among the Muslims. SOME OF THE JEWS RECEIVED THE AMAN (SAFETY) OF THE PROPHET and converted to Islam.”[2]

“In a section pretentiously titled "Banu Qurayza Siding, Waging War and Supplying Enemies with Weapons", DTT provides only three Sahih hadith verses.  Two generically state that the Qurayza "fought against the prophet" at an unspecified time in an unspecified manner - probably in the same way that unbelievers "fight against Allah" via their unbelief.  Another says simply that Muhammad feared an attack by the Qurayza.  There is no record of any physical battle. “

I’m going to leave links to DTT examining of Banu Qurayza where you can see he provided more than just two hadiths

https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/01/01/re-examining-banu-qurayzah-incident/

https://discover-the-truth.com/2015/04/02/jewish-tribe-banu-qurayza-part-1/

https://discover-the-truth.com/2015/04/02/jewish-tribe-banu-qurayza-part-2/

clearly, from the above 3 articles DTT provided more than just two sources, either TROP was unaware of the other articles or that they are willingly deceiving their audience.

while later they make a fair criticism of Al-Waqidi they completely neglected Sahih Muslim and Bukhari who clearly references Banu qurayza attacking the prophet

“In addition to the fact that no Muslims were killed or injured by the Qurayza”
citation needed

“The carnage that followed was brutal.  Even the Sahih Hadith relates that boys who had reached puberty were beheaded along with the men.  At least one woman was among those murdered. Another was taken by Muhammad as a personal sex slave.  Yet, the apologists insist that every victim was deserving of the same barbaric practice that we see today in ISIS videos.”

were these boys combatants or not? muhammad as I reference in the past and as DTT referenced had ordered that only fighters are to be killed, Note the word fighters, he didn’t specify age or gender but rather the action of the occupation of the individuals, this clearly means that fighters were killed only

“Al-Shaybani’s opinion is different: he points out that there are differences in the age of puberty between various peoples (for instance between Turks and Indians). But in the case of Banu Qurayza, the Prophet disclosed to Sa’d b. Mu’adh (on the basis of a revelation) that their age of puberty WAS THE LIMIT OF THEIR PENAL RESPONSIBILITY AS FIGHTING PERSON” (Al-Shaybani, op. cit., volume 2, page 591)”

“The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sa`d bin Mu`adh. So the Prophet sent for Sa`d, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, “Get up for your chief or for the best among you.” Then the Prophet said (to Sa`d).” These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sa`d said, “KILL THEIR WARRIORS and take their offspring as captives, “On that, the Prophet said, “You have judged according to Allah’s Judgment,” or said, “according to the King’s judgment.”(Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Hadith 447)

how enough is that?

---

[1] .Sunan Abi Dawud Book 19, Hadith 2999 Sahih

[2] Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq, volume 6, pages 54 – 55