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
“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
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
“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
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
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?
