h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

whoops forgot on thing.


Regarding the man who said that Hishan was unreliable, he was around at the time of the Prophet, so his not a modern histortian. Here are some refrences for you. A few sources from Hadiths for you.

Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq (Vol. 11, pg. 48 - 51).

The actual statements, their translations and their complete references are given below:



Yaqub ibn Shaibah says: He [i.e. Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after shifting to Iraq. (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqalaaniy, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol. 11, pg. 50)



I have been told that Malik [ibn Anas] objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (Tehzi'bu'l-tehzi'b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala'ni, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol. 11, pg. 50)

Thats taken all my time up sorry I will try and right about the other ayah's you mentioned on Thursday morning.


Adib

Adib,
Erm, excuse me, there's no need to try to be condescending by calling me a "naughty boy". Anyway, the link I gave is of an English translation of the Quran by an American university. Although it's American, I'm not aware that it has any overt anti-Islamic bias. It's a purely educational site as far as I can see. And yes, I did actually read the Quran on that website (not completely, admittedly, but enough). Therefore, I can see the context in which these verses were written. Regardless of the context and the whys and wherefores, they STILL condone violence.

I completely agree with you over the issue of the Christian crusades. They were entirely oppressive regimes. If you look at my conversation list you'll see that I've also broached this subject on a Catholic conversation forum.

In my opinion, all three of the main monotheistic religions are guilty of oppression, hatred, and violence.

Karl

Adib,
As far as the history of the expansion of the Muslim empires is concerned, my sources are from general history books. One other source is this book, written by a Muslim

The Shade of Swords: Jihad and the Conflict between Islam and Christianity.
Author: M.J. Akbar
Routledge press
ISBN 0415328144

I suppose this source has misinterpreted peaceful events as violent as well.

Karl

Firstl the Qur'an only condones voilence for self defence when all other avenues have been tried.

As for the History of the Islamic empire, I did not say that there was not any bad times etc, what I said was that modern historians have conclusivly proven that the myth that Islam was spread by the sword was just that a myth. Yes some places where captured by war but you can't ignore that most of the land that became under Islamic rule was not taken in was. Like Indonesia, Malaysia and the North of the African continant. This turned to Islam through trade and the spreading of the religion by word and mouth.

I am the first to admit that we have had some bad people leading the Islamic state through the ages, there ations being contradictionary of Islam.

I will look into the book you mentioned.

Another thing to consider is that if Islam was spread by force then there is some things that does not make sense. For example as I have already said Jeruslam and the surrounding empire was under Islamic rule for a thousand years yet after that time Christians and Jews were still their, why had they not been forced to become Muslim at sword point as would be the objective of taking by military force.

India was under Islamic rule for over a thousand years and yet when the country was taken away from the Muslim's the vast majority of people living their were Hindu who's farthers had been Hindu and who's farthers before that had been Hindu.

The same about Spain, Spain was under Islamic rule for over 100 years yet at the end of that rule their was still many many Christians living their.

Adib

Here's another thought for you, have you ever thought that its not the face that is in error and oppresses people etc, but rather he who distorts whats been said to gain power and to fill his own desires.

Another thing is that you said that you read some of the Qur'an, but looking at the ayah's you provided shows me you did not bother checking them out. Some of the ones you have printed are stupid and idiotic and the implications of what your trying to say it says is beyond idiotic. I'm not accusing you of being idiotic, just that you did not check the ayah's you gave. Let me give you an example of one you gave that if you had looked up foryour self would have been quite clear that what you said is a complete error.

You put Sura 4 ayah 24 as a example of abuse towards women. This sura and ayah has nothing to do with sexual intercourse. But this isn't just the obserb part of it, you said that if you have a sexaul relationship out side of marriage then you get punished to death in Islam. This is wrong and I bet you can not find one ayah to support that statement. But anyway saying that contradicts the statement you made for this ayah, as if you read the ayah with your definition it is saying it is ok for me to sexual inter course with a woman who is not married.

Luckly both of your statements on the above are wrong and groundless. Their is no evidence to support your claims from the Qur'an.

If we start from ayah 23 of this Sura we will see straight away whats been talked about.

Ayah23:

Prohibited to you (for marriage) are: -Your mothers, daughters, sisters, farthers sisters, mothers sisters; brothers daughters, sisters daughters; foster mothers (who have fed you from their breast), foster sisters; your wives' mothers; your step daughters under your guardian ship, born of your wives to whom you have gone in, - No prohibition if you have not gone in; - (those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; For God is
Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;-

ayah 24:

Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hand possess: Thus has God ordained (prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided you see (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, - desiring chastity, not lust. Seeing that you derive benefit from them, give their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if after a dower is prescribed, ye agree mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, all-wise.

This is basicly a table of Prohibited degrees, and in most part agrees with what is allowed in most nations. Thought their are a few minor differences. The table is written out from a man's perspective as usually men are the one's who initiate marriage to a women, though it is fully in the womens rights to ask any man she wishe's to marry. In that case the same applies as the above but mothers becomes farther, sisters to brothers etc etc. The second ayah is a continuation of the previous ayah.

Whom your right hand posses means captives in war. If a Muslim seeks a marriage then it should be done foe no base motives. the Muslim should safe guard his faith and see if she is a believer. If she is then such a person is in that condition by accident and is redeemable as they are in the brotherhood of Islam. This would include captives whom have converted to Islam while in capture.

After defining all the people whom you can not marry the verse goes on to say that women other than those mentioned may be sought in marriage, but even so, not from motives of lust, but in order to promote chastity between man and woman.
because a women surrenders her person to her husband so to must the man. The man should provide a dower, an amount he can afford, a minimum dower is prescribed, but it can be for any amount higher than the minimum agreed.
In this new relationship both parties are urged to act towardseach other with the greatest confidence and liberality.
If the women so chooses she can marry without a dower, but it is her right to have one unless she wishes herself not to have one.


So you see what I mean about not checking ayah's. You jumped to the wrong conclusion about this one and the other ayah's you printed. As I said before the best Qur'an to read is one with a running commentry and anaysise of the Ayah's etc and footnotes, as this stops such things from occuring as you get more of a feel of what it is saying in its original arabic.

Adib

Heres a link to one of the articles I have written on here about Islam.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A898293

Adib,
you misunderstood my statements about punishments for adultery. Perhaps I wasn't being clear about this. I know that the Quran does not command that the punishment for adultery is by stoning to death. However, stoning to death for adultery has become a common CHARACTERISTIC of Islamic CULTURE/SOCIETY since the days of the early Caliphates. Some Islamic clerics have stated that the punishment of stoning to death for adultery is a newer order from God that supercedes the Quranic dictation. You may quite reasonably argue that this viewpoint and these actions are un-Islamic.

I know that the true Quran is far less brutal in its guidelines for punishment for adultery:

Sura 24:2
The adulteress and the adulterer you shall whip each of them with a hundred lashes. Do not be swayed by pity from carrying out God's law, if you truly believe in God and the last day. And let a group of believers witness their penalty.

Some Muslims reason that the lashes should only be symbolic and not full-force, painful, or wounding. They say that the real punishment is being "flogged" in full view of the people of that society, so that they feel shame. What's the point of having the actual act of flogging then? Why is this commandment so open to "misinterpretation"?

I'm also aware of the strict rules governing the accusation of adultery in Islam - needing 4 witnesses witnessing the actual act of penetration without resorting to spying/impinging on one's privacy, and of the people concerned having to confess 3 times to the accusation "without duress". I also know of the severe punishment for someone found to be lying over an accusation of adultery - 60 lashings??

Again, regardless of the whys and wherefores and strict rules, the Quran STILL condones violence.


Your points on my previous quotation -
Surah 4:24
Also (forbidden are) women already married, EXCEPT THOSE (captives and slaves) whom your hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you.

Now, you say that the points I make on this Surah are idiotic (I accept that you're not calling me idiotic). However, despite the points you make, I still cannot understand how you interpret this Surah differently from me.

This is how I interpret it - men cannot marry already-married women, unless those married women are captives of that man. Therefore, the Quran is stating that a man may marry an already-married (slave) woman. That woman may be married for a second time, even though her first husband may still be alive. The Quran is stating that if you pay that (slave) woman a dowry, then you are automatically absolved from the charge of adultery, even though she is already married, with her first husband still alive! I agree with you, this Surah does sound idiotic. Why again is all-powerful God's word so open to "misinterpretation"?

Karl

The Surah about the blazing fire for infidels and those with weak faith...

I know that this is talking about Hell, although I wouldn't be surprised that at some point in history some Muslim would have taken this "literally" and actually prepared a blazing fire for the infidels.

You say this is a warning from Allah - i.e. a warning from Him that infidels and Muslims of weak faith will go to Hell. Well, that's OK then isn't it? That's peaceful, for as we all know, Allah is oft forgiving, merciful.

By the way, comparing this Surah to ideologies of Hell from the other monotheistic faiths doesn't automatically justify it. They're all just as oppressive/intolerant.

I would rather spend eternity in Hell than succumb to the demands of a spiteful, jealous God that the monotheistic religions preach about.

Karl

Ok firstly a dower has to be paid to all women not just those who used to be captives and is not used as some sort of purchuse for a captive women.

As for the those whom the right hand possess, what is being said here is that if their are captives in your possesion whom have converted to Islam and you wish to marry them then you can. But their are rules regarding this, firstly its not a case of a slave woman being forced to leave her husband and marry the Muslim man because he wishes to. It is for women who are captives but their husbands are not help captive and for all the woman knows might be dead. If she has become a Muslim then she can agree to marrying a Muslim man if she wishes to, or she can stay single.

Your view on it is in negative light. Its basically that a captive girl who does not know if her husband is alive or not, who has converted to Islam and does not mind marrying the Muslim man who has asked for her hand in marriage.

The captive girl has the right to say no like any other women can in Islamic society. If the man and women are together in captivity and she has become a Muslim and he has not then she can choose to leave him if she wishes, and that leaving him is not just so she can marry someone else it can be for any reason, such as her husband not liking her being a Muslim now and he beats her.

The question is should a captive women who is married to a non muslim and has become a muslim, not beable to choose to leave her husband or not even if her husband is not a captive and she does not know if he lives or not.

I am glad to see that you know that the punishment for adultery is different from what is printed in the Qur'an to what people do to day.

Such as things are it is virtually inpossible to have four witnesses see such an act and so the punishment is more of away to divert people from commiting such acts. It is in the case of a husband and wive where the man or woman can swear four times an oath the other partner has commited asuch an act and on the fourth repitition she calls Allah to punish them selves if they are lieing. In this instance it is seen that the other partner is guilty unless they do the same thing but saying they are innocent.

If they both do this then it is seen to be out the hands of man, and so niether are punished as there is evidence. It is presumed that God will punish the guilty party at some time in the future either in life or after life.

Plus some people do say that the flogging is symbolic but I disagree. the fact is that using either of the above systems makes it very hard to completely prove some ones guilt. If it can't be completely proven then they will not flogged. Plus another thing to bear in mind is that if the woman falls pregnant this is not seen as prove in Islam as adultery or fornication on her part as it is possible to get pregnant through other means than sex though those chances are very slim.

Of course things such as DNA evidence that exists today would be allowed as evidence in todays times for such things to back up the other facts of the case.

An yes stoning to death has become commen but this has happened due to the mixing of culture with Islam which has led to stoning, forced marriages, female circumsition etc etc. It is actually culture and ignorance of the Qur'an that causes the most trouble and not Islam. The same holds true to most other religions.

Another thing as I already said is that Islam only allows voilence as a last means, after all other avenues have been tried and no peaceful solution can be found. Unfortuantly people like Osama and some leaders of the Islamic world in the past does not follow this. They do some thing that is contrary to what the Qur'an preaches and say they are doing what the Qur'an is saying and use's one ayah choosen from the Qur'an to support their motives and always fail to give the ayah's before and after.

Trust me I have argued with fundamentalist types from Islam and other faiths before and their arguments for what they do are always twisted and distorted half truths supported by picking and choosing what they wish from the Qur'an.

The point is that just because someone calls them selves Muslim and follows some of what is preached, it is not fair to condem the faith on the actions they take that have routed from culture and not from faith.

Let me ask you some think, how many Muslim countries are their that are actually following the Qur'an and Hadiths?

the answer to that is none.

Adib

<<>>

I think you miss the significance of the last part of what you said.

All if Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. This is telling us that Allah will forgive those who seek forgivness. What you have to put in mibd is that nobody knows who will go to hell or to heaven thats for God to decide as God knows best. Meaning that I don't know if I will go to hell or not, I don't know if you will. Some people will say that non Muslim's will definitly go to hell, but at the end of the day there might be those amoungst them who have done much good and not being aware of faith etc, and they might go to heaven. As I said who knows.

Adib,
here's another little gem. They really aren't difficult to come by. This time I'll write down a few of the surrounding verses, just to put them in context. I wonder if these are worthy of laughing over because "they're so tragic".

Surahs 22:17 to 22:22 (Yusuf Ali's translation)

22:17
Those who believe (in the Quran), those who follow the Jewish scriptures, and the Sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists, - God will judge between them on the Day of Judgement: for God is witness of all things.

22:18
Seest thou not that to God bow down in worship all things that are in the heavens and on earth, - the sun, the moon, the stars, the hills, the trees, the animals, and a great number among mankind? But a greater number are (also) such as are fit for punishment: and such as God shall disgrace - none can raise to honour: for God carries out all that He wills.

22:19
These two antagonists dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord), for them will be cut out a garment of fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water.

22:20
With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins.

22:21
In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them.

22:22
Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back therein, and (it will be said), "Taste ye the Penalty of Burning!"

22:23
God will admit those who believe and work righteous deeds, to Gardens beneath which rivers flow: they shall be adorned therein with bracelets of gold and pearls; and their garments will be of silk.


Is this enough context? I think it speaks for itself. Intolerance for those who do not believe in Allah. I've finished on a positive note for the believers, so that's all OK then.

Karl

Salaam

Sorry to just cut and paste my answer from bubba frets thread but I have lack of time on my hands.

Sura 22 is the first sura of a series of 4 that deals with the environments and methods contributing to peoples spiritual progress.
The five sura's bofore this one dealt with the messengers who came in various ways to proclaim the truth and conquer evil, and so this sura is moving on from there to the spiritual progress and growth required to keep away from evil.

this particluer sura is concerned mainly with the spiritual implications of the Pilgramage, the sacrifices, the Sacred House, Striving and fighting in defense of truth when attacked, and other such actions that make for unselfishness and uproots falsehood.

the first part of this sura (ayahs 1 - 25) deal with the importance of spiritual future, need of firmness in faith: help for truth and punishment for Evil.

To get some idea of the context we will need to read from ayahs 17 to 22 at least.

ayah 17:

Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scrptures), and the Sabians, Christians, Magians and Polytheists, - God will judge between them on the day of judgement: For God is witness of all things.

ayah 18:

Seest thou not that god bow down in worship all things that are in heaven and on earth, - The sun, the moon, the stars; the hills, the trees, the animals; and a great number among mankind? But a great number are (also) such as are fit for punishment: and such as God shall disgrace, - None can raise to honour: For God carries out all that He Wills.

ayah 19:

These two antagonists dispute with each other about their Lord: But for those who deny (their Lord), - For them will be cut out a garment of fire: Over their heads will be poured out boiling water.

ayah 20:

With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins.

ayah 21:

In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them

ayah 22:

Everytime they wish to get away there from, from anguish, they will be forced back their in, and (it will be said), "Taste ye the penelty of Burning!"


The Muslims in ayah 17 are mentioned alongside the Jews, Christians, Sabians, Magians and Poltheists. It is not stated that they will recieve God's mercy, but only that God will judge between the various forms of faith. the addition of polytheists (worship of more than one God) seems a little surprising as such things are forbidden in Islam, but the argument made here is that all forms of faith that are sincere (and not merely contrmacious) are matters in which as men can not interfere. It is our duty to be tolerent within all limits of tolerence. i.e. so long as there is no opression, injustice, and persecution. Where we can right an obvious wrong, it is our duty to do so; but it would be wrong on our part to rush in without power or authority simply because other people do not see our point of view.

Ayah 18 is saying that all created things, animate or inanimate, depends on god for existence, and this dependense can be constructed as their Sadja or bowing down in worship. Their very existance proclaims their dependance, how can they then be seen as objects of worship?
Earlier in this sura it was stated that those who work in harmony with God's law will get their reward as God always carries out His plan (see ayah 14 - 16 which I have not printed here, don't have enough time to). Here at the end of ayah 18 we have the parallel argument that those who defy God's Will must suffer pain and disgrace, for God is well able to carry out His Will.

The two antagonists in ayah 19 are the people of faith, who confess their Lord and seek to carry out His Will, and the other are the people who deny their Lord and defy His Will.

Ayah 20 is giving the punishment expressed in physical terms as the punishment will be all-pervading, not merely superficial.

Ayah 21 shoul be read with ayah 22. there will be no escape from the final punishment adjudged after the time of repentance is past.


So the ayah is dealing with what will happen to those who go against God's will on the day of judgement and as such is not an act that any Muslim shoul do to another person.

The point here is that this is not urging people to be voilent, it is simple expressing what will happen to believers and unbelievers. etc etc.

When people say Islam is a voilent religion they say that it preaches people to do voilent things, but yet again as this ayah shows it has not told muslims to voilent to non Muslim's but rather as in ayah 17 it tells us to be tolerent to other peoples faiths and opinions unless some misjustice is being carried out to their people. An example of thi is the pre Islamic view that girls where a burden and so female babies would be placed in graves alive. This was forbidden in Islam and on the day of fudgement such people who commited it would feel punishment of extreme lenths. Any follower of Islam who saw such an act being commited by a group of peoples would do every thing he can to stop it from happening if he could.

I will explain the so called intolerence from allah on the day of judgement some other day.
Adib

Salaam,

Sorry have not been here for a couple of days, just been preparing for Eid Al - Fitr which comes after Ramadhan.

Anyway, the copy of that book teach your self Islam has arrived so I will read that after Eid prayers on Eid as coming from a small family and being the only Muslim in my family gives me plenty of alone time on Eid.

I am going to order a copy of that other book you mentioned from my library to.

Take care

Adib Qasim

Adib,

Eid mubharak!

Have I spelt that correctly? Hope you have a good one!

Anyway, I'm continuing to read the book The Shadow of Swords. The author, M. Akbar, states that Muhammad is quoted as saying to a woman called Umm Haram that whichever Muslim army were to INVADE Caesar's city (i.e. Constantinople of the Byzantine Empire) would be forgiven all their sins by Allah. The author then states that shortly after Muhammad's death, Abu Bakr opened up a front (i.e. an offensive military campaign) against the frontiers of the Byzantine Empire.

Both of these actions appear incompatible with the supposed Muslim doctrine of not launching any offensive military campaign except as a defensive (but aggressive) response against an aggressor. Up until that time, I think it's reasonable to say that Christians and Muslims had tolerated each other. The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius had certainly tolerated Muhammad's letter to him, that cordially invited Heraclius to denounce Christianity and to return to the true monotheistic faith of Islam. Heraclius was actually inquisitive about Muhammad, who had set himself up as God's latest prophet.

Are the sources of this history accurate?

Karl

Salaam,

close enough regarding the spelling. thanks.

Actually I have not checked the book your currently reading, but I have mostly read that Teach your self Islam one.

If you can bear with me though as its difficult to answer questions thourghly on to different posts.

Adib

Salaam,

Write then Bubba frets you printed Sura 5 ayah 51 as one of your sources, so did Karl actually but I can't remember if I actaully wrote out an answer for that one so I will do it now.

Sura 5 ayah 51 reads:

O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors of each other. And he amoungst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.

To fully understand who it means by the words Jews and Christians its best to read Sura 60 ayahs 7 to 9. Then I can give you the full explanation.

Sura 60 ayah 7:

It may be that god will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things); And god is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

ayah 8:

God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing with them: For god loveth those who are just.

ayah 9:

God only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

Sura 60 is the fourth of the ten Medina Sura's which all deal with different inportant aspects of life in the Ummat.
This Suras point is regarding the social relations with non muslims and non believers. Of these two groups being talked about a further distinction between them is given, Those who try to cause harm to you and those who don't basically.

This sura was revealed around A.H. 8 after the pegans had broken the treaty of Hudaibiya.

Ayah 7 is telling usthat though there may be apparant enemies who have a religious hatred or enmity or persecution towards you this may be due to there own ignorance or overzeal in their soul. but these people can change and may nolonger pose no threat to you or your faith. The person may even become a Muslim one day as God forgives and knows all. An example of this is the case of Hadrat 'Umar, who was a different person before and after he converted to Islam.

So Muslim's should hate evil but not neccessarily those who commit wrong acts as they be ignorant etc and may one day change, and its your place as a Muslim to forgive them and treat them gindly if they do stop being a threat.

ayah 8 is telling us that Non Muslims and non believers who do not try to harm us or our faith should be treated with kindness and equitably as Allah loves those who are just regardless if they are believer or not. An so it is permissable to seek aid and help and friendship from this group. On the other hand ayah 9 tells us that we should avoid those people who do try to cause us harmor try to damage our faith. Not only should we not make friends with these people we should not seek help from them if there are Muslim's or other people who do not have an issue with us around in the local area.

The Sura you printed is giving a very basic version of the above as any body reading it who happens to be reading the whole of the qur'an and not just select passages will know what it means.

for example I have many christian and Jewish friends and we thoughelly enjoy talking about our faiths and teaching each other towards each others faith. My friend craig I have known for well over 18 years and he is a non believer and hates the concept of God yet he does not press his views on me or vice versa. If he asks a question then I will answer it and he enjoys chatting about faith and non faith issues.

All those friend ships are perfectly Halah and beneficial for everyone.

adib

As salaam alaikum,

Hi Karl hope your ok,

I have finished reading the first book you mentioned and have got a copy of the other one you mentioned.

after reading the whole book the only thing that I could find that you might say was a massacre was on page 17 where it says:

In March 627, his enermy, Sheikh Abu Sufyan, raised a massive force of 10,000 men and advanced on Madina, bouyed up by support from a Jewish tribe that had decided to oust the Prophet. This was called the battle of the trench, since the prophet had a hugh ditch speedily constucted to protect the city. After a two week siege, the opposition withdrew, giving the Prophet a morale victory, for the eyes of Arabia had been upon him, and he had shown that even this vast army could not defeat him.

In the aftermath, the renegade Jewish tribe was dealt with severely. It is important to stress that on this occasion it was the Jews who were regarded as the incalcitrant fanatics, and not the Muslims. the Prophet always counselled mercy for defeated enemies, and never forced anyone to accept the faith of Islam against their will. On this occasion, how ever, it was a serious matter because the Jewish tribes people were citizens of madinah, and, therefore, under his leadership. they had signed the pledge of loyalty. The Prophet agreed to spare their lives so long as they repented their treachery and agreed to abide by the Muslim laws, but this they refused to do.

They were then allowed to appoint their own judge; but this judge had been so shocked by their treachery that he said that he would apply their own ancient law to them and qouted Deuterinomy 7:2:

'When the Lord your god gives them over to you, and you defeat the, then you must utterly destroy them, and make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them'.

All the men of the tribe were then put to the sword. It was intended to underline the point the Prophet was trying to make: that the laws of Islam had superseded thfrom the ancient past.

the incident had nothing to do with anti-semitism, and shortly afterwards, as if to prove the point, the Propht married one of the Jewish widows, Rayhanah bint Zayd. No Jews who accepted the charter were persecuted, or pressured to leave Madina or to accept Islam'.

I presum this is what you was referring to, though it does not actually use the word massacre.

I think the firstthink to point out is that this book can only give a very brief insight to the event and so does not give the full picture. This is probabley due to the fact that she has tryed to ram as much different topics she can in a book a mere 253 pages in length.

An so when I'm next on line, as I don't have time now to give you it, I will give you th full picture and circumstances.

Adib

Karl,

I am not going to be able to post my answer till tomorrw due to having to write a lengthly e mail to a girl who emailed me who was being forced to marry someone. I ended up having to give her a break down version of her rights in Islam to choose whom and when to marry. And you know how lond I ramble on for. Inshallah (God willing) I will get started tomorrow as I think my answer wil be rather long.

thanks for your patiance.

Adib qasim

salaam,

Ok to get a idea of the current climate when this so called massacr took place I will take you through a brief history of the period before this effent, but only the bits that deal with Muslim - Jew relations to make it shorter.

Firstly when Muhammad and his followers emigrated to Yathrib (It was changed to Medina shortly after the Prophets arrival) ther where three then famous Jewish tribes living within the demographic region. They where the ban Qainuqa, Banu An-Nadeer and the Banu Quraizah respectively

While the vast majority of the people living in Yathrib celebrated the arrival of the Prophet Muhammad the Jewish tribes did not.
It is thought that this is due to the change in social regime that was going to take place due to the arrival of the Muslims and there being put in charge of the city. this is because the Jews had been using riba (interest) to get hold of wealth and land of the non Jews in the area but under the new social regime this practice would not be allowed meaning that the Jews would loose a lot of money from the interest on loans and such like.

there is an interesting event that took place on the first day of the Prophets arrival that shows the Jews mentality towards the Muslims.
The story goes that Abdullah bin Salam (the most learned rabbi amoungst the Jews in Madina)went to see the Prophet after he (Muhammad) had just arrived. Abdullah asked the Prophet various questions to ascertain that Muhammad was actually a real Prophet. As soon as the Prophet had given his answer the rabbi embraced Islam, but then went on to say that if his people found out they would advance false arguments against him i.e. ruin his reputation.

The Prophet Muhammad sent for some Jews and enquired about Abdullah. The Jews testified to Abdullah's scholorly aptitude and virtuous standing within the community. the prophet then disclosed to them that he, the rabbi, had become a Muslim by embracing Islam. the Jews instantly changed what they had said by saying that he was the most evil of all evils.

It is also reported that Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Jews! For Allah. By Allah the only One you know that he is the messanger of Allah sent to people with the truth." They replied, " You are lying."

Sahih Al-Bulchari 1/459, 556 and 561.

Soon after arriving in Medina the Prophet Muhammad set about making various treaties with the non-Muslim's in the area around madina. this treaties enabled those under Medina rule to live peacefully ynder the new Islamic rule and gave full rights for practising ones own faith unhindered.

while the Jews had shown a level of resentment towards Islam and the Muslims they had not actually shown any hostility or resistence towards the Muslims. An so as part of a bigger inter0Muslim relations treaty the Prophet went to each of the Jewish tribes and concluded a treaty with them.

this treaty and Muhammads intention did not involve any hostility towards the Jews in any form, be that seizure of land and wealth or forced expulsion. The Key provisiions of the treaty was as follows:

* The Jews of bani 'awf (the collective of the Jews around Madina) are one community with the believers. the Jews will profess their religion and the Muslims theirs.

* The Jews will be responcible for their expenditure and the Muslims for theirs.

* Each party shall hold counsil with the other. Mutual relation shall be founded on righteousness: sin is totally excluded.

* Neither shall commit sins to the prejudice of the other.

* The wrong party shall be aided.

* If attacked by a third party, each shall come to the aid of each other.

* The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers.

* Madina shall remain sacred and inviolable for all that join this treaty.

* Should any disagreement arise between the signatories to this treaty, then Allah the All-High and His Messenger shall settle the dispute.

* The signatories of this treaty shall boycott the Quraish commercially and will abstain from extending any support to them.

* each shall contribute to the defending of Medina, in case of foreign attack, in its respective area.

* This treaty shall not hinder either party from seeking lawful revenge.

Ibn Hisham 1/503, 504.

Right I have not got time to do any more today so I will continue on Monday.

have a nice weekend.

Adib