Abu Shuja'ah responds to Khan's arguments in Part 1 of this bebate...

Continued from Part 1 ------------ Continued in Part 3

Audhuu Billahir Minashaytaanir Rajim, Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem.

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful, I seek refuge from Satan the accursed.

'Dirt Brown' is M.A. Khan's writings, 'Black' is mine (Abu Shuja’ah)

I will start with  a rebuttal to M. A. Khan’s email to me. Let it be stated that I hold this one statement before him. "I affirm beforehand that Muhammad had no justification at all."

We shall in due course, within the confines of this article, view the hypocrisy in his words. Let us continue and slowly expose several misconceptions, lies, half truths and twisted meanings.

Muhammad(saw), the greatest man to ever grace this earth did not relocate to Medina on the ground his mission had failed, in fact M.A. Khan acknowledges this fact, "Muhammad continued his preaching unimpeded and the polytheists converted to Islam at a high frequency."

How could his mission fail and in sometime become a success again? What he had done was lay the foundation for the greatest over-haul the world has ever come to see. You have to understand Arab society at that time, it can be even seen today. The arrogance and ignorance of some was astonishing,  baby girls were buried in the sand, slaves were changed like socks, torture was public and common practise. Sexual diseases (which even killed one of the Quraysh leaders) was very prevelant. You're dealing with a dictotarial society. Muhammad (saw) and the followers of Islam were shunned, closed off, hounded by the polytheist Pagan Quraysh leaders who had the money and man power to provoke, threaten and at one point completely lock of the Muslims to the extent they were starved for several months.

I don't know about M.A. Khan and his definition of failure, but I guess he hasn't looked at modern day Arabia, or Makkah, it's Muslim, I doubt that’s what a failure would look like.

“So Muhammad initially started pampering the Jews & Christians”, yet you say this right before ,” he settled down without facing any opposition from any group, including the Jews, who were richer and more influential in Medin.” How could a poor, starved man at that point in time pamper people who were vastly richer than he was? What, did he pamper the rich with words? Or did he preach? If he preached I agree, pampered, then you’re just making stuff up.

“But the problem with the Jews started only after Muhammad became too ambitious to present himself also as a prophet, a savior, of the Jews (& Christians) too. So Muhammad initially started pampering the Jews & Christians. He gave Moses a status even higher than his own [Bukhari 4:610-612]. Quranic verses pampered them saying, Allah gave them ‘guidance and light’ in the form of Torah [Q 5:44] and the Jews are “righteous” people [Q 6:153-54], who ‘excelled the nations’ [Q 45:16].”

Narrated Abu Sa`id: The Prophet said, 'People will be struck unconscious on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first to regain consciousness, and behold! There I will see Moses holding one of the pillars of Allah's Throne. I will wonder whether he has become conscious before me of he has been exempted, because of his unconsciousness at the Tur (mountain) which he received (on the earth).

How is this giving Moses a status higher than his own? He’s describing the Day of Ressurection when all will be raised to be judged for their sins. So he sees another Prophet of Islam standing their and he wonders.  This is in no way putting Moses above him or putting himself below Moses, but it is Muhammad(saw) speaking about Moses. Muhammad (saw) does state he would be first and he wonders if Moses (as) became concious before him or not. Again he doesn’t say Moses will be first or did he say Moses is first, rather he says himself.

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:That he differed with Al-Hur bin Qais Al-Fazari regarding the companion of Moses. Ibn `Abbas said that he was Al-Khadir. Meanwhile Ubai bin Ka`b passed by them and Ibn `Abbas called him saying, "My friend and I have differed regarding Moses' companion whom Moses asked the way to meet. Have you heard Allah's Apostle mentioning something about him?" He said, "Yes, I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'While Moses was sitting in the company of some Israelites, a man came and asked (him), 'Do you know anyone who is more learned than you?' Moses replied, 'No.' So, Allah sent the Divine Inspiration to Moses: 'Yes, Our slave, Khadir (is more learned than you).' Moses asked how to meet him (i.e. Khadir). So, the fish, was made, as a sign for him, and he was told that when the fish was lost, he should return and there he would meet him. So, Moses went on looking for the sign of the fish in the sea. The servant boy of Moses said to him, 'Do you know that when we were sitting by the side of the rock, I forgot the fish, and t was only Satan who made me forget to tell (you) about it.' Moses said, That was what we were seeking after,' and both of them returned, following their footmarks and found Khadir; and what happened further to them, is mentioned in Allah's Book."

Again, this has nothing to do with praising or putting Moses (as) above Muhammad(saw) or not, in fact can you please state at what date the hadith began publishing? It is hilarious you use this as your evidence, although hadith were recorded at this time, it was not published as Quran had not been fully revealed as yet. So how would the Jews ever hear about these two hadith?

Again you also use that word pamper again, shame really, you don’t understand pampered and preaching.

I would like to know how Quran 5:44 is "pampering" the Jews, when they are called disbelievers:

Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light, by which the Prophets who surrendered (unto Allah) judged the Jews, and the rabbis and the priests (judged) by such of Allah's Scripture as they were bidden to observe, and thereunto were they witnesses. So fear not mankind, but fear Me. And barter not My revelations for a little gain. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are disbelievers.

Quran 6:153-154:

“And (He commandeth you, saying) : This is My straight path, so follow it Follow not other ways, lest ye be parted from His way: This hath He ordained for you, that ye may ward off (evil).

Again, We gave the scripture unto Moses, complete for him who would do good, an explanation of all things, a guidance and a mercy, that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord.”

So you are saying Allah (swt) is pampering the Jews, so in verse 153 He’s calling them deviated, that's some compliment! Verse 154, is in accordance with Quran 2:4, it's a belief of Islam. The Jews believe that the Torah was oral in which Muslims dispute, in which the Torah itself also disputes. See Torah, Deut 31:26 “"Take this Book of the Law…”. Oral? No. The Quran was pointing out a deviation by the Jews, in fact so much so, to show them what their book says Allah says in Quran 3:17 “O People of the Scripture! Why confound ye truth with falsehood and knowingly conceal the truth.”

"And he adopted many Jewish rituals and customs—fasting, circumcision, praying toward Jerusalem etc.—to make Islam truly look like an Abrahamic creed for the first time. Allah’s and Muhammad’s reason behind all these goody-goody sayings and gestures toward the Jews was to come out later; it was Muhammad’s ambition to become a prophet of Jews as well. So Allah reveals (Q 3.5):

(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.

The same is repeated in Q 5:48:

And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed…

But, if they failed to follow Muhammad, Allah threatens them with punishments in the next verse (Q5:49):

…And if they turn away, then know that Allah's Will is to smite them for some sin of theirs. Lo! many of mankind are evil-livers”.

Muslims were fasting without even given the command of fasting before that. As stated in my opening paragraph, Muslims were starved for a long time, far before the journey to Medina. So they did to an initial form of fasting without ever realizing it. They were patient, yet hungry, food came almost never, they survived on the two black things. Black water and black dates. Two of which (water and dates) we break our fasts with.

I love how you stated "…to make it look like an Abrahamic Creed for the first time." Muhammad (saw) always preached he was in the line of Prophets which came, so again it's not for the first time, it's just your ramblings saying so. Quran 3:5 is just another belief of the Muslims. We believe in the continuation of Prophets and that our book confirms the existence of the other books and other laws and other Prophets. Quran 5:48, remember that whole Torah was oral until written down by Tribe of Yahudah above? Yes? Well good, this confirms what I said. Quran 5:49, given what I said above they are deviant so what’s wrong with God punishing them?

“Despite all these pleadings and threats, the Jews did not accept Muhammad as their prophet and ruler. Instead, the Jews became staunch critics of Muhammad’s revelations, because they had the inner knowledge of what is in the Torah, which Muhammad said he brought in its entirety through his Quran. They could easily point out the errors in Muhammad’s messages, which they did putting Muhammad in a defensive and embarrassing position.”

Using one Torah quote, I proved the Jews wrong. Using one quote from the Quran, I proved Muhammad(saw) stance correct. Torah was written not oral. So what inner knowledge of the Torah did they have that we didn’t? Apparently they did not read Deuteronomy 31:26. I don’t know how Muhammad(saw) was in a defensive position or embarrasing position given what I stated. I think that’s just your opinion based on well, whatever hate you have for Islam. It should also be known I’ve put Jews into silence using Quran and Torah alone when debating them. So much so, my followers on twitter and email service are full of Jews and Christians asking more questions about their scripture and them wanting to learn about Quran.

Muhammad (or Allah) eventually became sure that the Jews (& Christians) would, in no way, embrace his message. So Allah came down with a verse (Q 2:120) to relieve Muhammad from further persuasion of them, allowing him do what was needed—the subject of this debate:

Q 2:120
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: “The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance.” Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah.

Again your own opinion contradicts you and I quote "Muhammad continued his preaching unimpeded and the polytheists converted to Islam at a high frequency." Muhammad (saw) did not give up preaching, you said so yourself. Rather what Quran 2:120 os saying is the Jews and Christians will not be happy until  Muhammad (saw) follows Judaism and or Christianity and Allah is telling him that Islam is the only Guidance. You said you read Tafsir, this clearly says otherwise.

And not long after Allah revealed these verses, Muhammad, while pursuing with some 300-plus Muslim raiders to attack and plunder a Meccan caravan returning from Syria under Abu Sufian, engaged the Meccans in the battle of Badr and achieved stunning success against an opposition at least double in strength. Muhammad’s confidence was ‘sky high’. The Jews can be challenged now to mete out Allah’s promised punishment to them for rejecting Muhammad, such as in verse 5:49 cited above.

Why skip ahead so much? Let’s look into the story of the caravan, why’d you twist the truth on this one? The Muslims left Makkah, on virtue of them being persecuted. In fact, they had to leave in the cover of the night, with bare essentials on their backs. The truth is, when the Quraysh found out they left, they took the Muslims’ properties and decided to sell it. The Muslims didn’t attack a caravan for no reason, nor were they thieves.

Say you threaten me and I leave my home, I hear you’re on your way to sell my car. I come and fight you for it. How did I steal anything from you?

The Battle of Badr is a miracle of Allah. Stunning, earth-shattering indeed. Proving Quran true, Quran  2:120 which you cited above.

Quran 5:49 has nothing to do with this. They weren't rejecting Muhmmad (saw), they were rejecting God, and if you ask, I can show where the Torah says the Jews did exactly that. Quran 5:49 deals with punishing the Jews, punishment can be either on this earth or in the hereafter. It is not specified, so why insert your opinion there? I thought this debate was based on facts.

Now let us see how Muhammad initiate violence against the Jews, according to the prophet’s earliest and most original biographer Ibn Ishaq (c. 750 CE, preserved through Ibn Hisham):1

Meanwhile there was the affair of the B. Qaynuqa. The apostle assembled them in their market and addressed them as follows: ‘O Jews, beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh and become Muslims. You know that I am a prophet who has been sent—you will find that in your scriptures and God's covenant with you.' They replied, 'O Muhammad, you seem to think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you encountered a people (i.e. the Quraysh) with no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for by God if we fight you, you will find that we are real men!'

Let's break this down. Quran says to the Jews, they have deviated, Torah says Jews will become corrrupt. Muhammad(saw) reminds them of this.  "O Jews……" and indeed this can be found in God's scripture. The significance of this conversation is evident when we recall that in the Torah for the Jews, it was written that a Prophet would come who would lead those who followed him to victory. Indeed before the Prophet Muhammad came to Madinah, the Jews used to threaten the idol worshippers of Yathrib, as it was then called, that when the next Prophet came to the believers were going to exterminate them, just as the Jews had exterminated other tribes who refused to worship God in the past. As in any case, of the Prophet Jesus, who had been clearly described in the Torah - but rejected by many of the Jews when he actually came - the next and last Prophet was accurately described in the Torah, which also contained signs by which the Jews could easily recognize  him. Thus Ka'b al-Ahbar, one of the Jews of that time who embraced Islam, relates that this Prophet is described in the Torah....

Now this is where it gets interesting. Muhammad (saw) is telling the Jews, look what happened, that miracle of God. The battle was not intended to happen but it did and the Muslims won. Won considerably by a great margin. So Muhammad(saw) is referring to the miracle and that Allah did promise victory for the Muslims therefore Quran is true (how can it not be, a verse was fulfilled!).

How do the Jews respond, by threatening war as stated in bold. Muhammad(saw) speaks about Quran being true and the first thing the Jews mention is the defeat of the Quraysh… which means it had to be on their minds at that point in time. They began to fear Quran as true, this was surely a miracle.

‘Say to those who disbelieve: you will be vanquished and gathered to Hell, an evil resting place. You have already had a sign in the two forces which met', i.e. the apostle’s companions at Badr and the Quraysh. ‘One force fought in the way of God; the other, disbelievers, thought they saw double their own force with their very eyes. God strengthens with His help whom He will. Verily in that is an example for the discerning.’ [Quran 3:13]

As the threatening notice of submission served to Banu Qainuqa first by Muhammad, followed by Allah was flatly rejected, it was time for Muhammad to look for an excuse to execute the threat. If Allah is to be believed, Muhammad found no excuse to attack the Jews.

You are inserting opinion here. Muhammad(saw) and the Quran backs up my claim. Muhammad(saw) was referring to a miracle, he was not threatening them. The first threat was issued by the Jews who had seen Muhammad(saw) enemies lose.

There is no reason to find an excuse, we shall see as we continue.

So Allah had to create one, an outrageously silly one at that in verses 8:55–58. The Jews are the worst of beasts, of living creatures, because they would not believe in Muhammad’s messages:

Q 8:55: For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe. 

If I call you a beast, does that warrant an attack on you? Allah is simply stating the worst of people are those who reject Him, this applies to everyone who disbelieves. Taking it out of context and saying it is ONLY for the Jews is highly deceptive.  Pharoah wasn’t a Jew, Allah is referring to all who disbelieve.

What punishment do they deserve for being the worst beast because of their rejection of Muhammad? It’s defined in previous verse (Q 8:54), which says they deserved the same punishment Pharaoh suffered for rejecting the ‘Signs of their Lord’ (brought by Moses):

…after the manner of the people of Pharaoh and those before them: They treated as false the Signs of their Lord: so We destroyed them for their crimes, and We drowned the people of Pharaoh: for they were all oppressors and wrong-doers.

Well I don’t know what the problem is here. Pharoah rejected Musa (as) and looked what happened to them. Jews rejected Muhammad (saw) and look what happened, banishment from Islamic Holy Lands, the holocaust!

To create an excuse for attacking the Jews, Allah falsely accused the Jews of breaking treaty in the next verse 8:56:

They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah).

Here Allah says the Jews broke treaty repeatedly. In this verse, Allah lied on two counts. First, there was no treaty between Muhammad and the Jews that the latter ever signed, which I will address at the end of this discussion. Second, even if a treaty existed, the Jews never broke it, even not once, forget about their breaking it ‘every time’  as Allah accuses them of. It becomes evident from the next verse, in which Allah commands Muhammad to attack the Jews:

Q 8:58: If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous.

Revelation of this verse was a direct command to attack Banu Qainuqa, the first Jewish tribe to face Muhammad’s sword, as Al-Tabari cites the account of al-Zuhri that a verse being brought by Gabriel to Muhammad, which said, ‘And if thou fearest treachery from any folk, then throw back to them their treaty fairly’ [Q 8:58]. Whereupon, Muhammad said, ‘‘I fear Banu Qaynuqa’’ and ‘the Messenger of God advanced upon them.’

So, if Allah is to be believed, this verse was obviously a command, a license, to attack Banu Qainuqa. Although Allah accused the Jews of breaking treaty repeatedly in the earlier verse, here Allah only mentions Muhammad’s fear that the treaty may be broken in the future; the Jews hadn’t broken any treaty yet, which didn’t exist anyway.

In fact, the real reason as to why the Jews should be attacked can be found in the next verse (Q 8:59):

And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape.

The Jews were trying to outstrip Allah’s purpose. Allah tried to persuade them in so many verses to accept Muhammad as their prophet, but they not only rejected the repeated pleadings of Allah, but they also ridiculed those messages; they found so many faults with his messages, causing ridicule and embarrassment to Muhammad (& Allah). How dare they! They deserve the gravest of punishment for crime of such mammoth proportion. Let them not escape.

In sum, Muhammad attacked the Jews for his fear that Banu Qainuqa might break some treaty sometime in the future—that is, they did not break it yet but they likely would; and he rushed to attack them.

I don't mean to insult you on any level whatsoever, but this is where your lack of knowledge, lack of basic understanding and false perception as well as deceit come into play. I agree there was no treaty as of yet. Throughout the Quran and Torah, the Treaty is discussed in great detail, however I’ll give myself a second to stop giggling at your mistake.

Take a pen and scratch that entire quotation above. The treaty is referring to the covenant that Allah had with the People of the Scripture and it refers to the land of Israel (Promised Land) and Torah. It has nothing whatsoever, not even an atom’s worth of relation to any treaty between Muslims and Jews at all.

This is your deceit at work or lack of knowledge.

verse 8:56:

They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah).

I can show, where corruption of the Torah took place, hence breaking a Torah Law of Deut 4:2, Moses predicted the corruption of the People of the Scripture in Deut 31:25-29, magically Zech 8 talks about how God forgave them, but in Zech 8:16 and 17 God lists three conditions for them to have Israel, another Covenant (this second covenant which there was only one but due to corruption of Torah a second was inserted), anyways within verses 16+17, three conditions were laid out, a covenant with God, all three were broken. So again God is saying He’s angry with the People of the Scripture.

In one case Jacob (Israel) wrestled with God and beat Him up, in Zechariah 8:1 God states He is jealous of His creation, obvious signs of man written, corrupted scripture, which breaks a treaty, a law, a convenant of Deuteronomy 4:2.

So again your lack of knowledge just slef imploded that whole "treaty" argument.

Here’s my youtube video explaining it for the slower of people:


More evidence from Torah about breaking the covenant:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!  (From the KJV Bible, Matthew 23:37)"

"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.  (From the KJV Bible, Matthew 21:43)"

"You have heard these things; look at them all. Will you not admit them? "From now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things unknown to you. They are created now, and not long ago; you have not heard of them before today. So you cannot say, 'Yes, I knew of them.'  You have neither heard nor understood; from of old your ear has not been open. Well do I know how treacherous you are; you were called a rebel from birth.  For my own name's sake I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, so as not to cut you off.  (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 48:6-9)"

"So I will disgrace the dignitaries of your temple, and I will consign Jacob to destruction and Israel to scorn.  (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 43:28)"

"But now, all you who light fires and provide yourselves with flaming torches, go, walk in the light of your fires and of the torches you have set ablaze. This is what you shall receive from my hand: You will lie down in torment.  (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 50:11)"

Exodus 32 
1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."

Exodus 32 
7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt.  
8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.'  
9 "I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people.

Exodus 34 
8 Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped. 9 "O Lord, if I have found favor in your eyes," he said, "then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance."

Deuteronomy 31 
25 he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD :  
26 "Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. 
27 For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the LORD while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die! 
28 Assemble before me all the elders of your tribes and all your officials, so that I can speak these words in their hearing and call heaven and earth to testify against them.  
29 For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall upon you because you will do evil in the sight of the LORD and provoke him to anger by what your hands have made."

Numbers 16 
12 Then Moses summoned Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab. But they said, "We will not come!  
13 Isn't it enough that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the desert? And now you also want to lord it over us?  
14 Moreover, you haven't brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey or given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Will you gouge out the eyes of these men? No, we will not come!"

Numbers 14 
10 But the whole assembly talked about stoning them. Then the glory of the LORD appeared at the Tent of Meeting to all the Israelites.  
11 The LORD said to Moses, "How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the miraculous signs I have performed among them?  
12 I will strike them down with a plague and destroy them, but I will make you into a nation greater and stronger than they."

Numbers 14 
22 not one of the men who saw my glory and the miraculous signs I performed in Egypt and in the desert but who disobeyed me and tested me ten times-  
23 not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their forefathers. No one who has treated me with contempt will ever see it.  
24 But because my servant Caleb has a different spirit and follows me wholeheartedly, I will bring him into the land he went to, and his descendants will inherit it.

Numbers 16 
29 If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually happens to men, then the LORD has not sent me.  
30 But if the LORD brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the grave, then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contempt."  
31 As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart.

While this is the reason given by Allah and Muhammad for attacking Banu Qainuqa, there is another story created by later about the Jews, who allegedly killed a companion of Muhammad. Mr. Shuja’ah also mentioned about it in our previous exchange in making his case as to why the Jews deserved what Muhammad did to them, saying:

The Jews hated Islam and still do. They poisoned Muhammad (saw) and killed one of his companions.

Prophet Muhammad was poisoned after his conquest of Khaybar in 628 CE by an enslaved Jewish woman in revenge. By this time, Muhammad had cleansed all the Jews of Medina. So this poisoning incident cannot be considered as a reason for Muhammad’s punishing the Jews of Medina.

Let me correct you on this one, the woman was not enslaved or in danger ( this is proven with the sources I have cited below in an article used) . Why would Muhammad(saw) and all the Muslims let a Jewish woman, whom they have deemed an enemy cook and eat from what she has cooked? Her sworn enemy. Why was she allowed to have food if she was enslaved? Why was she allowed to walk, by herself, with no chains or guards to Muhammad(saw) and see her captor and feed him? Didn’t they just capture an entire town? Why didn’t they rape her or kill her? 

Again your lies aren’t sufficient against logical questions. This also was not a punishment for the Jews, we’ll get to why the Jews were fought and eventually they lost. This battle is one of many where the Musims held the forts (numerous forts) by the Jews. The muslims simply camped outside the forts and when the Jews ran out of food and or water they were captured.

Concerning the Jews’ killing one of Muhammad’s companions, a story is included in his later biography by Al-Waqidi (d. 822). According to the story, sometime after the threat to Banu Qainuqa by Muhammad and Allah, a Meccan girl, married to an ansar (Medinan convert), went to the shop of a goldsmith in the market-place of Banu Qainuqa (Qainuqa were goldsmiths & richest community), where waiting for some ornaments, she sat down. A silly Jewish prankster pinned the lower hem of her skirt behind to the upper dress. When she stood up, the awkward exposure excited laughter, and she screamed with shame. A Muslim, apprised of the affront, slew the prankster; and the brethren of the Jew fell upon the Muslim murderer and killed him in return.

It should be noted here that because of this silly incident, nobody deserved to die. The prankster deserved a rebuke at best. Muslims’ killing him was an act of barbarism, unacceptable to any kind of justice. And of course, after the two lives from the two parties, one from Banu Qainuqa and other from Muslims, had been lost, the justice/injustice was equal on both side; and it should been resolved by calling a meeting between leaders of the two parties.

Hold up, you are justifying an act against a woman. Apparently, you do not understand Islam, a woman must keep her privacy it is her right. Let me ask you a simple question, I see your mother or daughter, I did as the Jew did and when she stands up in a central square with atleast a few hundred people, most people saw her legs and undergarments and many began to laugh. I got so exicted I screamed and howled and laughed at how stupid your mother or daughter looked.

Hey it's just a joke, I mean what privacy she supposed to have, don't like what’s said don't approve of it.

I mean like the Jews said, an eye for an eye. In fact for spying or otherwise the punishment of the Torah is quite clear. Not only did he expose her privacy but it is an act of spying, do you disagree? I spied your mother’s underwear and legs and etc…

The punishment in the Torah for that is:

Esther 2:23 (King James Version)

23 And when inquisition was made of the matter, it was found out; therefore they were both hanged on a tree: and it was written in the book of the chronicles before the king.

Death, so what act the Muslim did, was according to the Torah., you can read the chapter and see it for yourself.

killing him was an act of barbarism, unacceptable to any kind of justice. And of course, after the two lives from the two parties, one from Banu Qainuqa and other from Muslims, had been lost, the justice/injustice was equal on both side; and it should been resolved by calling a meeting between leaders of the two parties.

So you rather we insult the Jews and not follow there justice which you find unacceptable, but you find it acceptable we should insult them and break their law? Hypocritical are we not M.A. Khan?

But no, Muhammad was just waiting for something like this to occur. And on the pretext of this brawl, says al-Waqidi, Muhammad besieged the entire community of Banu Qaynuqa. After a fifteen-day siege, the Jews surrendered. In order to mete out the deserving punishment to the Jews, which was to be similar to the way Allah had destroyed the people of Pharaoh by drowning them all, Muhammad ordered the surrendered men to be tied for their summary execution. At this point, Abdullah ibn Obayi—the famed hypocrite of Islam, but a rather humane chief of the Khazraj clan, who had converted to Islam but had a dubious allegiance to Muhammad’s mission—firmly intervened. He even threatened Muhammad with consequences had he slaughtered the Jews.2 As a result, Muhammad prudently relented from slaughtering the prisoners. Instead, he exiled them to Syria.

On the basis of this discussion, I conclude the Jews never ever aggressively attacked and killed Muslims, as Shuja’ah claims, which made Muhammad to attack and evict them. Muhammad, therefore, had no justification to attack the Jews. Instead, it is Muslims, who were responsible for shedding blood of a Jew of Banu Qainuqa first for no justifiable reason. And Muhammad’s attacking the whole community and attempting to slaughter them en masse, on account of an individual ignorable silly act, was an instance of taking unjustified barbarism to the extreme.

And all that doesn’t matter as the Muslims did follow the Law of the Torah, an eye for an eye, spying = death. So if it's barbaric then Jews are barbaric, unjustified, then Jews are unjustified, extreme? Then Jews are extreme. Replace the word Jew with Muslim and you’ll have your answer.

Did a treaty, the so-called Constitution of Medina, exist between Muslims and the Jews?

We have noted above that Allah accuses the Jews of repeatedly breaking a treaty. Ibn Ishaq likewise writes:

Asim b. ‘Umar b. Qatada said that the B. Qaynuqa were the first of the Jews to break their agreement with the apostle and to go to war, between Badr and Uhud, and the apostle besieged them until they surrendered unconditionally.

Muslims boast about this so-called treaty—known as the ‘Constitution of Medina’ and considered the ideal blueprint of the Islamic state—as an epitome of tolerance, human rights and justice to people of all faiths in Islamic state. I will go into detail of the terms of the treaty, which is readers can find in Ibn Ishasq (p. 231-232): it is nothing but a document, demanding unconditional subjugation of all Medinans to the political and religious commands of Muhammad, a recent refugee in Medina. I will, however, prove that the treaty was never signed by the Jews; they probably never saw it. This treaty, according to Ibn Ishaq, begins as thus:

In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful. This is a document from Muhammad the prophet between the believers and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them and labored with them.3

It becomes clear that this document was an invitation from Muhammad and his Muslim community to other tribes of Medina (the Jews included) to assemble after Muhammad and follow his commands. This opening in no way suggests that it was signed by any non-Muslim party.

It "suggests", bring conclusive evidence and keep your opinion and "suggestions" to yourself please. This is a debate, where facts are used not, your opinion.

And moreover, we have seen above that not only Muhammad but also Allah agreed that the Jew would not accept Islam and submit to Muhammad’s leadership.

The ignorant and close minded won’t, but as you said, ““Muhammad continued his preaching unimpeded and the polytheists converted to Islam at a high frequency.”

Under these circumstances, is there any ground to believe that the Jews would sign a document, which starts with the words: “This is a document from Muhammad the prophet…” Signing this document means not only submitting to Muhammad’s leadership, but also to his prophethood, a claim which the Jews ridiculed in the least.

We’re almost there! The Jews were losing power of Yathrib, the Muslims had become the larger of the populations and the rich Jews had no means of getting richer, Islam prohibited many things whuch they sold and with the state of discourse between them trade was horrible. The Jews committed an act of treason to which we will get to.

Similarly the document ends with these words:

God approves of this document… Muhammad is the apostle of God.

We can again be sure that the Jews would never have signed this document, which says “Muhammad is the apostle of God”, which they flatly rejected, indeed ridiculed, all along. Quite agreeing with this assertion, Montgomery Watt (a Western Islamic scholar favorite to Muslims, whose books are published in Pakistan) records that there were nine contracting parties in this document: they were the Muslim refugee from Mecca and Medinan Arab tribes (non-Jewish), who had become essentially Islamic by converting to Islam in large numbers after Muhammad’s arrival in Medina. None of the Jewish tribes were a co-signatory in this document.4

This proves beyond doubt that the Jews would never have signed this document.

Again, we’re looking for evidence. Not what you think or what another author thought, we’re looking for evidence.

Instead, it was most likely a document that records a secret understanding between Muhammad and the Medinan pagan-turn-Muslim tribes, who had long-standing alliances with the Jewish clans. As Muhammad was planning to deal with the Jews because of their obstinate refusal to embrace Islam, he needed this document or understanding with his Medinan converts to create an excuse to strike the Jews. There is no alternative “logical”  explanation to it.

When the siege intensified and became unbearable for Banu Qurayzah, they wanted to surrender and accept whatever judgment the Prophet passed on them. They consulted Abu Lubabah ibn Abd al Mundhir, one of the companions of the Prophet who was also their ally, and he indicated that if they surrendered, they would be killed. Abu Lubabah later regretted saying this, and tied himself to one of the pillars in the Prophet’s Mosque until his repentance was accepted.23 Banu Qurayzah agreed to accept the judgment of Sa’d ibn Mu’adh; they thought that he would show mercy to them, because of the alliance between them and his people, al Aws.

Sa’d was carried to them, because he had been wounded in the hand by an arrow at the Battle of the Ditch, and was ill. He judged that the warriors should be killed, and their wealth shared. The Messenger confirmed this and said: “You have judged according to God’s judgment.”24 By doing this, Sad ibn Mu’adh disowned his alliance with Banu Qurayzah. This did not disturb the Aws at all, despite their alliance with Banu Qurayzah and the fact that they had only recently entered Islam. Their acceptance of this was facilitated by the fact that their leader Sa’d passed judgment on Banu Qurayzah. The number of warriors who were executed was 400.25 Three of Banu Qurayzah were spared because they entered Islam26 and they kept their wealth; three others may have been spared because they were protected by some of the companions because of their loyalty to the treaty during the siege. There are many reports dealing with this, but they cannot be taken as valid evidence. The prisoners were detained in the house of Bint al Harith.27

The executions were carried out in the market place in Madinah, where trenches were dug; they were killed in groups and thrown into the trenches.28 Only one of their women was killed29; she had killed one of the companions — Khalid ibn Suwayd — by dropping a millstone on him.

Boys below the age of puberty were released.30 After the execution of the warriors had been carried out, the Prophet divided their wealth and appointed the women to the custody of the Muslims.31 The books of Maghazi give some detail of how the division was carried out, but their reports cannot be taken as valid evidence.

The Messenger chose Rayhanah ibn Khanafah, one of the women prisoners, for himself, according to Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d and many others. Al Waqidi and those who followed him said that he married her, but the first suggestion is more likely.

Some contemporary historians tend to deny and weaken the reports dealing with the punishment faced by Banu Qurayzah32 on the basis that proving these reports may hurt humanitarian feelings or serve the interests of Zionist propaganda, but this is not the case. The most authentic Islamic sources prove that it happened. The severe punishments were only given because of the acts of high treason which Banu Qurayzah committed when they betrayed the Muslims and broke the treaty, instead of participating with them in defending Madinah, in accordance with the treaty between the two sides. In this day and age, nations still execute traitors who cooperate with the enemy.

The punishment of Banu Qurayzah fitted their crime, because they had exposed the Muslims to the threat of being killed, their wealth to the threat of being seized, and their women and children to the threat of being taken prisoner; therefore, their punishment was a fitting recompense. There is no need to avoid historical facts or to deny authentic reports.

1.  Ibn Sa’d, al Tabaqat, 3/74; Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/715; Al Tabari, Tarikh al Rusul, 3/593; Ibn Sayyid al Nas, Uyun al Athar, 3/68

2.  Abd al Razzaq, al Musannaf, 5/367; Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/699; al Haythami, Majma’ al Zawa’id, 6/143: he attributed it to al Tabarani and said that the men in the isnad are thiqah.

3.  Al Bukhari, at Sahih, 3/33, 73; see also Malik’s suggestion.

4.  Ibn Kathir, al Bidayah, 4/934; and al Sirah at Nabawiyyah, 3/180-1; Ibn Qayyim, Zad al Ma’ad, 388-9; Ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari, 7/393

5.  Abd al Razzaq reported this from the mursal hadith of Sa’id ibn al Musayyab, which are the most sahih mursal hadith. The report is valid as evidence, if there are other reports which support it (al Musannaf, 5/368-373). Abu Nu’aym, from the mursal hadith of Sa’id also (Abu Nu’aym, Dala’il al Nubuwwah, 3/183).

6.  Al Bukhari, al Sahih, 3/306; Muslim, al Sahih, 7/138

7.  Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/706, without isnad.

8.  Al-Waqidi, al Maghazi, 3/454-9; Al Tabari, Tarikh al Rusul, 3/570-3; Ibn Hazm, Jawami al Sirah, 187-8; Ibn Abd al Barr, al Durar, 181-3; Ibn Sayyid al Nas, Uyun al Athar, 3/59-60; Ibn Kathir, at Bidayah, 3/103-4

9.  Ibn Kathir, al Bidayah, 3/103-4

10.  Al Bukhari, al Sahih, 3/24; Ahmad, al Musnad, 6/56, 131, 280

11.  Al Bukhari, al Sahih, 3/24; 144

12.  Bukhari (Ibid., 3/24); Muslim (Muslim, al Sahih, 5/163) say Zuhr.

13.  Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/716-7, from the mursal hadith of Ma’bad ibn Ka’b ibn Malik, who is maqbul.

14.  Ibn Hajar,

15.  Fath al Bari

16.  Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/716; Ibn Sa’d, al Tabaqat, 3/74 (both without isnad).

17.  Ibn Hisam, al Sirah, 3/716; Ibn Hajar, Fath at Bari, 7/413

18.  Tabari, Tarikh al Rusul, 2/583, the narrator himself said that he was unsure as to whether it was a month or 25 days.

19.  Al Sa’ati, al Fath al Rabbani li Tartib Musnad al Imam Ahmad, 21/81-3. All the narrators are reliable.

20.  Ibn Sa’d, al Tabaqat, 3/74, without isnad.

21.  Ibn Kathir, al Bidayah, 4/118-9; Ibn Hajar, Fath at Bari, 7/413; mursal from Musa ibn Uqbah from al Zuhri.

22.  Tabari, Tarikh al Rusul, 2/583; Ibn Hazm, Jawami al Sirah, 193; Ibn Abd al Barr, al Durar, 189; Ibn Sayyid al Nas, ‘Uyun al Athar, 2/69

23.  Al Sa’ati, al Fath al Rabbani, 21/81-3, with a hasan isnad.

24.  Al Bukhari, al Sahih, 2/210, 3/24-25; Muslim, al Sahih, 5/160-1

25.  Ahmad, al Musnad, 3/350, with a hasan isnad; Ibn Hajar (Fath al Bari, 7/14) mentioned the differences in their numbers, ranging from 400 to 900, and reconciled the different reports by saying that the increase included the followers of Banu Qurayzah, such as slaves, freedmen, and others.

26.  Al Bukhari, al Sahih, 3/11; Muslim, al Sahih, 5/159. The three who entered Islam were: Tha’labah ibn Sa’iyah, Usayd ibn Sa’iyah and Asad ibn ‘Ubayd.

27.  This is the report of Ibn Ishaq (Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/721). ‘Urwah mentions it was the house of Usamah ibn Zayd. The reports can be reconciled by saying that the prisoners were put in two houses because of their great numbers.

28.  Ahmad, al Musnad, 3/351; al Tirmidhi, Sunan, 4/144-5

29.  Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/722; Ahmad, al Musnad, 6/277; Abu Dawud, al Sunan, 2/150. Its isnad is hasan li dhatih.

30.  Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/724; Ibn Sa’d, al Tabaqat, 2/72-7

31.  Al Bukhari, al Sahih, 3/11; Muslim, al Sahih, 5/159

32.  See the research of Dr. Walid Arafat in the papers of the World Sirah Conference in Qatar. Ed. note: See the same paper in The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1976, pp. 100-107

With this, I look forward to Mr. Shuja’ah’s response.
MA Khan

In fact, what was the reason in the FIRST place for the Jews to be attacked?

If we recall as stated above:

Meanwhile there was the affair of the B. Qaynuqa. The apostle assembled them in their market and addressed them as follows: ‘O Jews, beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh and become Muslims. You know that I am a prophet who has been sent—you will find that in your scriptures and God's covenant with you.’ They replied, ‘O Muhammad, you seem to think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you encountered a people (i.e. the Quraysh) with no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for by God if we fight you, you will find that we are real men!’

As I explained above Muhammad(saw) was referring to a miracle, which are signs, which Allah said they would deny and that itself is another Quran prophesy coming through. That’s two at one time before the Jews who had seen the Muslims win a miraculous battle.

So here we have the Jews with that battle on their mind, threatening war. What started the fight against the Medinan Jews?

From Ibn Hisham's Sirat Rasul Allah ("The Life of the Prophet of God" - the oldest extant biography of Muhammad), page 365. The background to his murder is that after the battle of Badr, Ka'b b. al-Ashraf was horrified by Muhammad's victory, and the death of certain Arab leaders. I'll start with Kab's quote expressing his surprise at the Muslim victory.


"Is this true? Did Muhammad actually kill these whom these two men mention? These are the nobles of the Arabs and kingly men; by God, if Muhammad has slain these people it were better to be dead than alive." When the enemy of god became certain that the news was true he left the town and went to Mecca to stay with al-Muttalib who was married to Atika. She took him in and entertained him hospitably.  He began to inveigh against the apostle and to recite verses in which he bewailed the Quraysh who were thrown into the pit after having been slain at Badr."

From this we see the Jews did not only threaten but they had committed an act of treason against the Muslims, for which as I quoted above is death.

Esther 2:23 (King James Version)

23And when inquisition was made of the matter, it was found out; therefore they were both hanged on a tree: and it was written in the book of the chronicles before the king.

Not only did the commit treason, they incited the enemy to attack the Muslims. So while M.A. Khan chooses to ignore such facts and calls the actions of Muslims barbaric, we were fighting these wars with their guidelines.

In fact, why is M.A. Khan supporting the Jews when they have committed Genocide on a number of occassions. Let us refer to the Torah for a small dip into this exciting topic:

"They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man........Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.  (Numbers 31:7,17-18)"

Deuteronomy 20:16 
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.

1 Samuel 15:2-4 
2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.  
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.  
4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.

Psalm 137:8-9 
8 O daughter of Babylon, O destroyed one, O the happiness of him who repayeth to thee thy deed, That thou hast done to us.  
9 O the happiness of him who doth seize, And hath dashed thy sucklings on the rock!

In fact all of these added together, is more genocide than any of us can ever imagine. So again Muslims saved the day, but helping stop genocidal maniacs whom M.A. Khan seems to have a liking for.

I also kindly ask M.A. Khan to provide full quotations and not just list Quranic verses and Hadith, this isn’t a game where you say and I look.

Let s also be known, the same day M.A. Khan sent the article, I responded, with several hours while playing Killzone 2. Otherwise it would have been within the hour.

And if you were wondering why I put M.A. Khan’s writing in dirt brown, you’ve just seen why.

I kindly request that Mr. Khan responds quickly as I did, I am a busy guy and have no time to wait on his deceits, half truths, half quotes, out of quotes, authors I have never heard of, his opinions and his suggestions.

Yours Truly,

Abu Shuja’ah Ibn Harb (A 17 year old kid, who’s Muslim and loving Islam)






Allahu Alam.

Comments powered by CComment

Joomla templates by a4joomla