Contributing Authors

This debate was to examine Shuja’ah statement: "The Jews were driven out of Medina for attacking and killing Muslims". But Shuja’ah now says that Muhammad attacked and evicted the Jews of Medina, because they had "battle on their mind, threatening war", not because they were attacking and slaughtering Muslims...

Continued from Part 2

As some readers has suggested from Shuja’ah’s response to my part of this debate, I also agree that I am dealing with a truly 17-year-old kid (which he claims), duly considered underage in civilized societies, or that he is an imbecile. I didn’t take note that he was a teenager; else, I would not have gotten into this debate. For this reason, I will stop this debate, although I could address his every point. Before closing, I will address a couple of claims/points he has made, which are intimately related to this topic of discussion.

Concerning my assertion that Muhammad mission in Mecca had failed, Mr. Shuja’ah writes:

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?...

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.

I have explained that Muhammad preached in Mecca for 13 years and mastered just 100–150 converts. Particularly during the last 4–5 years, he mad rarely any coverts in Mecca. And we knew that Muhammad gained power in Medina and needed another 9 years to bringing the Meccans to complete submission by giving them a choice between conversion to Islam and death, by revealing verse 9:5 during the Hajj pilgrimage of 631 CE.

For Mr. Shuja'ah, just because Muhammad’s mission was successful in Medina, so his mission cannot be a failure elsewhere, obviously not in Mecca. They submitted to Islam anyway at least by the barbarous force of the sword.

Then, ‘How can his mission be a failure in Mecca’, ask Shuja’ah?

That’s exactly what we are saying here: when people did not accept his mumbo-jumbo revelations, barbarism became the tool to make them submit. Muhammad’s tool of persuasion, lasting 13 years, was a failure in Mecca, but barbarism of the sword of later period helped him succeed in making the Meccans submit to Islam. There’s no dispute about that.

I asserted that Allah 'gave Moses a status even higher than his own', citing a cluster of hadiths (Bukhari 4:610-612) that talks about Moses. But Mr. Shuja’ah sees no such thing in them. Bukhari 4:610 says, 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).’

This hadith clearly says that on the day of resurrection, Allah will strike human beings, including Muhammad, such that they will fall unconscious. But Moses would not struck by it, he will remain conscious and standing, because Allah may have exempted him, but not Muhammad.

Let me now turn to the event, which initiated Muhammad’s attack on the Jews:

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!’ [Ibn Ishaq]

While I claimed that Muhammad threatened the Jews to “become Muslims” or face violence, Mr. Shuja'ah, on the strength of the last line in this quote, says that it was the Jews, not Muhammad, who threatened violence.

But see clearly that before the Jews talked, Muhammad said: ‘O Jews, beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh and become Muslims’.

This sentence need no interpretation, as it is self-evident that Muhammad threatening the Jews to ‘become Muslims’ or the same thing, that happened to the Quraysh at Badr, will be inflicted upon them by Allah, which would, of course, come through the swords of Muhammad and his followers, like at Badr. After this threat only the Jews talked, expressing defiance that if Muhammad attacked them, they would hit back in a manner the Quraysh were not capable of. I don’t know, how can one reach the conclusion from this quote that it was the Jews, not Muhammad, who threatened violence? Obviously, Muhammad threatened to attack the Jews, if they did not ‘become Muslims’, and the Jews promised to hit back if Muhammad would put his threat into action by attacking them.

Nonetheless, following is what Abu Shuja’ah means. Suppose Shuja’ah’s community wants to attack my community. How does he do?

It is I, who go his village (not he comes to my village), gather all his people, and tell them to do this or that. If they did not follow my instruction, they will be maimed and slaughtered by Allah, through my hands, as Allah inflicted the same, through my hands, upon the ‘X community’ a few days earlier.

Have I threatened Shuja’ah here? Not at all, absolutely not!

In fact, after I said the above words, Shuja’ah responded: if I attack Shuja’ah community, his people will hit back in a way, the ‘X community’ could not, thereby, teaching me a lesson.

See who actually threatened violence here? It’s Shuja’ah, not me.

We are, here, dealing with an imbecile of this kind. Is it possible to have a rational debate here? I agree with a few other folks who commented. No, it’s impossible!

Now let me cite another sahih hadith, which describes Muhammad’s threat against the Jews most clearly [Bukhari 9:85:77]:

Narrated Abu Huraira: While we were in the mosque, Allah's Apostle (Muhammad) came out to us and said, "Let us proceed to the Jews." So we went along with him till we reached Bait-al-Midras (a place where the Torah used to be recited and all the Jews of the town used to gather). The Prophet stood up and addressed them, "O Assembly of Jews! Embrace Islam and you will be safe!" The Jews replied, "O Muhammad! You have conveyed Allah's message to us." The Prophet said, "That is what I want (from you)." He repeated his first statement for the second time, and they said, "You have conveyed Allah's message, O Muhammad." Then he said it for the third time and added, "You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to exile you from this land, so whoever among you owns some property, can sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."

Here, Muhammad told the Jews that the earth and everything in it belonged to Allah; and if they did not embrace Islam, Muhammad will reclaim Allah’s land, i.e. the abode of the Jews, from their illegitimate occupation by exiling them.

So, who threatened war and violence here?

It’s the Jews, not Muhammad—as Shuja’ah would have it.

So, does this debate need to proceed any further when the case has been proven beyond dispute?

Only if I were an imbecile!

Let me conclude emphasizing that this debate started to examine Shuja’ah statement: “The Jews were driven out of Medina for attacking and killing Muslims”.

But he shows no proof that the Jews attacked and killed Muslims, which forced Muhammad to act in defence. Instead, he concludes:

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!’…

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

So, Shuja’ah now says that Muhammad attacked and evicted the Jews of Medina, because they had "battle on their mind, threatening war", not because they were attacking and slaughtering Muslims, which was his claim this debate set out to examine.

And this change of heart of Shuja'ah agrees with Allah's command to attack the Jews, not because they had attacked the Jews, but if Muhammad had any fear that the Jews might break a treaty in the future [Al-Tabari, Vol. VII, p. 86]:

'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.’