A Journey Through Our Conscience

Re: # 286

``I could start another thread of explaining to you the geo political situation beyond the headlines for your untrained minds, but then, they may not be able to handle the stress.

So just read my post again to see WHEN and UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES such actions were taken; also whether the behaviors of USA and Coalition of Willing has any similarity or not...``

---

Yeah right..

Don`t you think the same ``WHEN and WHAT circumstances`` apply to Bush as well..*after Sept 11, it is no longer possible to ignore Muslims as just a set of regressives who want to take the world back to the 7`th century..``

Looks like we need to get trained by you to understand your logic.. I don`t want to end up in Guantanamo bay though.. thanks but No thanks..

---

Regarding this article, I emphathise with the author and understand the suffering of women. As you can see from the direction of the discussion, there seems to be a quite a number of people who believe in the correctness of a 7`th century document and its universality. If you read Quran you`l find where all this treatment of women is coming from.. Unfortunately I think there is little hope in fighting for respect or equal rights in a society that is formed on the basis of a dogmatic religion entrenched in regressive beliefs..

Just to end on a positive note, you can try to invoke religion to get some rights, like having a women`s jamaat to decide on women`s issues etc.. rape cases need to be handled by a sharia court with women judges etc.. fight for equal rights in mosques or form a separate mosque etc

Urstruly,

I truly thank you for your support wrt the ``lecture`` and the subsequent posts. In addition to mine, your support has alleviated other`s confusion(s) as well. ;-)~~

M`as-salaam

MJ,

Here`s the explanation you`re looking for (Sattar is mostly correct on the subject, except that he does not remember the names, numbers, etc)

Tribe: Banu Quraiza
Religion: Judaism
Location: Madinah
Leader: Ka’ab ibn Asad
Fighting Strenght: 1000 men
Treaties:
1. Muslims, led by Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him)
2. Tribe of Aus, led by Sa’d ibn Mu’az (ra)

The battle of Ahzab or Confederates, who tried to surround and annihilate the Muslim community in Madinah is full of underhand intrigues (collusion, machinations, plotting, maneuverings, scheming) on the part of such diverse enemies as the Pagan Quraish, the Jews (Banu Nadhir) who had been already expelled from Madinah for their treachery, the Gatafan tribe of Bedouin Arabs from the interiors (the desert Arabs of Central Arabia), and the Jewish tribe of ”Banu Quraiza” in Madinah. This was the unholy Confederacy against Islam. But though they caused a great deal of anxiety and suffering to the beleaguered Muslims, Islam came triumphantly out of the trial and got more firmly established than ever.

The Quraish in Makkah had tried all sorts of persecution, boycott, insult, and bodily injuries to the Muslims, leading to their partial hijrat to Abyssinia and their Hijrat as a body to Madinah. The armed conflict between them and the Muslims took place at Badr in Ramadhan A.H. 2, when the Quraish were signally defeated. Next year (Shauwal A.H. 3) they came to take revenge on Madinah. The battle was fought at Uhud, and though the Muslims suffered severely, Madinah was saved and the Makkans had to return to Makkah with their object frustrated. After their successive defeats at Badr and then at Uhud, they began to make a network of intrigues and alliances, and besieged Madinah with a force of 10 – 12 thousand men in Shauwal and Zul-qa’da A.H. 5. This is the siege of the Confederates referred to in 33: 9-27, which lasted over two weeks; some accounts give 27 days. The entire Muslim population, including women, children, and elderly, was considerably less than the Confederate army (Coalition of the Willing, wouldn`t you say?). The battle caused much suffering for the Muslims, from hunger, cold, and unceasing shower of arrows, and constant general or concentrated assaults. But it ended in the discomfiture of the Confederates, and established Islam firmer than ever. It was a well-organized and formidable attack, but the Muslims had made preparations to meet it. One of the preparations, which took the enemy by surprise, was the Trench (Khandaq) dug round Madinah with advice and the supervision of Salman Farasi (ra) and by the Prophet (pbuh)’s order. The siege and battle are therefore known as the Battle of the Trench or the Battle of the Confederates.

After an investment of two to four weeks, during which the enemies were disheartened by their ill success, there was piercing blast of the cold east wind. It was severe winter, and February can be a very cold month in Madinah, which is about 3,000 ft. above the sea-level. The enemy’s tents were torn up, their fires were extinguished, the sand and rain beat in their faces, and they were terrified by the portents against them. They had already well nigh fallen out amongst themselves, and beating a hasty retreat, they melted away. The Madinah fighting strength was no more than 3,000, and the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza who were in their midst was a source of weakness as they were treacherously intriguing with the enemy. And further were the Hypocrites. But there were hidden forces that helped the Muslims. Besides the forces of nature there were angels, though invisible to them, who assisted the Muslims.

The onrush of the enemy was really tremendous. The Trench round the Madinah was between the defenders and the huge attacking force, which had some high ground behind them, which is in reference to “above you” in 33:10: when any of them came through the valley or over the Trench, they seemed to come from “below” as referred to in the same verse. The showers of arrows and stones on both sides must also have seemed to come from the air.

All the fighting men of Madinah had come out of the City and camped in the open space between the City and the Trench that had been dug all around. The disaffected Hypocrites sowed defeatist rumors and pretended to withdraw (today SOME of them are referred to as “moderates”) for the defense of their homes, though their homes were not exposed, and were fully covered by the vigilant defensive force inside the Trench.

Apparently, after the battle of Uhud, certain men who had then shown cowardice were forgiven on undertaking that they would behave better next time. A solemn promise made to the Messenger of Allah is a promise to Allah, and it cannot be broken with impunity.

In times of danger, they would look to the holy Prophet (pbuh) for protection, and keep themselves snugly from the fight. When the danger is past, they will come and brag and wrangle and show their covetousness or greed for gain (made or booty won) though they gave of themselves but sparingly. Considering his “overwhelming” knowledge of not just Quran but the entire Islam, Mirza Quadyani may be a direct descendant of these people. Does anyone know where exactly they’ve built their 5-star paradise in Pakistan?

The Jews of Banu Quraiza were counted the citizens of Madinah and were bound by solemn engagements (treaty) to help in the defense of the City. But on the occasion of the Confederate siege by the Quraish and their allies (Coalition of the Willing) they connived with the enemies and treacherously aided them.

Banu Quraiza’s leader was Ka’ab ibn Asad, who himself had made the pact of alliance with the Prophet (pbuh) on behalf of the entire Banu Quraiza to fight along side Muslims in the event of an attack. During the battle he was approached by the leader of Banu Nadhir (the Jewish tribe from outside Madinah), Huyy ibn Akhtab, to assist the Confederates from within Madinah. After receiving a promise from Huyy ibn Akhtab that in the event of Quraish’s retreat he would enter the Banu Quraiza castles to face the same fate as them, Ka’ab ibn Asad obliged and breached the treaty with the Prophet (pbuh) and the Muslims started assisting the enemies outside; even though he admitted that he had not seen anything except honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness in Mohammad (pbuh).

Simultaneously, they prepared/waited to attack the Muslims from within, as well as dispatched help outside to the Confederates. At one point Muslims intercepted 20 of their camels (KBR supplies convoy?) taking help outside the City to the Confederates.

Their first target was the Far’a castle which belonged to Hassan ibn Thabit (ra) and contained Muslim women and children when the City was attacked. Among the women were Prophet (pbuh)’s aunt, Safiyya bint Abdal Mutallib (ra). She noticed a Banu Quraiza Jew circling the castle in an attempt to breach it for the rest of the 1000 or so Banu Quraiza fighters. Alone she went out; picked up a stick and beat him to death with it. When his treacherous tribesmen heard about his death, they thought contrary to their initial assumptions there were Muslim fighters inside the castle to defend it. Consequently, being the typical cowards they were, they did not dare to attack the castle and turned their entire attention to attack (the Muslim Mujahids in the Trench) from the inside.

Immediately after the siege was raised and the Confederates had fled in hot haste, the Prophet (pbuh) turned his attention to these treacherous “friends” who had betrayed his City in the hour of danger.

Banu Quraiza was filled with terror and dismay when Madinah was free from the Quraish danger. They shut themselves up in their castles about three or four miles to the east (or north east) of Madinah, and sustained a siege of 25 days, after which they surrendered, stipulating that they would abide by the decision of their fate at the hands of Sa’d ibn Mu’az (ra) – chief of Aus tribe – with which they had been in alliance.

Sa’d (ra) applied to them the Jewish Law of the Old Testament, not as strictly as the case warranted. In Deuteronomy 20:10-18, the treatment of a city “which is very far off from the Jewish land” is prescribed to be comparatively more lenient than the treatment of a city “of those people, which the Lord thy God does give thee for an inheritance,” i.e. which is near enough to corrupt the religion of the Jewish people. The punishment for these is total annihilation: “thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth” (Dueteronomy 20:16). According to the Jewish standard, the Banu Quraiza deserved total extermination – of men, women, and children. They were in territory of Madinah itself, and further they had broken their engagement (treaty) and helped the enemy.

Sa’d (ra) adjudged them the milder treatment of the “far-off” cities which is thus described in the Jewish Law: “Thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword; but the women and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself, and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee (Deuteronomy 20:13-14). The men of Banu Quraiza – who some say numbered around 1000 – were slain; the women were sold as captives of war and their lands and properties were divided among the Muhajirs.

Thus, the punishment was NOT meted out by the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), as your Zionist masters allege. They were punished by the leader of the Aus tribe (with which they had an alliance), Sa’d ibn Mu’az (ra) whom the Banu Quraiza Jews had asked for. Furthermore, they were punished according to their own Law of the Old Testament; and a lenient one at that, though by the same Law they deserved complete annihilation.

Go figure, eh?

Now you’ll have to find some special muck which doesn’t make a U-turn to hit you in the face. Atheism is OUT, dude...you`ll get kicked around from all sides, even Ahmedis....ha ha ha ha.

drlokraj, masanamuthu, malikjahanzeb, and rsridhar,

It couldn`t get any funnier than this... :-)~ I`m beginning to amaze myself at predicting the ``moderate Muslims`` and non-Muslim mindset. All praises be to Allah.

ALLAH O AKBER

I could start another thread of explaining to you the geo political situation beyond the headlines for your untrained minds, but then, they may not be able to handle the stress.

So just read my post again to see WHEN and UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES such actions were taken; also whether the behaviors of USA and Coalition of Willing has any similarity or not.

It`ll be good for your intellectual growth, if you`re able to figure it out. Otherwise, happy spinning!

Sridhar...
feel free to lash out against our Prophet (peace be upon him) if you wish; it will neither tarnish/diminish his name; nor the message he conveyed to the entire mankind; nor his followers who love him more than themselves and their families.

The Jews have been saying nastier things about Maraym (may Allah be pleased with her) and her son Jesus (peace be upon him) since the last two millenniums, as well as slandering our Prophet (peace be upon him) for the last 1400 years. But what do you know Joe... Christianity has the highest number of followers and it is soon to be surpassed by Islam in terms of following. Meanwhile, look up one of the current dire dilemmas the Jews have on their hands - their male population is rapidly diminishing and female population is growing out of proportions. I wonder why that may be...

Just as the two aforementioned Prophets (peace be upon them) used to forgive their critics, I will forgive you too, for annihilating an innocent ignorant is against the spirit of True Islam.

Also, feel free to puke all over your keyboard...the puke is yours and the keyboard is yours, so have a ball and knock yourself out.

However, here`s a food for thought for you: if the Muslim conquerors of India had converted the non-Muslim indigenous and exterminated the ones who did not convert, do you think there would be any Hindus and other religions left after centuries unchallenged rule of Muslims there?

Study the history and think with your mind, not your emotions that get riled up with the headlines.

but sattar, they were all liars.......

MJ,

But first, here’s more on Banu Quraiza issue … that was raised earlier. I have read and understood the following …

Muslims had entered treaties with different communities in Medina, agreeing to defend each other if attacked. During the Battle of Ditches, the Meccan army laid a siege to Medina. Muslims dug ditches to prevent the enemy from charging in. Forests, mountains, and settlements etc. prevented attacks from the (3?) remaining sides. Meccans then conspired with Banu Quraiza. The plan was that the Meccan army will attack from the front, and Banu Quraiza will launch a simultaneous attack on Muslims from behind.

Muslims found out about this plan, posted army to prevent being attacked from behind, and repelled frontal Meccan attacks. The plan failed. Eventually the Meccans got tired, packed their bags, and left. It was now time to deal with Banu Quraiza for their betrayal.

And this is where history becomes somewhat contentious …

Leaders of Banu Quraiza did not want Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to be the judge over this issue. They did not trust him and did not think he’d be fair to them. Instead they chose one of the senior Jewish leaders to be the judge (name?). Muslims led by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) agreed to this choice. The judge strictly followed Torah on the matter, and the verdict was that of death, as specified by Torah.

Much uncertainty surrounds the number of Jews hence executed. Some accounts indicate that all adult men of Banu Quraiza (totaling 800?) were executed. This very well may not have been the case. It is hard to imagine all adult male population directly involved in this attack. Furthermore, since people were following orders, it is not fair to blame all men who participated. My understanding is that mainly the ring leaders of Banu Quraiza were executed for this conspiracy … which probably totaled 20 - 40 or so men … which ain’t bad at all.

Furthermore, I think remaining population of Banu Quraiza was given a choice … if they wanted to stay or leave. They chose to leave … and were allowed to go. It is quite possible that some were taken as slaves for additional compensation as decided on the matter.

Some fair-minded historians think Banu Quraiza leaders erred by rejecting Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the judge. Noting the general amnesty granted at the fall of Mecca, some historians are of the opinion that if given a chance, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) may have been lenient on this matter.

+++++++++

As for kick a$$ stuff on Mirza Sahib or anyone else for that matter … I am not your man. I think they were all good men … Moses, Buddha, Muhammad, Krishna, Jesus, Mirza … and all. They taught good lessons, made personal sacrifices … and did what they could to alleviate human suffering. May they all rest in peace … may we too find peace on earth … and may my options recover a bit more over the next fiscal year … amen, amen, and amen.

... and that’s too many posts for one day ... have a good weekend mate …

Re: # 231

Welcome dear mittar. Where have you been all the time? I had been missing you badly.
Here I got entangled with one Sajal whom I took as a male but who claims to be a female and even proud of being so. I just realized that there is no neutral pronoun in English to refer to her. As it is, subject to verification of her sex, I am constrained to assume her to be a woman as a matter of courtesy, subject to verification of her actual sex, if at all possible through internet. As, however, appears from her reaction to my post, she can be nothing else but a menopaused woman.

My peer-Ustad Mirza Ghalib had faced a similar situation once, which he described in
the following words:
Dhol dhapa us sarapa naaz ka shewa naheeN
Ham hi kar bethe the Ghalib pesh dasti ek din

But this is my weakness even in this age like my Ustad who says:

Chherh khoobaN se chali jae asad
Gar naheeN wasl to hasrat hi sahi

As regards the couplet I ascribed to Manu Samriti, I took this information from the Hindi film `The Bandit Queen` about Phoolan Devi. I presumed it to be a book and not a person. What, however, struck me in this respect is the agreement between Quran and Manu Samriti about the status of the woman and the treatment she deserved with a slight difference that whereas Quran prescribes beating only for a rebellious woman, Samriti makes no exception in this regard.

The questions you raised about the Hadood Laws when one of the party in a rape case is a non-Muslim are very important indeed. I think these laws apply to Muslims only. It is strange that we have not come across any such case where one of the party is non-Muslim. I am searching for the answer and would welcome information on this point from any chowky friend.

Re: # 281 sattar,

you are doing a great service to prophet hamidm by busting mullah chops and pointing out the funny side of quran and it`s author.

but to let you enter the heretic club, you will have to pass thru the litmus test.

now that you have cut the base on which you were standing, why not move on the next logical step? in short, we need to hear some kick a$$ stuff about mirza sahib of qadiyan.

come on man, you can do it........

hamidm,

I hear you chief … I am just busting some mullah chops here. They come in all flavors … some are wide-eyed jihadis … others try to rationalize their holier-than-thou hang ups. They’re all f#$%ing hypocrites.

Keenness to preach Quran seems to be their common trait. Maybe there’s something hideous about the book itself … or at least those sermonizing others on it. Or maybe the ummah is missing out on benefits of having an occasional drink to loosen up. In any case, no amount of taqwaa is worth the an@l sense of self-righteousness that often accompanies it.

+++++++++

ntsyed (#272), here`s one more for blessed friday …

``More power to the ones (whoever they may be) believing #202.``

Your cousin Urstruly believes in #202. No kidding … just ask him. And when you do, also ask about #259. You`ll be shocked ... and will probably shave off your beard.

Again, ntsyed is just a name. Other than that, everything is the same as it always was.

Dullabhati,

My comment was in response to Urstruly’s assertion. He had suggested that those who reject prophethood of Mirza Sahib are considered non-Muslims by Ahmadis. This is incorrect. According to Ahmadi views, rejecting Mirza Sahib (or other prophets that may follow) does not make one non-Muslim.

Yes, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the highest deity in Islam. Quran calls him the most exalted prophet (Seal of Prophets), the “best example”, “mercy for all worlds”, and asks believers to obey him.

Your point has some validity in that arguably one must accept prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) in order to be a “Muslim” … since the term Muslim comes from Quran, which also attests to prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). However, owing to mullahs selectively ignoring Quran, all bets are off. No kidding. There are all sorts of theories floating around among ullema ... about which verse of Quran or recorded hadith abrogates which verse of Quran. It gets very complicated ... just ask Naqshbandi ... who pointed me to a few sources ... before discovering the truth about me. Like Urstruly, he too no longer talks to me. I guess I must have upset him ... or something. Oops!

Now why do some mullah get very defensive about prophet Muhammad (pbuh), but not so much about Allah … is a bit of a mystery … which I too have noticed at times.


ntsyed,

I have asked Urstuly … may be you can help … with the question I raised in #259. I think the fire is under his tail, as well as yours. Crack, crack, boom.

Water? Or chusni?

Aah the Jews!
They voted with their feet. If there was ever such an injustice they would not have flocked to the muslim-ruled lands.

Spain, Morroco,Aljaazair, Egypt, Iraq, Iran--keep counting there are hundreds of names.

Oh yeh they did go to ``christain`` and ``pagan`` lands but only during the last century.

Their most glorious rennaisance was under the muslim lands; of course as dhimmis. Every Jewish writer attests to that.

The jews of Calcutta , who have now more or less dwindled to a few now,, speak eloquently and fondly of their muslim friends, servants and mullahs [ as recently reported in the Toronto Star]. So much so that even during Taliban days they refused to migrate[no it was not the money]. Jews in Pakistan held important goverment positions & prospering--it is only recently that they emigrated from other lands to Israel & the west--India, Russia included.

David, the well-known Indian actor personally told me about the treatment he received at the hands of fellow racist (europen Jews) who refused to accept him because of his Anwar Sadat looks. He insisted that Moses and Jesus really looked like him ( Haa Haa). They refused him burial in their cemetry. It was the muslims who buried him. Even in Israel all jews who are de-jewed by their Levis ( Brahmins) are buried in muslim cemetries. Even in Toronto two years ago there was a huge procession and police was called in when a `jew` was not allowed in a Jewish cemetry.

So let the descendants of Bani-Quraiza figure such intra Islamic-Jewish affairs. Their is no need for the Hanumaans for this monkey-chatter & jumping from tree to tree. The true subject to discuss is Ghori & Ghazni--and I admit that there is a lot of catching upto do there.

re: # 273-276

We get too caught up with names, ntsyed is bad or such is good. These are just names, individuals. In the march of time, individuals come and go.

The religious belief system then is exactly the same as it is now. Merely the outer layering and labelling gets changed in a tactical response to time and place.

As always I have directly put this question:

Irrespective of where it went and what outer form it took, has Islam changed in any fundamental sense since the day Ijtehad began?

---

If people still continue to get confused with names, labels, and outer forms, then truly, we may have nothing really worth preserving of our own.

Re: # 275

``Muslim invaders came to India, conquered, raped and killed. They did not give the population any choice to live in peace with them without having to renounce their religion. The choice was: convert or perish.``

This is not quite true. After conditions stabilized, Hindus were able to, and did, live according to their religious beliefs. The only condition was to accept a subservient status, which they did. Some Muslim rulers are said to have gone even farther and respected some Hindu sensitivities, such as wrt killing of cows.

re: some A-hole`s comment
``After winning the war, if the prisoners accepted Islam, they would be set free. Otherwise, they would be beheaded. Why? In the Quran, Allah tells the Prophet (pbuh) to tell the non-believers (when the latter was confronted with same question as yours today) that yes, killing is abhorrible, but their mischief (fitna) is even worse. Meaning, if the non-Muslims did not desist from threatening the Muslim communities - militarily or otherwise - they are begging to be killed. In other words, snakes never befriend anything except their kind, thus should be killed before they turn into serial killers.``
I am not active in this thread (thank God for that). This seems to be an islamic thread and i can see why it stinks.
Some of u guys seem to be in a time-warp, still living in bedouin Arab land, forgetting that the world has moved on.
It also shows why Islamic countries are so regressive.
The above sentence that some A-hole quoted seem to justify killing of non-muslims.
Muslim invaders came to India, conquered, raped and killed. They did not give the population any choice to live in peace with them without having to renounce their religion. The choice was: convert or perish.
So, if your prophet said that this was O.K, tell u what, i have just lost respect for him. In my many years on Chowk, one thing i never did was to lash out against your prophet but i think it is time now to do so.
You guys are just pathetic. You still hang on to some goddamn outdated book written in a language most of u do not understand. I just feel like puking all over the keyboard.
Sridhar

Re: # 273 masanamuthu,

ha ha ha ha

jawab nahin yaar....