So, what did the Muslims do for the Jews? - David J Wasserstein (Professor of History, Vanderbilt U

[indigo]

Had Islam not come along, Jewry in the west would have declined to disappearance
and Jewry in the east would have become just another oriental cult'
​

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/68082/so-what-did-muslims-do-jews

 

[indigo]

DID MUHAMMAD KILL 900 JEWS? WAS HE A MASS-MURDERER?

The Jewish community is known to document its history quite vividly from First and Second destruction of the Temple to 11th & 12th century suffering in Yemen to 14th & 15th century persecution in Europe. But if you look at any Jewish writing there is NO reference to any persecution at the hands of Muhammad.

Ironically, its Muslims who claim that we persecuted the Jews... but Jewish sources are completely silent on this.

I even discussed the killing of 900 Jews with an orthodox Jew friend of mine and he agreed that there is no record of any Jewish persecution at the hands of Muhammad in any Jewish sources.

According to some writers the stories of Jewish killing by Muhammad were first popularised during the Abbasid Caliphate (200 years after Muhammad died) and were used as a warning to the Jews under the Caliphate.

 

[indigo]

Please remember that Jews were accorded "Dhimi" status for the first time under the Abbasid Caliphate in the 9th century i.e. almost 200 years after Muhammad died. The story of the massacre of 900 Jews by Muhammad emerged under the Abbasids when caliph Al-Mansur sanctioned the writing of Muhammad's biography (Ibn Ishaq).

That biography was then used along with other tools to create an Arab identity of Islam which resulted in Dhimitude for Jews and even for Sindhi and Berber Muslims.

 

[indigo]

DID MUHAMMAD KILL 900 JEWS? WAS HE A MASS-MURDERER?

Jewish history is over 4000 years long and includes hundreds of different populations. Jews have painstackingly recorded details of every atrocity and persecution they faced throughout history BUT interestingly the saga of Muhammad's massacre is missing from Jewish chronicles. No Jewish writer or historian ever documented any massacre or persecution of Jews at the hands of Muhammad.

The massacre of 900 Jews by Muhammad was first reported in his biography written almost 100 years after his death by Ibn Ishaq under the aegis of the 'Abbasid caliph Al-Mansur. No originals of Ibn Ishaq's biography survive today, although we do have one recreated in 9th century by Ibn Hisham. The narrator accuses Jews of scheming, of manipulating the Meccan pagans and being responsible for the an anti-Islamic coalition in Medina.

What is interesting in this story is that how sworn enemies of the Prophet i.e. pagans are depicted as victims of 'Jewish conspiracies' and not as primary adversaries. This is significant because at the time the Seera was being pieced together, the great-grandsons of pagan Meccans who had fought Muhammad had by now taken over the reins of Islam and were the ruling caliphs. It was in their own interest to show their own forefathers as having been victims of Jewish conspiracies.

Not only there is no reference or supporting evidence for Banu Qurayza massacre in the Jewish chronicles, the Seera of Ibn Ishaq has been criticized by many prominent writers for visible weaknesses. The most widely discussed criticism was that of his contemporary Mālik ibn Anas. Mālik rejected the stories of Muhammad and the Jews of Medina. These same stories have also been denounced as "odd tales" later by ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. Furthermore, early literary critics, like ibn Sallām al-Jumaī and ibn al-Nadīm, censured ibn Ishaq for knowingly including forged poems in his biography, and for attributing poems to persons not known to have written any poetry. The 14th-century historian al-Dhahabī, using hadith terminology, noted that in addition to the forged poetry, Ibn Ishaq filled his sīra with many unsubstantiated reports.

Alfred Guillaume notices that Ibn Ishaq frequently uses a number of expressions to convey his skepticism or caution. Like he frequently notes that "only God knows whether a particular statement is true or not".

All in all, from the 9th century onwards, the medieval Islamic caliphate imposed dhimmi status not only on Christian and Jewish minorities but also on Sindhi and Berber Muslims. While the Abbasids originally gained power by exploiting the social inequalities against non-Arabs in the Umayyad Empire, ironically during Abbasid rule the empire rapidly Arabized.

 

[indigo]

This is an article on the History of antisemitism.... You will be surprised that not only the name of Muhammad is missing from it but the whole massacre of Banu Qurayza is missing. The only reference to Muslim antisemitism starts from 9th century...

[HI]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism[/HI]

 

[indigo]

this story was probably exaggerated to show how Jews were treated by Rasool.....it could have been done to influence Jews of early muslim empires
Most of the "****" we get from orientalists, is the **** that was created by muslims themselves.... welcome to the wonderland where "Faith" in Tradition overrules common sense, and magical mysticism, traditionalism and religious reverence takes precedence over rationale and objectivity.

 

[indigo]

According to the story of Jewish massacre by Muhammad only 600 to 900 men of "Banu Qurayza" tribe were slaughtered. But Banu Qurayza was not the only Jewish tribe in Arabia at that time. There were 7 other Jewish tribes (i.e. Banu Awf, Banu Harith, Banu Jusham, Banu Alfageer, Banu Najjar, Banu Sa'ida, Banu Shutayba) and even they didn't pass on the story of supposed massacre to their children.

The survivors of Banu Qurayza or other Jewish tribes of the time must have passed on the story of this horrendous suffering to their younger generations in form a tale, a poem, a couplet or in any other form. The story must have survived at least in some of literature or we would have found its reflections in any religious story. But there is absolutely nothing in Jewish history or literature that implicitly or explicitly relates to the supposed massacre.

Its Muslims themselves who claim that their Prophet was a murderer... while the Jewish sources are silent.

It is so sad to see that Muslims go into frenzy over harmless cartoons depicting Muhammad.... while at the same time they not only take pride in those historians who portrayed him as a mass-murderer, but also defend them.

 

[indigo]

Aren't the Muslims are the biggest "blasphemers" against the Prophet Muhammad (SAW)???

 

[meezan]

Sharmye Yahoodi dekhe aesae Muslmaan!

 

[ASQR1]

Those who depict prophet muhammad P.B.U.H. As murderer Are only Muslims by names, it is clear in Islam that if some people lie to the extend of labeling our prophet as murderer than they are acting as non muslims.

Only Allah S.W.T knows the truth but history also tells truth if it is narrated by those supposedly murdered. So I think our great prophet P.B.U.H. Has not done this as this is totally against all the things he did, I think it a balatent lie.

 

[A.G.Uddin]

[MENTION=23969]indigo[/MENTION]

Yet another great work.Antisemitism was there even at the time of Jesus Christ Alayhis Salam. So, I wonder why many Islamophobes call Islam a religion of Jew haters. Plus, I was reading this blog about conspiracy theorists at Expresss Tribune on the very first anniversary of May 2 raid.The blogger told a great piece of information by telling that antisemitism reached Muslim societies from Europe and we all know the history of Europe when Popes and Bishops misused their authority for centuries.

 

[indigo]

Quran is the only contemporary evidence of the said incident and it does give hints towards some sort of action which Prophet took against AHL AL KITAB (JEWS) in response to the crime they committed probably treason when Ghazva e Khandaq (Battle of Clans) was over. But it says some were murdered and some of them were made captives. Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham probably exaggerated the story under the Abbasid Caliphs to distort the facts. If there was such a big massacre, it would have also been mentioned in Quran. Also there is no evidence of "supposed" trenches dug in the MADINA market place to bury those 900 JEWS. There are also many points which go against IBN ISHAQ's story like his original manuscript was never found from which it was copied by his student IBN HISHAM. Also IBN ISHAQ was called as "IMPOSTER" and "TRAITOR" by his contemporary IMAM MALIK IBN ANAS and Hafiz IBN HAJAR.

 

[indigo]

A surprising challenge to the historicity of the event is the lack of any clear reference in either the Qur'an or the Hadith to the event. The former only has an ambiguous statement in Surah Al-Hashr 59:15, usually applied to the Qaynuqah in relation to the expulsion of the Banu Nadir 'Like those who lately preceded them they have tasted the evil result of their conduct and (in the Hereafter there is) for them a grievous Penalty'

Yusuf Ali comments on the verse:

"The immediate reference was probably to the Jewish goldsmith tribe of the Qainuqa, who were also settled in a fortified township near Madinah. They were also punished and banished for their treachery, about a month after the battle of Badr, in which the Makkan Pagans had suffered a signal defeat, in Shawwal, A.H. 2. The Nadhir evidently did not take that lesson to heart..."

Yet there is nothing explicit in either this text or elsewhere in the Qur'an about the incident. Whilst there are several ahadith mentioning the Banu Qunaiqa, only one refers to their expulsion, and that is in the context of mentioning the general exile of the Jews from Medina.

There is no specific historical outline in the hadith corpus of the alleged event and why it occurred. Even Mawdudi said that, we have to rely on later Sira material, through which lens Muslim (and other) commentators interpret this verse. Even then, as we examine the supposed basis of the expulsion, there are grounds for suspicion that there were originally two distinct accounts involved – one involving Jewish recklessness, the other indicating a matter of honour, which Muslims like Mawdudi have redacted and merged, to reconcile their inconsistencies.

For one thing, we have no objective evidence as to the actual military strength or otherwise of the Qunayqa, and have to rely on later Muslim accounts. We cannot say for sure if the Qunayqa indeed provoked an incident one way or another, or whether indeed the actual event occurred at all. Moreover, even in the actual accounts as they stand, we do not encounter any supposed divine revelation arising demanding the exile of this section of the ahl-ul-Kitab because of their 'idolatrous' practices, as indicated in the hadith where Muhammad indicated his intention to exile the People of the Book for turning the graves of the prophets into places of worship.

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-7.html

 

[meezan]

 

[indigo]

''Jews and Zionists''
-------------------------------
Herzl and almost all the other Zionist Founding Fathers were convinced atheists. Their attitude towards the rabbis was condescending. Herzl wrote that in the future Jewish state, the rabbis would be kept in their synagogues (and the army officers in their barracks). All the leading rabbis of his time cursed him in no uncertain terms.

However, Herzl and his colleagues had a problem. How to get millions of Jews to trade in their old-time religion for the newfangled nationalism? He solved it by inventing the fiction that the new Zionist nation was merely a continuation of the ancient Jewish “people” in a new form. For this purpose, he “stole” the symbols of the Jewish religion and turned them into national ones: the Jewish prayer shawl became the Zionist (and now the Israeli) flag, the Jewish Menora (the temple candlestick) became the state’s emblem, the Star of David is the supreme national symbol. Almost all the religious holy days became part of the new national history.

This transformation was immensely successful. Practically all “Jewish” Israelis accept this today as gospel truth. Except the Orthodox.

THE ORTHODOX claim that they, and only they, are the real Jews and the rightful heirs of thousands of years of history.

They are quite right.

http://outlookindia.com/article.aspx?281121

 

[indigo]

A surprising challenge to the historicity of the event is the lack of any clear reference in either the Qur'an or the Hadith to the event. The former only has an ambiguous statement in Surah Al-Hashr 59:15, usually applied to the Qaynuqah in relation to the expulsion of the Banu Nadir 'Like those who lately preceded them they have tasted the evil result of their conduct and (in the Hereafter there is) for them a grievous Penalty'

Yusuf Ali comments on the verse:

"The immediate reference was probably to the Jewish goldsmith tribe of the Qainuqa, who were also settled in a fortified township near Madinah. They were also punished and banished for their treachery, about a month after the battle of Badr, in which the Makkan Pagans had suffered a signal defeat, in Shawwal, A.H. 2. The Nadhir evidently did not take that lesson to heart..."

Yet there is nothing explicit in either this text or elsewhere in the Qur'an about the incident. Whilst there are several ahadith mentioning the Banu Qunaiqa, only one refers to their expulsion, and that is in the context of mentioning the general exile of the Jews from Medina.

There is no specific historical outline in the hadith corpus of the alleged event and why it occurred. Even Mawdudi said that, we have to rely on later Sira material, through which lens Muslim (and other) commentators interpret this verse. Even then, as we examine the supposed basis of the expulsion, there are grounds for suspicion that there were originally two distinct accounts involved – one involving Jewish recklessness, the other indicating a matter of honour, which Muslims like Mawdudi have redacted and merged, to reconcile their inconsistencies.

For one thing, we have no objective evidence as to the actual military strength or otherwise of the Qunayqa, and have to rely on later Muslim accounts. We cannot say for sure if the Qunayqa indeed provoked an incident one way or another, or whether indeed the actual event occurred at all. Moreover, even in the actual accounts as they stand, we do not encounter any supposed divine revelation arising demanding the exile of this section of the ahl-ul-Kitab because of their 'idolatrous' practices, as indicated in the hadith where Muhammad indicated his intention to exile the People of the Book for turning the graves of the prophets into places of worship.


http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-7.html