LOGICAL ANALYSIS ON THE MASSACRE OF BANU QURAISHA CHILDREN 🌙

This site, discover the truth, said:

. Were Children Killed?

A myth that has been circulating among orientalists and other critics of Islam is that children of Banu Qurayza were executed along with the men. The reports used for the allegations are the following:

Sunan an-Nasa’i:

It was narrated that Kathir bin As-Sa’ib said: “The sons of Quraizah told me that they were presented to the Messenger of Allah on the Day of Quraizah, and whoever (among them) had reached puberty, or had grown pubic hair, was killed, and whoever had not reached puberty and had not grown pubic hair was left (alive).” (Sunan an-Nasa’i Volume 4, Book 27, Hadith 3459).

Sunan an-Nasa’i:

“It was narrated that ‘Atiyyah said: ‘I was among the prisoners of Quraizah; we were examined, and whoever had grown (pubic) hair was killed, and whoever had not grown hair, he was allowed to live and was not killed.” (Sunan an-Nasa’I volume 5, Book 46, Hadith 4984).

Jami at-Tirmidhi:

“Narrated ‘Atiyyah Al-Qurazi: “We were presented to the Messenger of Allah on the day of (the battle of) Quraizah. Whoever had pubic hair was killed and whoever did not was left to his way. I was of those who did not have pubic hair so I was left to my way.” (Jami` at-Tirmidhi, volume 3, Book 19, Hadith 1584)

Reading the above reports, some claim that kids were among those killed of the Banu Qurayza.

However, what critics fail to mention, or deliberately leave out, is that “pubic hair” was not the only factor used in this incident. We have a report from early Islamic scholar Al-Shaybani (Born: 749 AD, died 805) telling us that revelation was sent down to Prophet Muhammed (p) instructing him that puberty was the limit of their penal responsibility as fighting warriors those who willingly participated in this:

Al-Shaybani’s opinion is different: he points out that there are differences in the age of puberty between various peoples (for instance between Turks and Indians). But in the case of Banu Qurayza the Prophet disclosed to Sa’d b. Mu’adh (on the basis of a revelation) that their age of puberty WAS THE LIMIT OF THEIR PENAL RESPONSIBILITY AS FIGHTING PERSON” (Al-Shaybani, op. cit., volume 2, page 591) [17]

Some may ask, what is penal responsibility?

Penal responsibility, or criminal responsibility, refers to a person’s ability to understand when the crime was committed. A person is responsible and could go to jail having fully known at the time of the crime what they did, and that they understood the implications.

So besides the prerequisite for pubic hair, the treacherous Banu Qurayza were also checked out for having possessed the requisite state of mind when they committed the treachery.

Hence, those who understood clearly and were aware that what they did were the only ones who were killed. Those who didn’t understand the crime because they don’t know what was right or wrong (even though having pubic hair), were not touched.

To recap, the historical reports already mentioned all quite clearly state that people who were killed for actively been involved in this treachery were:

“Men”

“Warriors”

“Adults”

In fact one of those who witnessed everything explicitly states in a report in Ibn Ishaq that only adults who actively engaged in this treachery were killed;

“Shu’ba b. al-Hajjaj told me from Abdu’l-Malik b. Umayr from Atiya al-Qurzai: The Apostle had ordered that every adult of B. Qurayza should be killed. I was a lad and they found that I was not an adult and so they let me go” [18]

 

So for critics to claim that children were killed is a lie which has no historical basis. Furthermore, there are countless Hadiths where Prophet Muhammed (p) categorically and unequivocally forbade the killing of children:

🌐

LOGICAL ANALYSIS:

Naturally, boys begin to have pubic hair at an average age of 13, meaning, sometimes others have it earlier.

This site, john’s Hopkins medicine, offered the sexual development platform for boys, as stated below:

“Sexual and other physical maturation that happens during puberty is a result of hormonal changes. In boys, it is difficult to know exactly when puberty is coming. There are changes that happen, but they happen gradually and over a period of time, rather than as a single event. While each male adolescent is different, the following are average ages when puberty changes may happen:

Beginning of puberty: 9.5 to 14 years old

First pubertal change: enlargement of the testicles

Penis enlargement: begins approximately 1 year after the testicles begin enlarging

Appearance of pubic hair: 13.5 years old

Nocturnal emissions (or “wet dreams”): 14 years old

Hair under the arms and on the face, voice change, and acne: 15 years old”

So, when Muhammad killed those with pubic hairs, he have possibly killed boys who were probably younger than 13, say, 10-12, along those adolescent from 13 and above.

For him, not to be decisive according to crimes committed but by giving verdict through determination of guilt basing on pubic hairs, it could only be possible to be included in the line up of boys prospective for death penalty if so that these in the line up were all warriors. 10-13 year olds should have been warriors, combatants during the quraisha-muslims wars, for them to be prospects for death penalty, which through presence of pubic hairs has merit their combat efforts against islam with death penalty but spared if so that they have no pubic hairs.

WERE THEY COMBATANTS? ALL BOYS AGING FROM 10-13 WERE COMBATANTS? 

Including the weak-hearted and coward?

How did they determine that these boys were combatants in the war? 

Was there due process?

Did they established that all were warriors by heart, and noone is a coward who preferred shrinking under her mother’s skirt?

NO! THERE WAS NO DUE PROCESS! NO DETERMINATION OF REAL COMBATANTS! NO DETERMINATION OF WHO PREFERRED TO BE INACTIVE!

Islamic sources claimed though that all of those included in the line up, probably from as young as 10 years old were warriors, combatants, which through the presence of pubic hairs were their guilt established as islamic defenders say,

“Penal responsibility, or criminal responsibility, refers to a person’s ability to understand when the crime was committed. A person is responsible and could go to jail having fully known at the time of the crime what they did, and that they understood the implications.

So besides the prerequisite for pubic hair, the treacherous Banu Qurayza were also checked out for having possessed the requisite state of mind when they committed the treachery.

Hence, those who understood clearly and were aware that what they did were the only ones who were killed. Those who didn’t understand the crime because they don’t know what was right or wrong (even though having pubic hair), were not touched.”

🌐

 All these in the line up were warriors guilty of the crime of treachery, and murder, whereas the lack of pubic hair spared them, as muslims say,

Saheeh Bukhari 
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 148: 

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: 
Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, “Get up for the best amongst you.” or said, “Get up for your chief.” Then the Prophet said, “O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sad said, “I judge that their WARRIORS should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives.” The Prophet said, “You have given a judgment similar to Allah’s Judgment (or the King’s judgment).” 

🌐

Logically, having pubic hairs is the determinant of the mental age of these boys as an established penal responsibility, whereas, natural physiology, was neglected regarding mental age and age of consent, by assuming through pubic hairs that indeed their mental ability were developed enough to be liable of penal responsibility, the problem is, pubic hairs cannot determine mental age or age of consent, as stated below:

“Mental age is a concept related to intelligence. It looks at how a specific child, at a specific age—usually today, now—performs intellectually, compared to average intellectual performance for that physical age, measured in years. The physical age of the child is compared to the intellectual performance of the child, based on performance in tests and live assessments by a psychologist. Scores achieved by the child in question are compared to scores in the middle of a bell curve for children of the same age [1]

However, mental age varies according to what kind of intelligence is measured. A child’s intellectual age can be average for his physical age but the same child’s emotional intelligence can be immature for his physical age. In this psychologists often remark girls are more emotionally mature than boys in the tween years. Also a six-year-old child intellectually gifted in Piaget terms, can remain a three-year-old child in terms of emotional maturity.[2] Mental age was once considered a controversial concept.[3]”

“Some countries refuse to set a fixed minimum age, but leave discretion to prosecutors to argue or the judges to rule on whether the child or adolescent (“juvenile”) defendant understood that what was being done was wrong. If the defendant did not understand the difference between right and wrong, it may not be considered appropriate to treat such a person as culpable. Alternatively, the lack of real fault in the offender can be recognized by rulings that dispense mitigated criminal sentences or address more practical matters of parental responsibility by adjusting the rights of parents to unsupervised custody, or by separate criminal proceedings against the parents for breach of their duties as parents.”

“There are many theories of the way in which children develop, proposed by authorities such as Urie Bronfenbrenner,[4] Jerome Bruner,[5] Erik EriksonJerome KaganLawrence KohlbergJean Piaget,[6] and Lev Vygotsky. Although they disagree about how stages of development should be defined, and about the primary influences on development, they agree that a child’s development can be measured as a predictable series of advances in physical, intellectual and social skills which almost always occur in the same sequence, although the rate may vary from one child to another.

When a child falls behind their peers at some stage of development, their teacher may perceive that the child is “backward”. There is strong evidence that this perception may become self-fulfilling: although the child catches up, the teacher may continue to rate their performance poorly, imposing a long-term handicap”

source: copy paste the particular texts in your browser for the possible sources)

🌐

As stated by these sources, the mental age of a person cannot be determined by mere pubic hair bec sometimes mental age is younger than the numerical age, thus even having pubic hair, some would actually be behind in mental ability to be liable for penal responsibility, thus pubic hair cannot be determinant of penal responsibility.

Bec of this natural reality, there is necessity to establish first the individual mental capacity of young offenders, thus the necessity of court procedure, with the help of psychologists and specialists. Meaning, due process must be required.

Muhammad did not have due process. He assumed the boys mental capacity as evidence for their guilt through pubic hairs, which, in real science, is inaccurate as some would be mentally younger than their age and sexual development such as growth of pubic hairs.

Conclusively, if penal responsibility through mental capacity was the reason of their punishment, then, muhammad may have killed innocent boys, though having pubic hairs has younger mental capacity thus inevitably not liable for penal responsibility.

Meaning, muhammad possibly killed innocent young boys!

How come?

He do not know or can measure mental age or mental capacity to know who has penal responsibility.

Clearly, your prophet killed boys through guess, hunch and presumption! NO CERTAINTY OF JUDGMENT!

Indeed a model of good conduct!🌙

REFUTING MUHAMMAD’S ‘UNRECITED REVELATION’ JUSTIFYING HIS MASSACRE OF JEWS 🌙

In my first post, I have explicitly shown the massacre of banu quraisha by Muhammad as murder and unlawful as it was not Qur’anic. There is nothing in Quran that justifies killing captives by virtue of the Torah and by conforming to a non-muslim’s verdict as basis for the massacre. As I reiterated, Quran is complete and fully detailed thus all Islamic sanctions must be by the Quran. Nothing in it suggests killing of captives by virtue of saad’s verdict and by the Torah.

Quran being the complete truth, therefore, impose the reality that all of muhammad’s action must at least have quranic basis, which the massacre of banu quraisha is traceless from it.

Nevertheless, muslims have defended it by bringing out the reality of “unrecited revelations” which they seem to say, justifies muhammad’s actions such as the massacre of banu quraisha, which are absent from any quranic ruling.

What are “unrecited revelations”?

These are revelations absent from the Qur’an during when it was not yet completed.

I want to refute that. I want to refute that Muhammad’s massacre of banu quraisha is justified.

I WILL PROVE BY SIMPLE LOGIC AND CONTEXT THAT INDEED MUHAMMAD WAS A MURDERER AND ALLAH A LIAR AS I PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED.

Firstly, I want to reinforce Islamic teaching. Indeed, there are two kinds of revelation given to muhammad, the recitation (the quran) and the “unrecited revelation”.

 

 


 

 

57:9 it is he who sends down the revelations (unrecited revelation and the quran)  to his slave (Muhammad) that he may bring you out from darkness to light.

 


 

A. THE QURAN AS THE FIRST KIND OF REVELATION!🌙

💀


“Ye without doubt, sent down the Message (quran) and We will certainly guard it (from corruption).”Qur’an 15:09


 

Quran 6:19] Say, “Whose testimony is the greatest?” Say, “God’s. He is the witness between me and you that this Quran has been inspired to me, to preach it to you and whomever it reaches. Indeed, you bear witness that there are other gods beside God.” Say, “I do not testify as you do; there is only one god, and I disown your idolatry.”

[Quran 6:38] We did not leave anything out of this book.

[Quran 7:52] We have given them a scripture that is fully detailed, with knowledge, guidance, and mercy for the people who believe.

[Quran 10:37] This Quran could not possibly be authored by other than God. It confirms all previous messages, and provides a fully detailed scripture. It is infallible, for it comes from the Lord of the universe.

[Quran 12:111] In their history, there is a lesson for those who possess intelligence. This is not fabricated Hadith; this (Quran) confirms all previous scriptures, provides the details of everything, and is a beacon and mercy for those who believe.

Quran 6:114] Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt. 

[Quran 6:115] The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.


Qur’an is “a guidance for mankind… and the distinction (between right and wrong).”Qur’an 2:185

Verily, We have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book for mankind in truth. So whosoever accepts the guidance, it is only for his own self; and whosoever goes astray, he goes astray only for his own loss.” Qur’an 39:41

🌙

CONCLUSION: QURAN IS COMPLETE IN TRUTH, FULLY DETAILED, A GUIDANCE AND CRITERION TO KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG, AND LASTLY, IT HAS EVERYTHING AS BEACON AND MERCY FOR BELIEVERS AND BY SAYING,

“We did not leave anything out of this book.”

IT MEANS, THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL RELIGIOUS TRUTH OUTSIDE QURAN THAT IS NEEDED, AS EVERYTHING IS IN IT, NOTHING IS LEFT OUTSIDE IT, THUS, QURAN IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF RELIGIOUS MATERIAL, OR THE BASIS OF RELIGIOUS TRUTH, OR THE BASIS FOR CLARIFICATION SUCH AS BY THE HADITHS.

B. THE “UNRECITED REVELATIONS” OR REVELATIONS ABSENT IN THE QURAN!🌙

A Muslim site explains:

This second kind of revelation is not contained in the Holy Qur’ân, but the Holy Qur’ân itself not only refers to it frequently but attributes its contents to Allâh Almighty. Some verses of the Holy Book are reproduced below which clearly prove that the “revelation” is not confined to the Holy Qur’ân, but there is another kind of “wahy” which does not form part of the “Holy Book,” yet it is the revelation from Allâh Almighty:

First Example: The Holy Qur’ân says:

 

And We did not appoint the Qiblah on which you were earlier, but that We might know the people who follow the Messenger as distinct from those who turn back on their heels. (2:143)

 

In order to understand the verse, it is necessary to know the background in which it was revealed:

In the early days of Madani life, after the Holy Prophet’s migration to Madinah, the Muslims were ordered to direct their faces in prayers towards Baytul-Maqdas (Jerusalem) which had been appointed as Qiblah of the Muslims. Up to seventeen months, the Muslims had been observing the Baytul-Maqdas as their Qiblah. It was after seventeen months that the Holy Qur’ân abrogated the earlier order and the Muslims were required to observe the Holy Mosque of Makkah as their Qiblah and turn their faces towards it while praying. The following verse was revealed to appoint the new Qiblah:

 

.So turn your face towards al-Masjid al-Haraam. (2:144)

This new order was criticized by some disbelievers and they objected on it as to why the Baytul-Maqdas was appointed as Qiblah earlier. The above quoted verse (2:143) was revealed to answer this objection. The answer was that the appointment of the former Qiblah was in order to test the people whether or not they follow the Messenger. To quote the meaning of the verse again:

And We did not appoint the Qiblah on which you were earlier, but that We might know the people who follow the Messenger. (2:143)

Here the appointment of the previous Qiblah has been attributed to Allâh Almighty, which is a clear indication to the fact that the appointment of Baytul-Maqdas as Qiblah was done by the order of Allâh Almighty Himself. But this order is nowhere in the Holy Qur’ân, and there is no verse in the Holy Book which directs the turning of faces towards Baytul-Maqdas. This order was given to Muslims by the Holy Prophet ( ) with no reference to any verse of the Holy Qur’ân. Still, this order was mentioned by the Holy Qur’ân in the above quoted verse as the order of Allâh: The words,

“We did not appoint the Qiblah,” instead of the words,

“The Holy Prophet did not.” are too clear on this point to need more explanation.

This statement of the Holy Qur’ân, thus, evidently proves that the previous order given by the Holy Prophet was based on a revelation which did not form part of the Book. And this is exactly the “unrecited revelation.” The verse of the Holy Qur’ân (2:143) quoted above proves the following facts:

(a) The Holy Prophet used to receive some revelations which are not contained in the Holy Qur’ân.

(b) These revelations were from Allâh Almighty, so much so that the orders based on such revelations were attributed to Allâh Almighty.

(c) The orders based on such revelation were as binding on the believers as the orders of the first kind of revelations, i.e. the verse of the Holy Qur’ân.

(d) These orders were sometimes given so as to test whether or not the Muslims follow the Messenger irrespective of the question that his orders are contained in the Holy Qur’ân or not.

🌙

Obviously, that justifies that indeed muhammad received “unrecited revelations” absent from the quran thus necessarily, every words or actions by muhammad as sanctioned by these “unrecited revelations” is likewise approved by allah and that, being universal laws are obligatory for the muslim community to follow as it say,

Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah. 

Qur’an 33:21

“Whoever does not believe in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared a blaze for the unbelievers.”

Al-Qur’an 48:13



🌙

THE MERE FACT THAT ALLAH PRESCRIBED MUHAMMAD AS A PATTERN OF CONDUCT AND THAT ANYONE WHO DONT BELIEVE HIM, WILL BE PUNISHED, NECESSITATES THE FACT THAT, HIS ACTIONS AS SANCTIONED BY QURAN AND THE “UNRECITED REVELATIONS” ARE PATTERNS OF CONDUCT FOR ALL.

Thus the massacre of banu quraisha by virtue of the Torah and a non-muslim’s verdict is a moral pattern for all Muslims in times of war, thus as a war pattern, muslims could use the specific torah law in killing captives or could summon a non-muslin to judge captives, and that as not exceeding the limits of religion.

These are the bounds, the limits set by Allah. Do not then transgress them for who transgress them are evil doers. [Surah Al-Baqarah (2): Ayah 229],

and in Surah Al-Talq, Ayah 1, Allah says:

And those are the set limits of Allah and whosoever transgresses the set limits of Allah then he indeed has wronged himself.”


BY THESE, THE CONTEXTUAL RELATIONSHIP OF THESE TRUTH, USING LOGIC, IT CONCLUDES THAT INDEED MUHAMMAD IS A MURDERER, AND ALLAH, PROMOTING MURDER AS MORAL CONDUCT, OBVIOUSLY MAKES HIMSELF DEMONIC.

How did I come to that conclusion?

Firstly, Allah said, that nothing is left out from the quran, complete and fully detailed.

“We did not leave anything out of this book.”

“The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice.”

“Provides the details of everything”

“This book fully detailed”

Logically, if anything is not left out of the book, it means no truth is left outside quran meaning all truth is in quran, implying, all universal truth, as quran is complete in truth. Universal truth in the sense that it is truth that transcends through generations meant for all mankind, thus all truth, that is religious in nature, such as laws and doctrine from adam, to abraham, to moses and jesus, to muhammad being universal truth are all intact in the quran as it is a book of complete universal truth so as claimed:

“We did not leave anything out of this book.”

The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice.”



QURAN IS COMPLETE IN TRUTH.

what truth is that?

The sunnah of Allah that cannot change that is a criterion of morality since Adam to Muhammad as it say,

“you will not find in the way (sunnah) of Allāh any change.”

Qur’an is “a guidance for mankind… and the distinction (between right and wrong)



Obviously, quran as complete in truth means complete with all universal religious truth such as laws and doctrine since Adam to Muhammad. Meaning, quran is the conglomeration of all universal religious laws.

Those from the past from Adam to Jesus to muhammad which are not universal truth are obviously not included in the quran likewise revelations which are abrogated, if necessary, likewise abrogated unrecited revelations, if necessary are not included but all universal truth such as religious laws are complete in quran, as a criterion to know good from evil.

 “a guidance for mankind… and the distinction (between right and wrong).”



Logically, all aspect of right and wrong can be discerned by quran as it is complete in truth, meaning, quran has all universal law applicable in all aspect of right or wrong.

What are universal laws in aspect of religion?

A Muslim site explains:

These universal laws of Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) are not just restricted to matters pertaining to nature alone, rather they extend to the manner in which Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) deals with mankind, whether that be related to the way in which Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) guides, brings happiness, provides, gives victory, destroys nations, relieves people from distress, causes progress, failure and gives safety, and more. Many of these laws (sunan) that are related to societies and human interaction are fixed and determined just like the universal laws are too. Thus if a believer wants to understand how Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) interacts with His creation it is a necessity that he studies and reflects over such sunan which have been mentioned throughout the Qur’ān and Sunnah.

An example of such sunan is the way in which Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) deals with the hypocrites. Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) says:

“If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is disease and those who spread rumors in al-Madīnah do not cease, We will surely incite you against them; then they will not remain your neighbors therein except for a little. Accursed wherever they are found, [being] seized and massacred completely. [This is] the established way (sunnah) of Allāh with those who passed on before; and you will not find in the way (sunnah) of Allāh any change.”[5]

Imam at-Tabari in his exegesis commented on the last part of the verse: “and you will not find in the way (sunnah) of Allāh any change.” Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) is saying to His Prophet Muhammad (subḥānahu wa ta’āla):  “You will not find, O Muhammad, any change with regards to the sunnah of Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) that he has decreed for His creation. So be sure to know that He is not going to change His sunnah for these hypocrites.”[6]

Likewise Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta’āla) says:

“And they swore by Allāh their strongest oaths that if a warner came to them, they would be more guided than [any] one of the [previous] nations. But when a warner came to them, it did not increase them except in aversion. [Due to] arrogance in the land and plotting of evil; but the evil plot does not encompass except its own people. Then do they await except the way (sunnah) of the former peoples? But you will never find in the way (sunnah) of Allāh any change, and you will never find in the way of Allāh any alteration.”[7]

🌙

Meaning, universal laws are transcendent laws for all mankind, from Adam to muhammad which were not abrogated and not exclusive for a certain people or tribe. Universal laws are laws applicable for all mankind and would never changed intended throughout time. These has not changed or will be changed. These includes “unrecited revelations” which are universal laws.

THEREFORE, UNIVERSAL LAWS ARE RELIGIOUS LAWS FROM ADAM TO MUHAMMAD MEANT FOR MANKIND WHICH CANNOT BE CHANGED AS IMPLIED,

“you will not find in the way (sunnah) of Allāh any change.”

Therefore, quran being complete in truth suggests, it is the complete book that contains the complete universal, religious truth such as laws and doctrines. Logically, “unrecited revelations” which are universal laws, though possibly, not included in the incomplete quran during when it was yet under the process of completion, but when quran was finally completed in truth, it necessarily must have included all universal truth such as all “unrecited revelations” which are universal truth in essence.

How come?

Bec quran is complete in truth implying complete with the universal laws of Allah that cannot be altered. And that nothing about the sunnah of allah that cannot be changed, implying universal laws, are left outside the quran meaning, all sunnah (universal laws) of allah that is immutable or unchangeable is in quran, so as the verses imply.

We did not leave anything out of this book.”

The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice.”

you will not find in the way (sunnah) of Allāh any change.”



Meaning, quran as complete in truth, which truth, are those sunnah of allah that cannot change, since Adams time, these are universal laws, logically speaking, including of course “unrecited revelations” which are universal laws in essence, too, as universal laws are for all mankind, thus necessarily, it must be revealed in the quran, too.

MUHAMMAD’S MASSACRE OF BANU QURAISHA BY VIRTUE OF THE TORAH AND BY VIRTUE OF A NON-MUSLIM’S VERDICT, IS IT A UNIVERSAL LAW?

whether it is by “unrecited revelation” or not, if it is a universal law, quran being complete in universal, religious truth and no truth is left outside it, that massacre “war ethics” being a universal law should have been in the quran, but is it?

The war ethics of massacre of captives by virtue of the Torah or by virtue of a non-muslim’s verdict is a universal law as Islamic ruling in times of war bec of the fact that it was not abrogated, and being a conduct of Muhammad being the model of morality must be as required, emulated as proper conduct in times of war.

 

 

 

“Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.-Qur’an 33:21

Allah did not permit Muhammad to do something he did not allow, bec when he did at one time, Allah rebuked him and say,

Why did you allow what allah did not permits?”

Logically, massacre of captives by virtue of the Torah or by virtue of a non-muslim’s verdict, being not abrogated and not specifically, prohibitted and Muhammad being an example of good conduct, makes his act as a universal law, and being in that status, massacre of captives by virtue of a non-muslim’s verdict, must have been in the quran as quran is a complete book of truth such as universal religious laws.

The fact that this war ethics is absent in quran, it makes it inevitably as a lawless crime, thus Muhammad as perpetrator makes him lawless and murderer!

These are the bounds, the limits set by Allah. Do not then transgress them for who transgress them are evil doers. [Surah Al-Baqarah (2): Ayah 229],

And Allah exalting him as model of good conduct, despite Muhammad doing something he did not permits makes it a lawless act. Muhammad being a model of moral conduct, therefore requires lawlessness and murder as good conduct, therefore, assailing himself by saying, do not exceed limits of religion, but then, requiring people to go beyond religious limits, Muhammad as the model, who kills without Quranic sanction,for them, too, to murder even without divine sanction!
why?

Bec they have to emulate Muhammad as Allah required.

Conclusively, Muhammad without divine sanction did massacre a tribe and Allah patronizing it as good conduct makes the two, an evil tandem. One a murderer, the other pushing others to be murderers.

These in essence are traits of Satan.

MUHAMMAD MISUSED THE TORAH FOR HIS MASSACRE OF JEWS 🌙

A Muslim site says:


{Such was Our) system in the case of those whom We sent before you {to mankind), and you will never find change in Our system. (Surah Bani Israil, 17:77)”

🌎

CONCLUSION: UNIVERSAL LAWS OF ALLAH SINCE THE PAST ARE UNALTERABLE AND STILL, IN EFFECT!

WHAT ARE THE UNIVERSAL LAWS?

Islam defined it in this verse:


“Say (O Muslims): ‘We believe in Allaah and that which has been sent down to us and that which has been sent down to Ibraaheem (Abraham), Ismaa’eel (Ishmael), Ishaaq (Isaac), Ya‘qoob (Jacob), and to Al-Asbaat [the offspring of the twelve sons of Ya‘qoob (Jacob)], and that which has been given to Moosa (Moses) and ‘Isa (Jesus), and that which has been given to the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted (in Islam)’” [al-Baqarah 2:136] 

“O you who believe! Believe in Allaah, and His Messenger (Muhammad), and the Book (the Qur’aan) which He has sent down to His Messenger, and the Scripture which He sent down to those before (him); and whosoever disbelieves in Allaah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, then indeed he has strayed far away”[al-Nisaa’ 4:136] 

Therefore all existing laws in their books given to these such as moses and jesus are universal laws and are still in effect, if by context, it is not exclusive for a particular person or group.

MUHAMMAD USED A SPECIFIC TORAH LAW FOR MURDER OF A TRIBE, clarifying further that indeed the Torah (law) of moses is a universal law that must be practiced by the Muslims, implying, every universal law in moses book!

MUHAMMAD MASSACRED A TRIBE BY USING THE TORAH AS REFERENCE!

The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sa`d bin Mu`adh. So the Prophet sent for Sa`d, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, “Get up for your chief or for the best among you.” Then the Prophet said (to Sa`d).” These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sa`d said, “KILL THEIR WARRIORS and take their offspring as captives, “On that the Prophet said, “You have judged according to Allah’s Judgment,” or said, “according to the King’s judgement.”(Sahih al-Bukhari volume 5, Book 59, Hadith 447)

HERE IS A SCHOLAR EXPLAINING THE WHOLE SCENARIO:

Dr F Ajmeri – Dawat-Ul Quran – Surah Ahzab 33:26 commentary – Volume 3, Pages 1448-1449:

“Refers to, Bani Quraizah who lived in the eastern part of Medina and were Jews. The Prophet (S.A.W.) hade made an agreement with them after migration, but they did not keep their part of the covenant, and at the time of the Battle of the Trench they broke their covenant and assisted the enemy. When the Prophet (S.A.W.) returned from the Battle of the Trench, Jibril (Peace be upon him) came with the message from Allah that he should turn to Bani Quraizah without delay and military action be taken against the said tribe. Therefore, the Prophet at once turned to go towards their colony with his companions, and there he surrounded their place. The siege lasted for 25 days after which they came down from their fortress on this condition that their matter should be decided by the chief of the tribe of Aus, Sa’ad bin Ma’az, who was their ally. Accordingly, the judgment given by Sa’ad (R) was:
“All their males who are able to fight should be killed, their women and children should be made captive, and their properties should be distrubuted…


On this Prophet (S.A.W.) said that he have judgment according to the divine command. This judgment of Sa’ad bin Ma’az (R) is according to the Torah, in which this law of fighting has been enunciated:

“When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when The Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which The Lord your God has given you. (Det 20 :10 to 14 – RSV.)

In this way the Jewish Bani Quraizah were removed for Medina. Such a harsh attitude was taken against them because before this a tribe of the Jews, Bani Nadir, had also broken their covenant and they were allowed to leave with their women and children with some property, in spite of their conspiracies and broken promises. But from here also they continued hatching conspiracies against Muslims and troubling them. The Bani Quraizah broke their covenant in such an emergent situation that the idolaters had laid siege with a very huge army and were about to attack Muslims, on such an occasion the Jews stabbed their allies in the back, therefore it was inevitable that such traitors were given the severest punishment. It may be noted that the number of those who were gives was not more than 800 and the number of women and children who were taken into prisoners was about 1000. – (Ghazwah Bani Quraiz

🌎

THE REASON THEY KILLED THEM WAS BEC THEY TOOK THEIR RIGHT FROM THE TORAH as it say:
On this Prophet (S.A.W.) said that he have judgment according to the divine command. This judgment of Sa’ad bin Ma’az (R) is according to the Torah, in which this law of fighting has been enunciated:

“When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when The Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which The Lord your God has given you. (Det 20 :10 to 14 – RSV.)

🌎

LOGICAL ANALYSIS:
Muhammad massacred his Jew captives by virtue of the Torah law, and as IRFI war ethics say, captives who sworn not to war Islam would be killed after such a time when they break their promise and then fight Muslims again, which as we see is the case of banu quraisha.

The question is, there was no specific islamic ruling Muhammad based his judgment from to massacre them but he took authority from the Torah law as universal law which according to allah is yet in effect, yet, if we look at it closely, the torah was exclusive for Israel to follow as explicitly shown below. Exclusive for Israel as it was a law contextually with destroying Hittites, Canaanites, amorites etc….thus it was a law only for Israel!

Muslims say that there are random alteration in the bible, thus inevitably, even the Torah has corruption. Only those confirmed by quran are not thus otherwise than what quran confirms, bible torah is unreliable, yet it cannot be denied that there are parts of the torah that is exclusive for Israel such as sabbath (confirmed in Quran) and priesthood as these are not Islamic, but confirmed in the Quran.



Quran confirms the Jewish priesthood, thus it was one of the ordained law for Israel as described in the Torah.



Lo! We did reveal the At-Taurah, 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, sura 5 (Al-Ma’ida), ayat 44[1]


Even sabbath was confirmed by Quran.


YUSUFALI: And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.” (2:65)

YUSUFALIAsk them concerning the town standing close by the sea. Behold! they transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath. For on the day of their Sabbath their fish did come to them, openly holding up their heads, but on the day they had no Sabbath, they came not: thus did We make a trial of them, for they were given to transgression. (7:163)


These Quranic texts confirm the Torah law of sabbath and priesthood, which muslims do not follow.

Why do muslims reject sabbath and priesthood as a law?

They said, it is abrogated.

Quran likewise confirms one of the revelations given to moses:

And [remember] when Moses said to his people: ‘O my people, call in remembrance the favour of God unto you, when he produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave to you what He had not given to any other among the peoples. O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.'” [Qur’an 5:20-21]

🌎

As we can see, Allah’s revelation to moses as confirmatory of the Torah was verified by quran saying, israel was given to the israelites, therefore, it implied, an exclusive law for Israel, thus when it say, believe the books of moses it probably mean, the universal laws in these books must be practiced, and the exclusive laws in these meant particularly for a person or tribe such as israel is exclusive for that person or tribe only.

Thus, Allah’s revelation consistently from the past to present has in it universal laws as well as exclusive laws for certain individuals. The things muslims follow are the universal laws confirmed in the quran.

The question therefore is, how is the verse in the Torah about “killing all male captives” a universal law and not exclusive for Israel?

Here is a premise:

 

 

🌎

The Islamic defender/scholar said, Quran (textbook A) is clarified and explained by the hadith’s (textbook B), therefore Muhammad’s killing of captives (textbook B) as referred from Torahs “kill all male __captives” is a clarification and explanation for the Quran (textbook A).

Question!

Where in Quran (textbook A) did it say to kill captives by virtue of the torah as the actions of muhammad killing Jew captives by virtue of the torah (textbook B) were clarificatory to it?

This is what is in the Quran:

 “And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided (Quran 17:33).”

 In other words, killing is permitted only when it is justified, what justifies killing captives?

None. There are only two provision for muslims regarding captives. One, generosity, to free by mercy. Two, to free by ransom.

If you meet in battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks. Then, if you have thoroughly subdued them, the bind them firmly, so there will be a time for either generosity or ransom for them until cessation of the war.” [Sûrah Muhammad: 4]


GENEROSITY OR RANSOM, that is the only provision regarding the fate of captives, if not, what justifies killing captives as written in the Quran, Muhammad’s actions being clarificatory to it?

If none, conclusively,

MUHAMMAD MISUSED THE TORAH FOR HIS BLOODLUST TO KILL PEOPLE. HE IS A MURDERER, WITHOUT NO GODLY BEARING AT ALL!

Some say though, Muhammad has revelations outside Quran, thus there were actions he did outside Quranic ruling.

A rebuttal by someone:

. “If we interpret 53:1-5 as “whatever prophet says is revelation (outside Qur’an)” then what about the following verses:

May Allah pardon you, ; why did you give them permission ? Until it was evident to you who were truthful and you knew  the liars. [Qur’an 09:43]

So, here we see Allah pointing out that Muhammad gave a wrong command.

O Prophet, why do you prohibit what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. [Qur’an 66:01]

Here we observe that prophet made the mistake of forbidding something which Allah did not forbid.

My question is, if 53:1-5 means that whatever prophet ordered or did out of free-will is revelation from Allah, how can prophet make mistakes as shown in the above ayats?”

💀

Logically, what it means by “whatever prophet say is revelation” concerns everything he says regarding Quran and not his personal words, bec his personal words are sometimes wrong therefore his personal words were not allahs revelation thus when he said, 

“On this Prophet (S.A.W.) said that he have judgment according to the divine command.”

Referring to Torahs “kill all male captives” as his basis for killing jew captives, it could either be his personal words, which in essence could be wrong as he was wrong before or it could be a revelation. If a revelation, it must be in the quran.

53:1-5

By the star when it descends, your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed, taught to him by one intense .

As suggested by these, whatever Muhammad therefore do, in regards to the muslims as a collective acts must have necessary ruling from the Quran, logically speaking, as actions otherwise than Quran, sometimes he erred as presented above thus when Allah said, whatever Muhammad say or do is his revelation, and that regarding it, he never erred, it is therefore emphatically referring, to muhammad’s words or actions sanctioned by Quranic ruling, as otherwise Muhammad erred which is inconsistent with what Allah said that muhammad don’t err, meaning, he don’t err regarding Quranic revelation, whereas, his personal inkling sometimes were wrong.

MEANING, EVERY WORDS/ACTIONS OF MUHAMMAD CONSIDERED TO BE FROM ALLAH’S REVELATION WERE THOSE ONLY SANCTIONED BY QURAN, AND NOT OUTSIDE IT!

It is corroborated by the claim that Quran is “complete” revelation! Or fully detailed, Meaning, all laws are in Quran, which by the hadiths are clarified, therrefore muhammads deeds in the hadiths such as killing captives must have quranic basis.

Quran 6:114] Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt. 

[Quran 6:115] The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice.

When Quran is fully detailed, complete in truth, and it did not say, Muhammad can teach things which are not in it, rationally, every teaching muhammad teach that is not in Qur’an therefore  is false.

Why?

Bec Qur’an is full or complete, and without specification of extra-quranic teachings suggests that every teaching must have Qur’anic basis.

4:171

:

O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth.


And bec you must not exceed the limits that Quran is the sole basis of truth and hadith’s are mere clarificatory to it, the question therefore is, where in quran did allah permits killing captives or did quran permitted Muhammad to use torah or any mans verdict such as saad as basis to kill captives as i cannot see anything?

If none, conclusively, Muhammad exceeds and transgressed the limits thus, a murderer.

These are the bounds, the limits set by Allah. Do not then transgress them for who transgress them are evil doers. [Surah Al-Baqarah (2): Ayah 229],

and in Surah Al-Talq, Ayah 1, Allah says:

And those are the set limits of Allah and whosoever transgresses the set limits of Allah then he indeed has wronged himself.


THEREFORE, MUHAMMAD MISUSED THE TORAH FOR HIS BLOODLUST TO KILL PEOPLE. HE IS A MURDERER, WITHOUT NO GODLY BEARING AT ALL!

And Allah?

. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error. [Quran 33:36]

Therefore Allah upholds Muhammad’s massacre of banu quraisha but then, ALLAH IS A LIAR TO HAVE GLORIFIED MUHAMMAD’S MASSACRE OF JEWS BY VIRTUE OF THE TORAH AND SAAD’S VERDICT , IF SO, THAT THIS IS NOT HIS REVELATION FOR MUHAMMAD TO DO, WHICH IF IT IS, THEN NECESSARILY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN THE QURAN!

So where in the Quran any ruling of killing captives by virtue of the Torah or by virtue of a non-muslim’s verdict (saad)?

AND WHERE DID ALLAH REVEALED TO HIM THAT THE TORAH “KILL ALL MALE CAPTIVES” IS A UNIVERSAL LAW THUS APPLICABLE FOR KILLING THE TRIBE AND NOT EXCLUSIVE FOR ISRAEL?

If none, it is confirmatory of Muhammad as murderer and Allah, a liar!

REFUTING MUHAMMAD’S “UNRECITED REVELATION” JUSTIFYING HIS MASSACRE OF JEWS…Read here:  open me!