"Explore the life of the Prophet Muhammad,"


Muslims are putting up billboards with the message, “Explore the life of the Prophet Muhammad,”

A consensus Muslim account of the massacre of the Qurayza has emerged as conveyed by classical Muslim scholars of hadith (sayings of Muhammad), biographer’s of Muhammad’s life (especially Ibn Ishaq), jurists, and historians. This narrative is summarized as follows. Alleged to have aided the forces of Muhammad’s enemies in violation of a prior pact, the Qurayza were subsequently isolated and besieged. Twice the Qurayza made offers to surrender, and depart from their stronghold, leaving behind their land and property. Initially they requested to take one camel load of possessions per person, but when Muhammad refused this request, the Qurayza asked to be allowed to depart without any property, taking with them only their families. However, Muhammad insisted that the Qurayza surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgment. Compelled to surrender, the Qurayza were lead to Medina. The men with their hands pinioned behind their backs, were put in a court, while the women and children were said to have been put into a separate court. A third (and final) appeal for leniency for the Qurayza was made to Muhammad by their tribal allies the Aus. Muhammad again declined, and instead he appointed as arbiter Sa’d Mu’adh from the Aus, who soon rendered his concise verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims.

Muhammad ratified the judgment stating that Sa’d’s decree was a decree of God pronounced from above the Seven Heavens. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were lead on Muhammad’s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance. Male youths who had not reached puberty were spared. Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions. According to Muhammad’s biographer Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad chose one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza’s property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as additional “booty” among the Muslims.


Muhammad attacked Khaibar. He destroyed, tortured, murdered, plundered, and enslaved many people (ref Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, volume 2, page 134, 136, 137). They were not preparing to attack him. A Jewish woman, whose family had been wiped out by Muhammad, put poison into a lamb and fed it to Muhammad and the other Muslims. Muhammad ingested some of the poisoned lamb and began to feel it’s effects. He died three years later as a result of the poisoning.



scary. and he was the divine example of human nature?


How is this different from the Israelites destroying every city they came across to kick the Canaanites out of the land they wanted?


Do you know what Banu Quraza did to deserve this punishment?


It is my impression that the Jewish people rejected Muhammad.


Utterly amazing. Is this true?

If so, I can’t believe how many violent incidents I’ve read regarding Muhammed. He seemed to have led a very violent life and brought destruction to countless others, not to mention his immediate followers who followed his pattern. It’s quite interesting that most people outside the Muslim-majority part of the world, including Westerners, don’t know about this.


The Muslim response I recieved stated that the Jewish tribe insulted a Muslim woman and broke Mohammed’s treaty which forced them to pay taxes and contribute to war.


Was it Fox News Neil Cavuto Show where I saw that billboards
had been erected in South Florida by CAIR exhorting people to
*Explore *the life of Muhammad? That was today on my lunch break at work. Well, you know, I hope they get what they wish for. People can learn about this great warlord/charlatan/pervert. Yes indeed.


It is collective guilt then? All should punished for the deeds of some? Then by your own measure ALL Muslims should be held accountable for the autrocities some Muslims have committed. That is only logicial isn’t it? So, who would you like your earthly judge to be?


Because this thread isn’t about the Isrealites. Stay on topic.


God commanded it. Plus, it was an evil civilization steeped in things such as human sacrifice. But God commanding it is enough.



The next were the Banu Quraiza. Soon after the Battle of the Trench was over, Muhammad claimed that the Archangel Gabriel had visited him “asking that he should unsheathe his sword and head for the habitation of the seditious Banu Quraiza and fight them. Gabriel noted that he with a procession of angels would go ahead to shake their forts and cast fear in their hearts.” (2) Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 443
It is not clear why the Archangel needed Muslim’s help to wipe out the Jews if he had “a procession of angels” who would shake their forts. Nevertheless, “the Messenger of Allâh immediately summoned the prayer caller and ordered him to announce fresh hostilities against Banu Quraiza,” (2)
Muhammad headed an army of three thousand infantry men and thirty horsemen of Ansar (Helpers) and Muhajireen (Emigrants).
[FONT=Arial]The Banu Quraiza was attacked for not supporting Muhammad when the Quraish attacked Medina**.** Ali sworn that he would never stop until he either storms their garrisons or be killed. This siege lasted 25 days. Finally the Banu Qurayza surrendered unconditionally. Muhammad ordered that the men be handcuffed, while the women and children were isolated in confinement. Thereupon Al-Aws tribe interceded begging the Prophet to be lenient towards them. Muhammad suggested that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, a former ally, be deputed to give verdict about them, and they agreed.
Sa’d’s verdict who had received as a serious wound in the previous Battle of the Confederates was “that all the able-bodied male persons belonging to the tribe should be killed, women and children taken prisoners and their wealth divided among the Muslim fighters.” Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280
[FONT=Arial]One wonders why Muhammad who claimed to be the messenger of Allah and in contact with him needed the judgment of a human. Yet this most cruel verdict was precisely what pleased him and he "accepted his judgment saying that Sa‘d had adjudged by the Command of Allâh."
Al-Bubarapouri adds that “In fact, the Jews deserved that severe punitive action for the ugly treachery they had harbored against Islam, and the large arsenal they have amassed and which consisted of one thousand and five hundred swords, two thousand spears, three hundred armours and five hundred shields, all of which went into the hands of the Muslims.” (4)
**The Muslims historians have been quick to bring the same baseless alibis to justify their raids against their victims like, they were “mischievous”, causing “sedition” or being “treacherous” and “harboring against Islam”. However no specifics exists as of the nature of those sins to warrant such a sever punishment and their total genocide. **
Trenches were dug in the bazaar of Madinah and a number of Jews between six and nine hundred were beheaded therein.




Huyai, Ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Bani Nadeer and Safiyah’s father was captured in this siege and brought to the Prophet with his hands tied to his neck with a rope. In an audacious defiance he rejected Muhammad and preferred to be beheaded than submitting to his Religion by force. He was ordered to sit down and was beheaded on the spot.
To separate men from the boys, the youngsters were examined and if they had grown any pubic hair, it was enough to behead them.

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4390
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.
If anyone cannot see that this is NOT how a messenger of God should behave cannot claim to have grasped the meaning of humanness. I believe the cruelty of what the Prophet did to the Jews of Arabia are self-explanatory and any fair-minded person would acknowledge that. **It is inconceivable that a messenger of God could kill between 600 to 900 people and banish thousands more with no feelings or compassion. **

[FONT=Arial]The man we call the Prophet, was full of hate. He thought of nothing but killing, brought nothing but death, taught nothing but vengeance. Muhammad was not a “mercy of God to mankind” but the curse of devil to humanity. Not only in his life he killed and banished all the Jews he could lay hand on, in his dead bed he instructed his followers to continue with the ethnic cleansing that he had initiated.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288
The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders one of them was to Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Allah’s Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.’ "
**This man was a hoodlum not a messenger of God, he was a thief, a gangster and a highway robber. He enriched himself with the wealth of his victims. **

[FONT=Arial]Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
People used to give some of their datepalms to the Prophet (as a gift), till he conquered Bani Quraiza and Bani An-Nadir, whereupon he started returning their favors.
If you still believe that Muhammad was a messenger of God. Think to yourself what has happened to your humanity.

[FONT=Arial]I am not going to go into details on the massacre of the Banu Qurayza because there is a great detailed and revealing article on them that you can read in the following link.
What really happened to the Banu Qurayza?

The article in the above link describes the massacre of the Banu Quraiza and the reason why the Prophet chose Sa’d bin Mu’adh as the arbitrator. This is a must read to understand Muhammad and his true character. It should be read is sequence.
Part 1: The siege, the surrender & the intercession of al-Aus
Part 2: Who is Sad bin Muadh?
Part 3: Appointment of Sad bin Muadh, his judgment, its execution and conclusions

The Invasion of Banu Qainuqa

The Invasion of Bani Nadir


other links



you’re right, it sound like the purpose of this thread is to encourage the Islamophodia I find here, not to explore a point. Forgive me.

And by the way, Allah probably told Mohammed to do it. Telling me that god told them to do it is a weak excuse. The god that the Canaanites believed in told them to commit whatever atrocious crimes they commited. Belief is a powerful thing.


CAIR asks people to explore the life of Mohammed. People on this thread give information from muslim sources (Sahih Bukhari, Sunan Abu-Dawud) and this encourages Islamophobia? Are Sahih Bukhari and Sunan Abu-Dawud Islamophobics?


Nothing to forgive. My apologies if I was short with you. To be honest I came to this forum to learn about our brothers who worshiped the God of Abraham from Muslims. What I have learned from the vast majority of Muslim members of this forum is that Islam is a sham, full of contradictions and fabricated information. I used to view Islam as a legitimate faith. Now I see it in the same light as Mormonism or the JWs. I still try to learn. I think many members of this forum have had the same or similar experiences. This is not Islamophobia, my friend; it is recognizing Islam for what it is, a lie. I do not fear it, but I will not allow the lie to continue unchallenged.


OR (more likely) the invading Hebrew barbarianscommitted horrible war crimes and when they got around to writing their history centuries later they explained their atrocities by saying “God commanded it”.

As for Mohammed’s behavior, I have no sympathy for him or for Islam but we should all realize that tender feelings toward civilians are quite recent in the history of warfare. In sieges, it is the tradition for thousands of years was that if a city didn’t surrender everyone would be killed or enslaved. After all, it was the besieging army at risk, running short on rations, exposed to elements, and possibly to attack from troops allied to the city they’re besieging.

Wars, sadly, take on a life of their own. “Kill the men and rape the women” has been SOP for all armies world wide since there have been armies. The first Geneva Convention was not until the end of the nineteenth century. Since then things have improved some, but I don’t think we’ve improved hugely since the Israelites’ day or Mohammed’s.


:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:


While didymus presents some very valid points, and we must always be wary to attribute modern sensibilities to historical persons and events, it seems most Muslims today see the actions of Muhammad as not only morally acceptable at the time of the event, but currently as well. I do wonder why Muslims rant and rave when all Muslims are accused of being criminals due to the actions of some Muslims. Isn’t that what Muhammad did? So that should be perfectly acceptable and admirable, right?


I explored enough of Islam to know that I want nothing to do with it.

I have no problem with Muslims, as long as they leave me alone and they do not try to convert me. I believe in a sort of resurgent Truman Doctrine—you stay on your side of the wire, I’ll stay on mine. I do not wish to have any contact with their religion, their culture, or their laws.

Oil and water don’t mix, and Islam will never assimilate with Western culture. One or the other will win out and whichever one does, that culture will predominate to the detriment of the other.

I fully realize that according to the prevailing culture of political correctness, that makes me a bigot and all the rest of the labels usually applied to those like myself who persist in rendering value judgements unemcumbered by societal relativism.

So be it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.