To Authentic Truth-Seekers:
Twenty yrs ago as an undergraduate I took a course on Islamic civilization,
instructed by a converted Muslim.
The third week into the class, one of the three books in curriculum displayed
a very tightly-written synopsis of Muhammad's hijara to Medina.
After two years of relative peace-able coexistence with Jews who had overseen
this oasis trading center, in the face of a power and controlling-interest
impasse, Muhammad was given another revelation. In the night with his
henchmen, 600 jewish leaders were slain by the sword as they slept...a
virtual coup d'etat.
The text's page displayed a footnote at the bottom: Islamic historians
begrudgingly acknowledge this (as the material genesis of a religion, my
paranthetical).
For anyone to put forth a Muhammad linkage to Christ, who was a slaughtered
lamb, is the height of Satanic Verse.
After Medina (in 632 A.D.) was so brutally overtaken, another travesty
ensued. For millennia, the Arabian peninsula carried a tradition, called razz
ias. Caravans would fight for the booty, yet only with a time-honored code
of conduct, where no weapons would be brandished. It was a rough-and-tumble
sport of the day.
The blood- and power-craven False Prophet and his followers attacked caravans
with the sword, overtaking the peninsula rapidly, and by surprise.
Although I know and love many Muslims and am a practicing non-denominational
spiritualist, I cannot let these facts go unnoticed by you and yours.
Compare the bloody fountainhead of Islam with the humble and
non-materialistic origin of Chistianity (Jews killed him because he would not
physically overtake their oppressors), and you will become a seeker of truth
who finds the keys to salvation.
Sincerely yours,
mvans1157 (no name for concerns about any Shiite-based vengence)
Dear friend
History is never basic, nor is it black or white. The history you quote me is
an orientalist stance that I've come across many times before. Seeming you bring up
the slaying of the 600 Jews first, I'll discuss it as I can see it troubles you in some respect. I'll make it basic for your understanding, as I feel you have unfairly ripped out an event from it's proper historical context.
As the story goes, the Prophet Muhammed
(Peace be upon him) formed an alliance with a Jewish tribe,
the Qurayza. In the heat of battle, they betrayed Prophet Muhammads army and allied with the pagan Meccans (As it seemed the latter was winning the war). When the
Muslims overcame the Meccan army, and they surrendered. There was the issue of dealing with those who
committed treason, the specific Jewish tribe in question. The Qurayza came out
of their fort and surrendered, a chieftan of the (Jewish) Aws tribe supported
the Qurayza stating that "O Apostle, they were our allies. Treat them as
you treated the allies of our brethren, the Khazraj." Prophet Muhammed
(pbuh) replied "Will you be satisfied, O Aws, if one of your own number pronounces
judgement on them?". Joyfully they agreed, and the Qurayza breathed huge
sighs of relief. Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) sent for Sa'd ben Muadh. He was injured badly
during the war and had only a few days to live. He got up from his bed to
pronounce judgement on the Qurayza. His fellow tribesman of Aws surged around
him, "Deal kindly with our friends. Remember our alliance. The Prophet has
named you, knowing your mercy." Sa'd faced the Qurayza and said "The
time has come for me to think of God's cause and care not for any man's
blame." He then condemned every man of them to death. Every tribe and clan
(including Jewish) participated in the executions so that none of them would
bear blood guilt. Muslim historians in relating this event blame it on the
painful wound which had impassioned the mind of Sa'd and made him vengeful, so
that he betrayed the Prophet's kindly intentions. It is Western historians who
blame the whole episode on the Prophet. Forgetting the fact that Qurayza, by
breaking their word, had become outlaw, and by doing it in war, they were
punished in the extreme way we still punish traitors. Treason has always been met with capital
punishment, in both East and West. And for the Jewish tribe to betray their allies in the most critical juncture of the war, was even worse.
The point here is, the Prophet did not pass judgement for the Qurayza to be
executed, and even if he did, military and political convention gives him the justification to do so for what the Jewish tribe did.
The women and children of the Qurayza were sold into slavery, but interestingly,
guess who mass participated in this commercial endeavour?. The Jews of Madninah.
Betty Kalen in her book "Muhammad the Messenger of God" says in a
conlcuding note on this episode
"It is really quite fruitless to fix blame on a desert chieftan for behaving according to the customs of his kind or to wonder why God should speak to us through such a man. It is better to look at the deeds of man at large and wonder that God should choose to speak to us at all."
Honestly, what is wrong with your basic history of Islam?. Madina (or Medina) was never brutally overtaken, the Prophet was welcomed to the city in 622CE (not 632CE, the year the Prophet died). And Makkah (or Mecca) peacefully surrendered in 630CE. And the Prophet gave clemency to all those who used to persecute him.
The Prophet never attacked caravans (unless in a state of warfare of the opposing army). It was the succeeding centuries in which bands of nomadic Arabs did so. This is no fault of the Prophet. We don't accuse Jesus for the Crusades, inquisitions and colonial exploitation that were done by Christians, in his name also.
Islam was never spread by the sword, if that was so their would not be a single Arab Christian walking the Earth today. It was the truth of Islam that brought my forefathers into its fold, and brings many adherents everyday. The Quran makes no mention of sword, and Western historians today acknowledge that Islam was never spread by force. Unlike
Jesus (pbuh), the slaughtered
Lamb, who said
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Matt 10:34
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
LUKE 12:51
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
LUKE 19:27
I'm sure the Prince of Peace if given a bit more time, his words would have translated into action. The intention says more the action in many cases.
I'm not doubting you love Muslims (the usual evangelist tactic), but you clearly show an ingrained hatred for Islam and its Prophet. While this is not new, it's also not new by the very fact that you pick up on the same lines of flawed argument to prove a point. As 20 years have gone by, you really have to update and refresh your knowledge of Islam. Salvation does not lye in the historical
genesis of a religion. If that was so, Buddhism could easily rival Christianity. But this issue calls for the composition of an essay, rather than simple answering. But I
wouldn't bother, as the last sentence of your email in which you fear Shite based
vengeance just shows the ignorance, stereotype, bigotry you have about Islam (or a school of thought about Islam). I'm a Sunni Muslim, but I nevertheless sense that you get your information on Islam from CNN, and The Satanic Verses. Which just makes you one of the flock, with no unique thinking
whatsoever. And ironically, the more you hate, the more you fuel the growth of Islam
amongst others. Your African-American
fellow citizens can testify to this phenomenon.
Regards
Malik Ali