₦airaland Forum

Oracle23:
Which deaths has kemi ever announced and it came out true?

Sarcasm is not your forte it does seem.

ikdaddy01:
So the cause of these deaths in Kano z been covid.
If Almajiris are carriers already, then almost every part of the north will soon get positive. It was a wrong move sending them back to their states at this time. Other governors should have cautioned their Kano counterpart in whichever way they could have.

As thou wished onto others, so shall it be on you.

abduljabbar4:
If only useless bigots would understand that this is not the time for stupidity, things would be a lot saner. For all that we know, there is no state In Nigeria without extremely poor, illiterate and of course dumb people who have access to internet. I would also like to remind of that the top 20 most affected countries are a thousand times more developed than the "enlightened" federal republic of southern Nigeri


,

Damn straight brother. I was about replying to a similar silly comment when yours caught my attention. I guess there is no need to now. There just are so many hate filled, low life individuals on Nairaland

I met her in my second year at University. I was barely 19 then and as is common with greenhorns, threw caution to the winds and literally made her my goddess - possibly a sort of rival to the high God. I fought everyone for her, made enemies of invaluable friends, wolves of well meaning family members; I literally just threw everyone out.
Then came the day she told me: "you are a nice guy Abdul, but you are quite naive. You will make a great companion to anybody when you grow wiser. I am not willing to wait". I was 22, in fourth year.

Sewa90:
He was 27 then

On behalf of fellow 27 year olds, I apologize for his behavior.

AgentOfAllah:
The question of who it was that appointed Sa'ad is not exactly as clear cut as you claim. This much is captured even in Islamic sources. See pp. 250 of "Muhammad: His Character and Conduct" by Adil Salahi, where it is stated that:

"When the siege started to bite hard at them, the Qurayzah sent a message to the Prophet, which stated that they were willing to surrender and accept whatever ruling he made against them. The Muslims of the Aws spoke to the Prophet, pleading for the Qurayzah because they were their allies. The Prophet said to them: “Will you be happy if a man from among you gives the judgement?” They said: “Yes, we will.” The Prophet then assigned this task to Sa'd ibn Muadh. A different report mentions that the Prophet told the Qurayzah to choose their judge from among his Companions, and they chose Sa'd, because he was their ally and they hoped that he would be lenient."

## What I intended to show from my own end was that a second opinion exists regarding the selection of Sa'ad. Your initial claim that the prophet selected it himself was a sweeping one which carries only half the truth.
Now that it has been conceded, there is really no point pushing ahead on this front.


What is clear from the above is that the Muhammad only allowed that they chose a judge from among the Muslims, who was also a member of banu Aws. The reason I am inclined to believe that Muhammad influenced the choice of Sa'd, aside from the fact that one of [url=http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahihmuslim/147-Sahih%20Muslim%20Book%2019.%20Jihad%20and%20Expedition/12731-sahih-muslim-book-019-hadith-number-4370.html]Aisha's narrations[/url] clearly states this much, is that from a political viewpoint, Muhammad was well aware of what needed to be done to banu Qurayzah.

## Any man would surely be aware that they had to be gotten rid of (through either banishment or execution). It hardly requires a genius to discern that.

Before this event, he had previously banished other Jewish tribes with which pretexts for grievances existed.

## Could you list any WHOLE TRIBE that was expelled? I am certainly not aware of any.

There would probably have been a fear that the leniency of banishment could have passed a message that the Muslims were weak, if not outrightly encourage cooperation amongst the banished tribes to dislodge the Muslims from Medina. Whatever be the case, Muhammad knew that the punishment had to be harsh as a deterrence. His history with Sa'd was also an assurance that Sa'd had become more Muslim than Aws. The prophet, knew, in essence, what banu Qurayzah and the interceding members of banu Aws didn't; that Sa'd wouldn't be lenient in his judgement. So, he must have deftly played everyone to agree to the preponderance of chief of Aws' judgement.

## While I must admit that your view is a well grounded and coherent one, there are other equally logical views. I would argue that it was obvious to even the Qurayza that Sa'ad will judge them harshly. His history with Muhammad (saw) was after all not hidden to them. He had fought on the prophet's side before. They probably regarded him as better than all the others (given that he was an ally). Sa'ad however shocked them prefering the safety of Madina over alliance. To suggest that the prophet was 'deftly playing everyone' therefore will be too much of a gross misrepresentation.

I don't recall mentioning that Muhammad demanded such.


## Why not visit what you wrote earlier then? You surely made a statement along the lines of "Muhammad extolled their prophets highly but picked up fight when they refused to acknowledge the superiority of his religion" (This is a paraphrase by the way. I'm having troubles loading the verbatim wording)

While all of Qurayzah Jews were not executed, it is absolute nonsense that repentant ones who came and sought forgiveness got pardoned. The ones that were pardoned were either ones perceived not to be "involved in the treachery" or ones on whose behalf some of the prophet's companions interceded. This much is written in the link you shared. There was no room for repentance on that day. It was antecedence, not repentance that saved the ones that didn't die. Nevertheless, it is recorded that those who were executed were in the hundreds.


## Of course there was room for repentance. The article itself listed two men (Zabir Thabit and Amr ibn Su'd) who repented and were granted amnesty. It will do you a lot of good to read it again.
I'm willing to concede that the whole tribe might not receive a state pardon if they had repented. Granting them one would sure have been a daft political move. There is no reason to think they would not have betrayed the state again.
As a side note, I find the hyperboles in your statement a bit funny. They seem to point toward a sort of 'machine gun tactic'. Those spared were not 'perceived' to be innocent, they were 'proven' to have been. The 'hundreds' executed were traitors who would have received a similar judgement in any society (even a modern one).

Banu Quarayzah were also expected to physically attack the Muslims. I'm not sure you read the link you provided. Check section 4. It is clear from Ibn Ishaq's account that the Meccans expected banu Qurayzah to also fight alongside them.


## It really is not clear at all sir. Ibn Ishaq's statement 'they sided the Quraysh and fought against the prophet' was a general one. Providing arms and intelligence (which the Qurayza did) could be viewed as one way of fighting against the prophet. This was pretty much explained in section 5 of the article.


It appears we both need to get ourselves some knowledge of history.

It will appear so sir. Good evening.


#My responses to you have been merged with your earlier statements. Read whatever is in the box as well please. I have placed a (#) before each of mine to distinguish them from yours.

[quote author=AgentOfAllah post=63797138]The question of who it was that appointed Sa'ad is not exactly as clear cut as you claim. This much is captured even in Islamic sources. See pp. 250 of "Muhammad: His Character and Conduct" by Adil Salahi, where it is stated that:

AgentOfAllah:
Could you point out, specifically, which facts I twisted? It's not helpful to just make accusations without highlighting where I went wrong.

Fine then. Here are a few of them:
1. Sa'ad Bn Mu'adh (RA); the companion who passed judgment on the Jews of Qurayza was not appointed by Muhammad (saw). The Jews themselves selected him (thinking he would be lenient) since he was formally their ally.
2. Prophet Muhammad (saw) never demanded that Medinite Jews recognize Islam as superior to their own religion. Long before even he entered the town, he had always extolled Jewish prophets claiming he was a successor in the line of prophethood (gentile prophets included).
3. All of the Qurayza Jews were not punished. Repentant ones who came and sought forgiveness got pardon. The article I provided a link to explains that in detail.
4. The strategy of the Meccan pagans was not that Qurayza finish off the Muslims. They are too few and isolated for that. All that was their job in the war was to collect intelligence and create divisions within the many groups in the town.
The Meccans in fact launched direct attacks and tried to take over the town. Muhammad's (SAW) cousin led an Army which defeated them several times.

It would appear these are enough sir. Go get yourself some knowledge of history in seventh century Arabia. Half baked analysis are not helpful at all.

The young pastor is merely switching from living on picking pockets on the streets to picking from (tithe) baskets in the church. Anyone who has got a problem with that can go to hell.
Carry on young man. I am a hundred and ten percent behind you. Smartness is all one needs to get rich these days.

It is rather funny that these guys still have a large following and get millions in donations as well. How on earth could events I myself know are likely to happen become prophecies?

"Men are of two sorts; those with brains but no religion and those with religion but no brains". - Arab Philosopher Abu A'ala Al-Ma'arri.

AgentOfAllah:
I believe Analize701 is talking of Yathrib (modern day city of Medina), however, this person's understanding of the story is rather very unsophisticated. First of all, Medina is an oasis, but of course, naturally formed. It was not converted by the jews as (s)he claims. Also, I'm not sure about the day Muhammed attacked, but the outcome of that attack was devastating. In some ways also, inevitable. During their stay in Yathrib, the tensions between the Muslim and the leaders of some local Jewish tribes simmered and eroded the trust that allowed the Muslims into Medina in the first instance. I guess the Muslims felt betrayed also, because, in spite of them acknowledging the Jews as among god's chosen, and even praising all their prophets and what not, the Jewish leadership in these tribes, though accepting Muhammed's political leadership, refused to acknowledge the supremacy of his religion. Some did convert to Islam, but many didn't make it a secret that they considered Muhammed's message a fraudulent rip off! On several occasions, they would rebuff his attempts to convert them by asking him difficult questions. So, in spite of his wide acceptance in Medina, he wasn't universally liked by all the leading tribes there.
For some reason, Muhammed chronicled his frustrations with this set of Jews in several parts of the Qur'an, apparently, as god's response to them. This is just one of his responses below:



So what happened?
Before the Muslims arrived Yathrib, it was a relatively stable free market economy with no real leadership, just a bunch of tribes, each having their own tribal representative in a sort of community congress. These tribes were a mix of Arabized Jewish tribes like banu Aws, core Jewish ones like banu Qurayzah and Banu Nadir; as well as other core Arab tribes and perhaps others that were unrecorded. Around the year 622AD, Muhammed was invited to Medina to come and settle a dispute between two of the leading tribes then, Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj, as he was seen as trust worthy. Among the conditions for his participation was that as an independent arbiter, he was to become the de facto leader of Medina, and his decisions would be final. Made sense, as many found his judgements fair; and even became Muslims as a result. He also instituted a representative theocratic government in which Jews were expressly allowed to govern themselves in accordance with their own legal codes, but they were still subject to state taxes instituted for the welfare of the state.

Unfortunately, during one of the battles with the pagans of Mecca, the battle of the trenches (so named because the Muslims were grossly outnumbered and decided to protect themselves by digging trenches around their city),one of the Jewish tribes, Banu Qurayzah, conspired with the Meccans to attack the Muslims from behind, perhaps because they weren't happy with their new subordinate status or maybe their mistrust for the divine claims of Muhammed had reached its climax. Either way, they grossly miscalculated. The Meccans had planned to weaken the Muslims by siege; and then Qurayzah would finish them off, but the siege didn't last long, as the arid climate with its treacherous sand storms frustrated the Meccans. Meanwhile, the Muslims got wind of the intentions of Banu Qurayzah, and marched on them as soon as the battle was over. The leadership of banu Qurayzah had betrayed one of the key provisions in the Medina constitution, and Muhammed, knowing the punishment for this kind of betrayal according to Jewish traditions would be severe; and at the same time, navigating around a tense political situation (at this point, the Jews of Yathrib were still vastly more influential in the city than the Muslims), he appointed the leader of banu Aws who had converted to Islam, to pronounce judgement on banu Qurayzah according to the Torah. The judgement was severe: Kill all male members of the tribe that have attained the age of puberty; and enslave women and children. This was a politically deft move! He at once, eliminated his political opponents, while not incurring the wrath of the powerful Arabised Jewish tribes in Medina. But it was just asi stupendously atrocious. Nevertheless, it solidified the Muslims' stronghold on Yathrib and allowed then to subsequently institute more severe strains of their theology.

Your interesting twist of facts is quite funny and very sadly shallow. Given the length of your post however, I will not waste my time refuting any of it. It will be better if you can read a real Muslim view of what happened. The article below might be of help:

https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/01/01/re-examining-banu-qurayzah-incident/

Op, your claim that there is no evidence for the night journey of our prophet (SAW) to Jerusalem got me laughing. I could not believe my eyes for a moment.
No scholar worth his salt will even begin to seek evidence for a SINGLE NIGHT JOURNEY by ONE MAN. It will be a complete absurd endeavor. Such belief are taken on faith alone.

NB: A majority of Scholars of history dismiss the Exodus as 'one of the many fictions of Abrahamic faiths'. There is no evidence for it at all in Egyptian writing or any other near eastern one. The belief that it happened is taken on faith alone.

I have often struggled to contain my surprise whenever 'anti-saracenism' apologists quote the Quran and Hadith to justify the theft of Jerusalem as well as the ongoing apartheid in Palestine and Israel. While watching a discussion on Jerusalem aired by RT (Russia Today) a few days ago, I had to question my dad if he could think of any reasons (other than theological) which justify the horror and injustice being meted out on Palestinians. As expected, none came to his mind. Theology which was meant to guide humans and make them ambassadors of justice is now being used the wrong way.

In my own view, there should be little space for all of these nonsense in the debate. Historically, before the Jews and Arabs came onto the scene, Jerusalem was peopled by Cananite tribes. Through ethnic cleansing (in the eleventh century BC) however, Jews took control of it and maintained it for a millennium before losing it to Romans finally in 70AD (they lost it temporarily several times before this). Arabs only came there in the seventh century after seizing it from the Romans.

Given the history of how nations are born, it is rather inane to even suggest that Jews have a right to Jerusalem (except maybe the religious right to their temple). As one activist explained, the argument of the Zionists that it was the land of their forefathers and therefore their own is nonsensical. Following such a line of reasoning, Turks could fight for a new Turkey to be carved out of China and Probably Japan. The mongols of Iran as well could annex the regions of China they originate from and rename it Mongolia (as it was known before). No human being with a grain of sanity will of course support this. It would be condemned by all. The creation of Israel should be judged that way as well. It was no surprise Professor Shlomo Ben Ami (a former Israeli ambassador) called it 'a nation born in sin'.
There is today a good number of Jews who have thrown themselves into the struggle for Palestinian rights. Prominent among them are Amira Hass, Miko Peled, Professor Avi Shlaim and Rachel Shabi.

Admittedly, Palestinians have made several mistakes in their relations with Jews. It will be evil however to deny them their just due. East Jerusalem (which is all they demand for now) is theirs and should be given to them. Theology and whatever else can follow that. #Free Palestine.

NB: The descendants of the Cananites who lived there before Jews and Arabs are still very much around. The chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority Dr Saab Erekat is one of them.

As-salaam Alaikum ikhwaan.

I joined nairaland about thirty minutes ago and would like to announce my presence. My name is Abdul Mumin, a resident of Kaduna State.
I pray Allah blesses you all and keep the ummah strong.

jamesibor:
I never knew this.

Muslim apologist Hamza Andreas explains the word 'Islam' thus:
"It is a word derived from another word 'as-salaam' (lit peace)............ Since Allah is the ultimate source of Salaam for any Muslim, Islam hence can be said to be the peaceful submission (Arabic. al-istislaam) to the will of Allah The Almighty

jamesibor:
I never knew this.

You better shouldn't know Brother James. It really is not true at all. Islam haters invented this about a century ago and have propagated it with vigour since then.

The best sources of information about Islam are Muslim Scholars. Why not seek out what they say? Fairness should be your yard stick.