All Comments (87)

Oh, and by the way, I am out of here.
It's time for you to return to those other people floating around in your head that keep you company.

LOL
Thanks for the chuckles.
Now let me see if I got this straight.
Anyone disagreeing with your evil zionist smash and grab way of existence is insignificant, because (oh gee!) we're just looking for someone to hate in order to compensate for feeling inadequate. LMAO
Man, that is some serious sick-in-the-head brainwashing ideology you're spouting there!

In at least one sense of the word, I agree with you. You bite, no doubt about that.

In any other sense, whoever heard of closeted keyboard-heroes biting into anything other than donuts? Get it through your skull: you are an insignificant individual and your pet peeves are of no consequence. Heel-nippers such as you try to compensate for your inadequacy by finding someone to hate, in this case the Jews. In a different time you would have hated blacks, or Chinese railroad workers, or Mexican laborers, or some other group (for all I know, you hate them all.) Weak and cowardly, even slinking away from writing under your true name, and we should worry about you biting anything but your boyfriend's putz? Naah, I won't lose any sleep, dog ...

the dog barks, yes!
a warning before he bites!
but ugly greedy pig don't listen
too busy engorging self

chasemonster: "I don't believe for a second that 'God' ever spoke to your Abraham."

Aw shucks, really? You don't believe it? Well, then it must not have happened, I'm sure. I will inform the secret conclave of rabbis, you know, the group that runs the world for the Jews, that a keyboard hero, a veritable genius on a Washington Post blog has finally debunked their Abraham-and-Isaac fable. Besides, the last time I looked I didn't even have an Abraham. (I have a cat but his name is Mofo.)

There is an Arab saying, "the dog barks but the caravan moves on." What I hear from chasemonster and "sick of it" and others of their ilk is: Woof, woof, bark, whine, the dogs that they are. What they think of Jews and Israel is a matter of complete indifference to me. Up theirs.

'True Blue American'

My own family, the 9th generation in tow now in this country, and spread all over it, dare to call ourselves true blue Americans and to think of other citizen the same.

You stretch the standard.

Anonymous:

I don't believe for a second that 'God' ever spoke to your Abraham.
And no 'God' would ever have given His approval to the psychotic murder spree that you all went on in Lebanon last year massacring all those women and children.
'Gods' don't go along with such evilness, but you may find that Satan will back you up on it.
LMAO
Yeah, you all go on and keep killing your neighbors and stealing their property.
BUT! Don't expect the rest of us to believe that you are somehow absolved of all these crimes and atrocities simply because you CLAIM to be 'God's' chosen people!
LOLOL
That's just plain frickin NUTS!

While we're at it, and being so smart, shall we note that Israel is the most detested nation in the world?
Is everyone dumb except the posters here? Have you read the new polls or the older BBC polls...not that WAPO would show them...
And
Have you noticed Israel occupies Palestine? And that it now has settlers on more thatn 46% of Palestine. And bombs and flies sorties daily
killing children and women they sneeringly call "militants"...and has webs of checkpoints to harrass and keep Palestinians off their own land?

What crap do they teach you...or do you just know to tell those "defense" whoppers. They disgust everyone.

VIVA Palestine!

While we're at it, and being so smart, shall we note that Israel is the most detested nation in the world?
Is everyone dumb except the posters here? Have you read the new polls or the older BBC polls...not that WAPO would show them...
And
Have you noticed Israel occupies Palestine? And that it now has settlers on more thatn 46% of Palestine. And bombs and flies sorties daily
killing children and women they sneeringly call "militants"...and has webs of checkpoints to harrass and keep Palestinians off their own land?

What crap do they teach you...or do you just know to tell those "defense" whoppers. They disgust everyone.

VIVA Palestine!

Providence,
Of course its offensive. He called Israel's defense of itself "crimes" and calls Judaism an "evil fraud". Not fair questions and his/her opinions are evil. Go back to your Neonazi meeting.

Anon,

Why are you calling Cmonster hateful?

He asked a fair question and stated an opinion.

Let's hear an answer rather than rhetorical hyperbole.

Thank you.
Providence

Chasemonster,
Wow, what a hateful, thing to say. The government of Israel is defending itself against daily attacks from terrorists. Every family in Israel has had family members either die in war or by the hand of terrorists. Why are you not criticizing the United States for attacking a sovereign government (Iraq) leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? What about our friends the Saudi's who put raped women on trial, behead non-believers, etc. How about the Syrians who have created mayhem in Lebanon? What about the dozens of African countries led by despotic tyrants who kill their people daily?

We shouldn't even be answering hatespeech and ignorant people. There is no educating people like you. Go back to the rock you crawled out from under.

Does your 'proud' Jewish God approve of the horrific crimes that your 'proud' jewish people are committing, in His 'proud' name, against the Palestinian people?
I am thinking that your 'proud' jewish religion is an evil fraud.

If everyone could be as humble and sensible as the article's author, the world would be a much better place. As I read most of the responding comments, I am amazed that the world hasn't already blown itself up into oblivion. Fortunately, there are more than enough religious fanatics (of the middle-eastern and Pennsylvania Avenue kind) to go around, and sadly I expect the New Year will bring more of the same killing, hatred, greed, arrogance, and human suffering that so many of the aforesaid religious fanatics seem to believe is our birthright.

To anonymous,
Wow imagine an organization promoting tolerance of all people. That is what the ADL expouses and you are criticizing it? Why? Because it is run by Jews? I think it is you who is intolerant. The Anti-defamation league only seeks to protect the rights of all, even those in the minority. Read the constitution. We cannot allow the tyranny of the majority.

Geez, and with regard to politics and religion, we are where we always have been. Christianity in the public square. Its just these christianity is being used cynically to win elections. I really don't think the more thoughtful Christians want that.

To Madeline--I don't know what kind of anti-Israel propaganda you read, but Israel as a sovereign nation has the right, the responsibility to protect itself. You need a bit of a history lesson and an education on the realities of the middle east.

And to mid-eastern historian--most Jews do not sit around thinking about how "superior" they are. That kind of talk is similar to 1920s Germany when Nazis spread the same type of propaganda. Why are non-Jewish people so happy to point out the successful Jews? I don't believe it is for benign reasons.

Back to the issue of the essay--I don't agree with the rabbi. I don't think Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists or any other people of non-christian faith should have to feel the need to adopt another religion's customs. Wouldn't it be great if all Americans could feel free to worship as they please and take pride in their own heritage?

Public faith is an absolute essential for a country that is building a military empire. We should encourage and applaud acts of faith by soldiers, and prospective soldiers. They are the ones who are building the world economic system under the civilizing boot of American justice.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

True Blue,
In paragraph one of your response you cite the ADL and then claim that 99% of Jews don't belong to the JDL. I never cited the JDL. The JDL is a violent fringe group. That's obvious, the ADL is not. Don't confuse the two. What a tool you are!

And if you think it's a fantasy, please go ahead and read their own publication. It's right here.

http://www.adl.org/issue_education/december_dilemma_2004/default.asp

Did I imagine that this guide exists? Why don't you address the facts?

Here's where we were in 1981.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TDUX6ej-uxo

Pretty different, huh?

Imagine Bush or any other President making that address today. And by the way most of the nastiness I'm seeing is coming from guys like Harry Fisher. I hadn't been nasty at all until he told me "to go...myself"

So many contentious subjects around. And "vivid" discussion.

BUT WHY IS IT that when something concerns Jews the posts become about "superiority" and in- your-face pure ugly snotiness.

When our college age (ivy-league) kids and their friends were home a few years ago...after hearing one of their discussions that I though anti-semitic, about things on campus, I scoulded them harshy and with great anger. Today I WOULDN'T!

To the poster who calls himself "TRUE BLUE"

Hey, I don't know if YOU believe you post, or

expect us to. But nobody does or will. Trash.

(Palestine does not occupy Israel, I think. Nor do they do daily flying sorties over Israel. Nor
do they have settlements and checkpoints.
Actually, it's worse that trash.

I love the way people express their opinions and then call them "facts". Then say "there, I proved my point".

There is no Jewish conspiracy to end Christmas--it is an anti-semite's fantasy. And spouting 30 year old trash about "the ADL is ruining Christimas" is just silly BS. And by the way, 99% of Jews do not belong to the JDL--even if it still exists. What a tool you are.

It is the writers above asserting that the Jews (Israelis) are killing the Palestinians that is hate speech. This is not just dissent---when it is argued, it is done with venom, and gleeful nastiness. How come the Israelis are singled out? Hamas terrorists target Israeli women and children every day. You all have your facts wrong. The Israelis are a soveriegn nation under daily attack from terrorists. The Palestinians are in the situation they are in because of their own behavior and that of other Arab countries--Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Jordan...these other countries hate Palestinians, refused them entry into their countries and are using them as pawns to do their dirty-work against the Israelis. And the US supports Israel because they are only democracy in the middle-east. And they are under daily attack.

I do feel bad for the situation the Palestinians are in. Many live in poverty. It is their corrupt governing bodies that are at fault (PLO embezzed and mishandled their money for years and Hamas does the same). I think it needs to be resolved so that all can live in peace. But leading those people (Palestinians) to believe it can only be done if Israel "is driven into the ocean" is an evil anti-semetic stance of other Arab/mid-east countries to keep the conflict going.

Jawad, you are right. Thank you for correcting me. I wrote those comments in a rush.
It was the Battle of the Trenches (we speak English in the US), not the Battle of Badr.

Perhaps you forgot to mention that muslims view history as if it were today and time never moved. That is one of the reasons their countries are so despotic. They can not get over their past.

Muhammad and Massacre of the Qurayza Jews
By James Arlandson
In AD 627, Muhammad committed an atrocity against the last remaining major tribe of Jews in Medina: the Qurayza. He beheaded the men and the pubescent boys and enslaved the women and children. In doing this, he wiped an entire tribe 'off the map' to use the recent language of the President of Iran.

To understand how and why this atrocity unfolded, some straightforward history of early Islam is helpful.

Background

The immediate background of this mass extermination and enslavement is the Battle of the Trench (or Ditch), in February—March—April (the exact calculations vary), AD 627. This battle—though it ended up being a siege—pitted the Quraysh (a large tribe in and around Mecca) against the Muslims and Medinan non—Muslims.

The Quraysh had allies: the Ghatafan (northern Arab tribes to the east of Medina and Mecca) and an assortment of smaller tribes. As for the Muslims, prominent Islamologist W. M. Watt says that on the eve of battle, Muhammad's army consisted of

'practically all the inhabitants of Medina with the exception of the Jewish tribe of Qurayzah, who seem to have tried to remain neutral. There were some Medinans in league with the Meccans, but they were presumably . . . exiled from Medina for the time being' (Muhammad at Medina, p. 36).

As for the size of the two armies, the standard figure for the Meccans and their allies is 10,000, but one Muslim scholar says that the coalition of pagans may have reached 12,000 (Maududi vol. 3, p. 63). However, Watt says of the coalition:

'The numbers given for the various contingents [the coalition was divided into three corps], however, do not add up to more than about 7,500. The Meccans themselves had about 300 horses and the nomadic tribes a similar number' (Statesman, pp. 166—67)

On the Muslim side, the standard figure that is widely accepted is 3,000. They had no cavalry to speak of.

The larger background of this atrocity against the Jews reveals that Muhammad had already expelled two tribes of Jews: the Qaynuqa in AD 624 and the Nadir in AD 625. (The reasons are reviewed here.) The upshot of all of this is clear. The conflict between Muslims and Jews is escalating, and the Prophet is about to impose the ultimate penalty on the last remaining major tribe of Jews in Medina. [1]

What started the Battle of the Trench?

Many causes feed into any conflict, but one stands out. Muslim raiders harassed Meccan trade. Modern Saudi biographer Safi—ur—Rahman al—Mubarakpuri expresses the right idea: . . .

'[I]t was wise for the Muslims to bring the commercial routes leading to Makkah [Mecca] under their control' (p. 201).

Then he lists eight raids between 623 and the Battle of Badr in AD 624. In each one, Muslims were the aggressors, to accomplish the big objective of strangling Mecca's trade. These raids that sometimes involved hundreds of men continued steadily from that time to the Battle of the Trench, when the Meccans had had enough. So they wanted to finish off Islam, once and for all.

From Muhammad's point of view, he wanted the Kabah shrine in Mecca, and if this goal involved hindering Meccan trade, then so be it. Two early Medinan suras or chapters (2 and 8) reveal his outlook.

Sura 2:189—196 and 216—218 command Muslims to fight the Quraysh because this tribe wanted to control their own shrine, even if this entailed prohibiting the Muslims (who were hampering the large tribe's trade in the first place) from visiting it.

Sura 2:125—129 asserts without a shred of evidence that Abraham built and purified the shrine, and now Muhammad the monotheist is the best representative of this patriarch. He claimed this while he lived in Mecca, too (Sura 14:35—41). So in effect the shrine belonged to him by revelation, before it actually did by conquest (in early AD 630).

Finally, in Sura 8:30—40, the Prophet recounts his persecution back in Mecca and why the Quraysh are not the rightful guardians of the shrine. They barred people from it—never mind that about eight years later the Prophet will bar pagans from the shrine. All Arab polytheists will be forced to convert or die.

It is impossible (for me at least) to escape the impression that if Muhammad had put aside this desire to control the Kabah, then much of the conflict between him and the Quraysh would never have erupted in the first place. But the shrine was a popular place of religious pilgrimage, so how could he allow religious freedom for polytheists?

Were the Jews involved in the start of the Battle of the Trench? The Islamic sources say that they indeed stirred up the Meccans against the Muslims.

Early biographer Ibn Ishaq says:

A number of Jews who had formed a party against the apostle, among whom were Sallam b. Abu'l—Huqayq al—Nadir [he had been assassinated so the chronology or his placement here is off], and Huyayy b. Aktab al—Nadri, and Kinana b. Abu'l—Huaqayq al—Nadri, and Hauda b. Qays al—Wa'ili, and Abu Ammar al—Wa'ili with a number of B. [Bani or tribe or clan] Nadir and B. Wa'il, went to the Quraysh at Mecca and invited them to join them in an attack on the apostle so that they might get rid of him altogether. (p. 450).

How much did the Jews instigate the battle, and how much were the Meccans fed up with Muslim harassment on their own without Jewish provocation? This is unclear. But let us assume only for the sake of argument that the Islamic sources are right. These specific Jews were the principal instigators. In the end, this does not matter, for the following reason.

It is important to cite these (complex) names, above, because today's Muslim polemicists who defend Muhammad's extermination and enslavement of the Qurayza Jews overlook the fact that early Islam knew specifically who the enemy Jewish leaders were—by name.

So did all the men and adolescent boys have to be executed and all the women and children enslaved? Couldn't only the leaders have been executed? [2]

The Battle of the Trench

The strategy of digging trenches was new to Arabia, and the early Islamic sources make much of it. The Muslims dug a trench to the north of Medina, linking them to places near or on high ground (e.g. Mt. Sal, a hill in the central area of Medina) and other difficult spots (e.g. a marshy ground), in order to neutralize the Meccan cavalry and to avoid hand—to—hand pitched battles. The Muslim army bivouacked south of the trench with Medina at their backs, while the coalition camped north of the trench, facing Medina, with Mt. Uhud at their backs. The Jews retreated south of Medina, facing the back of the Muslim army.

Though the Muslims were under siege, which pressed them hard, the trenches worked well. The coalition's cavalry was stymied, except a foray that came to nothing. The Meccans tried to assault the trench, but they were easily repulsed. The Muslim sources say that Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law, fought in a duel, which he won. Some arrows were shot, but that achieved nothing.

Therefore, this must be emphasized: No real battles or warfare occurred, and this favored the outnumbered Muslims. Early biographer Ibn Ishaq says—and modern historians are in complete agreement—that

'[t]he siege continued without any actual fighting' (p. 454).

Early historian Tabari agrees:

'The Messenger of God and the polytheists stayed in their positions for over twenty nights—nearly a month—with no warfare between the troops, except for the shooting of arrows and the siege' (vol. 8, p. 17).

Again, modern western scholars agree on this point.

Even the Quran confirms the absence of a pitched battle:

'Allah turned back the unbelievers [Meccans and their allies] in a state of rage, having not won any good, and Allah spared the believers battle' (Sura 33:25; see the section 'the Quran' for more analysis, below)

It is important to realize this fact because Muslim polemicists assert or imply that the Jews actually fought the Muslims, so if the Jews were exterminated and enslaved, then it was their fault.

But no full—scale battles ever took place, and the early sources say that the Jews remained in their houses and fortresses near Medina—that is, the sources do not depict them forcefully sallying out and attacking Muslims from behind.

Finally, the early sources say that a storm battered the coalition, and the Quran confirms this, implying also that supernatural forces joined in the fight:

'You who believe, remember God's goodness to you when mighty armies massed against you: We sent a violent wind and invisible forces against them. God sees all that you do' (Sura 33:9; Haleem, The Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004).

In short, the coalition that had amassed against the Muslims in Medina was losing heart.

The bottom line on this siege: the Meccans and their allies had to withdraw because their siege did not work.

Besides Ibn Ishaq and Tabari, see the reliable hadith collector and editor Bukhari here and here. The hadith is the traditions about Muhammad outside of the Quran.

The aftermath for the Qurayza Jews

After the withdrawal of the coalition, the Jews were isolated, whereas Muhammad had 3,000 jihadists, signaling disaster for the Jews. The tragic drama unfolds in five stages.

(1) The Angel Gabirel

Traditions state that as the Prophet was taking a bath, (non—Biblical) Gabriel the angel appeared to him.

Gabriel tells him the battle is not finished. Muhammad is ordered to fight the Qurayza Jews.

When Allah's Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al—Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel, whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying,

'You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet.'

Allah's Apostle said,

'Where (to go now)?'

Gabriel said,

'This way,' pointing towards the tribe of Bani [tribe] Quraiza. So Allah's Apostle went out towards them. (Bukhari; see a parallel hadith here. )

This next hadith shows a regiment of Gabriel (Muslim warriors) marching towards the fortresses of the Jews.

Narrated Anas:

As if I am just now looking at the dust rising in the street of Banu Ghanm (in Medina) because of the marching of Gabriel's regiment when Allah's Apostle set out to Banu Quraiza (to attack them). (Bukhari; see this parallel hadith: Muslim no. 4370
and see also no. 4371)

These traditions about Gabriel's leadership are designed to give divine support for the atrocity that is about to be unleashed. Today, we may see this as fanciful, but to millions of Muslims this is real. Be that as it may, one thing is clear. Muhammad had taken off his armor and was enjoying a bath, so he did not feel immediately threatened by these Jews. They had not lined up in battle array to wage war.

But even if Muhammad had felt threatened, why not expel the Jews? Soon Islam will be so powerful that it will expel all Jews (and Christians) from the Arabian Peninsula (see also the hadiths here and here).

Muhammad in fact already had expelled two tribes of Jews a few years earlier. He conquered the mainly Jewish city of Khaybar in AD 628. Some assert that if Muhammad had simply expelled the Jews, they would constitute a later substantial and serious threat. But he had already done so with no threat ever developing. He was on the rise militarily.

(2) The poet warrior

It is odd that during Muhammad's twenty—five—day siege of the Jews, he employed a poet to abuse them.

The Prophet said to Hassan, 'Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e. supports you).' (Through another group of sub—narrators) Al—Bara bin Azib said, 'On the day of Quraiza's (besiege), Allah's Apostle said to Hassan bin Thabit, 'Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e. supports you).'' (Bukhari)

This demonstrates the high value poetry held was in seventh—century Arabia. Call it the psychological warfare of its day. A smear campaign.

Muhammad believed poetry so powerful that he assassinated poets who mocked him. But now that he has the power, he gets to employ a satirical poet without fear of reprisal. In fact, he refers to the Jews as brothers of monkeys, citing a legend that he believed, namely, that God turned some disobedient Jews into apes. (Ibn Ishaq pp. 461—62).

(3) No strong Jewish resistance.

How could they resist, when Muhammad had just withstood such a large coalition and still had at his command 3,000 jihadists?

Something strange happened while the Jews were negotiating the terms of surrender. They called for a man named Abu Lubaba, a nominal or half—committed Muslim who may have opposed Muhammad on several occasions.

They asked him, 'Abu Lubaba, do you think we should submit to Muhammad's judgment?' He said yes, but then he gestured with his hand to his throat to indicate slaughter.

Immediately afterwards, he felt that he had betrayed Muhammad. But why? Scholars are not sure.

Maybe Abu Lubaba believed that he had signaled imminent death to the Jews, although Muhammad wanted to keep this brutality a secret. The Jews would have resisted submission on these gruesome terms. Watt speculates that the Muslim go—between may have been standing firm in his own clan's alliance with the Jews and gave away too much information.

Regardless of the scholarly debate, his gesture at his throat is not in dispute.At issue is why he felt that he betrayed Muhammad.

This means that the outcome was not in doubt. The hand to the throat unmistakably indicated the Jews would die.

Source: Ibn Ishaq p. 462; Watt, Muhammad at Medina, pp. 188—89; 214—17

(4) Muhammad proposed that the Jews submit to the judgment of Sad bin Muadh.

He was the leader of a large Medinan tribe, the Aws (or Aus), some of whom favored old alliances with the Jews. The leader was an elderly man who was wounded during the siege. His verdict was short and simple—but bloody and cruel.

When the tribe of . . . Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar) [or Helpers], 'Stand up for your leader.' Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. 'These people are ready to accept your judgment.' Sad said, 'I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners.' The Prophet then remarked, 'O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah.' (Bukhari; see parallel hadiths here, here, and here)

It should be noted from this passage that Sad bin Muadh sat next to Muhammad. Was there undue influence from Muhammad on the wounded old man who was about to die and meet Allah? Muhammad had often preached hell fire in the mosque. That is, Sad knew that he was dying, so possibly he wanted to demonstrate his allegiance to the Prophet and Islam. The best way, as the circumstances presented themselves, was to decide on death and enslavement, the ultimate penalty signaling the ultimate commitment. Sad made the Prophet glad. Shortly after this verdict the elder in fact died from his wound. Sources: Ibn Ishaq pp. 463—64; Tabari vol. 8, p. 34.

(5) The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 300—600 men and pubescent boys, and enslavement for the women and children. Ibn Ishaq says that the number may have been as high as 800—900 (p. 464).

Muhammad was wise enough to have six clans execute two Jews each in order to stop any blood—feuds. The rest of the executions were probably carried out by Muhammad's fellow Emigrants from Mecca, as the heads and bodies were dragged into trenches in the business district of Medina. Source: Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, p. 174

How did the executioners decide on which boy to slaughter or leave alive? This hadith gives the obvious answer. Narrated Atiyyah al—Qurazi:

I was among the captives of Banu [tribe] 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. (Bukhari; see Ibn Ishaq p. 466)

This next hadith indicates that a woman was delirious. She was killed. Narrated Aisha . . .

No woman of Banu [tribe] Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah . . . was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so—and—so?.... I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. [Aisha] said: The man took her and beheaded her. [Aisha] said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed. (Bukhari)

The following narrative says that Muhammad took one woman for himself.

The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana bint Amr . . . one of the women of . . . Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry and put a veil on her, but she said: "Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you." So he left her. She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism. (Ibn Ishaq p. 466)

Shortly afterwards, though, she converted to Islam and a messenger informed Muhammad of this, and he reacted to the good news: "This gave him pleasure." It is wrong to believe that this woman was Muhammad's motive to execute so many Jews, but she did provide an unforeseen, extra benefit.

This hadith gives a hint on how the wealth was distributed.

People used to give some of their date palms to the Prophet (as a gift), till he conquered Bani [tribe] Quraiza and Bani An—Nadir, whereupon he started returning their favors. (Bukhari; see a parallel hadith here)

More specifically, Ibn Ishaq says the spoils were divided among the Muslims thus:

Then the apostle divided the property, wives, and children . . . among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth. A horseman got three shares, two for the horse and one for the rider. A man without a horse got one share (p. 466).

A jihadist horseman was generally wealthier than a horseless jihadist, so this rewarded those with wealth in 'egalitarian' Islam. Also, Muhammad was unable to collect any spoils from the departed Meccans and their allies, so how was he supposed to reward his jihadists? The wealth of the Jews. Apart from the details of how the Prophet distributed the spoils here, the division of twenty percent for him and eighty percent for his warriors conforms to a 'revelation' just after the Battle of Badr in AD 624. In Sura (Chapter) 8:1 and 41, which deals with this battle, Allah grants him and his fighters these percentages.

Allah also allows jihadists to have sex with female slaves. Do we need to discuss this topic any further in the context of these Jewish women and girls? Sources: Ibn Ishaq, pp. 464—66; Tabari, vol. 8, pp. 27—41.

The steps to the massacre

Since all the names and politics can be confusing, here is a quick summary of the facts found in the previous section.

1. After the Meccans and their allies depart, the Jews are left powerless and outnumbered, facing 3,000 Muslim jihadists.

2. While the Jews were negotiating the terms of surrender with Abu Lubaba, he gestures to his throat, which indicates slaughter. This means that the flow of the events headed in one direction.

3. Sad bin Muadh is the leader of the Aws tribe.

4. This tribe had old alliances, whatever they were, with the Qurayzah tribe of Jews.

5. However, the Aws fought alongside Muhammad.

6. The Jews sided with the coalition (though the Jews did not actually fight).
7. Thus, the old alliances between the Aws and Jews are weakening.

8. After Muhammad's attack on the Jews, some of the Aws plead with Muhammad to be lenient, such as expulsion.

9. Muhammad turns down this request for mercy—a key point, which supports no. 2. The outcome is never in doubt.

10. Instead, Muhammad appoints Sad bin Muadh to decide, and everyone agrees to abide by his decision.

11. Sad decrees slaughter and enslavement, wanting to firm up his allegiance to Islam before he dies. He dies shortly thereafter from his wound.

12. Muhammad says that Sad's verdict is the judgment of 'King Allah.' It is right and just. Sad makes him glad.

13. Even though everyone agrees to abide by the verdict, Muhammad still does not show mercy, as the men and boys are handcuffed behind their backs and beheaded, and the women and children are enslaved. Instead, he takes one of the beautiful, recently 'widowed' Jewish women for himself.

14. Muhammad gets twenty percent of the Jewish property (movable, immovable and human), and the jihadists get eighty percent, to be distributed as he sees fit.

In any steps leading up to an atrocity, something wrong is bound to be revealed, and this appears to be no. 9. As noted, Muhammad could have exiled the Jews, as he had done to the Jewish tribes of Qaynuqa and Nadir a few years earlier. Or he could have executed only the leaders, if he believed that they stirred up his enemies—assuming that they really did this, as the Islamic sources allege.

Something is also wrong with step no. 13. Even though everyone agreed to abide by the verdict, who could have complained—justly complained—if Muhammad had announced the following?

'We agreed to abide by the tribal chief's verdict, but as I watch the men and boys being handcuffed and observe all the tears from the women and children, I'm sure no one would object if we showed mercy and exiled them and executed only the few trouble—makers. After all, I often say that Allah is most merciful. I set the example for my community and the world!' But this is wishful thinking. He took one of the beauties (now a widow) for himself, instead of taking the path of mercy.

Why does he not show mercy? The answer is found in no. 14. Muhammad needs to reward his jihadists, since they collected no spoils from the departed coalition—Allah gives him permission to do this in Sura 33:27 (see the next section, 'the Quran'). And what makes this entire episode doubly heinous is that Muhammad and his jihadists could have had all of the wealth of the Jews after he banished them, but he still did not take this merciful option.

The Quran

Allah seems to celebrate this slaughter and enslavement in Sura 33:25—27:

25 Allah turned back the unbelievers [Meccans and their allies] in a state of rage, having not won any good, and Allah spared the believers battle [q—t—l]. Allah is, indeed, Strong and Mighty. 26 And He brought those of the People of the Book [Qurayza] who supported them from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts, some of them you slew [q—t—l] and some you took captive. 27 And he bequeathed to you their lands, their homes and their possessions, together with land you have never trodden. Allah has power over everything. (Majid Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Qur'an, NYUP, 2004; insertions are mine)

These verses reveal three unpleasant truths.

First, Allah helps the Muslims in warfare or battle (three—letter Arabic root is q—t—l in v. 25) against a much—larger foe, so Allah endorses Islam in battle. Also, verse 25 confirms that Muhammad had nothing substantial to fear from the Jews. 'Allah turned back the unbelievers . . . and Allah spared the believers battle.' In down—to—earth terms, Muhammad still had at his disposal a large, weather—beaten army. The Prophet had expelled two other tribes (Qaynuqa and Nadir), so he could have done the same to the Qurayza—as indeed they requested. But the Prophet for humanity declined this merciful and humane option.

Second, Allah permits the enslavement and beheading of Jews, so any Muslim familiar with the background of this verse knows that beheading as such has been assimilated into the Quran. The word q—t—l in verse 26 means slaughter. What is so troubling about the verse is that it seems to celebrate the 'terror' that Allah threw into the Jews' hearts. Indeed, when Abu Lubaba the mediator approached the Jews during negotiations, the women and children were crying. Allah gladly terrorized them.

Finally, Allah permits Muhammad to take the Jewish clan's property on the basis of conquest and his possession of all things. This is a dubious revelation and reasoning. Allah speaks, and this benefits Muhammad materially. This happens often in Muhammad's life.

If anyone is looking for a down—to—earth reason for Muhammad's attack on the Qurayza Jews (instead of 'Gabriel's leadership'), then he does not need to look any further than verse 27. The Prophet confiscated wealth. After all, the Meccans and their allies withdrew without allowing Muslims to take their wealth. So how was Muhammad going to reward his jihadists?

For more translations of these verses, the readers may go to three sites: this one has multiple translations; this one has three; and this translation is subsidized by the Saudi royal family.

Conclusion

Muslim polemical and outreach websites often assert that Islam promotes human rights. It is impossible to see how they can say this honestly and at the same time appeal to the origins of their religion.

This whitewash is deceitful at best and dangerous at worst, if or when Islam gets a foothold in a region on the pretence of 'peace and love.' Maybe sleepy Westerners and others will accept this benign version of Islam—in fact too many do, right now. But what happens later when hard—line Muslims (not to mention nonviolent and violent fanatics) cite the numerous brutal verses in the Quran and passages in the hadith to inflict barbarity on people, especially on Jews?

The evidence in this article alone demonstrates that violence is embedded in original Islam. Even a reliable hadith shows Allah reprimanding Muhammad for another of his cruelties (see this article). Sadly, though, Allah did not reprimand his favorite prophet for this clear atrocity against the Jews, but celebrates it (Sura 33:25—27).

It is time for Muslim leaders to renounce violence clearly and specifically, not vaguely: 'Yes, we denounce all forms of violence' They must go deeper than this. They must stop denying the dark past, found in the Quran itself and in the example of their Prophet. They must, instead, be clear. 'We denounce these specific verses and passages in the Quran and hadith that are violent. These specific acts and words happened in the seventh century (and later centuries), and we have moved beyond all of them. We now want peace.'

A peaceful presentation of Islam is not full disclosure. It is time to be honest. Only then can interfaith dialogue even begin.

James M. Arlandson can be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com.

Endnotes:

[1] Sources: Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, Oxford UP, 1961, pp. 166—67; Muhammad at Medina, Oxfored UP, 1956; Sayyid Abul A'La Maududi, The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 3; Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume, Oxford UP, 1955, pp. 363—64; 437—45. Ibn Ishaq (d. 767) valuable and reliable source by modern scholars, except for some chronology and the miraculous elements. Tabari, The Foundation of the Community, trans. M.V. McDonald and annotated by W. M. Watt (SUNYP, 1987), pp. 85—87; 156—61. Tabari (d. 923) is also considered a reliable source, except for some chronology and the miraculous elements.

[2] Sources: Ibn Ishaq; Tabari, The Victory of Islam, trans. M. Fishbein, vol. 8, (1997), pp. 6—7. Safi—ur—Rahman Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar: Biography of the Noble Prophet, Darrusalam, 1996, p. 201. This biography was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League, but it is an encomium more than an objective biography.

Supplemental Material

This article is the longer version. It has a section that replies to Muslim defenses of this indefensible atrocity. Another section shows in more detail why the Meccan coalition had to withdraw from its siege of Medina.

See this series of articles for more information on Muhammad's atrocity against the Qurayza Jews.

My own article, Muhammad and the Jews, examines early Islam and the Jews more broadly than the Qurayza tribe. It also has replies to Muslim defenses.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/02/muhammad_and_massacre_of_the_q.html

Here is a link explaining:

Dear Rabbi Hirschfield

Happy Hanukkah and a Happy New Year 2008!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Before I go to bed.
Here's someone else you can focus your rage on, Harry,

Good night to all...

Look at that, he's not Catholic, but I'm sorry Harry, the success argument isn't going to work here...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22968708-12335,00.html

Beautifully said, Pale Rider.
BTW, are the Catholic League folks on your hit list? I have no idea what they have to do with the conversation.

I brought up an obvious point. I provided evidenced, but yet I'm villified.

I'm confused about Santa? What is there to be confused about?

Harry Fisher is definitely right on. I hope he didn't burst a blood vessel.

I'd feel better if the organizations you supported got out of the Christmas bashing business. That's what I'd like. BTW, we already have all of those things. Heck, we even have a Menorah lighting ceremony on the Mall. The ADL have gotten almost everything they want, so why don't they back off?

I love lox by the way. Whitefish on sesame seed bagel, hmmm....

Quinn is still having breakfast with the Catholic league folks, but wants me to say that Harry Fisher is right on, and George Jefferson is a little confused about Santa. Would all the good Christian posters feel better if we just put up a big Cross in all the public squares in the nation ? I don't care. I dig lights, trees, singing, raindeer, and fat jolly men going ho ho. Its so Christian. Crosses don't bother me. But why stop there. Why not a Hindu wheel on Hindu holy days or a Muslim Cresent on their days, and yes,oh horrors, a big Star of David on Jewish holy days. Think of the year long fun and parties on the square; the diversity; the meeting of the "other ". The ability to talk about plots and schemes with all kinds of people. Well, I need to pick up Quinn and mosey over to the enlightened Christian meeting. They are having bagels and lox.

"I think I vocalize what a lot of others are thinking but would rather not say..."

You're wrong!

Help put the X back in Xmas!!!!

Harry,
Tsk Tsk. No need to get angry. Are you that successful? Somehow I doubt it. No need to prove how great you are.

BTW, there are other ethnic groups doing just fine in this country. Asians are also a small percentage of the US population and are doing EXTRAORDINARILY well in areas such as medicine, science, and technology. No rankling or anger there...

Happy Hannukah to you...

Your points? Who gives a rat's ass about your "points?" Screw your points. Apologise for what? For being successful? To hell with that. Deal with it, d!ckhead.

Harry,

You did nothing to refute any of my points.

You just basically said, "we're the best, so deal with it". You gave an entirely expected answer.
Typical arrogance and no apologies. I think you proved my point. This generation, it's the evil Muslims that are so intolerant, the last it was Christians...I think I see a pattern here.

Shall we go down the list of countries in history that all came to the same conclusion?

I think some of the people on this board confuse "criticism" with "hate". Plenty of comedians and actors have no problem leveling slanderous accusations at the Catholic Church. When anyone criticizes Israel or a Jewish group such as the ADL, the terms "hateful" and "violent" get carelessly thrown around. For those of you who believe that eradication of Christian symbols from the public sphere is your mandate, time for a little introspective reflection may be at hand.

I think I vocalize what a lot of others are thinking but would rather not say...

How peculiar. The world is teeming with savage regimes and vicious groups of people who slaughter one another at the call of demagogues and religious fanatics, but Israel and the Jews are singled out for special attention by the faux-humanitarians on this board. The Jews kill Palestinians. The Jews hate Christmas. The Jews are trying to pull the rug from under Christianity, etc etc. On and on go the Jew haters.

But this does not bother me in the very least, for I know the reason for their resentment and hatred. Would anybody pay attention to the Jews if they were unimportant as a cultural force? If they were of no consequence they would be treated like the Romani, whom most Americans have never even heard of. No, it is irritating to certain individuals that the Jews, a mere 2% of Americans, have risen to exert great influence on politics, the sciences, the arts, and in business.

And not only that, but the Christians' very deity was a Jew so Christianity is derivative. In fact, in spite all the great Jewish philosophers and scientists such as Marx, Freud and Einstein, our real success story was Jesus. Jews may have won the Nobel Prize out of proportion to their numbers or become fabulously wealthy, but our boy Jesus made it all the way to become a god! Not bad for a country carpenter, huh?

I feel your pain. Everywhere you look you see us Jew b*stards. We are everywhere and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it except gnash your teeth and post to fora. It's not surprising you're pissed for it rankles to be also-rans. By the way, that's why envy is considered a deadly sin - it can drive you insane.

True Blue American:

So much hate? I think the "hate" accusation is a convenient tactic aimed at diverting attention away from the issues under discussion.

http://www.adl.org/combating_hate/

I think the word "dissent" might be a more accurate term. Christianity is not a hateful religion at all. Christians came to your rescue in WWII. How soon we forget. Ah yes, your next step is to purport that the GIs coming in to Europe to save your brethren were of all different religions. And so the myth of religious diversity is perpetuated.

I agree with your statement about Christmas and Santa being a shared western version of a winter celebration we all participate in. That's why the ADL and the ACLU work so assiduously to eradicate "real" symbols of Christianity (nativity scenes, crosses,etc. Look up Mt. Soledad in San Diego) from the public sphere.

No one used the term "persecution". My point is that pressure groups such as the ADL/ACLU work tirelessly to distort the Constitution's establishment clause. Of course, America's government cannot and should not espouse one religion over another. And yes, candidates like Huckabee are pandering to their base which includes members of the religious right.

But, to deny that the very core principles that this country was founded upon aren't somehow derived from a shared Christian identity is disingenuous. Yes, I know that many of the founding fathers were Deists or agnostic in some sense. But if you look up the religious backgrounds of all of signers of the Declaration of Independence a clearer picture will emerge.

My underlying point, which many of other posters will acknowledge, is that Christian imagery/symbols ARE under attack. Make no mistake, the campaign is real...

Fox News would have you believe that it's Hollywood and the liberal media that are snuffing out Christian displays in malls and airports.
Or perhaps, that it's the atheists. Michael Newdow was offended by the phrase "One Nation Under God". Upon closer inspection of his background we see the common denominator binding those who object vociferously to God in the public arena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Newdow

I'm old enough to remember when devout Christians began saying "put Christ back into Christmas." The message was do away with all of the commercialism, go back to the central message of peace and love thy fellow man, etc.

Garish lighting displays, each trying to outdo the last, public displays of excess...maybe some people have seen the light and done away with Disneying of the holiday and are moving back to what this commemoration is supposed to be about.

So much hate from Christians. It would lead one to believe that Christianity is a hateful, violent religion. Shame on you.

And one of you says:
Is this going to detract from your Jewishness, Catholicism, etc? Lets face it, Santa and the Christmas Tree today represent a shared western version of a winter celebration we ALL participate in (to varying degrees) every year...

As an American, I don't want my taxpayer dollars going to anyone's religious symbols. I personally don't care about Santa or Christmas trees--fine put them up, but it is so disingenous of people to believe they are "persecuted" because some of us do not want creches, baby jesus or crosses in the public square. You have every right to put that on your homes, your churches, your private businesses. You can pray all you want at home and your churches--isn't America great. Keep it out of public places, public schools, public events. We are a nation with Christians, not a Christian nation.

Tyranny by the majority--the most unamerican thing I can think of.

I was taking a walk around Cleveland Park and noticed the conspicuous absence of any Christmas
lights...NOWHERE to be seen ANYWHERE.

Has PC and/or just plain indifference killed any public displays over the "holiday"? Or can't these people afford them in their multi-million dollar mansions? Are they afraid they might offend their non-Christian neighbors?

A society/nation ashamed of its own origins and traditions is doomed.

Yes - I do think some interest/pressure groups want to kill the religious underpinnings/symbols/traditions of this country.

Rabbi Hirschfield's -- I hope you remember to appreciate first hand the joy of other people's religion. Especially the Islamic religion that promotes genocide against jews. Did you know Muhamed had 800 jewish men beheaded in one day at the Battle of Badr (which launched Islam into politics) and took their wives and children as sex slaves?

Please, teach your children to respect and "apprecaite" Islam.

If you are going to make statements at least know your facts. There were no Jews involved in the Battle of Badr. The event you are speaking of actually took place in another battle called Khandaq and the "genocide" you mention was justice ie. it was deserved. The Jewish tribe in which the "800" men were executed lived in Medina under the protection of Muhammad and had signed and agreement that they would help the Muslims and the Muslims would help them if anyone attacked the city. However, this tribe secretly conspired with those that were attacking to try and wipe out the nascent Islamic community. After the Muslims won the battle and the tribe was proven to be helping the attackers the tribe asked Muhammad to ask a third party who they chose to adjudicate the matter and he accepted. The third party gave the judgement that the treasonous act deserved death and they were put to death. Incidentally this was not the first Jewish tribe that lived in Medina that had breached its agreement and secretly worked to hurt the Muslim community. That tribe was banished and was allowed to take virtually all of their belongings. Treason is the only crime mentioned in the US constitution that has the death penalty attached to it and in all countries it is considered to be an extremely serious offense. Therefore your genocide comment is completely inaccurate and is just another in a long line of completely baseless accusations aimed at Islam and Muhammad. This has absolutely nothing to do with what the initial post is about, but I felt it was necessary for this to be clarified as there are so many instances where incorrect information about Islam is presented.

I have come to believe that the less religious conviction a person has, the better he or she would be able to serve in public office, unfettered by pre-conceived ideas or dogma. Even the good Rabbi believes that, at the time that there were probably several million humans on earth, God looked down and decided that the Jews were really his(?)favorite folks. The problem is, while we all try to be tolerant of others' beliefs, we remain certain that our own faith is really the truest and most valid. We call it our "faith", as opposed to "knowledge", even though no actual proof validates most of it. The ages have produced certain "truths", that is, courses of action which are best for the protection of the human race and its future. A public servant should be one who recogizes these "truths", and should not be limited by any dogma or faith. Religion has a terrible record, as far as the treatment of people of different faiths. Our claim to being a Nation founded on religion does not flatter us, when we consider our treatment of the native Indians, slavery, undeclared wars, and even our refusing to give safe haven to Jews who were being persecuted during the 1930's by Hitler. Expressions of religious convictions sound hollow, when coming from the campaign stump.

correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it true that Jesus ben Joseph v'Mary was a practicing Jew? And didn't he espouse Jewish theology and morals and ethics? And didn't he throw out the moneychangers who were defiling the Temple of David, that seat of his Judaism?

Did he not show tolerance for others, particularly sinners even though he wanted them to change their ways? Didn't he say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?"

It seems there are a lot of stone and flame throwers responding to posters as well as the column itself which is clearly labeled an opinion piece.

Lastly, when the Founding Fathers were giving thought to how the country ought to be characterized, they even discussed having Hebrew (yes, Hebrew!!) be the official language, not so as to Hebraicize the country but to poke a thumb in King George's English eye. Thankfully they gave up the thought as this country has tsuris enough communicating with the illegal border crossers without them having to know Hebrew as well!

I want to add that I'm Jewish but I don't believe in Israel, right or wrong.

However, as wrong as Israel can be, it's not fair to say that Palestinians are always right. Both sets of people are acting like asses.

I may be a minority but I don't want to rule the majority. I just believe in the separation of church and state and don't think that the US Government has any business legislating religiously.

You know, Bethany, George Jefferson, Donttypelies and all the other people who think that the only way to love Christianity is to hate Judaism, Islam and every other religion other than yours, it's interesting how you rail on about theocracies in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq and how bad it is.

You want to do the same thing here. The only difference between you and those other countries is the religion.

George Jefferson:

As a Jewish person, I take great exception to the people who say that Jewish people have a war against Christmas. How can we? As you say, 86 percent of this country is Christian and at no time is that more prevalent than during Christmas time. Forced diversity is a code word for "you don't belong here, it's our country so shut up."

I don't want to stop Christian displays. What I will say is that every single time I see something Christian in a public place, it reminds me that as a Jewish person I don't matter.

With this election becoming more like a theocracy where who is the most Christian is more important than who is the most qualified, it reminds me that as a Jewish person, I don't matter.

I know it's a Christian country. I'm reminded of that every single day.

Mr. Jefferson,I would think that since you're in the majority, you could be generous to share the country with other people. Or are you like Ann Coulter who said the world would be a happier place without Jewish people. She later clarified that she meant that it would be a happier place if all Jewish people became people perfected by Christianity.

That is what really scares me. That once someone like Huckabee becomes President, Christianity won't just be the majority. It will be mandatory.

The topic is santa and the Jews. Sit on his lap, ask him for gifts from the North Pole, but don't shine a lite from your home. With no belief in Christmas, let alone santa claus, the stocking hanging under the minora is full. A new missile defence system aimed at Gaza, free land for settlements in Jerusalem, a raise in pay for all IDF personnel.

Where did these generous gifts come from?

Not from Christ, or from santa.

May the beauty and love in these words touch every heart, and open us all to shared respect and growth.

you could not be a Marshall High graduate

you could not be a Marshall High graduate

Pale Rider,
I guess you don't pay attention to the headlines that come out of South America. Colombia has been fighting a civil war against Marxist guerillas and narcoterrorists for the last 25 or so years.

George Albert would have you believe that his people's suffering is unique and therefore deserving of everyone's tax dollars. I'd prefer a more humble approach.

I would hope that one day we can all live in peace as human beings and put aside our grudges and greivances. I as a Catholic, readily acknowledge that the Church that represents my religion has been guilty of wrongdoing throughout its history.
George Albert and his ilk are incapable of even basic introspection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

I care about your father's people in Columbia. I also care about Jews in Israel, under daily attack from rockets, getting critized for defending themselves,merely because their Jews. Jews are not supposed to defend themselves or be aggresive. They must be pre world war 2 passive Juden. Not any more. Now what does your father's people need in Columbia ? I will send my share of taxes to help them, and you can use your share for Israeli cluster bombs. Or we could switch.Mid-century historian liked the older European Jews, I think,not the new ones. They are too much like Christians and Muslims, who taught them well. Well Quinn and I are off to attend a Catholic decency league breakfast. Adios.

So, George Albert

It takes you only four (numbered) paragraphs and
a few hundred words to tell off everyone. And educate and enlighten us to everything. Of all time.

You are so smart, and so superior to the rest of us. How very lucky we are to have you here. You may read the last sentence as plural and multiple.