Amongst the reasons that this account of Banu Qurayza can clearly be refuted are:
1.) As stated above, the authority of Islam, al Quran clearly states the rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible for the sedition.
2.) Qur’anic refence to this event is minimal. An event of magnitude would have surely been expounded upon for matter of jurisprudence.
3.) Had this slaughter actually happened, jurists would have adopted it as a precedent. In fact exactly the opposite has been the case. The attitude of jurists, and their rulings, have been more according to the Qur’anic rule in the verse, “No soul shall bear another’s burden.”
4.) In the story of Qurayza specific people were named as having been put to death, thus it is a reasonable conclusion that those were the ones who led the sedition and who were consequently punished – not the whole tribe.
5.) The veracity of the work must come under scrutiny after the authenticity of such events, and the integrity of the authors or their work has so clearly been shown to have substandard quality.
While there are numerous other reasons to refute this account of the Banu Qurayza, I will simply leave off with the fact that nowhere before, or after has such an event happened. The very idea of such an event is diametrically opposed to the principles of Islamic justice. In the end there will be those who continue to perpetuate a story of hate and violence, to further their own virulent ideologies and promote hate and fear, and there will be those who fight such malicious intent. I hope this information will rest in the latter category.
“NOWHERE BEFORE, OR AFTER HAS SUCH AN EVENT HAPPENED”
BUT HERE IS EVIDENCE IT DID HAPPEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN:
Last Friday, April 24, we remembered how exactly 100 years ago the last historic Muslim caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, tried to cleanse its empire of Christian minorities — Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks — even as we stand by watching as the new caliphate, the Islamic State, resumes the genocide.
And in both cases, the atrocities were and are being committed in the name of Islam.
In November, 1914, during WWI, the Ottoman caliphate issued a fatwa, or Islamic decree, proclaiming it a “sacred duty” for all Muslims to “massacre” infidels — specifically naming the “Christian men” of the Triple Entente, “the enemies of Islam” — with promises of great rewards in the afterlife.
The same Koran verses that the Islamic State and other jihadi outfits regularly quote permeated the Ottoman fatwa, including: “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them — seize them, besiege them, and be ready to ambush them” (9:5) and “O you who have believed! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are but friends of each other; and whoever among you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them” (5:51) — and several other verses that form the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity.
Many Muslims still invoke this doctrine; it commands Muslims to befriend and aid fellow Muslims, while having enmity for all non-Muslims (one Islamic cleric even teaches that Muslim husbands must hate their non-Muslim wives, while enjoying them sexually).
SO THAT DISCREDITS Y0UR CLAIM.
When the Prophet (peace be upon him) told the Jews that they must become Muslims in order to be safe, this could have two possible meanings.
First, either it meant that the Jews needed to convert to Islam in order to be safe from Allah’s wrath on the Day of Judgment.
Secondly, it meant that they physically needed to be safe from the Muslims if they didn’t convert to Islam and the Prophet (peace be upon him) also wanted to have them exiled from their land.
Imam Nawawi in his commentary on the hadith stated…
There is no choice in Islam. Accept Islam or die.
the Quran commanded us not to transgress the limits in war which meant DONT KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN
Muhammad played a bit loose with the lives of women and children during wartime. As recorded in both Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:
It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: “They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4322, see also Bukhari 52:256)
This does not justify the targeted killing of women and children per se, but it does prove that collateral damage is entirely acceptable if it accomplishes the military goal of spreading Islamic rule.
Muhammad used a catapult against the city of Taif – a catuplut kills indiscriminately. The only crime those citizens were guilty of was rejecting his claims of being a prophet and evicting him.
So let us summarize everything we have:
-The prophet Muhammad was in a treaty with the Qurayza tribe
-The Qurayza tribe broke the treaty
-Once they broke the treaty they were liable for a punishment
-The Qurayza are not innocent
So claim Muslims. We only have their word that the treaty was broken by the Qurayza tribe and that it was not just an excuse to kill off the Jews.
Whatever happened, all the Jews were eliminated from Medina. It certainly looks like genocide.
This has also been repeated in Armenian by the Ottomans.
To simply accept the facts from the narrative of Muslims is truly unreliable. The fact are the Jews were eliminated from Medina for 0ne reason or another under the rule of Muhammad.