И моите извори се повикуваат на луѓе кои живееле во негово време. Третманот кој го добивале еврејските племиња, и односот кој го имал со
робовите (постојат записи за се' тоа).
Ако добро ги прочита линковите подолу, пишува и за Мека. Имено, кога Мухамед се вратил во Мека, тој имал војска, и во градот се случил огромен масакар.
Norman Geisler accuses Muhammad of "mercilessness" towards the Jewish tribes of Medina.Geisler also argues that Muhammad "had no aversion to politically expedient assassinations," "was not indisposed to breaking promises when he found it advantageous" and engaged in retaliation towards those who mocked him." The OrientalistWilliam Muir, in assessing Muhammad's character, described him as cruel and faithless in dealing with his enemies.Magnanimity or moderation are nowhere discernible as features in the conduct of Mahomet towards such of his enemies as failed to tender a timely allegiance. Over the bodies of the Coreish who fell at Badr, he exulted with savage satisfaction; and several prisoners,—accused of no crime but that of scepticism and political opposition,—were deliberately executed at his command. The Prince of Kheibar, after being subjected to inhuman torture for the purpose of discovering the treasures of his tribe, was, with his cousin, put to death on the pretext of having treacherously concealed them: and his wife was led away captive to the tent of the conqueror. Sentence of exile was enforced by Mahomet with rigorous severity on two whole Jewish tribes at Medîna; and of a third, likewise his neighbours, the women and children were sold into distant captivity, while the men, amounting to several hundreds, were butchered in cold blood before his eyes. ... The perfidious attack at Nakhla, where the first blood in the internecine war with the Coreish was shed, although at first disavowed by Mahomet for its scandalous breach of the sacred usages of Arabia, was eventually justified by a pretended revelation. ... The pretext on which the Bani Nadhîr were besieged and expatriated (namely, that Gabriel had revealed their design against the prophet’s life,) was feeble and unworthy of an honest cause. When Medîna was beleagured by the confederate army, Mahomet sought the services of Nueim, a traitor, and employed him to sow distrust among the enemy by false and treacherous reports; “for,” said he, “what else is War but a game at deception?” ... And what is perhaps worst of all, the dastardly assassination of political and religious opponents, countenanced and frequently directed as they were in all their cruel and perfidious details by Mahomet himself, leaves a dark and indelible blot upon his character.
Muhammad has been often criticized outside of the Islamic world for his treatment of the Jewish tribes of Medina.An example is the mass killing of the men of the Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe of Medina. The tribe was accused of having engaged in treasonous agreements with the enemies besieging Medina in the Battle of the Trench in 627.Ibn Ishaq writes that Muhammad approved the beheading of some 600-900 individuals who surrendered unconditionally after a siege that lasted several weeks. (Also see Bukhari 5:59:362) (Yusuf Ali notes that the Qur'an discusses this battle in verses [Quran 33:1]).] They were buried in a mass grave in the Medina market place, and the women and children were sold into slavery.
According to Norman Stillman, the incident cannot be judged by present-day moral standards. Citing Deut. 20:13-14 as an example, Stillman states that the slaughter of adult males and the enslavement of women and children - though no doubt causing bitter suffering - was common practice throughout the ancient world. According to Rudi Paret, adverse public opinion was more a point of concern to Muhammad when he had some date palms cut down during a siege, than after this incident. Esposito also argues that in Muhammad's time, traitors were executed and points to similar situations in the Bible. Esposito says that Muhammad's motivation was political rather than racial or theological; he was trying to establish Muslim dominance and rule in Arabia.
A few Muslim scholars, such as W. N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad, have disputed the historicity of the incident. Ahmad argues that only the leading members of the tribe were killed. Arafat argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who exaggerated the details of the incident. However Watt finds Arafat's arguments "not entirely convincing."
Зошто денес не гледаме воени судири помеѓу христијани и евреи, помеѓу христијани и будисти, евреи и будисти ? Зошто во центарот на секој воен судир се муслиманите ?
Не ти е чудно ?
Јас немам забележано никаква верска нетрпеливост помеѓу христијаните, будистите и евреите. Но, сите тие имаат проблем со муслиманите.
Зошто е тоа така ? Зошто помеѓу овие постои верска нетрпеливост исклучиво со муслиманите ?
