Quran

Aineo Wrote:

The Quraish broke the treaty, not the Bani Qurayza.

Quote:
The Banu Qurayza (Arabic بني قريظة; بنو قريظة alternate spellings include Quraiza, Qurayzah, Quraytha, and the archaic Koreiza) were a Jewish tribe who lived in northern Arabia during the 7th century, at the oasis of Yathrib (now known as Medina). In 627 CE, the tribe was besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad, who charged the tribe with treachery for not aiding the Muslims during the Battle of the Trench. The Qurayza were taken captive and all men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were beheaded, while all women were enslaved.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

Ibn Ishaq recorded that after Muhammad arrived in Medina in 622, the Arabs and Jews of the area signed an agreement, the Constitution of Medina, which committed the Jewish and Muslim tribes to mutual cooperation. The nature of this document as recorded by Ibn Ishaq and transmitted by ibn Hisham is the subject of dispute among modern historians many of whom maintain that this "treaty" is possibly a collage of agreements, oral rather than written, of different dates, and that it is not clear when they were made or with whom.[14][15][2] Watt holds that the Qurayza and Nadir were probably mentioned in an earlier version of the Constitution requiring the parties not to support an enemy against each other.[2]

Aside from the general agreements, Muslim sources including the chronicles by Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi, contain a report that after arriving to Medina, Muhammad signed a special treaty with the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad. Ibn Ishaq does not name his sources for this claim; al-Waqidi mentions two sources: Ka’b ibn Malik of Salima, a clan hostile to the Jews, and Mummad ibn Ka’b, the son of a Qurayza boy, who was sold into slavery after the massacre of the Qurayza men and subsequently became a Muslim. According to Watt, both sources may be biased against the Qurayza, and on these grounds the historicity of this agreement between Muhammad and the Banu Qurayza is open to grave doubt.[2] Norman Stillman furthermore argued that the Muslim historians had invented this agreement in order to justify the later massacre of the Qurayza men and the enslavement of their women and children.[16] On the other hand, R. B. Serjeant is more optimistic about this agreement and infers that Banu Qurayza knew the consequences of treachery.[17][verification needed]
http://www.answers.com/topic/banu-qurayza
Other than you insistence that the Jews broke the treaty there is no historical basis to accept your view.

The writer wrote "When the Jews of medina resisted Muhammad in the 7th Century; he beheaded the men and sold their women and children into slavery." This is a completely distorted story with the prejudiced, subjective personal opinion of the writer.

In 627, the army of Mecca attacked Medina (where Muslims and Muhammad lived) under the command of Abu Sufyan. This is called the battle of the Trench. Abu Sufyan asked the Banu Qurayza (a Jewish) tribe to help them conquer Medina, by attacking the Muslims from behind the lines or letting them into the town.

According to one early historian, Ibn Ishaq, the Banu Qurayza chief, Ka'b, was initially reluctant, but eventually decided to support the Meccans, being so persuaded by Huyayy ibn Akhtab, chief of the Banu al-Nadir (a Jewish tribe).

This was the second time Bani Qurayza had broken the peace treaty with the Muslims and allied with Banu Al-Nadir against the Muslims; the first time, Banu Qurayza suffered no loss and were allowed to stay in Medina.

However, Abu Sufyan's forces were defeated in the Battle of the Trench, and retreated, abandoning their allies to the victors. The very day of the victory, Muhammad led the Muslim troops towards the Banu Qurayza's neighborhood. The Banu Qurayza retreated into their stronghold and contemplated their alternatives. As the Banu Qurayza morale waned (according to early Historian Ibn Ishaq), their chief made a speech to them, suggesting three alternative ways out of their predicament: embrace Islam; kill their own children and women, then rush out for a "kamikaze" charge to either win or die; or make a surprise attack on Saturday (the Sabbath, when by mutual understanding no fighting would take place). But it seems that none of these alternatives were accepted. After a siege that lasted several weeks, the Banu Qurayza surrendered unconditionally.

According to Muslim accounts, Aws (an Arab tribe allied with the Jews) pleaded to Muhammad for Banu Qurayza and asked Muhammad to appoint Sa'd ibn Mu'adh as an arbitrator to decide their fate. Their request was accepted. Since, at that time, no specific punishment had been revealed in the Qur’an about the fate of the Jews, Sa'd ibn Mu'adh announced his verdict in accordance with the Torah. As per the Torah, the punishment for treason was that all men should be put to death; the women and children should be made slaves and the wealth of the whole nation should be distributed among the conquerors. In accordance with this verdict pronounced, all men were executed. John Esposito (Director for the Center for Christian-Muslim Understanding at the Georgetown University) writes that Muhammad's use of warfare in general was alien neither to Arab custom nor to that of the Hebrew prophets, as both believed that God had sanctioned battle with the enemies of the Lord.

In contrast to the Jews, the Christians in Arabia had remained neutral, and had not sided with any party. The Prophet gave them a Charter which was a monument of enlightenment and tolerance. The Charter provided that the Christians were not to be unfairly taxed; that no bishop was to be expelled from the monasteries; that no Christian was to be restrained from the performance of pilgrimage; that no Christian churches were to be pulled down; and that where a Christian woman was married to a Muslim, she could retain her religion and go to her Church, even after marriage.

Christians and Jews are treated as People of the Book (Scriptures of Jews, Christians and Muslims). Christians and Jews prospered under Muslim rule. Leaders like Suleiman the magnificent of the Ottoman Empire contributed to our notions of tolerance and civic leadership. And perhaps we can learn a lesson from his example: It was leadership based on meritocracy, not inheritance. It was leadership that harnessed the full capabilities of a very diverse population - that included Christianity, Islamic, and Jewish traditions.
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_8 ... s_into.htm

Moses did not attack those who did not first attack the Jews during the Exodus. In fact the Jews traveled around nations that would not allow them passage through their territory. So once again you are perverting what if found in the Bible.

When you Muslims cannot defend your positions you appeal to splinter groups who decided that Jesus did not say what is recorded in Scripture. In other words that dog won't hunt and you know it. Take those 3 verses out of Matthew and Jesus' instructions do not change. The 70 were not to do anything to those who rejected the Gospel and it was not until after Muhammad started killing those who rejected Islam that Urban II decided to defend Christians using Muhammad's tactics. Also:

It is probable that a scribe added 3 verses to Matthew so it would agree with Luke. You see Farid, we know that there were words and verses added to some NT books, however those additions do not affect any valid doctrine.

Now, why did Uthman destroy those partial manuscripts that disagreed with his "official" Qur'an? This is also a part of Islam so if you are going to attack the Bible then you need to defend the actions of the man who compiled your Qur'an.

Mary was never viewed as part of the Trinity or viewed as a goddess by any orthodox Christian group. Therefore the Qur'an is in error and therefore not divinely inspired. If Allah was the one true God he would have known this.

Mary was never viewed as part of the Trinity or viewed as a goddess by any orthodox Christian group. Therefore the Qur'an is in error and therefore not divinely inspired. If Allah was the one true God he would have known this.