Bani Qurayza, Marriage at Puberty and the Tacit Approval of Jesus

Back in February 2006, I posted a rather lengthy comment on the FreeBornJohn blog in response to some misinformed statements that I found there. Since the comment in question touched upon a multitude of topics that I hope some readers will find valuable, I've reposted the entire comment below (although I've modified it slightly in a few instances, mostly for cosmetic reasons):

Mere Muslim said:

Well I don't have much time to dedicate to this rather one-sided debate in which you're long on claims but short on facts. Indeed, this time you've really been caught in a LIE. Your little insertion of "(men, women and children)" into the above quotations seems to indicate that you've been reading the hatemongers again...or you just conveniently fabricated it on your own.

If you took the time to do a little research, you might actually learn something about the execution of the Jews of Bani Qurayza—and Wikipedia has an article with a lot of details. First of all, the only ones who considered killing the women and children were the Bani Qurayza themselves—seemingly because they recalled what other Jews had done such a thing at Masada roughly six centuries earlier. The Wikipedia article makes this clear when it explains that the second alternative for breaking the siege, as imagined by the chief of the Jewish tribe Bani Qurayza, was to "kill their own children and women, then rush out for a 'kamikaze' charge to either win or die". Also, the Muslims did not—I repeat DID NOT—kill any women and children of the Bani Qurayza, the Wikipedia article makes this clear (i.e. "The bulk of the tribe's men were killed...").

If you look into this incident further, the Bani Qurayza had agreed to let Sa'ad ibn Mua'dh decide on their fate, since they thought he would be fair and lenient. The Wikipedia article on him even mentions an often overlooked detail of this event, and that's that fact that he "is recorded as saying that he was invoking the laws of the Torah with his judgment which was to execute all adult male members of the tribe."

Indeed, the punishment that the Bani Qurayza received that day was one straight out of their own Torah, NOT from the Qur'an. Actually, had the Torah been followed, the women and children would have been killed—but Islamic law prohibits the killing of non-combatant women and children (and being that you're from the country that firebombed Dresden and other German cities, that's something you ought to take to heart).

As painful as this realization might be to some, the Bible instructs that if you lay siege to a city and capture it, if it's a city that is "far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations" then, after killing all of the adult males, you shall "take the women, children, animals, and whatever else is in the city-all its spoil-as plunder" (Deuteronomy 20:12-15). However, if it's a nearby city, as was the case with the fortress of Bani Qurayza, then "save alive nothing that breatheth" (Deuteronomy 20:16). So upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the execution of Bani Qurayza was not based on Islamic Law, but rather on one of the foundational texts of Western Civilization.

Also, in regards to the "women and children" being "enslaved"—since I want to be sure that none of your quips slip by unanswered—well this one is Biblical as well. Not only is this obvious from the references to Deuteronmy 20 just mentioned, but if we take a look at Numbers 31:17-18, then this realization might be even a little more painful. These verses contain "the Lord's command" on how the Israelites should deal with the booty (no pun intended) once they conquer the Midianites. After being instructed to kill all of the males (including the children), they are told to "...kill every woman who has known man by lying with him, but all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves"...so the Israeli soldiers got to keep the young virgins "alive for themselves"—and I hope I don't need to explain what that means.

In regards to your statement "Mohammed as a paedophile which, in modern terms, he was", well you're wrong again. If you bothered to do some research, instead of coming up with your own rather convenient definitions, you'd find that the definition of a paedophile is someone who is "sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent children", thus Prophet Muhammad—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—certainly wasn't one.

Again, my guess is that you've been reading things written by Islamophobes again. While I don't deny that the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—married his wife Aishah when she was nine years old (and I've written a detailed article on this topic), she was not "prepubescent" at the time, but had already reached puberty.

Also, of the many women that the Prophet Muhammad-salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam-married, much like the prophets of the Old Testament, Aishah was the only young bride and the only virgin. All of his other wives were older and/or previously married women, including his first wife Khadija who was forty years old when he married her and fifteen years his senior. It's also worth noting that in his younger years, the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—was married to one and only one woman for over twenty years—and this was in an age of unlimited polygamy.

So based on all of that, the "paedophile" label doesn't stick since not only was Aishah not "prepubescent", but there is no evidence that the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—was "primarily" or "exclusively" interested in children...but quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. Overall, I find it rather ironic that a member of Western Civilization would try to lecture Muslims about mass murder and sexuality morality, but such is the age in which we live.

By the way, if you insist on maintaining, in spite of the evidence, that Prophet Muhammad—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—was a paedophile, then sound logic dictates that Jesus Christ—'alayhi as-salam—gave tacit approval to paedophilia. I know that this might be a bitter pill to swallow, but if you'd do some research (and don't worry, I'm not holding my breath), you'd find that marrying girls at the outset of puberty was very much the norm in first century Palestine (i.e. the time in which Jesus lived)—puberty being taken as a biological sign that a woman was ready to bear children.

Now if marrying young women at such an early age, as all societies throughout human history have done until the modern era—and even some still do, was some sort of perverted crime, then Jesus Christ—'alayhi as-salam—would have been obliged to speak out against it. Indeed, any religious leader who is trying to call people to God-fearingness and righteousness has a moral duty to speak out against any crimes, gross injustices or social ills that he's been made aware of.

However, there's nothing in the four gospels which indicates that Jesus—'alayhi as-salam—ever spoke out against people in his largely Jewish society marrying girls at puberty. On the contrary, the Hebrew world "almah", which occurs in Isaiah 7:14 and is considered by Christians to be a prophecy of Mary's virgin birth, means a young woman, of marriageable age, who has passed the age of puberty.

It's based on this that many scholars think that Mary was around twelve years old when she gave birth to Jesus—'alayhi as-salam, although some feel that she might have been as old as fifteen. However, "in modern terms", regardless of which age you take, her betrothed husband Joseph would still have been guilty of committing a criminal act (at least in the US and UK). To be fair, however, we should mention that even this would not technically be considered paedophilia, since there's no proof he was "primarily" or "exclusively" attracted to young girls. And if you want to get technical, Mary was no longer a girl, based on the standards of the society in which she lived, since she was past the age of puberty, thus she was an adult.

Anyway, getting back to the subject of Jesus' tacit approval of marrying girls just after they'd reached puberty, it seems that Christians have one of two choices: 1) admit that Jesus Christ—'alayhi as-salam—failed in his mission as a moral leader (and even Muslims won't admit to this); or 2) recognize that based on the values of the society of his time, which saw nothing wrong with marrying young girls just after they reached puberty, nothing immoral was going on in this regard, thus Jesus was not obligated to speak out against any of it. So just like the Bani Qurayza issue, this is another one where Christians would be well advised to do some research, set their biases aside and then engage their brains before opening their mouths.

The Guardian had a nice piece yesterday which rebutted "those who claim that fear is stalking the offices of western newspapers, where cowardly executives allegedly shrink from publishing anything that might upset Muslims", and it's easy to see why. That's because Islamophobia is the only acceptable form of racism left. However, with the thick coloured lenses that you're obviously wearing, I doubt you can see that.

If you want to go on believing that the cartoons were "not offensive", well that's up to you. However, I think you should re-read some of the points I made since you're side-stepping the lot of them.

Sorry, but that's all I have time for tonight...

In order to clarify some of the points above, I feel I should mention that the Wikipedia article on Banu Qurayza is somewhat inaccurate, if not considerably biased. For one, to say that their execution was "following a siege mounted by Muslim immigrants from Mecca" is incorrect, since the Muslim army that besieged them was made up of both Ansar (original inhabitants of Medina who had converted to Islam) and Muhajirun (converts to Islam who had immigrated from Mecca). Not only is the statement in question inaccurate, but since it's found in the article's initial paragraph, it sets somewhat of an anti-Muslim tone that could easily present a false picture to someone who is unfamiliar with all of the reported details and circumstances of the incident. Indeed, in addition to implying that the Muslims were the aggressors, the initial paragraph conveniently omits the fact that just prior to attacking Bani Qurayza, the Muslims themselves were besieged by a much larger pagan army that had come from Mecca to destroy them.

Moving on...in regards to clear bias in the opening paragraph, the statement that "The Muslims claimed that the Banu Qurayza had planned to betray them to their Meccan enemies" essentially regulates the Muslim understanding of the actions of Banu Qurayza to nothing more than a "claim", although it's based on the same sources that provide all of the gory details that non-Muslims seem to focus on. Indeed, any honest reading of the sources regarding this incident leaves no doubt that the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayza was guilty of gross treachery and high treason...thus it's much more than just a "claim".

Also, to say that "Most details...derive ultimately from a single account, that of Ibn Ishaq" gives a somewhat slanted view of this incident—an incident that many liberal, progressive and other assorted limp-wristed Muslims seem determined to deny. Anyone familiar with Muslim sira (i.e. Prophetic biography) literature knows that quite a bit of it is less than authentic and reported without isnad (i.e. chains of narration). However, like many incidents in the sira literature, the treason and subsequent execution of the men of Banu Qurayza is attested to in the authentic hadith collections, although in somewhat of a bare bones fashion compared to the more elaborate accounts that the sira material often provides. Although to be fair, the Wikipedia article does indeed state that the Bani Qurayza incident is mentioned in the authentic hadith literature, and it even quotes some of these hadith in detail. Nevertheless, I just wanted to make sure that no one was confused by the statement that "Most details...derive ultimately from a single account, that of Ibn Ishaq", since although "Most" is probably correct, this certainly doesn't amount to all.

Finally, in regards to puberty being the age of adulthood, it's interesting—especially in the context of this multifacetd posting—that the article on the Bani Qurayza mentions that "Sa'd ruled that all the adult males of the Banu Qurayza should be killed", and later explains that "This ruling was taken to refer to all males over puberty". This serves as just one more proof that adulthood at that time, even amongst the Jews, was defined as having reached "puberty"...as much as the disbelievers may detest it.

Insha'llah, we'll post more on some of these topics in the future.

Deen On...