Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

The assassination of another Jewish leader in Kheibar occurred a short while later. Muhammad sent a hand-picked "commando unit" of thirty killers to Kheibar disguised as an official diplomatic approach to the Jews there. The Muslims negotiated with their leader, Usayr ibn Razim, and convinced him to go to Medina to negotiate with Muhammad. The Muslims offered to guarantee his safety with their own escort of thirty men. Among Arabs, nothing is more valued than a man's word, his pledge of safety and protection, so ibn Razim felt safe. Somewhere on the road to Medina, however, the Muslims fell upon the Jews and killed them all.

When the leader of the commandos returned to Medina he was met by Muhammad, who congratulated him on his work. Muhammad was earning an ability for his ruthlessness and an ability to kill at a distance just as the size of his army was increasing and he was becoming better able to support his followers economically. The message to his opponents outside the cities was that they, too, were not safe as long as they failed to join him.

It has been mentioned that a party of Banu Nadhir, after their exile, had settled down among their brethren at Khaibar. One of their leaders, Huyay bin Akhtab, had been executed along with Banu Quraidhah. But another of their leaders, Sallam bin Abu Huqaiq, generally known as Abu Rafe’, was now the centre of their intrigues. He had taken a prominent part in the confederate force, which had besieged Medina and was now busy in inciting Ghatafan and other tribes of Nejd to further depredations and aggression. Five men of Khazraj were appointed to carry out the execution of Abu Rafe’, which they accomplished successfully. Abu Rafe’s place among the Jews of Khaibar was taken by Usair bin Razam, who was not less bitterly opposed to Islam and the Muslims than Abu Rafe’. He now determined to carry into effect the designs of Abu Rafe’ which he had not been able to accomplish. His very first action was to harangue the assembled Jews, informing them that he had determined upon certain new plans through which, with the help of Ghatafan and other tribes, he would accomplish the ruin of Islam and the Muslims. Thereafter, he started visiting Ghatafan and other tribes of Nejd and so provoked them that they began to prepare another expedition against Medina. When the Holy Prophet learnt of his activities, he sent Abdullah bin Rawaha with three Companions to Khaibar, to gather intelligence and return quickly. On their return they reported that what they had seen and heard left no doubt in their minds that the Jews were actively plotting against the Holy Prophet and the Muslims. About the same time, a non-Muslim, Kharajah bin Husail, happened to arrive in Medina from the direction of Khaibar and confirmed the report of Abdullah bin Rawaha. He said that he had left Usair making preparation to lead an attack against Medina. The Holy Prophet thereupon decided to make an effort to come to some understanding with Usair whereby all these conspiracies and alarms and excursions might be terminated and conditions of peace and security might be established. If Usair could be persuaded to abandon his mischievous activities directed against the Muslims, he could be acknowledged as the chief of Khaibar. With this in mind, he deputed Abdullah bin Rawaha and thirty Companions to proceed to Khaibar and to persuade Usair to come to Medina with a view of discussing such a possibility. When Abdullah’s party arrived in Khaibar they called upon Usair to guarantee their security while they were in Khaibar; Usair agreed to do so on a mutual basis. During the conversation that ensued Abdullah explained that the Holy Prophet’s purpose was to establish peace and security and to put an end to all fighting and hostility, and that the best way of achieving this was that he should himself proceed to Medina and talk directly to the Holy Prophet. If an understanding could be reached, the Holy Prophet would deal graciously with him and might recognize him as the chief of Khaibar. Usair expressed his approval of such a design and called together the leading personalities among the Jews of Khaibar for consultation. Most of them opposed the plan and in order to discourage Usair said that they did not expect that Muhammad would acknowledge him as chief of Khaibar. He told them that his own appraisal of the situation was that Muhammad was sick of the constant state of conflict and hostility and was anxious to put an end to it.

Thus Usair bin Razam agreed to accompany Abdullah bin Rawaha and his party to Medina and, on his side, selected an equal number of Jews to accompany him to Medina. It is difficult to determine whether he had any secret design in his mind against Abdullah and his party, or whether he changed his mind after the two parties had set out from Khaibar on the journey to Medina.

What happened is that when the parties arrived at Qarqarah, distant six miles from Khaibar, in the course of an apparently amicable conversation Usair stretched his hand towards the sword of Abdullah bin Unais Ansari who, apprehending mischief from him, spurred his mount forward and then veering round towards Usair called out to him, ‘Enemy of God, have you determined upon treachery?’ To which Usair made no reply. Abdullah repeated his question but Usair still remained silent and adopted an aggressive attitude. This was possibly a predetermined signal for the Jews to fall upon the Muslims and to destroy them. Swords were drawn on both sides and though the parties were equal in number and several of the Muslims were wounded, yet none of them was killed and they succeeded in disposing of all the Jews.

shafique wrote:The fullest account of the incident records that the people killed were armed soldiers who turned on the Muslims.

shafique wrote:Why would Baldhuri ignore the killing of 7000 and only list 4000 captives, and why would John of Nikiu not give any numbers at all? What evidence do we have that Theophanes' numbers for those killed is accurate - he wasn't there after all, and doesn't seem to have given his sources)

shafique wrote:Balhaduri's figures for those captured doesn't corroborate the supposed massacre - if anything it goes to show that there wasn't a massacre

The fact is that you couldn't find any account which contradicted this fuller account of the incident

There you are basing your 'belief' on a one-line report by Theophanes. You are taking the briefest account and presenting it as the most authoritative.

Here it is the the other way round. There is no denying Uzayr was a military commander, no denying he would have taken 30 armed men with him, no denying the Muslims had equal numbers.

With Theophanes you are taking the briefest account at face value, here I'm presenting the fullest account and showing your spin relies on ignoring facts that exist in historical documents.

Compare the full account given above, with your one-line from Theophanes which most historians ignore when describing the events of Caesarea's capture in 640.

Even Theophanes doesn't describe the event as a massacre

I think its hilarious that you have a one-liner that is discounted in all the historians who describe the conquest of Caesarea and I have a full account of a military leader and his soldiers being killed after a skirmish with an equal number of Muslim soldiers.

t the end of the day, you are going to believe your I-spy-book of historical facts and I'm going to point out that your version of events is disputed (to put it mildly).

Your selective quoting has been exposed - and I've simply challenged you to show that the full account above is not accurate.

That 'one-liner' comes from a primary historical source and, ironically, is more than what your author has provided to show that the Jews were armed and attacked the Muslim 'assassins'.

We can compare and contrast the accounts and see which gives more details.

Produce the evidence (as opposed to the spin or 'opinion') or we'll have another case of All Mouth, No Trousers.

shafique wrote:Just to be pedandtic - assassins as a word did not exist in those times, it derives from Ishmaeli crack troops who killed surrepticiously. Bernard Lewis has a good book about the assassins.

Now, coming to your question about whether I have a problem with the Prophet, pbuh, sending out soldiers to accompany and military commander and his soldiers back to Medina for talks. No, I think it was quite sensible (and not to mention normal) to send soldiers to do this task. Events proved that this decision was wise indeed.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:

shafique wrote:Just to be pedandtic - assassins as a word did not exist in those times, it derives from Ishmaeli crack troops who killed surrepticiously. Bernard Lewis has a good book about the assassins.

Now, coming to your question about whether I have a problem with the Prophet, pbuh, sending out soldiers to accompany and military commander and his soldiers back to Medina for talks. No, I think it was quite sensible (and not to mention normal) to send soldiers to do this task. Events proved that this decision was wise indeed.

Cheers,
Shafique

Do you have some type of comprehension disorder that explains why you misunderstand posts and respond to questions asked that have not nothing to do with the post you are addressing?

shafique wrote:

event horizon wrote:

shafique wrote:Just to be pedandtic - assassins as a word did not exist in those times, it derives from Ishmaeli crack troops who killed surrepticiously. Bernard Lewis has a good book about the assassins.

Now, coming to your question about whether I have a problem with the Prophet, pbuh, sending out soldiers to accompany and military commander and his soldiers back to Medina for talks. No, I think it was quite sensible (and not to mention normal) to send soldiers to do this task. Events proved that this decision was wise indeed.

Cheers,
Shafique

Do you have some type of comprehension disorder that explains why you misunderstand posts and respond to questions asked that have not nothing to do with the post you are addressing?

No, I don't think so.

I was just being pedantic about the use of the term assassins - and addressed your question about whether it was sensible or not to send soldiers to accompany a military commander and his entourage of armed men. What was unclear about my answer?

Cheers,
Shafique

Do you think it's important to know that the Muslim delegation Muhammad sent were assassins

event horizon wrote:I would think leaving that type of fact out would be considered spin. But what do you think? Do you think it's important to know that the Muslim delegation Muhammad sent were assassins?

shafique wrote:Now, coming to your question about whether I have a problem with the Prophet, pbuh, sending out soldiers to accompany and military commander and his soldiers back to Medina for talks. No, I think it was quite sensible (and not to mention normal) to send soldiers to do this task. Events proved that this decision was wise indeed.

I would think leaving that type of fact out would be considered spin. But what do you think? Do you think it's important to know that the Muslim delegation Muhammad sent were assassins?

I would think leaving that type of fact out would be considered spin. But what do you think? Do you think it's important to know that the Muslim delegation Muhammad sent were assassins?

I would think leaving that type of fact out would be considered spin. But what do you think? Do you think it's important to know that the Muslim delegation Muhammad sent were assassins?

shafique wrote:I was just being pedantic about the use of the term assassins - and addressed your question about whether it was sensible or not to send soldiers to accompany a military commander and his entourage of armed men. What was unclear about my answer?

event horizon wrote:I didn't ask you if it was sensible to send killers to escort thirty unarmed Jews on a diplomatic mission - just whether it would be important for a historian to mention this in his account

shafique wrote:So, you are complaining that Muhammad, pbuh, sent a competent contingent of 30 soldiers to escort the equal number of soldiers accompanying the military commander?