“The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves”
This Medinan sura provides a principal foundation for the central role of Muhammad, and hence of the Hadith (traditions of his words and deeds), in the formulation of Islamic law. It also contains a dramatic example of Allah’s solicitude for his prophet, further solidifying his pivotal role.
In verses 1-8, Allah tells Muhammad not to listen to the unbelievers and hypocrites (v. 1), but rather to follow divine inspiration (v. 2). We get a hint of what this is about when Allah says that no man has two hearts, a man cannot make his wife his mother, and a man cannot make an adopted son a real son (v. 4). In those days men would divorce their wives by telling them, “You are to me like the back of my mother” – the Qur’an is here saying that this doesn’t affect any real change or make them actually into their mothers, but the point here is not about divorce. Rather, the passage is intended to end the practice of adoption, starting with Muhammad’s own family. Ibn Kathir explains: “This was revealed concerning Zayd bin Harithah…the freed servant of the Prophet. The Prophet had adopted him before prophethood, and he was known as Zayd bin Muhammad. Allah wanted to put an end to this naming and attribution.” An adopted son should be known by the name of his natural father: he can never truly enter into his adoptive household (v. 5).
Why was Allah so intent on ending the practice of adoption? Because Muhammad wanted to marry Zayd’s ex-wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh — and as a result of his dalliance with his former daughter-in-law, says Maududi, “the hypocrites and the Jews and the mushriks [unbelievers] who were already bent on mischief would get a fresh excuse to start a propaganda campaign against Islam.” So Allah here emphasizes that an adopted son cannot be a true son, and so by extension Zaynab was never really Muhammad’s daughter-in-law at all, and there is no cause for scandal.
This sura will return to this subject later, but at this point it turns, in verses 9-27, to a discussion of the Battle of the Trench. Anticipating an attack by the pagan Arabs, whereupon Muhammad had a trench dug around Medina. According to Muhammad’s earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, once when Muhammad was helping the trench diggers, he wielded a pick at a large rock, and every time he hacked at the rock, lightning shot from the pick. One of the Muslims asked Muhammad: “O you, dearer than father or mother [cf. v. 6], what is the meaning of this light beneath your pick as you strike?”
Muhammad replied: “The first means that God has opened up to me the Yemen; the second Syria and the west; and the third the east.”
As the Quraysh, along with another tribe, the Ghatafan (known collectively in Islamic tradition as “the Confederates,” as in v. 20), laid siege to Medina, the trench prevented the invaders from entering the city. Yet the Muslims were unable to force them to end the siege. Then to make matters even worse, a tribe of Jews in Medina, the Banu Qurayzah, broke their covenant with Muhammad (perhaps after seeing how Muhammad had exiled two other Jewish tribes, the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir) and began collaborating with the Quraysh.
As the siege dragged on, according to Ibn Ishaq, one Muslim remarked bitterly about Muhammad’s designs on the Persian empire of Chosroes and the Byzantine empire of Caesar: “Muhammad used to promise us that we should eat the treasures of Chosroes and Caesar and today not one of us can feel safe in going to the privy!” Allah responded by saying that those who complain that “Allah and His Messenger promised us nothing but delusion!” have diseased hearts (v. 12). Allah accused these hypocrites of demoralizing the Muslims and of treasonous plotting with the enemies of Islam (vv. 13-14). Allah also told Muhammad to tell the people that desertion would be useless (v. 16).
The Qurayzah agreed to attack the Muslims from one side while the Quraysh besieged them from the other. But then a new convert to Islam, Nu’aym bin Mas’ud, came to Muhammad offering to trick the Confederate tribes, since his own people, the Ghatafan, did not know that he had become a Muslim. Muhammad responded, according to Ibn Ishaq: “You are only one man among us, so go and awake distrust among the enemy to draw them off us if you can, for war is deceit.” Nu’aym’s deception turned the Confederates against each other and against their Jewish allies; soon afterward, they ended the siege. Nu’aym’s deception had saved Islam.
According to Aisha, “When Allah’s Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, ‘You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet.’ Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Where (to go now)?’ Gabriel said, ‘This way,’ pointing towards the tribe of Bani Quraiza. So Allah’s Apostle went out towards them.”
Ibn Ishaq recounts that Muhammad addressed the Qurayzah Jews contemptuously: “You brothers of monkeys, has God disgraced you and brought His vengeance upon you?” (The Qur’an three times — 2:62-65; 5:59-60; and 7:166 — says that Allah transformed the disobedient Jews into pigs and monkeys.) The Muslims laid siege to the Qurayzah strongholds until, said Ibn Ishaq, the Jews “were sore pressed” and Allah “cast terror into their hearts.” Muhammad entrusted the fate of the tribe to the Muslim warrior Sa‘d bin Mu’adh, who decreed: “I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives.”
Muhammad exclaimed: “O Sa‘d! You have judged amongst them with the judgment of the King Allah.” According to Ibn Ishaq, “The apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of the Qurayzah] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” Ibn Ishaq puts the number of those massacred at “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.” Ibn Sa‘d says “they were between six hundred and seven hundred in number.”
One hadith summarizes Muhammad’s dealings with the three Jewish tribes of Medina: “Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet again). He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam. He exiled all the Jews from Medina.”
The Qur’an refers obliquely to the massacre, saying that Allah “cast terror” into the hearts of the People of the Book who aided the pagans, “(so that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners” (v. 26). Victory came from Allah alone (vv. 9-11).
Next week: Allah scolds Muhammad for his reluctance to marry the former wife of his adopted son.
(Here you can find links to all the earlier "Blogging the Qur'an" segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)
>>Next week: Allah scolds Muhammad for his reluctance to marry the former wife of his adopted son. --RS
Sounds like the next episode of a soap opera.
What "reluctance?" That is total BS, as Mo orchestrated this whole deal with "Allah" so he could blame it on Allah when he marries Zaynab.
The true motives of Mo are as transparent as onion-skin paper.
Darcy,
It's maddening, isn't it? How stupid can a bunch of people be? Stupid, stupid, stupid! It's unbelievable that anyone could look at this "religion" with a straight face, today, let alone practice it...
Incidentally, a woman isn't related to her father-in-law at all except through marriage (not counting the incestuous Islamic marriages that happen all the time and all over), so why couldn't Mohammed just allow Zayd to divorce, and then marry Zainab? Just to deflect criticism from the Infidels?
Poor Mohammed! He was such a sweetheart, until Allah came along and corrupted himDarcy, instead of the 'Devil made me do it', it's 'Allah made be do it'. But I repeat myself.
Then he sent for [the men of the Qurayzah] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.”
This one sentence implies that Mohammad personally beheaded these men. I would think that beheading that many men in one day would be very tiring. Of course he could rest up between batches.
So the question is, did Mohammad do this without help, all of it, some of it, or none of it.
I also read, and some muslims have argued, that he only 'officiated' but did not himself behead anyone.
Thanks...
Darcy,
It's maddening, isn't it? How stupid can a bunch of people be? Stupid, stupid, stupid! It's unbelievable that anyone could look at this "religion" with a straight face, today, let alone practice it...
Posted by: Abscedere at July 7, 2008 9:58 AM
Oh yeah! It's incredible, the abject stupidity of the Mohammedans to buy into Mo and Islam in the 21st century. And it's abjectly stupid of us, the West, America and Western Europe, to kowtow to these stupid barbarians!
Yes, it's maddening.
Something to ponder, from Mr Spencer's commentary:
"The Qurayzah agreed to attack the Muslims from one side while the Quraysh besieged them from the other.
"But then a new convert to Islam, Nu’aym bin Mas’ud, came to Muhammad offering to trick the Confederate tribes, since his own people, the Ghatafan, did not know that he had become a Muslim.
"Muhammad responded, according to Ibn Ishaq: “You are only one man among us, so go and awake distrust among the enemy to draw them off us if you can, for war is deceit.”
"Nu’aym’s deception turned the Confederates against each other and against their Jewish allies; soon afterward, they ended the siege. Nu’aym’s deception had saved Islam."
Let all of us reflect carefully upon this story. Someone who had become a Muslim, then went back into their 'home' society, concealing their Muslim faith, in order to create division, or to exploit existing division, so as to weaken the society, break up its alliances, and prevent it from forming a united front to defeat the Muslims.
I wonder how many 'crypto-Muslims' we may have, for example, in India, stirring up trouble between Hindu, Sikh and Christian, or among the castes, or splitting India from her natural allies [i.e., from other non-Muslim democracies]? How many Nu'ayms have there been in Europe over the past fifty years, even a hundred years, diligently exacerbating existing divisions or creating new ones?
Split the UK from the continent; split Europeans from Israel and the USA; split Eastern Europe (still majority-Christian) from Western Europe; split North America (anglicised) from South America (catholic/ latino).
I would not be in the least surprised to find Muslims-in-disguise stirring up trouble along the USA's internal fault lines - jihadwatchers should be keeping an eye out for manifestations of strife/ provocations appearing between 'Anglo', 'Latino', and 'Afro' communities, and don't forget the First Nations.
In Canada you have: First Nations; Quebec and the French; the Anglo-Scot majority. Lots of opportunities there to make trouble. Where there IS trouble, perhaps the jihad-savvy kafir should look very, very closely in case there is a crypto-Muslim at the bottom of it, pouring oil on flames...or setting fires, to begin with.
Jacques Ellul, in 'Un Chretien Pour Israel', noted the way in which the anti-Israel propaganda was perpetually hammering on pre-existing fault lines or points of tension, such as between Ashkenazi and Mizrahi; then, between Israel and the diaspora.
Islam wants Christians to hate Jews, and Jews to hate and fear Christians.
Within the church, I can see that the 'palestinian' propaganda is trying to revitalise the demon/ heresy of antisemitism and split the church itself; in particular, to marginalise as 'heretical' the serious Christian Zionists.
Muslims themselves are, of course, terrified of conspiracy theories - but perhaps when we hear them expressing such fears, they are merely projecting upon the kafir, what they themselves would be doing in our place.
The sorts of possibilities I have outlined above, sound almost as paranoid as the Muslim fears. But are they? Or are they, rather, stone-cold sober realism about the abundantly documented, and completely real, Muslim practice of 'splitting the camp'?
Here is a mini-essay by Walid Phares with more on Muslim techniques of deception and 'splitting the camp', as first demonstrated by Nu'aym.
"AL-TAQIYA -The Muslim Method Of Conquest:
By Professor Walid Phares
In the early years of the Tawheed (Islamic conquest of the Arabian peninsula) and in the Fatah (Arab-Islamic invasion and conquest of the upper Middle East and the outside world), a Muslim concept was devised to achieve success against the enemy, Al-Taqiya..
'Al-Taqiya, from the verb Ittaqu, means linguistically dodge the threat. Politically it means simulate whatever status you need in order to win the war against the enemy..
'According to Al-Taqiya, Muslims were granted the Shar'iya (legitimacy) to infiltrate the Dar el-Harb (war zone), infiltrate the enemy's cities and forums and plant the seeds of discord and sedition.
'These agents were acting on behalf of the Muslim authority at war, and therefore were not considered as lying or denouncing the tenets of Islam.
'They were "legitimate" mujahedeen, whose mission was to undermine the enemy's resistance and level of mobilization.
'One of their major objectives was to cause a split among the enemy's camp.
'In many instances, they convinced their targeted audiences that Jihad is not aimed at them, that indigenous people are not targeted, only Byzantine power.
'They convinced many Jews that they will be protected from Christians, called pagans, and they convinced many Christians that Jews were the mortal enemies, because they killed Issa (Jesus).
'They convinced the Aramaics, Copts, and Hebrews that the enemy is Greece, and signed peace agreements with the Byzantine Greeks at the expense of Maronite Aramaics, etc.
'This Jihadic agency of subversion was one of the most fascinating and efficient arms of the conquest. In less them four decades the Middle East fell to the Arab-Islamic rule, followed by north Africa and Central Asia.
'Al-Taqiya was a formidable weapon, used by the first dynasties and strategists. Today, scholars may identify it as deception.
''But the Jihadic deception was and still is more powerful than the James Bondian methods of Western classical intelligence tactics, for the simple reason that it has a civilizational, global dimension versus the narrow state interest of the regular Western subversive methods.
'Al-Taqiya is still in use today but not necessarily state-organized.
'One can easily detect Taqiya in the two discourses used by Islamist strategists.
'On the one hand, one comprehensive Islamist theory is attempting to mobilize Middle East, and sometimes Western Christian leaders and intellectuals, against "evil Jews." We see considerable success on that level.
'And on the other hand, another Islamist comprehensive theory is attempting -with success also- to mobilize the Jews against "evil and pagan Christians."
'One can easily detect the sophisticated work of Taqiya, for the strategic objective of Islamists is to destroy the foundations of the Judeo-Christian civilization, as a prelude to the defeat of an isolated Israel.
'Taqiya is not a unique phenomenon in History, many strategists from all backgrounds implemented subversion.
'But the uniqueness of today's Taqiya is its success within advanced and sophisticated societies. Taqiya is winning massively because of the immense lack of knowledge among Western elites, both Jewish and Christian.
'For interesting examples of Taqiya methods, visit Christian discussion groups and forums and note the discourse of Islamist visitors, aimed at undermining the Christian perception of Jews, and visit Jewish discussion groups and forums and note the subtle anti-Christian discourse of Islamist visitors. It is really informative and fascinating."
How many Nu'ayms do we have, running around in dar al Harb at the moment, sowing confusion and discord?