Mr Sina, on his website has given totally false accounts of what happened with the Jews of Medina. Instead of looking towards the majority of historians, both Muslims and non-Muslims, he has posted his own versions of the reasons that led to the banishment of the Jews of Medina. Only by looking at the style with which he has written these ridiculous lies makes one aware of his intentions. If we were to go by his principle of democracy, which is to look at the majority of historians, we will come across an entirely different version of events concerning the Jews of Medina. These have been preserved throughout history by Muslim and non-Muslim historians, studied today and agreed upon by Muslim scholars and orientalists (non-Muslim students of Islamic ideology and history) unanimously throughout the world.
 
For anyone who has visited Mr Sina's website, please note that the use of words such as "genocide" and "assassination" by Mr Sina is a gross exaggeration. The correct version of events are given below. These accounts are based on accurate and authentic translations of the works of Ibn-Hisham and At-Tabbari which have been scrutinised for centuries by Western orientalists and have been agreed upon and accepted as authentic with minor variations only in some cases, a famous example of which is the Prophet's marriage to Zainab. Mr Sina is very fond of quoting Muslim historians in his articles to prove their authenticity so let us hear them. The points which Mr Sina has raised are not new to students of history. At present all over America and Europe teachers of Islamic history and ideology (Muslims and non-Muslims) present lectures to those who want to learn, these lectures also give us an insight into how Christians have interpreted the events leading up to the expulsion of Jews from Medina, but also aim to show us that no evidence exists to support their claims. The lectures these teachers deliver do not in any way resemble the insane ramblings of Mr Sina. His ridiculous and totally unacceptable versions are based on the works of a few Christian controversialists who shared his agenda in their time. There is no ignoring of the fact that there has always been a tussle between Islam and Christianity ever since the beginning of the crusades, or even before that.
 
I sincerely urge readers to verify whatever they read on the Internet. How do you decide which version is true? Mr Sina's version or the Muslim version (as backup up by historians worldwide)? For all Muslims who recognise the likes of Mr Sina by scrutinising the style of his writings alone which proves that his intention is not to be enlightened but to spread false information and lies about the Prophet, the choice is simple. Our word against his. For non-Muslims who are naturally biased towards non-Muslim viewpoint and would not be very comfortable in accepting the works of Muslim historians and writers alone, the choice is again between Mr Sina and the most famous historians and scholars of their times, such as Thomas Carlyle, William Muir etc. Although there are still differences even in the majority of orientalists and Muslim scholars in some minor issues, most of history is still agreed upon and the views of the small number of controversialists who have tried in vain to defame the Prophet have been sternly rejected by the orientalists themselves. The pains and efforts which these western controversialists have taken to defame the Prophet and the absurd and ridiculous lengths to which they have gone in their futile attempts to prove the unprovable have been correctly termed by Thomas Carlyle (a most famous Christian historian) as a "disgrace to themselves only".
 
Islam and the Jews
 
Firstly let me clear some misconceptions concerning what Muslims think about the Jews and the questions asked by many non-Muslims about the Muslim attitude towards the Jews. Before we figure out for real, who the one with the attitude is, the following points should be kept in mind as to what Muslims think of the Jews and other non-Muslims :
 
1.) Muslims do not hate Jews (the general population) or other non-Muslims. They are as much human as we are. We are ordered by Allah to show mercy to all humanity. We thank Allah we were born Muslims but we are never sure whether we shall die as Muslims or not. We love Muslims and love non-Muslims to become Muslims. We are told in the Quran there is no compulsion in religion. Whosoever makes a choice makes it to his/her own good. It is between Allah and him/her. Irrespective if someone is a Muslim or a non-Muslim we are ordered strictly to follow the guide lines of justice and equality when dealing with both without discrimination. However Muslims as being Muslims are brothers to each other.

2.) We condemn Zionists and Zionism (Elites controlling Israel) and we condemn Israel persecuting Palestinians. We condemn the racist agenda of Israel. Our condemnation for Zionism is shared by the countries throughout the world with the exception of USA and a few others. This was proven when Israel was declared a racist state by the world community in South Africa.
 
3.) The Quran calls the Jews and Christians ‘people of the book’.

4.) There are a large number of people 'among' the Jews who have an evil agenda.

5.) Christians believe the Jews that allegedly killed Christ were evil. Jesus was allegedly crucified by the general consent and support of the Jews at the time. Similarly Muslims think that in general the influential people of the Jews of Medina at the time of the Prophet had evil plans.
 
Who were the Jews of Medina?
 
At the time of the Prophet there were Jews living inside and around Medina. The tribes we are going to discuss and of whom Mr Sina has totally wrong information are the Bani-Kainuka, Bani-Nazir and Bani-Kureizha.
 
The Jewish scholars of Arabia, and the Jews in general, before the Prophet became famous as the 'new prophet' were waiting for that savior of humanity which was clearly mentioned in their scriptures. Being people of the book which the pagan Arabs were not, they were certain the prophet would arise from amongst themselves. In that regard, they thought of themselves as being superior to the other Arabs.
  
But to their dismay instead of one of their own people, the Prophet claimed prophethood and started growing popular everyday. So much so that he came to Medina as the leader of the local Medinite tribes of Aus and Khazraj. The Aus and Khazraj (forgetting their feuds) rallied around him and accepted him as their prophet along with his followers. In order to unite the Ansar and the Muhajirin (Emigrants) the Prophet established a brotherhood between them, which linked them together in sorrow and in happiness. Yathrib (old name of Medina) changed its ancient name, and was styled Medinat un-Nabi or the " City of the Prophet ". All this happened with the Jews of Medina watching this new prophet steal away what they thought should have been their honour and glory.
  
The ill feeling of animosity grew with every success the Prophet had with the people of Medina, more so because of the Muslim victory of Badr which in a way legitimized and made famous his prophethood throughout Arabia.
 
The famous pact of Medina and its terms
 
On the arrival of the Prophet at Medina they had joined with the Muslims in a half-hearted welcome to the Prophet. The Prophet upon his arrival joined the heterogeneous and conflicting elements of the city and its suburbs through a Charter by which the rights and obligations of the Muslims and of the Muslims and Jews were clearly defined. The Jews because of the irresistible character of the brotherly movement had gladly accepted the pact.
 
This pact was officially made between the tribes living in Medina. The Jews of Bani-Kainuka Ban-Kuraizha and Bani-Nadir gladly accepted all the terms. This famous pact proceeds as follows:
 
"The state of peace and war shall be common to all Muslims ; no one among them shall have the right of concluding peace with, or declaring war against, the enemies of his co-religionists. The Jews who attach themselves to our commonwealth shall be protected from all insults and vexations ; they shall have an equal right with our own people to our assistance and good offices : the Jews of the various branches of 'Auf, Najjar, Harith, Jashm, Th'alaba, Aus, and all others domiciled in Yathrib (Medina), shall form with the Muslims one composite nation; they shall practise their religion as freely as the Muslims ; the clients and allies of the Jews shall enjoy the same security and freedom ; the guilty shall be pursued and punished ; the Jews shall join the Muslims in defending Yathrib against all enemies ; the interior of Yathrib shall be a sacred place for all who accept this Charter ; the clients and allies of the Muslims and the Jews shall be respected as the patrons ....."
 
This pact was concluded with the terms:
 
" All future disputes between those who accept this Charter shall be referred, under God, to the Prophet. "
 
Hostility of the Jews

No kindness or generosity, however, on the part of the Prophet would satisfy the Jews ; nothing could conciliate the bitter feelings with which they were animated. Enraged by the Prophet's tremendous success they soon broke off (secretly) , and ranged themselves on the side of the enemies of the 'new' Faith. They reviled the Prophet ; they twisted their tongues and mis-pronounced the Quranic words and the daily prayers and formulae of Islam, rendering them meaningless, absurd, or blasphemous; and the Jewish poets and poetesses, of whom there existed many at the time, outraged all common decency and the recognised code of Arab honour and chivalry by lampooning in obscene verse the Muslim women. But there were minor offences. Not satisfied with insulting the Muslim women and reviling the Prophet, they sent out emissaries to the enemies of the State, the protection of which they had formally accepted.
 
Success is always one of the greatest criterions of truth. Even in the Early days of Christianity, the good Pharisee said, " Let them alone; if these men be false, they will come to naught, or else you yourselves shall perish. "
 
The fact that Islam survived against all odds in Its early years is indeed a miracle and a proof of its truth. Hostility was shown to Muslims from the whole of Arabia, as has always been the custom of humanity when dealing with a new faith. The Muslims small in number were supported by none but themselves during their early years in Medina. The Meccans were plotting against them and had the support of many other tribes of Arabia all of whom were determined to wipe this new faith off the face of the Earth. The animosity and hatred of the Meccans and other tribes of Arabia in general resulted in numerous battles between themselves and the Muslims. Each and every single day was a new trial for the Muslims.. At times the anxiousness of the Muslims rose to such an extent that it was mentioned in the Quran. One example is the battle of Ahzab when the Jews of Bani Kureizha being the inhabitants of Medina having a few fortresses in the rear joined the Meccans and thousands of other tribesman when they surrounded Medina. The Muslims were put to a tremendous trial which is mentioned in the Quran:
 
"When they assailed you from above you and from below you, and when your eyes became distracted, and your hearts came up into your throats, and ye thought divers thoughts of God, then were the Faithful tried, and with strong quaking did they quake ; and when the disaffected and diseased of heart said, "God and His Apostle have made us but a cheating promise." (Quran, Surah Al-Ahzab)
 
So-called assassinations
 
Our atheist friends fail to understand the nature of these so-called assassinations carried out under the supervision of the Prophet. For our Christian friends there is no need for an explanation as rightly pointed out by Syed Ameer Ali:
 
Our Christian historians forget that the " wise " Solon himself, for the safety of his small city, made it obligatory on the Athenians to become executioners of the law, by pursuing the factious, or taking one of two sides in a public riot. They also forget that even the laws of Christian England allow any person to pursue and kill "an outlaw".
 
The problem however mostly concerns our atheist friends. But to understand fully what 'really' happened with these people and why were they "so unjustly assassinated" let us take a look at the conditions and a few examples.
 
Among the not so technologically advanced nations of those times poets occupied the position and exercised the influence of the press in modern times. Of course there is nothing wrong with 'freedom of the press' but death sentence for a traitor is a just punishment agreed upon by even the most modern laws. The Jews were under obligations to the pact they had made with the Muslims. All the inhabitants of Medina had pledged to be united under a single commonwealth. Any individual found guilty of 'collaborating with the enemy' as we call it in modern times was a traitor and was to be pursued and punished according to the pact.
  
The Muslim Scholars and the knowledgeable Muslims are not bewildered of the modernists' view point that death sentence for any crime whatsoever is contrary to humanism. If someone kills another in times of peace or war, he should be killed in return. An eye for an eye. If another seeks to damage you breaking his word (or pact in the case of the Jews) then should he also be dealt with the most efficient means. Many Israeli commentators have made remarks on CNN and BBC how if 'someone pulls out a knife at us we have the policy of pulling out a gun'. It's common sense they say. That is probably the reason why for one Israeli we have two dozen Palestinians murdered every time. Of course the fact that the Palestinians have lost their homes and their lands to the hegemonic designs of Israelis, a fact fully accepted by the whole world community has no significance in the eyes of the Israeli Government..... "Islam is a religion of common sense" remarked Bernard Shaw. But what were the conditions that lead to such measures, let us see.....
 
Treachery and fate of Abu Uzza
 
An example of the influence which poets and rhapsodists exercised among unprogressed nations is afforded by one of the episodes connected with war of Ohod. Whist preparing for this eventful campaign, the Koreish requested a poet of the name of Abu Uzza to go round the tribest of the desert, and excited them by his songs and poetry against the Muslim, and persuade them to join the confederacy, formed under the auspices of the Meccans, for the destruction of Mohammed and his followers. This man had been taken prisoner by the Muslims in the battle of Badr, but was released by the Prophet, without ransom, on pledging himself never again to take up arms against the Medinites. In spite of this, he was tempted to break his word, and went round the tribes, rousing them to arms by his poetry; and it is said he was eminently successful in his work. After Ohod he was again taken prisoner and executed by the Muslims ; Ibn Hisham p. 591.
 
Jewish poets provoked hatred of Muslims in spite of being under an official pact
 
The Jewish poets by their superior culture naturally exercised a vast influence among the Medinites; and this influence was chiefly directed towards sowing sedition among the Muslims, and widening the breach between them and the opposing faction. The defeat of the idolaters at Badr was felt as keenly by the Jews as by the Meccans.
 
Fate of Ka'ab, the son of Ashraf
 
Immediately after this battle a distinguished member of their race, called Ka'b, the son of Ashraf, belonging to the tribe of Nazir, publicly deploring the ill-success of the idolaters, proceed towards Mecca. Finding the people their plunged in grief, he spared no exertion to revive their courage. By his satires against the Prophet and his disciples, by his elegies on the Meccans who had fallen at Badr, he succeeded in exciting the Korish to that frenzy of vengeance which found vent on the plains of Ohod. Having attained this object, he returned to his home near Medina in the canton of Nazir, where he continued to attack Mohammed and the Musulmans in ironical and obscene verses, not sparing even the women of the Believers whom he addressed in terms of the grossest character. His acts were openly directed against the commonwealth of which he was a member. (The Jews and Medinites were under a pact of helping each other if attacked by a foreign power) He belonged to a tribe which had entered into the Compact with the Muslims, and pledged itself for the internal as well as the external safety of the State. Another Jew of the Nazir, Abu Rafe Sallam, son of Abul Hukaik, was equally wild and bitter against the Musulmans. He inhabited, with a fraction of his tribe, the territories of Khaibar, four or five days journey to the north-west of Medina. Detesting Mohammed and the Musulmans, he made use of every endeavourer to excite the neighbouring Arab tribes, such as the Sulaim and the Ghatafan, against them. It was impossible for the Musulman commonwealth to tolerate this open treachery on the part of those to whom every consideration had been shown, wit the object of securing their neutrality, if not their support. The very existence of Muslim community was at state; and every principle of safety required that these traitorous designs should be quietly frustrated. The sentence of outlawry was executed upon them by the Medinites themselves - in one case by a member of the tribe of Aus, in the other by a Khazrijite.
  
Controversialists have stigmatised these executions as "assassinations". And because a Muslim was sent secretly to kill each of the criminals, in their prejudice against the Prophet, they shut their eyes to the justice of the sentence, and the necessity of a swift and secret execution. There existed then no police court, no judicial tribunal, nor even a court-martial, to take cognisance of individual crimes. In the absence of a State executioner any individual might become the executioner of the law. These men had broken their formal pact ; it was impossible to arrest them in public, or execute the sentence in the open before their clans, without causing unnecessary blood-shed, and giving rise to the feud of blood, and everlasting vendetta. the exigencies of the State required that whatever should be done should be done swiftly and noiselessly upon those whom public opinion had arraigned and condemned.
  
What happened to Bani-Kanika, Qureizha and Bani-Nadir? (The Authentic Version)
 
I call this version Authentic and Historical because it is accepted by all historians. The term 'historians' refers to actual learned people who wrote and witnessed history or students who have undergone years of study of not only the different accounts but also of the people who presented these accounts. They do not include the religious or anti-religious controversialists. The fate of the above mentioned three tribes of Median is agreed upon by non-Muslims and Muslim historians except for a few minor variations which will be pointed out. I urge anyone seriously looking for the true versions to verify these accounts through books of renowned modern non-Muslim scholars and then take from the 'majority' view. This version here has been scrutinised by Orientalists and is in agreement with their view point.
 
The fate of Bani-Kainuka
 
We must keep in mind that before the affair of Bani-Kainuka took place the hostility of the Jews of Medina had reached its pinnacle. The Muslims had just defeated and humiliated the Meccans although being out numbered three to one in the battle of Badr. This tremendous success fired the hatred the Jews felt for the Muslims. They now openly showed their hostility of the Muslims and would not waste any opportunity to support anyone planning against them. Although they had not openly taken up arms against them they were so hostile towards the Muslims that it was just a matter of time when a major feud would erupt between them. The incident which took place at that point left the Prophet with only two choices, either to let the Bani-Kainuka stay and eventually fight them in a major battle in Medina or banish them. We shall see now what happened...
 
Whilst the other Jewish tribes were chiefly agricultural, the Banu-Kainuka hardly possessed a single field or date plantation. There were for the most part artisans employed in handicraft of all kinds. Seditious and unruly, always ready for a broil the Banu-Kainuka especially were also noted for the extreme laxity of their morals. One day a young girl from the country came to their bazaar or market (Suk) to sell milk. The Jewish youths insulted her grossly. A Muslim passer-by took the part of the girl, and in the fraw which ensued the author of the outrage was killed; whereupon the entire body of the Jews present rose and slaughtered the Muslim. A wild scene then followed. The Muslims, enraged at the murder of their compatriot, flew to arms, blood flowed fast, and many were killed on both sides. At the first news of the riots, Mohammed (pbuh) hastened to the spot, and, by his presence, succeeded in restraining the fury of his followers. He at once perceived what the end would be of these seditions and disorders ( practiced by the Jews for so long) if allowed to take their course. Medina would be turned into an amphitheatre, in which members of hostile factions might murder one another with impunity. It was necessary to at once put a stop to this or fight the Jews openly. The Prophet (pbuh) therefore ordered the Bani-Kainuka to vacate Medina. The reply of the Jews was couched in the most offensive terms which also depicted the jealously they had in their hearts of the Muslims' victory at Badr:
 
"O, Mohammed, do not be elated with the victory over your people (the Koreish). Thou hast had an affair with men ignorant of the art of war. If though art desirous of having any dealings with us, we shall show thee that we are men."
 
*All historians agree to this reply with the exception of Gibbon who for unknown reasons has narrated an excessively meek reply.
 
They then shut themselves up in their fortress, and set Mohammed's authority at defiance. A siege was accordingly laid to their stronghold. After fifteen days they surrendered. It must be kept in mind that they surrendered 'after' an open war was declared between the Muslims and the Jews and having surrendered they were at the mercy of the Muslims to do with them as they pleased. There were still simply banished which had initially been demanded of them.
 
The fate of Bani-Nazir
 
The expulsion of Bani-Kainuka made the already bitter taste in the mouth of the Jews even more bitter. This bitter feeling of animosity reached such an extent that plans were made to execute the Prophet (pbuh) just as he had ordered the killing of their two traitors (mentioned earlier). They therefore waited for an opportunity for Mohammed (pbuh) to come into their midst. The background of what happened is as follows:
 
The Muslims suffered considerable losses in the Battle of Ohod. The moral effect this disastrous battle was at once visible in the forays which the neighboring nomads prepared to make on the Medinite territories. Most of them, however, were repressed by the energetic action of Mohammed, though some of the hostile tribes succeeded in enticing in enticing Muslim missionaries into their midst, under the pretence of embracing Islam, and then massacred them. On one such occasion seventy Muslims were treacherously murdered near a brook called Bir-Ma'uana, within the territories of two tribes, the Bani-Amir and the Bani-Sulaim, chiefly through the instrumentality of the latter. One of the two survivors of the slaughter escaped towards Medina. Meeting on the way two unarmed Arabs belonging to the Bani-Amir who were traveling under a safe-conduct of the Prophet (pbuh) ,and mistaking them for enemies, he killed them. When the Prophet(pbuh) heard of this he was deeply grieved. A wrong had been committed by one of his followers, though under a mistake, and the relatives of the men that were killed were entitled to redress. Accordingly orders were issued for collecting the diyat(blood money) from Muslims and the people who ad accepted the Charter. The Jewish tribes of Bani un-Zair , the Kuraizha, and others were bound equally with the Muslims to contribute towards this payment.
 
*W. Muir and Sprenger have garbled this part of the affair. W. Muir does not find any authority for MC. de Perceval's saying, that the Jews were bound by treaty to contribute towards the Diyat. However if he had referred to Tabari he would have seen the relevant statements.
 
Murderous plan failed
 
The Prophet himself, accompanied by a few disciples, proceeded to the Bani un_Nazir, and asked from them their contribution. The Banu-Nazir were already waiting for a favorable opportunity to rud themselves of the Prophet and therefore looked upon his arrival as providential. . They seemingly agreed to the demand, and requested him to wait a while. Whilst sitting with his back to the wall of a house, he observed sinister movements amongst the inhabitants, which led him to divine their intention of murdering him. He immediately left the place immediately and thus saved himself and his disciples.
 
The Bani - Nazir could not be trusted again. On his arrival Mohammed sent them a message of the same import as that which was sent to Kainuka. Relying on the support of the Munafikun, Abdullah Bin Ubbay and his supporters, the Bani Nazir returned a defiant answer. Disappointed, however, in the promised assistance of Abdullah, and of their brethren, the Bani-Kureizha, after a siege of fifteen days they sued for terms. Again, no additional penalty was inflicted on them after surrendering and only the previous offer was renewed and they agreed to evacuate their territories.
 
The fate of Bani-Kuraizha
 
Mr Sina has criticized the sentence carried out on the Bani-Kureizha the most. We shall however take a look at what really happened and then see what historians had to say about the event.
 
The Invasion of Medina by a strong Army of Ten Thousand well-appointed men:
 
While all the abovementioned affairs were being dealt with the enemies of Medinites i.e. the Meccans and other Arabian tribes were by no means idle. Far and wide they had sent their emissaries to stir up the tribes against the Muslims. The Jews were the most active in these efforts. Some of the Bani-Nazir had remained behind with their brethren settled near Khaibar, and there, fired with the hope of vengeance, had set themselves to the work of forming another league for the destruction of the Muslims. Their efforts were successful beyond their utmost hopes. A formidable coalition was soon formed ; and an army, consisting of then thousand well-appointed men, marched upon Medina, under the command of the relentless Abu Sufian (Leader of Mecca).
 
Meeting no opposition on their way, they soon encamped within a few miles of Medina, on its most vulnerable side, towards Ohod. To oppose his host the Muslims could only muster a body of three thousand men. Forced thus by their inferiority in numbers, as well as by the factious opposition of the Munafikun (hypocritical allies) within the city, to remain on the defensive, they dug a deep trench round the unprotected quarters of medina, and, leaving their women and children for safety in their fortified houses, they encamped outside the city, with the moat in front of them.
 
Call to Bani-Kuraizha to fulfill the pact and their traitorous answer
 
In the meantime the Muslims relied for safety of the other side, if not upon the active assistance ( which also they were bound to give according to the pact ), at least upon the neutrality of the Bani- Kuraizha, who possessed several fortresses at a short distance, towards the south-east, and were bound by the Compact to assisted the Muslims against every assailant. These Jews however were persuaded by the idolaters to violate their pledged faith, and to join the Koreish. As soon as the news of their defection reached Mohammed, he deputed Saad Ibn Muad and Saad Ibn Ubada, to entreat them to return to their duty. The reply was defiant and sullen:
 
"Who is Mohammed, and who is the Apostle of God that we should obey him? There is no bond or compact between us and him!".
 
As these Jews were well acquainted with the locality, and could materially assist the besiegers by showing them the weak points of the city, the consternation among the Muslims became great, whilst the disaffected body within the walls increased the elements of danger.
 
The Meccans eventually Flee
 
The Meccans and the Jews failing in all their attempts to draw the Muslims into the open field, or to surprise the city under the direction of the Jewish guides, determined upon a regular assault. The siege had already lasted twenty days. the restless tribes of the desert, who had made common cause with the Koreish and their Jewish allies, and who had expected an easy prey, were becoming weary of this protracted campaign. Great efforts were made at this critical moment by the leaders of the beleaguering host to cross the trench and fall upon the small Muslim force. Every attempt was, however, repulsed by untiring vigilance on part of the Prophet. The elements now seemed to combine against the besieging army; their horses were perishing fast, and provisions were becoming scanty. Disunion was rife in their midst, and the far-seeing Prophet with matchless prudence, fomented it into actual division. Suddenly this vast coalition, which had seemed to menace the Muslims with inevitable destruction, vanished into thin air. In the darkness of night, amidst a sort of wind and rain, their tents overthrown, their lights put out, Abu Sufian and the majority of this formidable army fled, the rest took refuge with the Bani- Kureizha.
 
The Siege of Bani-Kureizha
 
Now came the affair of the Bani- Kureizha. The victory in the opinion of the Muslims was hardly achieved as long as the Bani-Kureizha remained so near, and in such dangerous proximity to Medina. They had proved themselves traitors in spite of their sworn alliance, and had at one time almost surprised medina from their side, an even which, if successful, would have involved the general massacre of the Muslims. The Jews were therefore besieged and compelled to surrender in discretion.
 
The condition for Surrender put forward by Bani-Kureizha
 
The Jews made only one condition, that their punishment should be left to the judgment of the Ausite (Of the tribe of Aus) chief, Sa'd Ibn Muaz. This man, a fierce soldier who had been wounded in the attack, and indeed died from his wounds the next day, infuriated by their treacherous conduct, gave the sentence that the "fighting men" should be put to death, and that the women and children should become the slaves of the Muslims ; and this sentence was carried into execution.
 
"It was a harsh, bloody sentence, " says Lane-Poole, "worthy of the Episcopal generals of the army against the Albigenses, or of the deeds of the Augustan age of Puritanism ; but it must be remembered that the crime of these men was high treason against the State during a time of siege ; and those who have read how Wellington's march could be traced by bodies of deserters and pillagers hanging from the trees , need not be surprised at the summary execution of a traitorous clan."
 
These traitorous Jews brought their fate upon themselves. If they had been put to death, even without the judgment of Sa'd, it would have been in consonance with the principles which then prevailed. But they themselves had chosen Sa'd as the sole arbiter and judge of their fate ; they knew that his judgment was not at all contrary to the received notions and accordingly never murdered. They knew that if they had succeeded they would have massacred their enemies without compunction.
 
People judge the massacres of King David according to the "lights of his time". Even the fearful slaughters committed by the Christians in primitive times are judge according to the certain "lights". Why should not the defensive wars of the early Muslims be looked at from the same standpoint? But whatever the point of view, an unprejudiced mind will perceive that no blame can possibly attach to the Prophet in the execution of the Bani-Kureizha.
 
How many were executed?
 
The majority of historians agree the number of men executed could not have been more than 200 or 250.
 
Conclusion
 
Human nature is so constituted that, however criminal the acts of an individual may be, the moment he is treated with severity which to our mind seems harsh or cruel, a natural revulsion of feeling occurs, and the sentiment of justice gives place to pity within our hearts. However much we may regret the fate of the Jews should have been, thought at their own special request, left in the hands of an infuriated soldier, however much we may regret that sentence of this man should have been so carried into effect- we must not , in the sentiment of pity, overlook the stern question of justice and culpability. We must bear in mind the crimes of which they were guilty- their treachery, their open hostility, their defection from an alliance to which they were bound by every sacred tie.

This article is based on the works of Syed Ameer Ali. His book "The Spirit of Islam" was scrutinised by his fellow orientalists at Cambridge, the most prominent at the time was E. G Browne.