Fouad a écrit :
TROP c'est TROP
vous n'arreter jamais de dire des mensonges sur le prophete Mohammad ?!!!!!!!
Non...mais....
Lisez l'histoire, elle est ici par des auteurs NON musulmans (pour que vous disiez pas que c'est a cause qu'ils sont musulmans ont dit ca...) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#M ... _of_Medina
In the Constitution of Medina, Muhammad demanded the Jews' political loyalty in return for religious and cultural autonomy.[29] However, after each major battle with the Medinans, Muhammad accused one of the Jewish tribes of treachery (See 2:100). After Badr and Uhud, the Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadir, respectively, were expelled "with their families and possessions" from Medina. After the Battle of the Trench in 627, the Jews of Banu Qurayza were accused of conspiring with the Meccans; Qurayza men were beheaded, women and children enslaved, and their properties confiscated.[40] Watt writes that some of the Arab tribe of Aws wanted to honour their old alliance with Qurayza, are said to asked Muhammad to forgive the Qurayza for their sake as Muhammad had previously forgiven the Nadir for the sake of Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy. Muhammad met this feeling by suggesting that the fate of Qurayza should be decided by one of their Muslim allies and thereby avoiding any likelihood of blood-feud. A suggestion to which the Jews agreed. Muhammad appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a leading man among Aws, who passed execution sentence against Qurayza. Watt states that there is no need to suppose that Muhammad brought pressure on Sa'd ibn Mua'dh: Those of the Aws who wanted leniency for Qurayza seems to have been regarded Qurayza unfaithful only to Muhammad and not to Aws; the old Arab tradition required support of an ally, independent of the ally's conduct to other people. But Sa'd didn't want to allow tribal allegiance to come before the Islamic allegiance. [41]
The Banu Qurayza incident has generated much controversy in the centuries since, and is therefore worth examining more closely here. Watt writes that "during the siege of Medina, Muhammad became anxious about their conduct and sent some of the leading Muslims to talk to them [the Jewish tribes]; the result was disquieting.[42] Though Qurayza does not appear to have committed any overt hostile act[42] and been overtly correct in their behaviour[43], they had almost certainly[43][probably [42]] been involved in negotiations with the enemy [42] and would have attacked Muhammad in the rear had there been an opportunity. [44]" Marco Scholler believes the Banu Qurayza were "openly, probably actively," supporting Meccans and their allies.[45] Finally, Welch states that Muslims "discovered, or perhaps became suspected" that the Jews were conspiring with the enemy.[46]" A minority of academic scholars reject the incident holding that Ibn Ishaq, the first biographer of Muhammad, supposedly gathered many details of the incident from descendants of the Qurayza Jews themselves. These descendants allegedly embellished or manufactured details of the incident by borrowing from histories of Jewish persecutions during Roman times.[47] Watt, however, finds this argument "not entirely convincing."[48]
The motivation for Muhammad's actions was political rather than racial or theological.[29] John Esposito writes that the massacre of traitors was common practice, "neither alien to Arab customs nor to that of the Hebrew prophets." Watt writes that in Arab eyes, the massacre "wasn't barbarous but a mark of strength, since it showed that the Muslims were not afraid of blood reprisals."[49]
In Watt's view, the "Jews had opposed Muhammad to the utmost of their abilities and they were utterly crushed." Watt speculates that had Jews come to terms with Muhammad instead of opposing him, they had become partners in the Arab Empire and Islam a sect of Jewry. They could have secured very favourable terms with him, including religious autonomy. A great opportunity that was lost. [50]
