Contributing Authors

Introduction

In this study, I will discuss the genocide of the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayza by the prophet of Islam and the consequent moral implications. I will organize the flow of this study as follows:

1. Prelude to a genocide: Bani Qainuqa

2. Background on the Bani Qurayza incidents

3. Muhammad attacks Bani Qurayza

4. Who is Sa’d Bin Mu’ad?

5. Bani Qurayza genocide

6. Can there be a sufficient apologetic defense to this massacre?

7. Muslim apologetics

a. Bassam Zawadi

8. A look to the future

 

 

Prelude to a genocide: the Siege of Bani Qainuqa

In 624 AD, Muhammad laid a siege upon the Jewish tribe of Bani Qainuqa. The siege lasted 15 days, after which the Qainuqa tribe unconditionally surrendered to Muhammad’s forces. One, who reads the narrations from authentic Islamic sources about the Qainuqa incidents, cannot deny the fact the Muhammad intended to behead all adult males of that tribe, and intended to enslave the women and children and take over their wealth. However, Muhammad was not strong enough yet in Medina, where he had emigrated to less than two years earlier (622 A. D). At the time of the Qainuqa incident, the powerful local leader of Medina was Abdullah bin Ubayy, chief of the Khazraj clan. He was a man of high status and was regarded as the city’s chief at the time of Muhammad’s arrival, although his power gradually declined thereafter with Muhammad’s rise. Nonetheless, Muhammad had to pay regard to Abdullah’s position and power, especially during his early years in Medina.

Arab tribes in those days used to form alliances with each other as part of their coexistence, as well as for mutual support in conflict situations. During the Qainuqa incident, Abdullah Bin Ubayy’s Khazraj tribe was an ally of Qainuqa. In a previous conflict, Abdullah’s own life was saved by Qainuqa warriors. So, when Muhammad started preparation to slaughter the Qainuqa men, Abdullah Bin Ubayy firmly intervened on their behalf. The following Sirat quote is very telling of Ibn Ubayy’s relation to the Qainuqa, and of Muhammad’s evil intentions to slaughter them:

Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul went to him when God had put them (the Qainuqa tribe) in his power and said, ‘O Muhammad, deal kindly with my clients’ (now they were allies with Khazraj),but the apostle put him off. He repeated the words, and the apostle turned away from , whereupon he thrust his hand into the collar of the apostle’s robe; the apostle was so angry that his face became almost black. He said, ‘confound you, let me go.’ He answered, ‘No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my clients. Four hundred men without mail and three hundred mailed protected me from all mine enemies; would you cut them down in one morning? By God, I am a man who fears that circumstances may change.’ The apostle said, ‘You can have them.’ (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 363)

The above quote makes Muhammad’s intentions of slaughtering them en-masse clear. To save the lives of his allies, Ibn Ubayy firmly demanded of Muhammad that another option be given to them. He was not going to let Muhammad kill them all in cold blood.

History tells us that Muhammad, in face of Abdullah’s firm intervention, decided to expelled the Qainuqa tribe from Medina, which saved their lives. Although Muhammad took over their homes and property, he still suffered a substantial loss by failing to enslave the women and children.

Baun Qainuqa, thus, survived Muhammad’s worst evil, a fate that Banu Qurayza also desired at a later time but was not granted.

 

Background of the Bani Qurayza incidents

After Muhammad’s emigration to Medina, its Pagan inhabitants easily accepted Islam, but not the Jews. Well-versed in Abrahamic doctrines, they debated and scrutinized Muhammad’s religious doctrines and discovered various errors in his verses. Thus, they thought Muhammad was an imposter, not a true prophet. So they rejected his message. Because of religious disagreements and the Jews’s refusal to embrace Islam, Muhammad and his community became hostile toward the Jews of Medina.

There were three major Jewish tribes in Medina: Bani Qaynuqa, Bani Al-Nadir, and Bani Qurayza. As Muhammad grew stronger in Medina, and realizing that the Jews were not going to accept him as a prophet, his Qur’anic verses started becoming increasingly hostile towards people of the book (the Jews and the Christians). He also changed the Muslim prayer direction (called “Qibla” in Islam) from Jerusalem to Mecca.

In any case, Muhammad expelled the first two Jewish tribes – Bani Qaynuqa as well as Bani Al-Nadir – as he failed to genocide them due to intervention of powerful Abdullah ibn Obayy. In both occasions, Muhammad enriched himself and his community by capturing the wealth of those two rich Medina tribes. Bani Qurayza was the last major Jewish tribe left in Medina. In 627 AD, the stage was set for Muhammad to get rid of the last Jewish tribe of Medina. It was going to make him richer and stronger. So, why not?

The Meccans had had enough of the raiding and plundering of their commercial caravans by Muhammad’s robbing gang. So they came out to Medina to finish off Muhammad and his gang. They laid siege upon the community of Muhammad for a few weeks. As Muslims had dug a deep trench around their abode, which the Meccans could not overcome, they eventually had to withdraw the siege without achieving their goals. This came to be known as the Battle of the Trench (Al-Khandaq, A.D 627). After the Meccans were gone, words came to Muhammad that the Meccans were seeking the help of Banu Qurayza against him, and that Bani Qurayza had planned to extend their support. In reality, although a negotiation apparently did take place, Banu Qurayza never came to help the Meccans, thus staying true to their agreement with Muhammad not to help his enemies. The Meccan army did not make any attack on Muhammad’s community from the Bani Qurayza area of control, a testament to the fact that Bani Qurayza did not aid the Meccans during the Battle of the Trench.

In any case, this is one area of Arab history, where I wish there were people living in Mecca and Medina who documented such incidents and were neutral, or even anti-Muslim with regard to religious beliefs. The problem is that all we know about early Islam came to us from Islam-friendly sources. Imagine! All those horror stories we know about early Muslims came to us from Muslim-friendly sources! Those who refused Islam got killed, no questions asked. Saying negative things about Muhammad or Islam was no simple matter. Muhammad ordered the assassination of a hundred plus years old man, Abu Afak, just because he said some “not very nice things” about Muhammad. And when a mother of five, Asma Bint Marwan, heard of that and said some “negative” things about Muhammad, he ordered her assassination too. The assassin had to move away her nursing baby from her chest to be able to kill her. When you are talking about Muhammad and his Sahaba, you’ll be amazed at what that evil group of men can do. It is important for us to remember that even if the Qurayza tribe conspired against the Muslims, they never attacked or harmed any of them. And it is still true that no Meccan managed to get through to Medina and attack the Muslims through the area controlled by Bani Qurayza.

Again, I wish that we had more historical details about what exactly happened, but we don’t. If one is to rely on only Muslim-friendly sources, she probably won’t get the full story.

In any case, moving back to our story: When the Meccans left, Muhammad went home and started taking a bath during which a divine revelation came telling him to attack Bani Qurayza and get rid of them, and take all of their belongings:

Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 68:

Narrated ‘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.

 

Muhammad Attacks Bani Qurayza

With around 3000 worriers, and the Meccans out of sight, no wonder Allah tells him to go unprovoked and take over the fortunes of Bani Qurayza. Who is there to stop him? Muhammad laid siege to Bani Qurayza for twenty five days, after which they surrendered unconditionally. They did not offer any resistance. Before they surrendered, they asked Abu Lubabah, who was doing the negotiations between them and Muhammad, since he was on friendly terms with them from previous dealings, if they should submit to Muhammad’s judgement. Abu Lubabah said yes, and gestured with his hand to his throat, telling them that Muhammad is adamant on finishing them off. Such a gesture could only mean one thing: beheading. Afterwards, Abu Lubabah felt bad that he had betrayed Muhammad, but again, he had some passion to his old Jewish friends. In history, the gesture is not disputed. What is in disputed is why Abu Lubabah felt that he betrayed Muhammad. I think the answer is simple: Abu Lubabah knew what the murderer prophet was up to.

In any case, Bani Qurayza probably felt they had no option but to surrender. Muhammad’s criminals were three thousand strong. The mighty Meccans could not take care of him and his cronies, would one tribe in Medina be able to do it on its own? Surely not. So, instead of dying fighting Muhammad, they chose to surrender in the hopes that Muhammad will take their belongings and allow them to leave town, as he did with the previous tribes. However, this was not to be. Muhammad had become blood thirsty more and more as time passed by.

After the surrender of Bani Quaryza, Muhammad chose Sa’d bin Mu’ad, a Muslim, to declare the judgment against Bani Qurayza. References from different books and hadiths show that Muhammad was adamant on killing them. But other Muslim leaders, who had good past relationship with Bani Qurayza, forced him to choose someone else to declare a judgement against them. Muhammad did not allow them to choose another person, whom they wanted to judge the verdict. He named Sa’d bin Mu’ad and ended the discussion.

 

Who is Sa’d Bin Mu’ad?

Muhammad wanted Bani Qurayza men beheaded. In this manner, he will get all of their belongings and wealth. He, also, will have a large number of enslaved women and children. He can sell some of them. He can put them to work for his benefit. He and the Muslim men can enjoy some sexual activities with the women. Muhammad himself, history tells us, usually went after the young and pretty ones.

To be able to finish off the men of Bani Qurayza, what is better than naming the leader of their ally tribe, the Aus, Sa’d bin Mu’ad. Muhammad knew Sa’d bin Mu’ad and what he desires to do to those who rejected Islam. The quoted “Sirat” has many telling passages about Sa’d bin Mu’ad and his nature. On page 297, we read the following:

.. that sa’d b. Mu’adh said: ‘ O prophet of God, let us make a booth (T. of palm branches)for you to occupy and have your riding camels standing by; then we will meet the enemy and if god gives us the victory that is what we desire; if the worst occurs you can mount your camels and join our people who are left behind, for they are just as deeply attached to you as we are. Had they thought that you would be fighting they would not have stayed behind. God will protect you by them; they will give you good counsel and fight with you.’ The apostle thanked him and blessed him. Then a booth was constructed for the apostle and he remained there.

The above quote shows Sa’d’s unparalleled loyalty to Islam and to Muhammad.

Page 301 of the Sirat gives us a clue about what Sa’d desired for the prisoners of war who were not Muslims:

God slew many of their chiefs and made captive many of their nobles. Meanwhile the apostle was in the hut and Sa’d bin Mu’adh was standing at the door of the hut girt with his sword. With him were some of the Ansar guarding the apostle for fear lest the enemy should come back at him. While the folk were laying hands on the prisoners the apostle, as I have been told, saw displeasure on the face of Sa’d at what they were doing. He said to him: ‘you seem to dislike what the people are doing.’ ‘Yes by God,’ he replied,’it is the first defeat god has brought on the infidel, and I would rather see them Slaughtered than left alive.’

The above quote, if anything, tells us what Sa’d’s judgement against Bani Qurayza would be. Sa’ds vision is clear: The one who rejects Islam or Muhammad must be put to death.

Sa’d was a born killer with very strong loyalty to Muhammad. He was also badly wounded in the Battle of the Trench, from which he soon died. So, he was not going to be sympathetic to Bani Qurayza, who rejected the prophet. He would kill you or me in an instant if Muhammad just says the word. Such was Sa’d Bin Mu’ad. My suspicion is that he also knew what Muhammad desired to do with Bani Qurayza. He was very close to Muhammad. In fact history tells us that the prophet put up a tent in the mosque for Sa’d so he could personally take care of him and his (Sa’d’s) wound. As one would expect, Sa’d’s judgment was what Muhammad wanted:

Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:

Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri:

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad’s judgment, Allah’s Apostle sent for Sa’d who was near to him. Sa’d came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah’s Apostle said (to the Ansar), “Stand up for your leader.” Then Sa’d came and sat beside Allah’s Apostle who said to him. “These people are ready to accept your judgment.” Sa’d said, “I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners.” The Prophet then remarked, “O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah.”

It is interesting to note, here, Muhammad’s statement – that Sa’d’s judgment is Allah’s (God’s!). The fact of the matter is that whatever Muhammad wanted, became Allah’s and vice versa. So, the divine judgment has come and the crimes are almost as good as done. Here is how Muhammad accomplished his evil genocide on Bani Qurayza’s men. History tells us their numbers were between 600 and 900 men:

Bani Qurayza Genocide

“During the night, trenches sufficient to contain the dead bodies of the men were dug across the market place of the city. In the morning, Mahomet, himself a spectator of the tragedy, commanded that male captives to be brought forth in companies of five or six at a time. Each company as it came up was made to sit down in a row on the brink of the trench destined for its grave, there beheaded, and the bodies cast therein. … The butchery, begun in the morning, lasted all day, and continued by torchlight till the evening. Having thus drenched the market place with the blood of seven or eight hundred victims, and having given command for the earth to be smoothed over their remains, Mahomet returned from the horrid spectacle to solace himself with the charms of Rihana, whose husband and all her male relatives had just perished in the massacre.”

[Source: W. Muir, The Life of Muhammad, (Edinburg 1923, Pages 307-8)].

One wonders what kind of a beast would do such an evil act, then thinks about sex. Rihana was a woman whose husband and all adult male relatives had just been killed by Muhammad. Yet, this did not prevent Muhammad from raping her. The Sirat book quoted earlier says that Muhammad “had proposed to marry her”. Her answer was in the negative. She rightfully showed repugnance towards Islam and clung to Judaism.(page 466)

History tells us that Rayhana stayed with Muhammad as his concubine until his death. She refused his offer to marry her. I plan to write an article in the near future on Muhammad being a despicable rapist. The above is one of the pieces of evidence I plan to use to show that Muhammad was a rapist. Those Muslims who will deny this accusation will have to show that when someone kills a woman’s husband and all of her adult male relatives, that woman is more than willing to have consensual sex with the murderer right away.

Moving along ..

As one of the Bani Qurayza women sees the spectacle taking place in the today’s medina market, she becomes hysterical and delirious. Muhammad’s Sahaba take care of her the best way they know how:

Abu Dawud: Book 14, Number 2665:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:

No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I. I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.

Hassan bin Thabet; a medinan Muslim poet writes an imagery about the day of the Qurayza genocide (Sirat, p.480):

Qurayza met their misfortune

And in humiliation found no helper.

A calamity worse than that which fell B. al-Nadir befell them

The day that God’s apostle came to them like a brilliant moon,

When fresh horses bearing horsemen like hawks.

We left them with the blood upon them like a pool

They having accomplished nothing.

They lay prostrate with vultures circling round them.

Thus are the obstinate and impious rewarded.

Such are the acts of the prophet of Islam and his Sahaba. Those are the people who are supposed to be an example of conduct to all mankind!

The genocide of Bani Qurayza was for the men. Any male who had grown pubic hair was killed:

 

Sunan Abu Dawud: Book #38, Hadith #4390

Narrated Atiyyah al-qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

The rest of the tribe’s members (the women and children) were enslaved. The tribes’ belongings went to Muhammad and the rest of the criminals. Muhammad’s economic situation improved tremendously after this massive act of evil:

Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 53, Number 357:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

People used to give some of their date palms to the Prophet (as a gift), till he conquered Bani Quraiza and Bani An-Nadir, whereupon he started returning their favors.

 

Can there be a sufficient apologetic defense to this massacre?

Islam has its apologists. If Muhammad’s crime is assassinating a woman, or an old man, they can create a scenario to make it plausible that Muhammad may have been justified in what he did. I studied many of Muhammad’s assassinations and published many articles about that. There are a lot of Muslim apologists on the web who try to defend Muhammad and the early Muslims. None, of what I have seen on the web, in my view, made a successful defense of Muhammad and Islam.

Bani Qurayza genocide was done on a massive scale. So, the Muslim apologist cannot, in principle cannot, defend Muhammad and the early Muslims. You see, we are not talking about one person here. Let’s say the Qurayza men who were beheaded were 700 men. That is 700 hundred crimes committed by Muhammad. Seven hundred purposeful killings. Can any decent human being see that a defense of Muhammad’s crimes in this instance even remotely plausible? Muslim apologists really have no shame. You can find their writings on the web defending Muhammad and the early Muslims on the Bani Qurayza story too.

There are actually Multiple crimes committed in this story. There are seven hundred plus killings. There is the beheading of the Qurayza woman crime. There are the crimes of taking the belongings of Bani Qurayza. There are the crimes of rapes that the Muslim men inflected on the Qurayza women. Also, Authentic Hadith tells us that Muhammad sent a group of Qurayza women to Yemen. They were sold in order that the Muslims buy weapons. So, there are the crimes of putting all those women into slavery:

Then the apostle sent Sa’d b. Zayd al-Ansari brother of b.’Abduk-Ashhal with some of the captive women of B. Qurayza to najd and he sold them for horses and weapons

[Source: W. Muir, The Life of Muhammad, (Edinburg 1923, p.466)].

There are many crimes committed here. Muslim apologists do not have a shame when they try to defend Muhammad on the Qurayza events. There is really no sufficient defense. I am not saying that to condemn Muhammad and the Muslims and not allow the Muslim apologists to have their say. It is not like that at all. How can anyone justify seven hundred plus homicides? A favorite of Muslims apologists is that some of the Qurayza leaders conspired against Muhammad during the battle of the trench. This matter is not clear at all in the historical sources. But, let us for a moment say that some of the Qurayza leaders did conspire against Muhammad. Is that a sufficient reason to annihilate the whole tribe? There were kids who were twelve or thirteen years old who got beheaded that day just because they had grown some pubic hair. How can any decent human being defend the Muslims and Muhammad when it comes to beheading such young lads who had not yet understood the nature of life to start with? I discuss some specifics of the Muslim apologists responses in a later part of this study.

It is not enough for the Muslim apologist to say that Bani Qurayza were guilty, or that they were judged by their Torah. Here we have a large number of people beheaded in one day. The problem is most of them, if not all, are innocent. Completely innocent! There is, in principle, no justification, for what Muhammad and his followers did. This is why I affirm in this article, that Muslim apologistss have no shame in defending Muhammad and the Muslims when it comes to the genocide of Bani Qurayza.

 

Muslim apologists

There are current-day Muslim apologists who deny that the Qurayza massacre ever took place, or if it ever happened, it was only the “treacherous” leaders of Bani Qurayza who were beheaded. The rest of the tribe survived. Such an apologetic defense is worthless in my view. Authentic Islamic sources of Hadith, Sirat, and Qur’an testify to the contrary. Hence, I will not include such a defense in this current treatment.

 

II

In this part, which I may expand to include other Islamist apologetics, I discuss some of what Bassam Zawadi wrote regarding the Bani Qurayza massacre

a) Bassam Zawadi

Writing in defense of the claim that not all the Qurayza folks were executed, Mr. Zawadi says:

At that time, anyone who reached the age of puberty was eligible to fight and was thus considered to be a warrior and they were only ordered to be executed if they fought against the Muslims. I already showed that the ones who stuck to the treaty were spared.

Source: http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_execution_of_the_jews_at_bani_quraydah

Zawadi’s above claim is bogus and cannot be substantiated. There is no record in Islamic sources telling that only the ones, of Bani Qurayza, who fought the Muslims were killed. In fact, according to his criterion all of the Bani Qurayza men should have survived. None of them fought the Muslims. In fact, Muhammad is the aggressor. He is the one who attacked them and laid siege to them.

Zawadi continues:

However, I personally believe that all able-bodied men were executed, for it would have been possible for the Bani Qurayda men to surrender their leaders over to the Muslims. IF they weren’t able to do so then they could have at least escaped the fortress and joined the Muslim side in order to abide by the peace treaty. However, they sheltered those criminals, defended them and protected them. They were an obstruction to justice and therefore deserved the same fate as their leaders. Indeed they deserved to be punished

Zawadi continues to say that Bani Qurayza were dealt with according to the tenets of their own holy book; the Torah:

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies (Deuteronomy 20:10-12)

The above is actually a misquote of the old testament. The old testament command was meant for a certain situation, and not as a general rule. Zawadi wants to justify the annihilation of an entire tribe. He uses the Bible for justification. He uses the argument that the leaders of the Bani Qurayza were treacherous and sided with the Meccans. All of this is well and good except for the “Pudding”. A well-known English saying is “the proof is in the pudding”. The fact of the matter is that Meccans did not go through the Bani Qurayza quarter to attack the Muslims. This fact shows that there was no treachery on the Qurayza part. And, even if some of their leaders were treacherous, they were not treacherous enough to abandon their protection agreement with the Muslims.

While historial narrations are lacking regarding this matter, we know for sure that the Muslims were not attacked during the Meccan trench siege to Medina through the Bani Qurayza controlled zone.

The conclusion that Zawadi draws regarding Bani Qurayza is very telling of his train of thought (numbers added are mine):

1 To most people it could appear that the punishment that the Jews faced was too extreme. However, on the contrary what was more extreme is how the Jews deceptively tricked the Muslims by breaking the treaty and wanted to end their very existence. For such treachery they indeed deserved what they got. 2 If any Christian wants to condemn this judgment then he is actually condemning his own Bible because it was by a law found in their Bible which the Jews were judged by. 3 Plus it was not Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who issued the order; it was Saad bin Muadh whom the Jews selected to judge their fate.

4 The Muslims needed to make examples out of these people. You can’t expect the Muslims to go and forgive those who fight against them. That would just encourage more people to go and fight against the Muslims. If you think about it, the Muslims resorted to such extreme measures only when it was necessary and not for revenge. It was necessary to show everyone that you cannot go and mess with Muslims by fighting against them. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was in charge of the security of his people. If he went on forgiving anyone who attacked them, then this would only encourage people to fight against the Muslims, since they would think that even if they lose the Muslims will simply forgive them.

Source:http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_execution_of_the_jews_at_bani_quraydah

1. According to Zawadi it was more extreme to break a treaty with the Muslims (a matter that has not been substantiated by historical narrations), than annihilating 800 adult men. And who says Muslim apologists do not have a sense of humor!

2. Condemning what happened to Bani Qurayza amounts to condemning the biblical teachings (mainly the Old Testament injunction that I quoted earlier). I am reiterating myself here: the Old Testament injunction here was a special case in history. It was not to give a blank check to the Jews to do whatever they feel is needed during war times.

3. True, it was Sa’d Bin Mu’adh who made the call. However, this was Muhammad’s plan all along. Sa’d was a decoy for Muhammad as evidenced by Muhammad’s reaction when Sa’d pronounced the judgement. Muhammad Said, “O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah.”

4. We do expect Muhammad to be a forgiving person. Even if there were few treacherous leaders in Bani Qurayza (a matter in great dispute in history), why annihilate the whole tribe?

 

A Look toward the future

Muhammad and the Muslims took over the Arabian Peninsula and spread beyond. So, Bani Qurayza victims have not been vindicated or honored in any way. I plan to write about Bani Qurayza every now and then just to honor them and remind myself and others of them. Humanity needs to remember them too. Humanity needs to honor them. Saudi Arabia is still ruled by Islam; a seventh century barbaric religion. However, I look to a day when Saudi Arabia comes to realize how evil Islam is and was. I look to a day when a large shrine is built in the Medina market where Bani Qurayza men were killed. In that shrine, there will be lists of names of those who perished that day, and some of their stories and poetry that was preserved. People from all over the globe will go there just to visit that shrine, pay tribute and respect and honor those victims and say: Never again we will allow a thug and his bandits do such an evil act against a group of people as was done to Bani Qurayza.