Please Sign In To Stop Genocide In Palestine

"
The Banu Qurayza (Arabic: بني قريظة; بنو قريظة‎ alternate spellings include Quraiza, Qurayzah, Quraytha, and the archaic Koreiza) were a Jewish tribe which lived in northern Arabia, at the oasis of Yathrib (presently known as Medina), until the 7th century.

In February/March of 627 AD, their conflict with Muhammad led to a 25-day siege of Banu Qurayza ending in the tribe's surrender.[1] There is much debate about the number executed with some estimating that between 400-900 males were beheaded,[2] while the Sunni hadith simply state that all male members were killed, without specifying a figure, and one woman.[3]

Jewish tribes reportedly arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a culturally, economically and politically dominant position.[4][5] However, in the 5th century, the Banu Aws and the Banu Khazraj, two Arab tribes that had arrived from Yemen, gained dominance.[6]

When these two tribes became embroiled in conflict with each other, the Jewish tribes, now clients[5][7] or allies[6] of the Arabs, fought on different sides, the Qurayza siding with the Aws.[8]


In 622, the Islamic prophet Muhammad arrived at Yathrib from Mecca and reportedly established a compact between the conflicting parties.[4][9][10] While the city found itself at war with Muhammad's native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh, tensions between the growing numbers of Muslims and the Jewish communities mounted.[8]


In 627, when the Quraysh and their allies besieged the city in the Battle of the Trench, the Qurayza entered into negotiations with the besiegers.[11] Subsequently, the tribe was charged with treason and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad.[12][13] The Banu Qurayza were overtaken and most of the men, apart from those who surrendered (many of whom converted to Islam), were beheaded, while all the women and children were taken captive and enslaved.[12][13][13][14][15][16] Several revisionist authors have challenged the veracity of this incident, arguing that it was exaggerated or invented"

"By the time of the Muslim conquests of the 7th century, ancient Jewish communities had existed in many parts of the Middle East and North Africa since Antiquity. Jews under Islamic rule were given the status of dhimmi, along with certain other pre-Islamic religious groups.[1] As such, these groups were accorded certain rights as "people of the book".


During waves of persecution in Medieval Europe, many Jews found refuge in Muslim lands.[2] For instance, Jews expelled from the Iberian Peninsula were invited to settle in various parts of the Ottoman Empire, where they would often form a prosperous model minority of merchants acting as intermediaries for their Muslim rulers."

They are both past events with the identical Arabic used. I am not sure why so many commentators, despite the Arabic, translate the latter verse 17:104 differently and understand the 'akhirat' here as hereafter but not in 17:7. The only one that I know who translates it with my understanding is Yusuf Ali.

I feel both verses deal with the events of AD70 and 17:104 is not necessarily a prophecy about a future event.

Finally, 5:21 has a context. Prophet Moses spoke directly with his people and informed them that this particular land was assigned for them. Now the question is whether this is strictly his people or the Children of Israel forever. Note the term 'Bani Israel' is not used in 5:21, only 'ya'qawmi' (my people / community). Then if you read on it was banned to them for forty years because of their transgression (5:26). So a particular generation seems to have been punished. This also lends strength to the argument that this land was promised to a certain people with Prophet Moses. Also, remember that the other Israelites inherited the Eastern lands (7:137) as not all the Israelites left with Prophet Moses.

EXODUS OF PROPHET MOSES'S (pbuh) PEOPLE
http://quransmessage.com/articles/exodus%20of%20moses's%20people%20FM3.htm

As I don't understand the verses the way you have intimated, therefore I cannot answer your pointed question. However, I will say that no one has a right to usurp another's land. Also, I don't necessarily see any Biblical right to land categorically supported by the Quran. 5:21 has a context. 17:104 and 17:7 don't seem to be translated consistently given the Arabic. However, in persecution the Quran clearly encourages 'Hijrat' (migration). There are many verses where God says His earth is spacious. (29:56; 39:10).

There is a strong inference in the Quran that those persecuted will be asked:

004:097
"Lo! as for those whom the angels take (in death) while they wrong themselves, (the angels) will ask: In what were you engaged? They will say: We were oppressed in the land. (The angels) will say: Was not God's earth spacious that you could have migrated therein? As for such, their habitation will be hell, an evil journey's end"

004:098
"Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way"

So this is another perspective to consider. After all the Prophet also was forced to migrate under persecution.