PROPHET MUHAMMAD'S TREATY WITH JEWS (622 C.E.)
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) decided to leave Mecca because the Meccan
chiefs had taken action to kill him at his home. It was the year 622
CE. As far the choice of migrating to Medina (known as Yathrib at that
time), the decision was made easier by the second ?Pledge of Aqaba?
made a year before on the occasion of the annual rites of pilgrimage.
The pledge was made by seventy three men and two women of Khazraj and
Aws communities of Medina. They had accepted Islam and wanted to invite
the Prophet to migrate to Medina. Their motivation for this move, apart
from recognizing him as the Prophet, the trustworthy, and the best in
conduct in Mecca, was to bring peace and security between the Khazraj
and Aws. They were often at war with each other and the Battle of
Bu'ath had shattered their strength completely. They desperately needed
a leader who could be trusted by both communities and bring peace in
Medina. As part of the pledge, they were to protect the Prophet as they
would protect their women and children if he were attacked by the
Meccans.
Among the people in Medina, there was a small community (three tribes)
of Jews with Arab communities constituting the majority of the
population. Because of wars going on for several generations, the
resources of the Arabs were depleted and their influence in Medina was
dwindling. The Jews were traders and many of them used to lend money at
exorbitant interest. The continuing wars boosted their economy and
personal wealth.
The immediate result of the Prophet?s migration to Medina was peace
and unity between the communities of Aws and Khazraj. The Prophet,
motivated by the general welfare of citizens of Medina, decided to
offer his services to the remaining communities including the Jews. He
had already laid down the basis for relationship between the Emigrants
from Mecca (known as Muhajirin) and Medinites (known as the Ansar, the
helpers).
The Treaty between Muslims, non-Muslim Arabs and Jews of Medina was
put in writing and ratified by all parties. It has been preserved by
the historians. The document referred Muhammad (pbuh) as the Prophet
and Messenger of God but it was understood that the Jews did not have
to recognize him as such for their own religious reasons. The major
parts of the document were:
?In the name of Allah (The One True God) the Compassionate, the
Merciful. This is a document from Muhammad, the Prophet, governing the
relation between the Believers from among the Qurayshites (i.e.,
Emigrants from Mecca) and Yathribites (i.e., the residents of Medina)
and those who followed them and joined them and strived with them. They
form one and the same community as against the rest of men.
?No Believer shall oppose the client of another Believer. Whosoever is
rebellious, or seeks to spread injustice, enmity or sedition among the
Believers, the hand of every man shall be against him, even if he be a
son of one of them. A Believer shall not kill a Believer in retaliation
of an unbeliever, nor shall he help an unbeliever against a Believer.
?Whosoever among the Jews follows us shall have help and equality;
they shall not be injured nor shall any enemy be aided against them....
No separate peace will be made when the Believers are fighting in the
way of Allah.... The Believers shall avenge the blood of one another
shed in the way of Allah ....Whosoever kills a Believer wrongfully
shall be liable to retaliation; all the Believers shall be against him
as one man and they are bound to take action against him.
?The Jews shall contribute (to the cost of war) with the Believers so
long as they are at war with a common enemy. The Jews of Banu Najjar,
Banu al-Harith, Banu Sa'idah, Banu Jusham, Banu al-Aws, Banu Tha'labah,
Jafnah, and Banu al-Shutaybah enjoy the same rights and priviledges as
the Jews of Banu Aws.
?The Jews shall maintain their own religion and the Muslims theirs.
Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The close friends of Jews
are as themselves. None of them shall go out on a military expedition
except with the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented
from taking revenge for a wound.
?The Jews shall be responsible for their expenses and the Believers
for theirs. Each, if attacked, shall come to the assistance of the
other.
?The valley of Yathrib (Medina) shall be sacred and inviolable for all
that join this Treaty. Strangers, under protection, shall be treated on
the same ground as their protectors; but no stranger shall be taken
under protection except with consent of his tribe....No woman shall be
taken under protection without the consent of her family.
Whatever difference or dispute between the parties to this covenant
remains unsolved shall be referred to Allah and to Muhammad, the
Messenger of Allah. Allah is the Guarantor of the piety and goodness
that is embodied in this covenant. Neither the Quraysh nor their allies
shall be given any protection.
?The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any
attack on Yathrib. If they are called to cease hostilities and to enter
into peace, they shall be bound to do so in the interest of peace; and
if they make a similar demand on Muslims it must be carried out except
when the war is agianst their religion.
?Allah approves the truth and goodwill of this covenant. This treaty
shall not protect the unjust or the criminal. Whoever goes out to fight
as well as whoever stays at home shall be safe and secure in this city
unless he has perpetrated an injustice or commited a crime.... Allah is
the protector of the good and God-fearing people.?
The first written constitution of a State ever promulgated by a
sovereign in human history emanated from the Prophet of Islam. It was
enacted from the first year of Hijrah (622 CE). The treaty stipulated a
city state in Medina, allowing wide autonomy to communities. Private
justice was to be banished. The head of the State had the prerogative
to decide who should participate in an expedition, the war and peace
being indivisible. Social insurance was to be instituted.
Terminology:
The name Yathrib was changed to Medinat-un-Nabawi, meaning the 'City
of the Prophet' soon after he migrated there. The use of only the first
word in that name (i.e., Medinah) became popular later.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
History does not record much as to when first Jewish migration from
north to Yathrib (Medina) began as their numbers remined small
throughout their stay there. Among the major reasons for their
settlements in Arabia were: the relative peace and security in north
Arabia with orchards and gardens; the Arab trade route linking Yemen,
Arabia, Syria and Iraq; and continuing tensions resulting from wars
between the Romans and Persians in the area around the Holy Land. Some
of the learned men among the Christians and Jews had also moved to this
area based on their conviction that the advent of the final Prophet of
God was near, who was to settle in this area. Bahira, the monk, and
Salman, the Persian, were some of the people who moved to the caravan
route to or near this area. Salman was told by his last Christian
sage:
?He will be sent with the religion of Abraham and will come forth in
Arabia where he will emigrate from his home to a place between two lava
tracts, a country of palms. His Signs are manifest: he will eat of a
gift but not if it is given as alms, and between his shoulders is the
seal of prophesy.?
Yathrib was the only city fitting this description.
Salman (ra) was born into a Zoroastrian family of Isfahan, Persia. He
became a Christian as a young boy and traveled to Syria in search of
truth about God and associated himself with the Bishop of Mosul and
after the Bishop's death to several other Christian sages. On one of
his travels to Gulf of 'Aqaba, north of Red Sea, he was sold to a Jew
as a slave by his caravan leader. Salman (ra) was then sold again to a
Jew of Banu Quraizah in Yathrib just before Prophet Muhammad?s
migration.
After confirming these signs, Salamn (ra) accepted Islam and, due to
his sincerity and dedication to Islam, he was accepted by the Prophet
as ?one of the Prophet?s household.? It was on his advice a trench was
dug around Medina. The trench (in the 'Battle of Ahzab,' also known as
the 'Battle of Trench') took the Meccan army by surprise and they and
their confederates (Arabs and Jews) could not accomplish the plan of
wiping out Islam and Muslims of Medina.
Allah: Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God,
The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab
Christians and Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew; Allaha in Aramaic,
the mother tongue of Jesus, pbuh). The word Allah does not have a
plural or gender. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He
does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic
words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.'
s or pbuh: Peace Be Upon Him. This expression is used for all Prophets
of Allah.
ra: Radiallahu Anhu (May Allah be pleased with him).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Prophet Muhammad ordered 900 Jews killed ?
From Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and
Ireland,
(1976), pp. 100-107.
IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT at the advent of Islam there were three Jewish
tribes who lived in Yathrib (later Medina), as well as other Jewish
settlements further to the north, the most important of which were
Khaybar and Fadak. It is also generally accepted that at first the
Prophet Muhammad hoped that the Jews of Yathrib, as followers of a
divine religion, would show understanding of the new monotheistic
religion, Islam. However, as soon as these tribes realized that Islam
was being firmly established and gaining power, they adopted an
actively hostile attitude, and the final result of the struggle was the
disappearance of these Jewish communities from Arabia proper.
The biographers of the Prophet, followed by later historians, tell us
that Banu Qaynuqa.,1 and later Banu al-Nadir,2 provoked the Muslims,
were besieged, and in turn agreed to surrender and were allowed to
depart, taking with them all their transportable possessions. Later on
Khaybar3 and Fadak4 were evacuated. According to Ibn Ishaq in the Sira,
5 the third of the Jewish tribes, Banu Qurayza, sided with the
Qurashites and their allies, who made an unsuccessful attack on Medina
in an attempt to destroy Islam. This, the most serious challenge to
Islam, failed, and the Banu Qurayza were in turn besieged by the
Prophet. Like Banu al-Nadir, in time they surrendered, but unlike the
Banu al-Nadir, they were subjected to the arbitration of Sa'd b.
Mu'adh, a member of the Aws tribe, allies of Qurayza. He ruled that the
grown-up males should be put to death and the women and children
subjected to slavery. Consequentiy, trenches were dug in the market-
place in Medina, and the men of Qurayza were brought out in groups and
their necks were struck.6 Estimates of those killed vary from 400 to
900.
On examination, details of the story can he challenged. It can be
demonstrated that the assertion that 600 or 800 or 9007 men of Banu
Qurayza were put to death in cold blood can not be true; that it is a
later invention; and that it has its source in Jewish traditions.
Indeed the source of the details in earlier Jewish history can be
pointed out with surprising accuracy.
The Arabic sources will now be surveyed, and the contribution of their
Jewish informants will be discussed. The credibility of the details
will then be assessed, and the prototype in earlier Jewish history pin-
pointed.
The earliest work that we have, with the widest range of details, is
Ibn Ishaq's Sira, his biography of the Prophet. It is also the longest
and the most widely quoted. Later historians draw, and in most cases
depend on him.8 But Ibn Ishaq died in 151 A.H., i.e. 145 years after
the event in question. Later historians simply take his version of the
story, omitting more or less of the detail, and overlooking his
uncertain list of authorities. They generally abbreviate the story,
which appears just as one more event to report. In most cases their
interest seems to end there. Some of them indicate that they are not
really convinced, but they are not prepared to take further trouble.
One authority, Ibn Hajar, however, denounces this story and the other
related ones as "odd tales".9 A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik,10 the
jurist, denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar"11 and "an impostor"12
just for transmitting such stories.
It must be remembered that historians and authors of the Prophet's
biography did not apply the strict rules of the "traditionists". They
did not always provide a chain of authorities, each of whom had to be
verified as trustworthy and as certain or likely to have transmitted
his report directly from his informant, and so on. The attitude towards
biographical details and towards the early events of Islam was far less
meticulous than their attitude to the Prophet's traditions, or indeed
to any material relevant to jurisprudence. Indeed Ibn Ishaq's account
of the siege of Medina and the fall of the Banu Qurayza is pieced
together by him from information given by a variety of persons he
names, including Muslim descendants of the Jews of Qurayza.
Against these late and uncertain sources must be placed the only
contemporary and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There, the
reference in Sura XXXIII, 26 is very brief:
"He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the
Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took
prisoner." There is no reference to numbers.
Ibn Ishaq sets out his direct sources as he opens the relevant chapter
on the siege of Medina. These were: a client of the family of al-Zubayr
and others whom he "did not suspect". They told parts of the story on
the authority of 'Abdullah b. Ka'b b. Malik, al Zuhri, 'Asim b. 'Umar
b. Qatada, 'Abdullab b. Abi Bakr, Muhammad b. Ka'b of Qurayza, and
"others among our men of learning", as he put it. Each of these
contributed to the story, so that Ibn Ishaq's version is the sum total
of the collective reports, pieced together. At a later stage Ibn Ishaq
quotes another descendant of Qurayza, 'Attiyya13 by name, who had been
spared, and, directly, a certain descendant of al-Zabir b. Bata, a
prominent member of the tribe of Qurayza who figures in the narrative.
The story opens with a description of the effort of named Jewish
leaders to organize against the Muslims an alliance of the hostile
forces. The leaders named included three from the Banu al-Nadir and two
of the tribe of Wa'il, another Jewish tribe; together with other Jewish
fellow-tribesmen unnamed. Having persuaded the neighbouring Bedouin
tribes of Ghatafan, Murra, Fazara, Sulaym, and Ashja' to take up arms,
they now proceeded to Mecca where they succeeded in persuading the
Quraysh. Having gathered together a besieging force, one of the Nadir
leaders, Huyayy b. Akhtab, in effect forced himself on the third Jewish
tribe still in Medina, the Banu Qurayza, and, against the better
judgement of their leader, Ka'b b. Asad, he persuaded them to break
faith with the Prophet in the hope, presented as a certainty, that the
Muslims would not stand up to the combined attacking forces and that
Qurayza and the other Jews would be restored to independent supremacy.
The siege of Medina failed and the Jewish tribes suffered for their
part in the whole operation.
The attitude of scholars and historians to Ibn lshaq's version of the
story has been either one of complacency, sometimes mingled with
uncertainty, or at least in two important cases, one of condemnatlon
and outright rejection.
The complacent attitude is one of accepting the biography of the
Prophet and the stories of the campaigns at they were received by later
generations without the meticulous care or the application of the
critical criteria which collectors of traditions or jurists employed.
It was not necessary to check the veracity of authorities when
transmitting or recording parts of the story of the Prophet's life.14
It was not essential to provide a continuous chain of authorities or
even to give authorities at all. That is obvious in Ibn Ishaq's Sira.
On the other hand reliable authority and a continuous line of
transmission were essential when law was the issue. That is why Malik
the jurist had no regard for Ibn Ishaq.15
One finds, therefore, that later historians and even exegetes either
repeat the very words of Ibn Ishaq or else abbreviate the whole story.
Historians gave it, as it were, a cold reception. Even Tabari, nearly
150 years after Ibn Ishaq, does not try to find other versions of the
story as he usually does. He casts doubt by his use of the words,
"Waqidi alleged (za'ama) that the Prophet caused trenches to be dug."
Ibn ai-Qayyim in Zad al-ma'ad makes only the briefest reference and he
ignores altogether the crucial question of numbers. Ibn Kathir even
seems to have general doubt in his mind because he takes the trouble to
point out that the story was told on such "good authority" as that of
'A'isha.16
Apart from mild complacency or doubtful acceptance of the story
itself, Ibn Ishaq as an author was in fact subjected to devastating
attacks by scholars, contemporary or later, on two particular accounts.
One was his uncritical inclusion in his Sira of so much spurious or
forged poetry;17 the other his unquestioning acceptance of just such a
story as that of the slaughter of Banu Qurayza.
His contemporary, the early traditionist and jurist Malik, called him
unequivocally "a liar" and "an impostor"18 "who transmits his stories
from the Jews".19 In other words, applying his own criteria, Malik
impugned the veracity of Ibn Ishaq's sources and rejected his approach.
Indeed, neither Ibn Ishaq's list of informants nor his method of
collecting and piecing together such a story would he acceptable to
Malik the jurist.
In a later age Ibn Hajar further explained the point of Malik's
condemnation of Ibn Ishaq. Malik, he said,20 condemned Ibn Ishaq
because he made a point of seeking out descendants of the Jews of
Medina in order to obtain from them accounts of the Prophet's campaigns
as handed down by their forefathers. Ibn Hajar21 then rejected the
stories in question in the strongest terms: "such odd tales as the
story of Qurayza and al-Nadir". Nothing could be more damning than this
outright rejection.
Against the late and uncertain sources on the one hand, and the
condemning authorities on the other, must be set the only contemporary
and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There the reference in Sura
XXXIII, 26 is very brief: "He caused those of the People of the Book
who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you
killed, some you took prisoner."
Exegetes and traditionists tend simply to repeat Ibn Ishaq's tale, but
in the Qur'an the reference can only be to those who were actually in
the fighting. This is a statement about the battle. It concerns those
who fought. Some of these were killed. others were taken prisoner.
One would think that if 600 or 900 people were killed in this manner
the significance of the event would have been greater. There would have
been a clearer reference in the Qur'an, a conclusion to be drawn, and a
lesson to be learnt. But when only the guilty leaders were executed, it
would be normal to expect only a brief reference.
So much for the sources: they were neither uninterested nor
trustworthy; and the report was very late in time. Now for the story.
The reasons for rejecting the story are the following:
(i) As already stated above, the reference to the story in the Qur'an
is extremely brief, and there is no indication whatever of the killing
of a large number. In a battle context the reference is to those who
were actually fighting. The Qur'an is the only authority which the
historian would accept without hesitation or doubt. It is a
contemporary text, and, for the most cogent reasons, what we have is
the authentic version.
(ii) The rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible
for the sedition.
(iii) To kill such a large number is diametrically opposed to the
Islamic sense of justice and to the basic principles laid down in the
Qur'an - particularly the verse. "No soul shall bear another's burden."
22 It is obvious in the story that the leaders were numbered and were
well known. They were named.
(iv) It it also against the Qur'anic rule regarding prisoners of war,
which is: either they are to be granted their freedom or else they are
to be allowed to be ransomed.23
(v) It is unlikely that the Banu Qurayza should be slaughtered when
the other Jewish groups who surrendered before Banu Qurayza and after
them were treated leniently and allowed to go. Indeed Abu 'Ubayd b.
Sallam relates in his Kitab al-amwal24 that when Khaybar felt to the
Muslims there were among the residents a particular family or clan who
had distinguished themselves by execesive unseemly abuse of the
Prophet. Yet in that hour the Prophet addressed them in words which are
no more than a rebuke: "Sons of Abu al-Huqayq (he said to them) I have
known the extent of your hostility to God and to His apostle, yet that
does not prevent me from treating you as I treated your brethren." That
was after the surrender of Banu Qurayza.
(vi) If indeed so many hundreds of people had actually been put to
death in the market-place, and trenches were dug for the operation, it
is very strange that there should be no trace whatever of all that - no
sign or word to point to the place, and no reference to a visible mark.
25
(vii) Had this slaughter actually happened, jurists would have adopted
it as a precedent. In fact exactly the opposite has been the case. The
attitude of jurists, and their rulings, have been more according to the
Qur'anic rule in the verse, "No soul shall bear another's burden."
Indeed, Abu 'Ubayd b. Sallam relates a very significant incident in
his book Kifab al-amwal,26 which, it must be noted, is a book of
jurisprudence, of law, not a sira or a biography. He tells us that in
the time of the Imam al-Awza'i27 there was a case of trouble among a
group of the People of the Book in the Lebanon when 'Abdullab b. 'All
was regional governor. He put down the sedition and ordered the
community in question to be moved elsewhere. Al-Awza'i in his capacity
as the leading jurist immediately objected. His argument was that the
incident was not the result of the cormmunity's unanimous agreement.
"At far as I know (he argued) it is not a rule of God that God should
punish the many for the fault of the few but punish the few for the
fault of the many."
Now, had the Imam al-Awza'i accepted the story of the slaughter of
Banu Qurayza, he would have treated it as a precedent, and would not
have come out with an argument against Authority, represented in
'Abdullah b. 'Ali. Al-Awza'i, it should be remembered, was a younger
contemporary of Ibn Ishaq.
(viii) In the story of Qurayza a few specific persons were named as
having been put to death, some of whom were described as particularly
active in their hostility. It is the reasonable conclusion that those
were the ones who led the sedition and who were consequently punished -
not the whole tribe.
(ix) The details given in the story clearly and of necessity imply
inside knowledge, i.e. from among the Jews themselves. Such are the
details of their consultation when they were besieged, the harangue of
Ka'b b. Asad as their leader; and the suggestion that they should kill
their women and children and then make a last desperate attack against
the Muslims.
(x) Just as the descendants of Qurayza would want to glorify their
ancestors, so did the descendants of the Madanese connected with the
event. One notices that that part of the story which concerned the
judgement of Sa'd b. Mu'adh against Qurayza, was transmitted from one
of his direct descendants. According to this part the Prophet said to
Mu'adh: "You have pronounced God's judgement upon them [as inspired]
through Seven Veils."28
Now it is well known that for the purposes of glorifying their
ancestors or white washing those who were inimical to Islam at the
beginning, many stories were invented by later generations and a vast
amount of verse was forged, much of which was transmitted by Ibn Ishaq.
The story and the statement concerning Sa'd are one such detail.
(xi) Other details are difficult to accept. How could so many hundreds
of persons he incarcerated in the house belonging to a woman of Banu al-
Najjar?29
(xii) The history of the Jewish tribes after the establishment of
Islam is not really clear at all. The idea that they all departed on
the spot seems to be in need of revision, as can be seen on examining
the sources. For example, in his Jamharat al-ansab,30 Ibn Hazm
occasionally refers to Jews still living in Medina. In two places al-
Waqidi31 mentions Jews who were still in Medina when the Prophet
prepared to march against Khaybar - i.e. after the supposed liquidation
of all three tribes, including Qurayza. In one case ten Madanese Jews
actually joined the Prophet in an excursion to Khaybar, and in the
other the Jews who had made their peace with him in Medina were
extremely worried when he prepared to attack Khaybar. Al-Waqadi
explains that they tried to prevent the departure of any Muslim who
owed them money.
Indeed Ibn Kathir32 takes the trouble to point out that 'Umar expelled
only those Jews of Khaybar who had not made a peace agreement with the
Prophet. Ibn Kathir then proceeds to explain that at a much later date,
i.e. after the year 300 A.H., the Jews of Khaybar claimed that they had
in their possession a document allegedly given them by the Prophet
which exempted them from poll-tax. He said that some scholars were
taken in by this document so that they ruled that the Jews of Khaybar
should be exempted. However, that was a forged letter and had been
refuted in detail. It quoted persons who were already dead, it used
technical terms which came into being at a later time, it claimed that
Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan witnessed it, when in fact he had not even been
converted to Islam at that time, and so on.
So then the real source of this unacceptable story of slaughter was
the descendants of the Jews of Medina, from whom Ibn Ishaq took these
"odd tales". For doing so Ibn Ishaq was severely criticized by other
scholars and historians and was called by Malik an impostor.
The sources of the story are, therefore, extremely doubtful and the
details are diametrically opposed to the spirit of Islam and the rules
of the Qur'an to make the story credible. Credible authority is
lacking, and circumstantial evidence does not support it. This means
that the story is more than doubtful.
However, the story, in my view, has its origins in earlier events. Is
can be shown that it reproduces similar stories which survived from the
account of the Jewish rebellion against the Romans, which ended in the
destruction of the temple in the year AD. 73, the night of the Jewish
zealots and sicarii to the rock fortress of Masada, and the final
liquidation of the besieged. Stories of their experience were naturally
transmitted by Jewish survivors who fled south. Indeed one of the more
plausible theories of the origin of the Jews of Medina is that they
came after the Jewish wars. This was the theory preferred by the late
Professor Guillaume.33
As is well known, the source of the details of the Jewish wars is
Flavius Josephus, himself a Jew and a contemporary witness who held
office under the Romans, who disapproved of certain actions which some
of the rebels committed, but who nevertheless never ceased to be a Jew
at heart. It is in his writings that we read of details which are
closely similar to those transmitted to us in the Sira about the
actions and the resistance of the Jews, except that now we see the
responsibility for the actions placed on the Muslims.
In considering details of the story of Banu Qurayza as told by the
descendants of that tribe, we may note the following similar details in
the account of Josephus:
(i) According to Josephus,34 Alexander, who ruled in Jerusalem before
Herod the Great, hung upon crosses 800 Jewish captives, and slaughtered
their wives and children before their eyes.
(ii) Similarly, large numbers were killed by others.
(iii) Important details of the two stories are remarkably similar,
particularly the numbers of those killed. At Masada the number of those
who died at the end was 960.35 The hot-headed sicarii who were
eventually also killed numbered 600.36 We also read that when they
reached the point of despair they were addressed by their leader
Eleazar (precisely as Ka'b b. Asad addressed the Banu Qurayza),37 who
suggested to them the killing of their women and children. At the
ultimate point of complete despair the plan of killing each other to
the last man was proposed.
Clearly the similarity of details is most striking. Not only are the
suggestions of mass suicide similar but even the numbers are almost the
same. Even the same names occur in both accounts. There is Phineas, and
Azar b. Azar,38 just as Eleazar addressed the Jews besieged in Masada.
There is, indeed, more than a mere similarity. Here we have the
prototype - indeed, I would suggest, the origin of the story of Banu
Qurayza, preserved by descendants of the Jews who fled south to Arabia
after the Jewish Wars, just as Josephus recorded the same story for the
Classical world. A later generation of these descendants superimposed
details of the siege of Masada on the story of the siege of Banu
Qurayza, perhaps by confusing a tradition of their distant past with
one from their less remote history. The mixture provided Ibn Ishaq's
story. When Muslim historians ignored it or transmitted it without
comment or with cold lack of interest, they only expressed lack of
enthusiasm for a strange tale, as Ibn Hajar called it.
One last point. Since the above was first written, I have seen
reports39 of a paper given in August 1973 at the World Congress of
Jewish Studies by Dr. Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, in which she challenges
Josephus' assertion that 960 besieged Jews committed suicide at Masada.
This is highly interesting since in the story of Qurayza the 960 or so
Jews refused to commit suicide. Who knows, perhaps the Story of Banu
Qurayza is an even more accurate form of the original version.
Footnotes
1. Ibn Ishaq, Sira (ed. Wustenfeld, Gottingen, 1860), 545-7; (ed.
Saqqa et al., Cairo, 1955), II, 47-9. See also al-Waqidi, Kitab al-
maghazi (ed. M. Jones, London, 1966), II, 440 ff.; Suhayl, al-Rawd al-
unuf (Cairo, 1914), I, 187 et passim; Ibn Kathir, al-Sira al-Nabawiya
(ed. Mustafa `Abd al-Wahid, Cairo, 1384-5/1964-6), II, 5, et passim.
2. Sira, 545-56, 652-61/II, 51-7, 190-202; Ibn Kathir, oop. cit., III,
145 ff.
3. Sira, 755-76, 779/II, 328-53, 356, etc. More on Khaybar follows
below.
4. ibid., 776/II, 353-4.
5. ibid., 668-84/II, 214-33.
6. ibid., 684-700/II, 233-54.
7. ibid., 689/II, 240; `Uyun al-athar (Cairo, 1356 A.H.), II, 73; Ibn
Kathir, II, 239.
8. In his introduction to `Uyun al-athar, I, 7, Ibn Sayyid al-Nas (d.
734 A.H.), having explained his plan for his biography of the Prophet,
expressly states that his main source was Ibn Ishaq, who indeed was the
chief source for everyone.
9. Tahdhib al-tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 17, where
the author uses the same words, without giving a reference, in his
introduction on the veracity of Ibn Ishaq and the criteria he applied.
10. d. 179.
11. `Uyun al-athar, I, 12.
12. ibid, I, 16.
13. Sira, 691-2/II, 242, 244; `Uyun al-athar, II, 74, 75.
14. Ibn Sayyid al-Nas (op. cit., I, 121) makes precisely this point in
relation to the story of the Banu Qaynuqa' and the spurious verse which
was said to have appeared in Sura LIII of the Qur'an and at the time
was taken by polytheist Meccans as a recognition of their deities. The
author explains how various scholars disposed of the problem and then
sums up by stating that in his view, this story is to be treated on the
same level as tales of the maghazi and accounts of the Sira (i.e. not
to be accorded unqualified acceptance). Most scholars, he asserts,
usually treated more liberally questions of minor importance and any
material which did not involve a point of law, such as stories of the
maghazi and similar reports. In such cases data would be accepted which
would not be acceptable as a basis of deciding what is lawful or
unlawful.
15. See n. 18 below.
16. Tabari, Tarikh, I, 1499 (where the reference is to al-Waqidi,
Maghazi, II, 513); Zad al-ma`ad (ed. T. A. Taha, Cairo, 1970), II, 82;
Ibn Kathir, op. cit., IV, 118.
17. On this see W. Arafat, "Early critics of the poetry of the Sira",
BSOAS, XXI, 3, 1958, 453-63.
18. Kadhdhab and Dajjal min al-dajajila.
19. `Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7. In his valuable introduction Ibn Sayyid
al-Nas provides a wide-ranging survey of the controversial views on Ibn
Ishaq. In his full introduction to the Gottingen edition of the Sira,
Wustenfeld in turn draws extensively on Ibn Sayyid al-Nas.
20. Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7.
21. ibid.
22. Qur'an, XXXV, 18.
23. Qur'an, XLI, 4.
24. ed. Khalil Muhammad Harras, Cairo, 1388/1968, 241.
25. Significantly, little or no information is to be found in general
or special geographical dictionaries, such as al-Bakri's, Mu`jam
ma'sta`jam; al-Fairuzabadi's al-Maghanim al-mutaba fi ma`alim taba (ed.
Hamad al-Jasir, Dar al-Yamama, 1389/1969); Six treatises (Rasa'il fi
tarikh al-Madina ed. Hamad al-Jasir, Dar al-Yamama, 1392/1972); al-
Samhudi, Wafa' al-wafa' bi-akhbar dar al-Mustafa (Cairo, 1326), etc.
Even al-Samhudi seems to regard a mention of the market-place in
question as a mere historical reference, for in his extensive
historical topography of Medina he identifies the market-place (p. 544)
almost casually in the course of explaining the change in nomenclature
which had overtaken adjacent landmarks. That market-place, he says, is
the one referred to in the report (sic) that the Prophet brought out
the prisoners of Banu Qurayza to the market-place of Medina, etc.
26. p. 247. I am indebted to my friend Professor Mahmud Ghul of the
American University, Beirut, for bringing this reference to my
attention.
27. d. 157/774. See EI2, sub nomine.
28. Sira, 689/II, 240; al-Waqidi, op. cit., 512.
29. Sira, 689/II, 240; Ibn Kathir, op. cit., III, 238.
30. e.g., Nasab Quraysh (ed. A. S. Harun, Cairo, 1962), 340.
31. op. cit., II, 634, 684.
32. op. cit., III, 415.
33. A. Guillaume, Islam (Harmondsworth, 1956), 10-11.
34. De bello Judaico, I, 4, 6.
35. ibid., VII, 9, 1.
36. ibid., VII, 10, 1.
37. Sira, 685-6/II, 235-6.
38. Sira, 352, 396/I, 514, 567.
39. The Times, 18 August 1973; and The Guardian, 20 August 1973.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was Moses or Muhammad Kinder to Jews ?
Both Prophets allowed Jews to return to Israel after being exiled by
pagans.
Both Prophets protected Jews from neighboring pagans
Both Prophets devoted their final days to the enlightenment of the
Jews
Although only one of these Prophets displayed tolerance, mercy, and
love for the Jews, Muhammad.
Once a Jew came to him and out of mischief, greeted him by saying "As-
sam Alaikum" (death to you) instead of As-salamu Alaikum (peace be on
you). A'isha with anger, gave a harsh reply. But he stopped her and
said, "A'isha! Don?t use harsh words; be polite; God likes mildness in
everything."
In short, Muhammad was a perfect model of tolerance and love which he
taught through his practical example to the rugged, rough and
illiterate people of the desert who, as a result, became the teachers
and leaders of the world. His behavior towards people, men or women,
rich or poor, adult or child, was the same. He spoke to all with
civility and politeness and taught others the same through his personal
example. The Qur'an mentions this quality of Muhammad in these words,
"It is by the Mercy of God that you deal gently with them, for if you
were severe or fierce of heart, they would have dispersed from you."
[Qur'aan 3:159]
The Jews in the days of Muhammad often attempted to assassinate him,
discredit him, curse him, and defame him, all the while Prophet
Muhammad showed Jews love and mercy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUHAMMAD AND THE JEWS OF MEDINA (PBS - http://www.pbs.
org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml)
Judaism was already well established in Medina two centuries before
Muhammad's birth. Although influential, the Jews did not rule the
oasis. Rather, they were clients of two large Arab tribes there, the
Khazraj and the Aws Allah, who protected them in return for feudal
loyalty. Medina's Jews were expert jewelers, and weapons and armor
makers. There were many Jewish clans-some records indicate more than
twenty, of which three were prominent-the Banu Nadir, the Banu Qaynuqa,
and the Banu Qurayza.
Various traditions uphold different views, and it is unclear whether
Medina's Jewish clans were Arabized Jews or Arabs who practiced Jewish
monotheism. Certainly they were Arabic speakers with Arab names. They
followed the fundamental precepts of the Torah, though scholars
question their familiarity with the Talmud and Jewish scholarship, and
there is a suggestion in the Qur'an that they may have embraced
unorthodox beliefs, such as considering the Prophet Ezra the son of
God.
There were rabbis among the Jews of Medina, who appear in Muslim
sources soon after Muhammad proclaimed himself a prophet. At that time
the quizzical Meccans, knowing little about monotheism, are said to
have consulted the Medinan rabbis, in an attempt to put Muhammad to the
test. The rabbis posed three theological questions for the Meccans to
ask Muhammad, asserting that they would know, by his answers, whether
or not he spoke the truth. According to later reports, Muhammad replied
to the rabbis' satisfaction, but the Meccans remained unconvinced.
Muhammad arrived in Medina in 622 believing the Jewish tribes would
welcome him. Contrary to expectation, his relations with several of the
Jewish tribes in Medina were uneasy almost from the start. This was
probably largely a matter of local politics. Medina was not so much a
city as a fractious agricultural settlement dotted by fortresses and
strongholds, and all relations in the oasis were uneasy. In fact,
Muhammad had been invited there to arbitrate a bloody civil war between
the Khazraj and the Aws Allah, in which the Jewish clans, being their
clients, were embroiled.
At Muhammad's insistence, Medina's pagan, Muslim and Jewish clans
signed a pact to protect each other, but achieving this new social
order was difficult. Certain individual pagans and recent Medinan
converts to Islam tried to thwart the new arrangement in various ways,
and some of the Jewish clans were uneasy with the threatened demise of
the old alliances. At least three times in five years, Jewish leaders,
uncomfortable with the changing political situation in Medina, went
against Muhammad, hoping to restore the tense, sometimes bloody-but
predictable-balance of power among the tribes.
According to most sources, individuals from among these clans plotted
to take his life at least twice, and once they came within a bite of
poisoning him. Two of the tribes--the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qaynuqa--
were eventually exiled for falling short on their agreed upon
commitments and for the consequent danger they posed to the nascent
Muslim community.
The danger was great. During this period, the Meccans were actively
trying to dislodge Muhammad militarily, twice marching large armies to
Medina. Muhammad was nearly killed in the first engagement, on the
plains of Uhud just outside of Medina. In their second and final
military push against Medina, now known as the Battle of the Trench,
the Meccans recruited allies from northwestern Arabia to join the
fight, including the assistance of the two exiled Jewish tribes. In
addition, they sent envoys to the largest Jewish tribe still in Medina,
the Banu Qurayza, hoping to win their support. The Banu Qurayza's
crucial location on the south side of Medina would allow the Meccans to
attack Muhammad from two sides.
The Banu Qurayza were hesitant to join the Meccan alliance, but when a
substantial Meccan army arrived, they agreed.
As a siege began, the Banu Qurayza nervously awaited further
developments. Learning of their intention to defect and realizing the
grave danger this posed, Muhammad initiated diplomatic efforts to keep
the Banu Qurayza on his side. Little progress was made. In the third
week of the siege, the Banu Qurayza signaled their readiness to act
against Muhammad, although they demanded that the Meccans provide them
with hostages first, to ensure that they wouldn't be abandoned to face
Muhammad alone. Yet that is exactly what happened. The Meccans, nearing
exhaustion themselves, refused to give the Banu Qurayza any hostages.
Not long after, cold, heavy rains set in, and the Meccans gave up the
fight and marched home, to the horror and dismay of the Banu Qurayza.
The Muslims now commenced a 25-day siege against the Banu Qurazya's
fortress. Finally, both sides agreed to arbitration. A former ally of
the Banu Qurayza, an Arab chief named Sa'd ibn Muadh, now a Muslim, was
chosen as judge. Sa'd, one of the few casualties of battle, would soon
die of his wounds. If the earlier tribal relations had been in force,
he would have certainly spared the Banu Qurayza. His fellow chiefs
urged him to pardon these former allies, but he refused. In his view,
the Banu Qurayza had attacked the new social order and failed to honor
their agreement to protect the town. He ruled that all the men should
be killed. Muhammad accepted his judgment, and the next day, according
to Muslim sources, 700 men of the Banu Qurayza were executed. Although
Sa'd judged according to his own views, his ruling coincides with
Deuteronomy 20:12-14.
Most scholars of this episode agree that neither party acted outside
the bounds of normal relations in 7th century Arabia. The new order
brought by Muhammad was viewed by many as a threat to the age-old
system of tribal alliances, as it certainly proved to be. For the Banu
Qurayza, the end of this system seemed to bring with it many risks. At
the same time, the Muslims faced the threat of total extermination, and
needed to send a message to all those groups in Medina that might try
to betray their society in the future. It is doubtful that either party
could have behaved differently under the circumstances.
Yet Muhammad did not confuse the contentiousness of clan relations in
the oasis with the religious message of Judaism. Passages in the Qur'an
that warn Muslims not to make pacts with the Jews of Arabia emerge from
these specific wartime situations. A larger spirit of respect,
acceptance, and comradeship prevailed, as recorded in a late chapter of
the Qur'an:
We sent down the Torah, in which there is guidance and light, by which
the Prophets who surrendered to God's will provided judgments for the
Jewish people. Also, the rabbis and doctors of the Law (did likewise),
according to that portion of God's Book with which they were entrusted,
and they became witnesses to it as well?. Whoever does not judge by
what God has sent down (including the Torah), they are indeed
unbelievers. (5:44)
Some individual Medinan Jews, including at least one rabbi, became
Muslims. But generally, the Jews of Medina remained true to their
faith. Theologically, they could not accept Muhammad as a messenger of
God, since, in keeping with Jewish belief, they were waiting for a
prophet to emerge from among their own people.
The exiled Banu Nadir and the Banu Qaynuqa removed to the prosperous
northern oasis of Khaybar, and later pledged political loyalty to
Muhammad. Other Jewish clans honored the pact they had signed and
continued to live in peace in Medina long after it became the Muslim
capital of Arabia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there anti-Semitism in the Qur?an?
Q 1. I am a Jew and I am reading the Qur?an. I find that the Qur?an is
very harsh in its criticism of the Jewish people. For example in
chapter 5:60-64 I see that Jewish people are called as those whom Allah
has cursed, is angry with them and has turned them into apes and swine.
This is very offensive and sounds outright anti-Semitic. How do you
explain this? I shall appreciate an answer from you.
A 2. Anti-Semitism means condemning and hating a people because of
their Semitic race. Anti-Semitism is bigotry and racism. It is wrong
and it has no place in Islam or in Islamic scripture. The Qur?an does
not allow hate against any race, nationality or color. Throughout the
history of Islam, Muslims have never used passages from the Qur?an to
justify acts of anti-Semitism. The ill-effects of racism, including
ethnic cleaning, genocide and Holocaust, which has been suffered by
Jews and non-Jews alike over the past several centuries, has never been
done under the banner of any passages from the Qur?an. Jews were among
the earliest converts to Islam (in Medina) and, throughout the Middle
Ages, Jews found sanctuary to practice their own religion under Islamic
rule. It is truly disappointing and naive to ignore 1430 years of
history and learned discourse on the Qur?an and argue that the current
political situation in the Middle East has its roots in passages from
the Qur?an.
As with all scriptures, passages in the Qur?an must be read within the
proper context. The Qur?an was not just revealed to Muslims, but to all
people, including Jews and Christians. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him) was in the line of previous Prophets of God, including Prophets
Abraham, Moses and Jesus, and the Qur?an is in the line of previous
scriptures revealed by God. The Qur?an does not condemn the Semitic
race and, in fact, accords Jews a special status given their shared
prophetic traditions with Islam. The Qur?an instead criticizes those
Jews who turned away from God?s authentic message and admonishes those
who scorned and ridiculed Prophet Muhammad and the message of the Qur?
an. Such criticism is similar to the criticism against Jews found in
other scriptures, including the Bible, and should be taken by all
people as a reminder and warning against forsaking and straying from
the authentic message of God. Such specific criticism has never been
interpreted by learned scholars of the Qur?an to incite hatred against
all Jewish people and should not be confused with anti-Semitism.
The Qur?an speaks extensively about the Children of Israel (Bani Isra?
il) and recognizes that the Jews (al-Yahud) are, according to lineage,
descendants of Prophet Abraham through his son Isaac and grandson
Jacob. They were chosen by God for a mission (44:32) and God raised
among them many Prophets and bestowed upon them what He had not
bestowed upon many others (5:20). He exalted them over other nations of
the earth (2:47, 122) and granted them many favors.
Passages in the Qur?an which criticize the Jews fall primarily into
two categories. First, the Qur?an speaks of how some of the Children of
Israel turned away from the authentic message revealed to them. They
disobeyed God and showed ingratitude for God?s favors on them. They
lost the original Tawrat and introduced their own words and
interpretations in the divine books. They became arrogant and claimed
that they were God?s children and went about vaunting their position as
His most chosen people (4:155; 5:13, 18). They also brazenly committed
sins and their rabbis and priests did not stop them from doing so (5:
63, 79). God raised His Prophet Jesus among them so that he might show
them several miracles and thereby guide them to the right path, but
they rejected him, attempted to kill him, and even claimed that they
had indeed killed him although they had not been able to do so (4:157,
158). God specifically addresses the Children of Israel in many of
these passages. This is important, because it shows that the message of
the Qur?an was intended for all people, including the Jews, and the
criticism was directed against a specific group of people for their
specific actions. This criticism should be distinguished from cursing a
people merely because of their race.
The second type of criticism of the Jews is found in passages
including those you referenced from Surah al-Ma?idah (5:60-64). These
verses criticize the Jews and Christians who ridiculed Prophet Muhammad
and his message. They made mockery and sport of his call to prayer, and
they rebuked him even though he was calling them to believe in what God
revealed to him and to what was revealed before him through their own
Prophets. They became spiteful towards him and rejected him since he
did not belong to the Children of Israel (2:109; 4:54).
The Qur?an specifically notes that such criticism is not directed
against all Jews. Even when the Qur?an criticizes the Jews it always
notes that ?among them there are some...? who are pious and righteous
people, who command what is right and forbid what is wrong and try to
excel each other in acts of charity and goodness. The Qur?an says that
such people are assured that whatever good they will do will not be
denied them and they shall receive their reward with God (3:113-115).
Taking a few passages from the Qur?an out of proper historical and
textual context will not give a proper understanding of the religious
scripture. This is not only true of the Qur?an but also of the Bible.
Many passages from the Bible also criticize the Jews. Read the Hebrew
Bible, particularly Micah (Chapter 3:1-12) and Hosea (Chapter 8:1-14),
in which these prophets condemned the Jews ?who abhor justice and
pervert all equity? and who ?build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with
wrong.? These prophets cursed Israel as a ?useless vessel among
nations,? and called for the curse of God to ?send a fire upon [Judah?
s] cities? and to make Jerusalem ?a heap of ruins.? Similarly, in the
Book of Deuteronomy (Verses 16-68), Moses warns the Jews that God ?will
send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you
undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account
of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me? (28:20). In
Matthew (Chapter 23:13-39), Jesus repeatedly admonishes the Jews for
their hypocrisy and injustice, and condemns them for the killing of
past prophets. Jesus says, ?O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the
prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have
gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her
wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate.?
It would indeed seem strange if, based on these passages, one were to
argue that the Bible and the Hebrew Prophets were anti-Semitic and
called for the destruction of present-day Israel. Yet, questioning
passages from the Qur?an as anti-Semitic is similarly without merit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
|
