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