The Massacre of the Banu Qurayzah: Difference between revisions

This article or section is being renovated. Lead = 1 / 4 Structure = 2 / 4 Content = 3 / 4 Language = 2 / 4 References = 3 / 4 Lead 1 / 4 Structure 2 / 4 Content 3 / 4 Language 2 / 4 References 3 / 4

Detail from miniature painting: The Prophet, Ali, and the Companions at the Massacre of the Prisoners of the Jewish Tribe of Beni Qurayzah, illustration of a 19th century text by Muhammad Rafi Bazil.

According to the traditional Islamic sources, in 627 AD as a result of the Battle of the Trench and the betrayal of the Muslims by the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza, the Muslims under the direct military command of the prophet Muhammad laid siege to the Banu Qurayza compound. After a siege of around 2 weeks, depending on the source, the Jews of Banu Qurayza surrendered and entrusted their fate to a trusted intermediary from the Muslims of the tribe of 'Aws, Sa'ad bin Mu'adh. Sa'a'd bin Mu'adh, however, claiming to be following the law of the Torah itself, advised Muhammad to slaughter the men folk of the tribe and sell the women and children into slavery. Muhammad took this advice and as a consequence between 400 and 900 prisoners of the tribe were slaughtered, many in front of their families, and the rest of the tribe were sold into slavery. Although later Muslim historians such as Tabari and ibn Kathir attest to and provide details of this event, the lack of attestation to this event in any primary sources for over 100 years after the event and the lack of attestation of the existence of the Banu Qurayza in early documents such as the Constitution of Medina, as well as evidence of continued Jewish-Arab (Muhaajir) cooperation well into the period of the early Arab conquests, has caused critical historians to call into question the historicity of the entire event; despite the doubts of these historians, though, most history books which accept the Islamic sources as reliable also accept the historicity of this event, as do every major school of Sunni and Shi'i jurisprudence.

Background

According to ibn Ishaq, Muhammad's constant aggressive raids and warmongering against the Meccans had driven them, in alliance with the Jewish tribes he had expelled from Yathrib, to put an end to him and his movement once and for all. The three original Jewish tribes of Medina, the Banu Nadir, the Banu Qaynuqaa', and the Banu Qurayzah, had seen their number dwindle to one as Muhammad had expelled the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qaynuaqaa' from Medina on different pretexts. Meanwhile their property, including their precious palm trees, had been seized by Muhammad and the Muslims. Together with the Meccans, the exiled Jewish tribes of Medina had formed an alliance and gathered an army whose numbers are given in the sira as being around 10,000 strong, including over 600 mounted horsemen against very few cavalry for the Muslims, and 7,000 stronger than the army which had defeated Muhammad at the Muslims at Uhud. Muhammad at this time could call on a force of only around 3,000 men. Muhammad received word of their advance and began to make preparations. A Persian companion of the prophet named Salman, an apparent veteran of the Sassanid's many wars against the Romans, advised that when facing a great number of enemy horseman such as the confederate Jews and Meccans possessed, a good stratagem was to dig a defensive trench. It was decided to pursue this strategy ^[1]. The Banu Qurayzah did not provide men to help but did provide entrenching tools and the Muslims strategy relied on the Banu Qurayzah not breaking their alliance with Muhammad and joining with the confederates. The strategy of the trench worked to win the battle against the Meccans and their Jewish allies, and the confederates were beaten back without many casualties for the Muslims, but this proved to be no end to the fighting.

Narrative from the Sira

The series of events leading to the destruction of the Banu Qurayza started during the battle of the trench. Unable to break the defenses of the Medinian Muslims, the Meccans sent an emissary from their Jewish allies, “the enemy of Allah, Huyayy bin Akhtab An-Nadri” ^[2], to the Banu Qurayzah in an attempt to bring their aide and end the stalemate by attacking Muhammad and the Muslims in the rear of their defenses. According to ibn Ishaq, initially the leader of the Banu Qurayzah Ka'b bin Asad al-Qurayzi did not even allow Huyayy bin Akhtab to enter the compound, but was goaded into doing so be Huyayy's accusation that bin Ka'b did not want to share his food. Ibn Ishaq does not make it clear how he knows this however he claims that the negotiation came to naught due to the Qurayzah’s insistence that the Meccans offer hostages in order to assure they would not leave the field of battle till Muhammad was defeated (though they did in fact end up leaving without defeating Muhammad). According to ibn Ishaq, the Banu Qurayzah after much "wheedling" agreed only to not aide the Muslims or to obstruct or fight the confederates. Ibn Ishaq offers as evidence of the Banu Qurayzah’s perfidy an Isnad chain from Yahya bin ‘Abbaad bin ‘Abdullah bin Az-Zubayr with a story that a Muslim woman, Safiyah bint ‘AbdulMuttalib saw a Jewish scout of the Banu Qurayzah reconnoitering a Muslim fort in preparation for an attack. She told the fort's commander Hassan of this and asked him to kill the scout, and when he refused she took a club and went out and beat the man to death^[3]. Other than this ibn Ishaq presents no evidence that the Jews of the Banu Qurayzah were in league with the confederates. He does, however, relate that Allah “sowed discord” between the confederates and the Banu Qurayzah, which resulted in the Meccans retreating without having defeated Muhammad or engaged in a coordinated attack upon the Muslims with the Banu Qurayzah ^[4]

The battle of the trench being won, Muhammad and his men put their entrenching tools and weapons down to head home. According to the sira, though, Allah had other plans. The angel Jibra'il appeared to Muhammad just as he had put down his weapon, and informed him that the battle was not yet over for the Jews of the Banu Qurayzah still needed to be dealt with due to their treachery, mentioned above. Muhammad informed his men that they were not to pray the 'asr prayer until they reached the Banu Qurayzah compound, meaning he wanted them to go there quickly. The Muslims lay siege to the compound for differing amounts of time depending on the source (ibn Ishaq claims 25 days before "Allah cast terror in their hearts"). The Banu Qurayzah were told to surrender and accept Islam, something they swore they would never do. Despairing of their position, according to ibn Ishaq, they discussed three options: accepting Islam, killing their wives and children and engaging in a banzai-style attack against the numerically superior Muslim forces (perhaps, modern commentators have added, in emulation of their religious forbearers as Masada in Palestine), or engaging in a sneak attack on the Jewish Sabbath. The Jews of the Banu Qurayzah found none of these options acceptable.

Unable to come to a decision and under siege for weeks, the Banu Qurayzah asked to speak with Abu Lubaba, a man of the tribe of 'Aws, their allies. Abu Lubaba, when asked what the Banu Qurayzah should do, advised them to surrender to the prophet, but at the same time raised his hand to his neck, indicating they would be slaughtered ^[5]. After he left, he felt that his action in telling the Banu Qurayzah of their fate was a betrayal of the prophet, and he tied himself to a pillar to ask for Allah's forgiveness, an act that Muhammad approved of. Despite this warning, the Banu Qurayzah surrendered to the Muslims the following day ^[6].

The tribe of 'Aws, allies of the Banu Qurayzah from the time of jahilliyah, asked for mercy for them from the prophet. The prophet, not wanting to cause dissension in his ranks (oaths and alliances of loyalty were very important in tribal Arab society, as in the absence of courts and established governments the only guaranty of security and justice which could be obtained was the promise of protection from allies in the case of murder, family feuds or war), entrusted the fate of the Banu Qurayzah to a trusted elder shaykh of the 'Aws, Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, who had been mortally wounded during the battle and would in fact die a shortly after the slaughter of the Banu Qurayzah. Once Sa'd bin Mu'adth had ascertained that both the Banu Qurayzah and the prophet would abide by his judgement, whatever it be, he gave it without hesitation: the men of the Banu Qurayzah were to be executed to the last, while the women and children should be sold into slavery. Sa'dibn Mu‘adh justified this decision as being from the Torah of the Jews itself. Ibn Ishaq does not cite the verse and chapter from the Bible but this is usually taken as a reference to the book of Deuteronomy 20:12-14:

Although modern Muslims cite this verse in justification of Mu'adh's verdict, it should be noted that neither Jewish nor Christian tradition understands this verse as a blanket rule for warfare, but rather as a specific command to the Jews under the command of Joshua who were fighting the pagan peoples of the Holy Land. It has not, generally, been used by either religion to justify the sort of massacre that took place in Medina in other historical contexts.

The prisoners, thus condemned, were kept in the house or compound of a Muslim woman d. Al-Harith of the banu al-najjaar tribe. In the morning they were marched out to a trench which had been dug in the city's market, and executed by decapitation ^[7] . According to the sira of ibn Ishaq, at least one woman was amongst them. The women were given as sexual and labor slaves to the Muslims, with only boys who had not yet reached puberty being allowed to live. According to the sira, the haul of weapons and plunder was substantial, but Muhammad still sent some of the women and children to be sold in the Najd for more horses and weapons ^[8].

Tafsir Accounts

The famed mufassir ibn Kathir, drawing upon his own sources as well as many other classical commentators, in his commentary on sura 33 Al-Ahzab الأحزاب or the confederates reaffirms many of the pertitent details from the sira narrative. In particular, ibn Kathir reads into the Quran's denouncement of the people of the book the perfidious Jews of the tribe of Banu Qurayza and their betrayal of the prophet:

He refers here to Surah 33:

ibn Kathir confirms that it was the angels themselves who implored Muhammad not to stop fighting:

Thus in the view of ibn Kathir the fate of the Banu Qurayza was the work of their own hand, a fate approved of and commanded by heaven itself. According to ibn Kathir, there fat was exactly what ibn Ishaq had described:

Accounts in Hadiths

The hadith of Bukhari provide witness for the incidents described by Ishaq. Bukhari confirms that it was the angels who decree that the war be carried to the Banu Qurayzah:

Similiarly, he confirms that it is was Sa'ad who condemned them to their fate:

Incidentally, Bukhari mentions that even though ibn Sa'd was called upon to provide a fair judgement to the Banu Qurayzah as a former ally, in fact he went to his death, caused by wounds suffered during the battle of the trench, wishing for death to the infidels:

Bukhari also mentions the fate of the Banu Qurayzah, carried out in accordance with Sa'd's judgement:

To recount what happened to the then subjugated tribe who were on their knees to Muhammad and his fellow warriors, let us see the details as provided in Muhammad Husayn Haykal's The life of Muhammad:

It is worth mentioning here, not all were lucky enough to be beheaded among Banu Quraiza. Those whose lives were spared had a worse fate awaiting them. Again from Haykal:

Modern Views and Perspectives

The most common Muslim argument is that Muhammad was dealing with treachery and he had taken the maximum punitive actions against it. But this alleged treachery on Banu Qurayza’s part is very hard to accept for a rational mind. To be treacherous, Banu Qurayza must have joined the confederate army who had come to attack the Muslims. If that were the case (had Banu Qurayza joined the Meccan army) it would have ended in the total eradication of Muslims. But Abu Sufyan's (the Meccan chief’s) words before retreating, testifies Banu Qurayza did not ally with the Meccans in a war against the Muslims. To quote Ibn Ishaq:

Besides, Muhammad nor his followers accused the Banu Qurayza of being treasonous. After Meccans left, the prophet had to bring Jibreel down to 'testify' that any such thing had taken place, before they even considered besieging the tribe. This attests to the fact there was no treason from the tribe that warranted their total annihilation. The account given in the Qur'an of the Banu Qurayza siding with the Muslims’ enemy at Khandaq is after the incidents occurred, not during it. Muhammad would have felt it necessary to give a reason to justify the annihilation of an entire Jewish tribe, so he came up with holy verses later.

Another argument often brought up by Muslims is “Banu Qurayza were given the choice of deciding their judge”. They argue Banu Qurayza were massacred because of Sad bin Muadh, the arbitrator they agreed to. So Muhammad is innocent of shedding their blood.

This argument is not without its problems:

First of all, it is not clear from Islamic sources whether it were Banu Qurayza or their allies, the tribe of “Aws”, who agreed to Sad bin Muadh being the judge. The sahih hadith in Bukhari below points to this fact:

In the USC translation, "Jews of Banu Qurayza" has been given in brackets when mentioning the people agreed to accept Sad bin Muadh’s verdict. But the original Sahih Bukhari hadith in Arabic does not have this. So, it is most probably the tribe of Aus were who agreed to accept the verdict of Sa’d, not the Banu Qurayza. It does not make any sense for a subjugated people like the Banu Qurayza who were on their knees at the time to be given a choice in selecting their judge. So, the evidence we have available is against the Muslims claim that the surrendered Banu Qurayza tribe were given a choice in the case of adjudicator.

Moreover, even if one accepts the Muslim arguments that the Banu Qurayza were given a choice in selecting their judge, it does not let Muhammad off the hook. A careful analysis of the sahih hadiths on this account reveals Saad bin Muadh was just echoing Muhammad’s intention as his verdict. Soon after Saad bin Muad gave his verdict, Muhammad rushed to applaud him stating Saad's judged was in accordance with the judgement of Allah. Again from Sahih Bukhari:

Muhammad always intended to massacre the tribe, ever before Saad bin Muadh had come into the picture. He had this plan in mind when besieging the tribe. He sent an envoy (Abu Lubaba) to the Banu Quraiza fort during the siege. Below is the account of this incident as mentioned in Sirah Ibn Ishaq:

Remember, this incident occurred during the siege and Saad bin Muadh became involved in this affair after the siege. Here we see Muhammad's envoy revealing Muhammad's intentions to the Banu Quraiza. Again, we see a remorseful Abu Lubaba who later felt contrite for revealing Muhammad's plan to the besieged tribe. This man soon left the place and tied himself to one of the pillars in the mosque. Again, it is recorded in Ibn Ishaq:

If all that befell the Banu Qurayza were solely the fault of Saad bin Muaad, how does one deal with the account given by Ibn Ishaq? It reveals Muhammad besieged the Banu Qurayza with the intention of ethnically cleansing them.

Another favorite argument is the Jews of Banu Qurayza were put to death according to "their own laws" within the Torah. Saad bin Muadh's verdict matches that which is found in Deuteronomy 20:10-18 thus, Islam nor the Muslims can be blamed for it.

In reality, Deuteronomy 20:10-18 is not the "law of the Torah." It is a specific direction from the Judeo-Christian God for a specific program of conquest. No longer relevant, as the Promised land mentioned in the Torah had been settled. It has nothing to do with "treason," or the treatment of treasonous allies. So if Muhammad or Saad bin Muaad had indeed applied these laws to the tribe, it was the wrong application of the wrong law to the wrong situation. Being the prophet of Allah, Muhammad could have easily annulled such a faulty application of the wrong laws.

Besides, this argument of Muslims begs the questions:

1. Why are the Muslims now accepting the judgment of Deuteronomy [scripture which they allege is corrupt] as righteous and just when on other occasions they attack this as being a cruel and harsh command, and a clear example of genocide?
2. The Islamic sources say that Muhammad did not only have the fighting men killed, such as the leaders of Banu Quraiza, but also their young men who had nothing whatsoever to do with the decisions of their leaders/elders, were massacred. Why the unnecessary slaughter of innocents?

Some Muslims claim only those who were able to fight among the tribe of Banu Quraiza were killed. According to their own sources, this is not true. How did Muhammad determine who from among the Jews were capable of fighting? See it in their sources:

Another source tells us exactly how it was determined, whether a person had reached puberty or not:

As has been shown, Muhammad testified that Saad's verdict was in proportion to the laws of Allah. Therefore Muslims should stop attacking the Torah and instead focus on Muhammad who attested the verdict of Saad with applause.

As a final point, it would be interesting to learn how Muhammad dealt with the Jews of Banu Qurayza prior to besieging them. Let the sources speak for themselves:

Again from the sahih collections:

How appropriate is it for a religious leader to abuse helpless people with words like "brothers of monkeys" and to incite his followers to do as he did? Not to mention, he traded these insults prior to besieging them.

Muslims propose many apologetic arguments to excuse this crime. The most favored argument they use is the alleged treachery of Banu Quraiza. Its flaws are evident when considering any act of treachery from this tribe would have put an end to Islam at Khandaq, and as a result, Islam would never have existed outside of Arabia.

The excuses they forward using Deuteronomy (contained within religious scripture they themselves consider to have been altered since the incident in question), and a man who came into the picture much later, do not stand up to scrutiny, for the very reason that Muhammad had planned to slaughter the tribe before Saad bin Muadh, the arbitrator, had been invited.

Moreover, when the latter pronounced his verdict, it was Muhammad who rushed in favor of it, proclaiming it to be Allah's judgment. Taking all of these issues into account, there is no valid argument that can be used in its defense. After this incident, there remained not a tribe named Banu Qurayza in Arabia.

Problem with the Traditional Narrative

See Also

• List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad

Translations

• A version of this page is also available in the following languages: Azerbaijani, Bulgarian. For additional languages, see the sidebar on the left.

External Links

• What really happened to the Banu Qurayza - Collection of articles from Answering Islam
• Muhammad, the Qurayza Massacre, and PBS - Andrew G. Bostom, FrontPageMagazine
• Muhammad and Massacre of the Qurayza Jews - James Arlandson, American Thinker
• Massacre of the Banū Qurayẓa: A Re-Examination of a Tradition - M. J. Kister, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 8 (1986): 61-96

References