2,743
edits
The Massacre of the Banu Qurayzah: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Removed webcitation.org from urls (webcite closed down in October 2021) and replaced another dead link with more direct source
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
No edit summary |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) (Removed webcitation.org from urls (webcite closed down in October 2021) and replaced another dead link with more direct source) |
||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.}} | I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.}} | ||
==Modern Views and Perspectives== | ==Modern Views and Perspectives== | ||
<center><youtube>UZE1N56fswY</youtube></center>In the clip above Muslim scholar Yasir Qadhi, well respected for his degrees from the Islamic University of Medina as well as from Yale, makes the argument that Muhammad was dealing with treachery and he had taken the maximum punitive actions against it. Qadhi argues that the prophet was justified in every step and showed as much restraint as necessary, being motivated purely by concerns on statecraft and practicality, not by malice. As he says, it is possible to accuse the prophet of being "harsh" but not of acting with malice towards the Banu Qurayzahor the Jews in general, as this would not be "academically valid." Yasir Qadhi states that the punishment was "harsh" and yet it is sometimes necessary to be harsh. Yaqeen institute scholar Abu Amina Elias (Justin Parrott) makes the cases that killing the "fighting men" prisoners of the Banu Qurayzah was an "act of self-defense" on the part of the Muslim community and cites Deuteronomy 20:12-14 to justify the actions of the Muslims, agreeing with Ibn Ishaq that Sa'd was judging the Jews by their own law. He also claims that the prophet only sent his men their with arms to "defend themselves" and that the women and children of the Banu Qurayzahwere taken "into captivity" for their protection since all of their men folk had | <center><youtube>UZE1N56fswY</youtube></center>In the clip above Muslim scholar Yasir Qadhi, well respected for his degrees from the Islamic University of Medina as well as from Yale, makes the argument that Muhammad was dealing with treachery and he had taken the maximum punitive actions against it. Qadhi argues that the prophet was justified in every step and showed as much restraint as necessary, being motivated purely by concerns on statecraft and practicality, not by malice. As he says, it is possible to accuse the prophet of being "harsh" but not of acting with malice towards the Banu Qurayzahor the Jews in general, as this would not be "academically valid." Yasir Qadhi states that the punishment was "harsh" and yet it is sometimes necessary to be harsh. Yaqeen institute scholar Abu Amina Elias (Justin Parrott) makes the cases that killing the "fighting men" prisoners of the Banu Qurayzah was an "act of self-defense" on the part of the Muslim community and cites Deuteronomy 20:12-14 to justify the actions of the Muslims, agreeing with Ibn Ishaq that Sa'd was judging the Jews by their own law. He also claims that the prophet only sent his men their with arms to "defend themselves" and that the women and children of the Banu Qurayzahwere taken "into captivity" for their protection since all of their men folk had been slaughtered <ref>"Did the Prophet commit genocide against Jews?" Faith in Allah There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger https://abuaminaelias.com/prophet-genocide-banu-qurayza/ April 8, 2013</ref>. Karen Armstrong, in her book A Short History of Islam, likewise claims "The struggle did not indicate any hostility towards Jews in general, but only towards the three rebel tribes. The Quran continued to revere Jewish prophets and to urge Muslims to respect the People of the Book."<ref>Islam:A Short History Karen Armstrong Modern Library 2002</ref> | ||
These arguments are all echoes of the original arguments found in the material above. Ibn Ishaq claims that the Jews of Banu Qurayzah posed a threat to the Muslims via their betrayal and does portray Muhammad as hesitating to decide their fate. Ibn Ishaq even recounts of how "harsh" the punishment was:{{Quote|{{citation|page=462 (paragraph: 686)|trans_title=The Life of Muhammad|title=Sirat Rasul Allah|author1=Ibn Ishaq|author2=Ibn Hisham|author3=al-Tabari|editor=A. Guillaume|year=1955|publisher=Oxford UP|ISBN=0196360331|location=Karachi|url=https://archive.org/details/GuillaumeATheLifeOfMuhammad/page/n381/mode/2up}}|Apostle sent him (Abu Lubaba) to them (Banu Quraiza), and when they saw him they got up to meet him. The women and children went up to him weeping in his face, and he felt sorry for them. They said, ‘Oh Abu Lubaba, do you think that we should submit to Muhammad's judgement? He said ‘yes' and pointed with his hand to his throat signifying slaughter.}}Yet critics of these pro-Islam viewpoints have pointed out that the verse cited by modern Muslims from Deuteronomy to justify the extermination of the Banu | These arguments are all echoes of the original arguments found in the material above. Ibn Ishaq claims that the Jews of Banu Qurayzah posed a threat to the Muslims via their betrayal and does portray Muhammad as hesitating to decide their fate. Ibn Ishaq even recounts of how "harsh" the punishment was:{{Quote|{{citation|page=462 (paragraph: 686)|trans_title=The Life of Muhammad|title=Sirat Rasul Allah|author1=Ibn Ishaq|author2=Ibn Hisham|author3=al-Tabari|editor=A. Guillaume|year=1955|publisher=Oxford UP|ISBN=0196360331|location=Karachi|url=https://archive.org/details/GuillaumeATheLifeOfMuhammad/page/n381/mode/2up}}|Apostle sent him (Abu Lubaba) to them (Banu Quraiza), and when they saw him they got up to meet him. The women and children went up to him weeping in his face, and he felt sorry for them. They said, ‘Oh Abu Lubaba, do you think that we should submit to Muhammad's judgement? He said ‘yes' and pointed with his hand to his throat signifying slaughter.}}Yet critics of these pro-Islam viewpoints have pointed out that the verse cited by modern Muslims from Deuteronomy to justify the extermination of the Banu Qurayzah was not viewed in this way by traditional Christian or especially Jewish scholarship. According to Jewish doctrine, these verses were revealed to Moses before the Israelites entered the Holy Land, specifically instructing them on how to deal with the people living there.<ref>"Muhammad’s atrocity against the Qurayza Jews" James M. Arlandson Answering Islam https://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/qurayza_jews.htm</ref> Morever, the claim that there was no apparent animus towards the Jews of Banu Qurayza on the part of Muhammad is contradicted by Ibn Ishaq's account:{{Quote|Ibn Ishaq: 684 | "When the apostle approached their forts he (Muhammad) said: "You brothers of monkeys...has god disgraced you and brought his vengeance upon you?" | ||
Banu Qurayza replied: "O Abul Qasim (Muhammad), you are not a barbarous person" }}In mocking them as apes, Muhammad is here echoing the Qur'an, which claims that (some) Jews were turned into apes for violating the sabbath (Qur'an 50:60). | Banu Qurayza replied: "O Abul Qasim (Muhammad), you are not a barbarous person" }}In mocking them as apes, Muhammad is here echoing the Qur'an, which claims that (some) Jews were turned into apes for violating the sabbath (Qur'an 50:60). | ||
Ibn Ishaq also records that Muhammad took one of the Jewish women of the Banu Qurayza, Rayhanah, for himself.<ref>"The Apostle had chosen one of the women for himself, Rayḥāna d. ʿAmr b. Khunāfa, one of the women of B. ʿAmr b. Qurayẓa, and she remained with him until she died, in his power."<BR />Ibn Hisham, Ibn Ishaq, Alfred Guillaume (translator), The life of Muhammad: a translation of Isḥāq's Sīrat rasūl Allāh Oxford Universite Press 2005, p.466</ref> Indeed, according to this account the destruction of this tribe allowed Muhammad to reward his fighters handsomely (and Muhammad himself took a fifth of the booty). Abu Amina Elias's view that the Muslims took such women and children as Rayhana captive simply for their protection also cannot be true, as Ibn Ishaq also recounts that some of them were taken to the far-off region of the Najd to be sold for weapons and horses. Yasir Qadhi himself points out that the Banu Qurayzah were offered freedom to live on were they to accept Islam, and according to the sirah only their hard, petulant hearts which rejected Muhammad despite knowing he was a prophet of the Lord prevented them from allowing themselves to be saved by conversion to Islam. So clearly, at least in the eyes of the sirah, their Jewish religion did, in fact, have something to do with the pitilessness with which Muhammad dealt with them, going against Qadhi's point that the prophet acted without malice or religious animus according to the sources we have. Bukhari also mentions that the prophet commanded his men to abuse the Banu Qurayzah with poetry, which was in ancient Arab times one of the premier ways of promoting enmity with an enemy (Muhammad ordered poets who did this to him to be killed):{{Quote| {{Bukhari|5|59|449}}|Narrated Al-Bara: "On the day of Qurayza’s (besiege), Allah's Apostle said to Hassan bin Thabit, 'Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you"}} | |||
==Problems with the Traditional Narrative== | ==Problems with the Traditional Narrative== | ||
The narrative of the Banu Qurayzahis an accepted part of Islamic law, and multiple Islamic jurists have cited it, including when ruling that certain populations of Jews and other non-believers be massacred. As such there is no question amongst orthodox Muslims that it happened <ref>"Extended Interview: The legacy of Islamic Antisemetism" Andrew Bostom andrewbostom.org 13 June 2008</ref>. Yet the historiography of the subject is not without its own problems. | The narrative of the Banu Qurayzahis an accepted part of Islamic law, and multiple Islamic jurists have cited it, including when ruling that certain populations of Jews and other non-believers be massacred. As such there is no question amongst orthodox Muslims that it happened <ref>"Extended Interview: The legacy of Islamic Antisemetism" Andrew Bostom andrewbostom.org 13 June 2008</ref>. Yet the historiography of the subject is not without its own problems. | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
Within the Islamic tradition, Ibn Ishaq was frequently criticized for giving too much weight to Jewish stories and being biased in general in his retellings of certain events. Malik ibn Anas accusses Ibn Ishaq of being a "liar" for listening to "Jewish stories" <ref>"New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina", W.N Arafat 2001 p. 100-107</ref>. | Within the Islamic tradition, Ibn Ishaq was frequently criticized for giving too much weight to Jewish stories and being biased in general in his retellings of certain events. Malik ibn Anas accusses Ibn Ishaq of being a "liar" for listening to "Jewish stories" <ref>"New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina", W.N Arafat 2001 p. 100-107</ref>. | ||
Modern scholarship has cast much more serious doubts on the scholarship of Islamic scholars working in the 8th century (2nd Islamic century) such as Ibn Ishaq. As Fred Donner points out, one of the earliest documents we have from the nascent proto-Islamic movement is the ''Constitution of Medina'' صحيفة مدينة also known as the Ummah Document or صحيفة الأمة. This remarkable document, preserved by the Islamic historian [[Al-Tabari]], lays out a compact for the "believers" of Medina, an "ummah" or national community that includes the Jews as "believers" on the same level as the Arab believers. Fred Donner believes this document actually points to an early, occulted history of Islam in which Arab monotheists joined with Jews into one "ummah" under the command of Muhammad. Troublingly for the historical narrative, this document makes mention of many different Jewish tribes, but the main 3 tribes of the sira, the Banu Qurayza, the Banu Qaynuqaa', and the Banu Nadir are conspicuously absent. It is in fact the absence of these tribes which convinces scholars that the document must be very old despite being preserved only in the 9th-century works of Tabari, since a younger document would presumably would have been changed to agree with the established historical narrative. Donner mentions that many early 7th century mosques do not include the qibla facing towards Mecca, and concludes that this story of the massacre of the Banu | Modern scholarship has cast much more serious doubts on the scholarship of Islamic scholars working in the 8th century (2nd Islamic century) such as Ibn Ishaq. As Fred Donner points out, one of the earliest documents we have from the nascent proto-Islamic movement is the ''Constitution of Medina'' صحيفة مدينة also known as the Ummah Document or صحيفة الأمة. This remarkable document, preserved by the Islamic historian [[Al-Tabari]], lays out a compact for the "believers" of Medina, an "ummah" or national community that includes the Jews as "believers" on the same level as the Arab believers. Fred Donner believes this document actually points to an early, occulted history of Islam in which Arab monotheists joined with Jews into one "ummah" under the command of Muhammad. Troublingly for the historical narrative, this document makes mention of many different Jewish tribes, but the main 3 tribes of the sira, the Banu Qurayza, the Banu Qaynuqaa', and the Banu Nadir are conspicuously absent. It is in fact the absence of these tribes which convinces scholars that the document must be very old despite being preserved only in the 9th-century works of Tabari, since a younger document would presumably would have been changed to agree with the established historical narrative. Donner mentions that many early 7th century mosques do not include the qibla facing towards Mecca, and concludes that this story of the massacre of the Banu Qurayzah may have been invented or embellished in order to explain a much later break between the Jewish and Muslim communities <ref>Muhammad and the Believers: At the Orgins of Islam, Fred Donner, Harvard University Press 2010, p. 72-73</ref>. | ||
Patricia Crone and Michael Cook in their groundbreaking work ''Hagarism'' likewise report on an Armenian historian writing in the 7th century known as pseudo-Sabeous. This historian imputes the Arab invasions to a confederation of Jews and Arabs led by Muhammad himself, contradicting the Islamic narrative that Muhammad died before the invasion of Palestine and the Middle East. Pseudo-Sebeos likewise imputes to the Arabs and Jews a shared monotheism and brotherhood through their ancestry to Abraham and his wife Hagar <ref>Hagarism: Making of the Islamic World, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, Cambridge University Press 1977, p. 6-8</ref>. If this account is to be believed, there could not have been any great massacre of the Jews by Muhammad as we has working with them when he invaded Palestine. Stephen Shoemaker in his work ''The Death of a Prophet'' adds further evidence to thesis of Crone and Cook, marshaling evidence from a wide variety of sources, almost all of which predate the first Islamic sources, that Muhammad himself was actually the leader of the believers when they entered Palestine and he died only after its conquest. In particular he calls attention to a Jewish apocalypse from the 7th century, the Secrets of Rabbi ben Shim'on, which seems to paint Muhammad as the redeemer of the Jews from the oppression of the Romans in the Holy Land. If this is to be believed, and this source predates every Islamic source we have, the massacre of the Banu Qurayzahcould not have taken place, since Muhammad, the leader of the invasion of Palestine, was seen as a savior of the Jewish people <ref>The Death of a Prophet, Stephen Shoemaker, University of Pennsylvania Press 2012, p. 27-33</ref>. This would seem to indicate that the break between the Muslims and the Jews took place after his death, and would indicate that stories such as the massacre of the Banu Qurayzahwere fabricated in order to "back date" the break with the Jews to the prophet's own lifetime. | Patricia Crone and Michael Cook in their groundbreaking work ''Hagarism'' likewise report on an Armenian historian writing in the 7th century known as pseudo-Sabeous. This historian imputes the Arab invasions to a confederation of Jews and Arabs led by Muhammad himself, contradicting the Islamic narrative that Muhammad died before the invasion of Palestine and the Middle East. Pseudo-Sebeos likewise imputes to the Arabs and Jews a shared monotheism and brotherhood through their ancestry to Abraham and his wife Hagar <ref>Hagarism: Making of the Islamic World, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, Cambridge University Press 1977, p. 6-8</ref>. If this account is to be believed, there could not have been any great massacre of the Jews by Muhammad as we has working with them when he invaded Palestine. Stephen Shoemaker in his work ''The Death of a Prophet'' adds further evidence to thesis of Crone and Cook, marshaling evidence from a wide variety of sources, almost all of which predate the first Islamic sources, that Muhammad himself was actually the leader of the believers when they entered Palestine and he died only after its conquest. In particular he calls attention to a Jewish apocalypse from the 7th century, the Secrets of Rabbi ben Shim'on, which seems to paint Muhammad as the redeemer of the Jews from the oppression of the Romans in the Holy Land. If this is to be believed, and this source predates every Islamic source we have, the massacre of the Banu Qurayzahcould not have taken place, since Muhammad, the leader of the invasion of Palestine, was seen as a savior of the Jewish people <ref>The Death of a Prophet, Stephen Shoemaker, University of Pennsylvania Press 2012, p. 27-33</ref>. This would seem to indicate that the break between the Muslims and the Jews took place after his death, and would indicate that stories such as the massacre of the Banu Qurayzahwere fabricated in order to "back date" the break with the Jews to the prophet's own lifetime. | ||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
*[https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_answering_islam_s_article__the_bani_quraytha_jews__traitors_or_betrayed_ Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article "The Bani Quraytha Jews: Traitors or Betrayed?] - ''Muslim Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article "The Bani Quraytha Jews: Traitors or Betrayed?"'' | *[https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_answering_islam_s_article__the_bani_quraytha_jews__traitors_or_betrayed_ Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article "The Bani Quraytha Jews: Traitors or Betrayed?] - ''Muslim Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article "The Bani Quraytha Jews: Traitors or Betrayed?"'' | ||
*[ | *[http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/02/muhammad_and_massacre_of_the_q.html Muhammad and Massacre of the Qurayzah Jews] ''- James Arlandson, American Thinker'' | ||
*[ | *[http://www.kister.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/banu_qurayza.pdf 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== | ==References== | ||