Eviction of Jews from Arabia - 3

Jews in Iran

RK wrote:

Why not insult Muhammed?

Sahih Bokhari: Book 8, Number 367:

You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.

===================================

Dear Mr RK,

2 More opinions/views on the eviction of Jews from

Medinah are as under:

Some of the important facts that need to be kept in mind while passing any judgments about the killing of the Banu Qurayzah are as follows [1]

1- After the Prophet’s migration to Medinah, the Banu Qurayzah, with the other Jewish tribes of the locality, became a party to the Medinah declaration, according to which, these Jewish tribes and the Muslim state of Medinah were to act as alliances against any foreign attacks. According to this declaration, the Jews were allowed complete religious freedom and were granted protection of life and wealth as long as they honored the declaration;

2- Previously, the Banu Qurayzah were given a lesser status than the other Jewish tribe – the Banu Nadheer – which is evident from the fact that the blood money that they were granted, if any of their tribesman was killed by Banu Nadheer was half that of what was granted to Banu Nadheer. The Prophet (pbuh) corrected this injustice and granted the Banu Qurayzah the same political status as that of Banu Nadheer. (Abu Dawood, Kitaab al-Diyyaat, Baab al-Nafs bi al-Nafs, Hadith No. 3896)


3- The Jewish tribes did not honor their part of the Medinah declaration and on the instigation of the Qureish broke the agreement. At this the Banu Nadheer were sent into exile; while the Banu Qurayzah asked forgiveness and requested a renewal of the agreement, to which the Prophet (pbuh) agreed and allowed them another chance (Muslim, Kitaab al-Jihaad wa al-Siyar, Baab Ijlaa al-Yahood min al-Hijaaz, Hadith No. 3312)

4- Even after all this, the Banu Qurayzah joined the alliance that was gathered by the Qureish against the Muslims.

It was in this background that immediately after the confrontation with the confederates (Ahzaab), the Prophet (pbuh) decided to take the Banu Qurayzah to task. Even then, had the Banu Qurayzah sought forgiveness for their betrayal, the Prophet (pbuh) may have given them respite, as he did so in the past. Nevertheless, the Banu Qurayzah had decided to fight the Muslims. This was evident from the fact that when Ali (ra) reached their fort, they openly abused the Prophet (pbuh)[2].

The Muslims kept the forts of Banu Qurayzah under siege for about one month. Ultimately, the Banu Qurayzah requested the arbitration of Sa`d Ibn Mu`aaz (ra) – one of the leaders of the tribe of Aws – a traditional ally of the Banu Qurayzah[3] and promised that they would accept whatever Sa`d ibn Mu`aaz decides for them. Later on, Sa`d decided that all those among the Banu Qurayzah, who could fight be killed, while all their women and children be taken as slaves and all their wealth and property be confiscated and distributed among the Muslims. Subsequently, the sentence pronounced by Sa`d was implemented by the Muslims.

It should be clear from the facts given above that in the light of their behavior preceding the judgment the Banu Qurayzah deserved a very strict punishment. Furthermore, it is also clear that the punishment was not decided by the Prophet (pbuh), but was actually decided by a person, who was appointed as arbitrator, by the Banu Qurayzah, themselves.

However, one may still be of the opinion that the Prophet (pbuh) should have softened the punishment, even if it was pronounced by an arbitrator, who was appointed by the Banu Qurayzah themselves. On the contrary, the Prophet (pbuh) not only upheld and implemented the decision pronounced by the arbitrator, but also commended it as: ‘in accordance with God’s law’.

To fully understand why the Prophet (pbuh) did not soften or alter the sentence pronounced by Sa`d ibn Mu`aaz, we should keep in mind that Banu Qurayzah were actually Jews, who were subject to the laws of the Torah.

Deuteronomy 20: 10 – 14 says:

When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.

It was in accordance with this law that Moses (pbuh) ordered the killing of all the men of Midian and taking all their women and children as captives.

Numbers 31: 7 – 11 read as:

They did battle against Midian, as the LORD had commanded Moses, and killed every male… The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive; and they took all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods as booty. All their towns where they had settled, and all their encampments, they burned, but they took all the spoil and all the booty, both people and animals.

Obviously, on reciprocal basis, the Israelites themselves were subject to the same divine law. Thus, Sa`d Ibn Mu`aaz pronounced his judgment according to this law, upon which, the Prophet (pbuh) declared that his decision was 'in accordance with God's law'. Furthermore, because of this particular nature and basis of the judgment, the Prophet (pbuh) neither had the right nor the authority to alter it.

Because Sa`d ibn Mu`aaz’s decision was in accordance with the directives of the Torah, which the Jews accepted to be divine and were, therefore, subject to, the Prophet (pbuh) did not alter the decision. It was, in fact, because of this background of the judgment that when Hayee ibn Akhtab – one of the Jewish leaders – was brought to the place where he was to be killed, he looked at the Prophet (pbuh) and said:

By God, I have no regrets in opposing you, but the fact is that whoever tries to deceive God is Himself, ultimately, deceived.[4]

Then he turned toward his people and said:

People, there is no harm in the implementation of God’s laws. This was a directive of God, it was decided, it is a punishment, which God had prescribed for the Israelites. [4]

Thus, the Banu Qurayzah were, in fact, slaughtered by the sword of the Torah – the book, which they, themselves, held to be divine.

References:

[1] This response is primarily based on Shibli Naumani’s “Seerat al-Nabiy”.

[2] Tareekh al-Tabari

The Prophet (pbuh) sent Ali Ibn Abi Talib (ra) with his flag to the Banu Qurayzah and people started moving toward them. When Ali (ra) came close to their forts, he heard them say despicable things about the Prophet (pbuh).

[3] According to Ibn Katheer’s Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihaayah, the Banu Qurayzah were misguided by some of their allies that if the Prophet (pbuh) were to decide their fate, he would kill them all.

[4] Life of the Prophet [Seeratul Alnabwiya by Ibn-e-Hisham Volume 4 Page 201]

[Courtesy: Mr. Moiz Amjad]

=======================================

The the book of Mr. William Muir (an orientalist is often quoted to malign Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)(The Life of Mahomet by Mr. William Muir]. He also quoted Hadith [Traditions of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)] from Bukhari and Mulsim but without quoting the context and background.

"QUOTE"

For each incidence in history there is a context and here is one regarding the above mentioned incidence. In the city of Medinah, where Prophet Muhammad founded the Islamic State, there were three Jewish tribes.

As Sir Muir writes (p. 183):

"One of the objects nearest his (Muhammad's) heart was a federal union with the Jews...He associated them with himself by a treaty of mutual obligation drawn up in writing, which bound the followers (Muslims) on one hand, and the Jews on the other hand, and confirmed the later among other things in the practice of their religion and the secure possession of their property".

Thus the readers will appreciate Prophet's tolerance towards other and his undertaking to build a peace treaty with the Jews and respecting their religion and property.

The peace treaty is worded thus: (pp. 183-4)

"whosoever is rebellious or seeketh to spread enmity and sedition, the hand of every man shall be against him, even if he be a son. No unbeliever shall grant protection to the people of Mecca (who were at war with the Muslims), either in person or property, nor interpose between the believers and them. The Jews shall contribute with the Muslims, while at war with a common enemy. The Jewish clans in alliance with the several tribes of Medina are one people with the Believers...if attacked each shall come to the assistance of the other. None shall join the men of Mecca or their allies".

It is very important to remember that this peace treaty was fully accepted by the Jews (p. 184).

Now when the Meccan (pagan) enemies of Islam came forth with a force to attack Medinah, and annihilate Islam, the Banu Quraiza, the Jewish tribe in Medinah who agreed to abide by the peace treaty with the Muslims joined the enemies ranks and thus openly the treacherously broke the peace treaty.

Mr. William Muir testifies to this fact. (p. 308):

"Meanwhile, Abu Sufyan (chief of Meccan pagans) succeeded in detaching the Beni Koraiza, now the only remaining Jewish tribe, from their allegiance to Mohammad...It was agreed that the Beni Koreiza would assist Koreish (the meccan pagans)".

The Prophet sent two of his deputies to reconcile with the Jews and remind them about the peace alliance. The Jews responded: "There is no bond or compact between us and him" (p. 309).

Thus they had committed breach of the treaty right at the most critical moment of the war, joined hands with the invaders and endangered the entire population of Madinah.

Thus after winning the battle against the Meccan pagans, the Prophet moved toward the Bani Quraiza tribe to justly reprove them (as per the treaty) for breaking the sacred agreed upon alliance. By his mercy, the Prophet asked the Jewish tribe as to who should be the judge to grant them the appropriate castigation. The Jews agreed that one of their own men, Sa'd ibn Mu'adh (a Jewish convert to Islam) to be their judge.

Thus Sa'd (and NOT the Prophet) questioned the Jewish tribe, (p. 317): "will ye, then bind yourselves by the covenant of God that whatsoever I shall decide, ye shall accept?" There was a murmur of assent. "Then" Proceeded Sa'd, "my judgement is that the men shall be put to death...". Then the judgement was likewise implemented.

Now with this context to the incident one can clearly conclude that the Islamic state had a relationship of full tolerance and a comprehensive peace treaty with the Jews which all sides agreed to abide by. This treaty was broken by the Jews, who fought alongside the enemies of Islam, and were thus punished according to the judgement made by a man of their own liking and choice, whose judgement they promised to abide by.

Sir William Muir, concludes by praising the Prophet for his immense contribution to the world,

"We may freely concede that it (Islam) banished forever many of the darker elements of superstition for ages shrouding the (Arabian) Peninsula. Idolatry vanished before the battle-cry of Islam; the doctrine of the Unity and infinite Perfections of God, and a special all-pervading Providence, became a living principle in the hearts and lives of the followers of Mohammad, even as in his own...Nor are social virtues wanting. Brotherly love inculcated towards all within the circle of the faith; infanticide proscribed; orphans to be protected, and slaves (servants) treated with considerations; intoxicating drinks prohibited, so that Mohammadanism (Islam) may boast of a degree of temperance unknown to any other creed". (The Life of Mahomet, p. 521).

"UNQUOTE"

Eviction of Jews from Arabia - 2

RK wrote:

Why not insult Muhammed?

Sahih Bokhari: Book 8, Number 367:

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz: Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet. He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her." Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet . So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, 'Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.' He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-SawTq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walrma (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle."

====================================

Dear Mr RK,

Second Opinion:

"QUOTE"

The Masada Legent In Jewish and Islamic Traditions:

UNTIL very recently little more was known about Masada than the account given by Josephus Flavius in The Jewish War or De Bello Judaico as he preferred to call it. Most of the modern notices of the site and its place in Jewish history were based on this account and on some observations by travellers."1"

Masada is the name of a mountain top lying on the eastern edge of the chain to the west of the Dead Sea and opposite its narrowest part. This site was fortified by Herod the Great who surrounded it with a wall and built a palace inside. As a place of retreat it was perhaps ideal, but as an impregnable fortress the choice seems puzzling. For it could be easily besieged and cut off from all supplies, while its isolated position offered no way of escape. This proved indeed to be the case when the Zealots took refuge in it after the fall of Jerusalem to Titus in A.D. 70.

Apparently the Romans took little notice of the fortress and its occupants until three years later, when they sent a contingent - it is inconceivable, as it is now asserted, that they sent the Tenth Legion for such a small task - which besieged the fortress and quickly breached the wall. The sole account of what took place after this development is by Josephus and is too markedly dramatized and imaginative to bear close examination. He alleges that the fortress had 960 men, women and children inside the walls. The area is irregular in shape but less than 600 metres long and 300 metres wide."2"

The story as told by Josephus is that the leader of the community, Eleazar Ben Ya'ir, `persuaded' the people to commit mass suicide rather than fall into the hands of the Romans. Josephus even cites the lengthy speech, running into some two thousand words, Ben Ya'ir was supposed to have delivered. Its keynote is that God, who had before taken the Jews into his favour, had by then condemned them to destruction. It was `the purpose of God' that Jerusalem and the Temple be destroyed. Therefore, let God's punishment come to this community not from the Romans but from God himself `as executed by our own hands'. Of Ben Ya'ir's supposed words one sentence merits careful note here for further reference in this paper: `God hath made such a decree against the whole of the Jewish nation.'

As given by Josephus, the details of how men slew their wives and children before taking their own lives are too gruesome and inhuman to be regarded as heroic, if true. It would have been more honourable and heroic, as a courageous submission to the will of God, if the men decided to die, swords in their hands, charging against the superior power of the enemy, killing some Roman soldiers before themselves falling dead. But is Josephus a reliable historian, and was he in a position to know the facts? What was his background? He was born in Jerusalem of a priestly family and acted as one of the commanders of the Jewish revolt. But he went over to the Roman enemy in circumstances which are worth noting.

He was one of forty men who thought that resistance against the Romans was hopeless. They cast lots to kill one another. He cheated so that he was one of the last two. They reconsidered the matter and decided to surrender rather than die. Although under Roman law death was the punishment of a rebel, Josephus was pardoned by Vespasian who employed him as an interpreter. In this capacity Josephus accompanied Titus in the assault on Jerusalem and was thus an eye-witness of the destruction of his birth-place. Later on he accompanied Titus to Rome and settled there from A.D. 71 to his death as a Roman citizen, enjoying imperial favour and a generous pension. `He never again saw his native land."3"

He devoted himself to writing. All of his works were written in Rome including The Jewish War in which the Masada episode occurs. It was written between A.D. 75 and 79. Josephus recognized predecessors included Antonius Julianus, who was procurator of Judea and took part in the suppression of the Jewish revolt. Posterity saw in Josephus a very able writer, but did not recognize him as impartial, despite his protestation of impartiality. He was moreover regarded as an apologist who often sacrificed truth to prejudice and rhetoric."4"

As told by Josephus, the Masada story seems to be an act of expiation by a renegade and an attempt to invest the defenders of Masada with a halo of courage which he himself failed to earn in the episode of the forty deserters. The story is either an embellished work of fiction or else contains a much inflated grain of truth. According to its author only two adults survived the massacre two women who hid themselves in a cavern, and came out later to tell the Roman soldiers what happened. Obviously they could not tell the story to Josephus in A.D. 73, as he had been in Rome since A.D. 7I.

Josephus does not name his source, if any. The circumstances suggest that he had none other than his fertile imagination. Otherwise how could he write such a very detailed account of the alleged massacre? Whence did the text of Ben Ya'ir's lengthy speech come to Josephus ? What does the parallel between Masada and the episode of the forty, coming from the same author, suggest? Even assuming the highly unlikely encounter between Josephus and the two surviving women, what could they have told him? Why is there no other source for the story of Masada? Archaeological excavations under the direction of Professor Yadin did not provide conclusive answers, particularly regarding the number of those who met their death inside the walls of Masada. With the archaeological work this paper is not concerned, but the writer wishes to express admiration for the fascinating discoveries concerning important aspects of Jewish history. But regarding the legend of Masada the results are, in the opinion of the writer, rather disappointing. Political and emotional factors were allowed to cloud scientific judgment.

Yadin asserts very vaguely that a siege `would have taken a very long time' on the grounds that the Zealots `had considerable quantities of water and food'. But the fact that Masada was captured rather quickly seems to indicate that, whatever supplies the defenders had stored, all proved of no avail. Perhaps Yadin's most astonishing exaggerations are his assertions that the `960 men, women and children' effectively disturbed the `tranquillity of the Roman Empire' and moreover `challenged the entire might of Rome'.

Yadin believed Josephus on almost every detail. The reader is forewarned of what to expect from the very beginning of the report. Yadin was the chief of staff of the Israeli army in 1948. He is surprisingly vague or entirely silent on important facts. He does not explain why a whole Roman legion was necessary to capture an isolated post of some 1,500 square metres with roughly three hundred men inside it (assuming that one third of Josephus's figure were men). Why does Yadin go out of his way to say that an interview between Josephus (in Rome) and the two women (in Palestine) was possible? Why does he say nothing directly about the area of Masada inside the walls? Nor how 960 persons could live on an area of 1,500 square metres?

The most negative and puzzling result of the excavation is that only 28 human skeletons were found. The disappearance of 932 in a very dry climate surely needs more explanation than the conjecture that the Romans cleared the site. If, as it is suggested, the Romans did `fling' out 25 bodies, what did they do with the rest? And yet Yadin sought and found the evidence he required to prove Josephus right and accurate on how the last ten men met their death. Reminiscent of Josephus's own experience, he made the ten cast lots. Eleven ostraca were found and on each inscribed in the same hand a single name or nickname. Josephus tells how ten men were chosen by lot to slay the others, and how, when the melancholy deed was done, the men cast lots among themselves, the first to kill nine and then kill himself.

Josephus does not say who this last man was and Yadin does not venture a guess. Was it Ben Ya'ir himself? Among the eleven ostraca found by Yadin one was inscribed `Ben Ya'ir', and this was taken to refer to no other than the leader who promoted the idea of the mass massacre.

On this note Yadin concludes with a remarkable piece of emotional rhetoric,"5" followed by one page devoted to a picture of a military parade on top of Masada which, we are told, is a regular exercise for the new recruits to the armoured unit in the Israeli army. It has the motto 'Masada shall not fall again'. Another full page is devoted to pictures of official stamps and two medals struck by the Israeli government with the same motto. Are not these two pages incongruous in an archaeological report? Why not keep them out-with their obvious political flavour-and include them in a separate paper?

This is the climax of the use made of the legend created by Josephus. It has now become a fact in Jewish national life. When legends are elevated to the dignity of dogma the historian's task to investigate and establish facts becomes doubly difficult. It is more so when a legend in the traditions of one nation is grafted upon the traditions of another nation. The next section of this paper will deal with the Masada parallel in Islamic history and trace its Jewish origin.

II

It cannot be established with certainty whether the Jewish clans in Medina at the advent of Islam were native Arabs who embraced Judaism or were exiles from Palestine after the Roman conquest and the suppression of the Jewish revolt."6"

The Arabic sources depict them as little different from Arabs except in religion. They spoke Arabic and some composed poetry in it. Their customs and manners were largely Arab. They had alliances with Arab clans and tribes. Intermarriage between them and the Arabs was by no means uncommon.

What stood between these Jews and the acceptance of Islam was principally their unshaken belief that they were God's chosen people and could not accept a Gentile prophet. Despite similarities between the Judaism they practised and the religion Muhammad was preaching, the Jews in Medina, with the exception of individual converts, refused the call to become Muslims. This refusal was aggravated by active resistance to Muhammad's leadership as head of a state. Not only did the Jews in Medina circulate publicly adverse criticism of the Prophet and the divine message he was preaching, but they also formed alliances with his pagan Arab adversaries. Thus Jewish hostility to Islam was both religious and political. Once this was clear, Muhammad's repeated efforts at reconciliation proved fruitless, and a clash became inevitable. This will be considered very briefly in relation to four clans, as an introduction to the thesis that the Masada legend was extended to Arabia and introduced, in a different garb, into the annals of early Islam with the same tragic halo that was conferred on the original.

Banu Qainuqa' was a Jewish clan in Medina mainly engaged in crafts and had a market for goldsmiths. After his victorious return from Badr (Ramadan, 2 A.H.) Muhammad spoke to the leaders of the clan in the market place and called them to Islam, pointing out the defeat of his Meccan pagan opponents as a lesson. He received a defiant reply with the boast that the Qainuqa` were better warriors than the Meccans. Ibn Ishaq states in the Sirah (Biography) of the Prophet that the Qainuqa` were the first of the Jewish clans to break their agreement (`ahd) with the Prophet and to show warlike hostility (harabu). Accordingly they were besieged until they surrendered. As they were the clients (mawdli) of the Khazraj tribe, their chief `Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul interceded with the Prophet to spare the lives of the Qainuqa°. They had, he represented, 300 men with mail (and 400 without) who had helped him before and might still be useful in the future. Although `Abdullah was a lukewarm follower, the Prophet responded to his entreaty and freed 700 men, presumably without their arms. The clan left Medina to join another in the north and ended in Syria.

There is no report of any bloodshed."7" Banu an-Nadir, another Jewish clan in Medina, were expelled in 4 A.H. The Prophet with a few of his leading companions called on the clan to demand, according to custom, the blood-wite of two of his clients. The claim was admitted in principle, but the leaders of the clan retired for consultation leaving the Prophet waiting behind the wall of a house. A plot to kill him by dropping a rock on his head from the top was suspected, so he and his party retired very quickly. The subsequent siege of the clan ended with a negotiated surrender. Its terms included sparing the lives of all members of the clan and allowing them to leave with all of their belongings that could be carried on camels, with the exception of arms. The whole community, with women and children, left with 600 loaded camels. Some of them went to Khaibar, an oasis to the north of Medina and inhabited by another Jewish community, where Banu Nadir had some estates. Others went to Syria. Here again there is no report of bloodshed."8"

Banu Qruraizah, the third Jewish clan in Medina, had an agreement with the Prophet either to come to his aid against adversaries or at least to remain neutral. But through the instigation of Banu Nadir, now at Khaibar, Quraizah sided with Muhammad's pagan adversaries when they besieged Medina in the last month of 5 A.H. Immediately the siege ended in failure, the Quraizah had to pay the penalty. Its strongholds in the southern part of Medina were attacked and captured one after the other. When the situation became hopeless Ka'b b. Asad, the chief of the clan, put forward three alternatives to his people: accept Muhammad as prophet and save your lives and property; or kill the women and children and go out with swords in hands to fight him; or make a surprise attack on him this Sabbath eve when he least expects it. The answers were respectively: `We will not abandon the Torah'; `Why kill the poor innocents, and what is the good of life without them?'; `We will not profane the Sabbath'.

But when at last the clan surrendered, their Arab confederates, the Aus, came forward with a request that the Quraizah should be treated as the Qainuqa` were treated at the request of their confederates, the Khazraj, through their chief Ibn Salul. The Prophet asked the Aus whether they (and their Jewish clients) would accept the judgment in the matter by one of the Aus. Upon receiving an affirmative reply, Muhammad appointed Sa'd b. Mu'adh, their foremost chief, as a judge. Immediately his Aus kinsmen beseeched him to treat the Quraizah well. But his judgment, so the story goes, was to put the men to the sword and subject the women and children to slavery. It is alleged that the men numbered 600 to 700 or 800 to 900. When it was Huyayy b. Akhtab's turn to be killed it is recorded that he said: `It is God's command. It is written; it is ordained; the massacre of the children of Israel."9"

The expulsion of the three Jewish clans from Medina did not result in the elimination of all the Jews, for the sources attest that there were still many in the city. This seems to indicate that Muhammad's action was directed against the Jewish power to create mischief, not against the Jewish people. Confirmation of this deduction is provided by the case of the fourth Jewish community to be subdued.

At Khaibar, an oasis far to the north of Medina, the Jews had several strongholds. With the Nadir exiles they sought to avenge the Jews of Medina. They used bribes and other inducements to form a grand alliance against the Prophet, and succeeded in winning the powerful tribe of Ghatafan. Thus in Muharram 7 A.H. they suddenly found themselves besieged.

Khaibar fought well and lost a number of its leaders in single combats. But their strongholds fell one after the other and Ghatafan was lured away by a diversion. In the end they offered to surrender and begged the Prophet to let them go away (yusayyiruhum) leaving their arms and land to the conquerors. This was granted, but somehow they persuaded the Prophet to keep them on the land in order to work it themselves and give the Muslims half the produce.

This also was granted on one condition that `if we wish [in the future] to expel you we will do so'. Thus, apart from those killed in single combat, there was no bloodshed, and the retention of the Jews as tenants of the Muslims means that there was no expulsion either. (Fadak and other smaller Jewish clans still further north sought and received the same terms as Khaibar.)"10"

III

The above is a bare outline. In ancient and medieval times the slaughter of the vanquished and confiscation of property was not uncommon practice. Take for example the first Crusade, when the Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem were butchered by the victorious Christians. However, pre-Islamic and Islamic practice in Arabia and outside tended to mercy and tolerance towards a vanquished enemy. The report on the case of Banu Quraizah is almost unique in its severity. It clearly stands in sharp contrast to the lenient treatment of the three Jewish clans at the same period. The circumstances of the case do not seem to justify the action reported to have been taken. The report is uncorroborated by any other, and its authenticity has been rightly questioned by an Arab Muslim scholar."11"

The uncorroborated report is moreover not attributed to any authority in the usual way, and it lacks the essential chain of authorities (isnad), necessary to establish any report as true. Apart from the gravity of its content going contrary to the Arab code of conduct in war and peace, it ill-accords with the reference to the episode in the Qur'an, the only contemporary source and the most authoritative. The holy book is as usual allusive and does not always give names. But in the chapter of the Confederates (al-Ahzab) the affairs of Banu Nadir and Banu Quraizah are referred to with unmistakable clarity.

Regarding the latter the relevant verse is: `And He brought down those of the People of the Book who supported them [i.e. the pagan Meccans] from their fortresses and cast terror in their hearts; some you slew and some you made captive.' Without specifying numbers this refers to those who died fighting as well as those taken prisoner. There is nothing at all about men killed in cold blood.

IV

The key to a solution of this problem is to be found in what the traditionalists call the Isra'iliyyat, a great number of tales and unattested reports that some Jews who embraced Islam or their descendants planted in Islamic traditions through the agency of heedless and uncritical narrators. It is the thesis of this paper that the Masada legend was one of these tales which, with some adaptation, was applied to Banu Quraizah and passed on by Jewish informants to Ibn Ishaq.

On superficial consideration there are striking similarities between the two stories. The words ascribed to Ka'b Ibn Asad, the Quraizah leader, suggesting the slaying of women and children, and also the words ascribed to the other Jewish leader, Huyayy Ibn Akhtab, proclaiming that massacre was the lot of the Jews ordained by God, are strongly reminiscent of those words which Josephus put in the mouth of Ben Ya'ir. Consider also that the number of reported victims is approximately the same at Masada and Quraizah.

Parallelism is, however, no proof. This is to be found in closer examination of the unattributed and uncorroborated report concerning Quraizah in Ibn Ishaq, as preserved by his scribe Ibn Hisham, and the attitude of contemporary authorities to it. In brief the report was at once challenged as of Jewish origin, and not simply on the technical ground that it lacked the essential chain of authorities (isnad).

Summarizing the opinions of the authorities, favourable and unfavourable, concerning Ibn Ishaq's reli-ability, a later writer of the life of the Prophet, Ibn Sayyid an-Nas, com-mented as if he were summing up as a judge in a court of justice.

What emerges from this marshalling and weighing of the evidence is that Ibn Ishaq was reliable only where his reports were supported by unimpeachable authorities. Two examples must suffice. Ya'qub Ibn Shaibah stated that Ibn Ishaq `was truthful where he related from people he actually met and heard from, but it is said that he related [also] false traditions from unknown persons'. There was between Ibn Ishaq and Malik Ibn Anas, the celebrated traditionalist and author of the famous al-Muwatta', some bad feeling. The former made derogatory remarks about this book, and these were reported to the author who retorted that Ibn Ishaq was `a charlatan (dajjdl) who takes his stories from the Jews'.

The two men were later reconciled before Ibn Ishaq left Medina for Iraq. The relative merits of the two men as traditionalists, and a conclusive proof of the Jewish source of the Quraizah story, is contained in the following words, not at all unsympathetic to Ibn Ishaq, by Ibn Sayyid an-Nas 'Malik did not impugn Ibn Ishaq as a traditionalist, but he used to blame him for relying in his accounts of the campaigns of the Prophet on the descendants (aulad) of the Jews who embraced Islam and retained the stories of Khaibar, Quraizah, Nadir and other similar strange and unusual stories which they learned from their ancestors. Ibn Ishaq used to pursue such stories to enrich his knowledge without taking the Jews as his authorities. On the other hand Malik related only from reliable and truthful sources."12"

To sum up. Josephus probably made up a story about a suicide pact among forty deserters in Galilee. He cheated his way out of it to tell a story which modern critics refuse to believe."13" Later on he enlarged the scope of the story and greatly embellished it when he retold it of the defenders of Masada. It has been shown above that most of its details are not worthy of credence, whatever modern Jewish nationalists may make out of it.


The survival of the Josephus story as a legend is not at all surprising: it has most if not all the elements that convert legends into facts. The story is likely to have either travelled with Jews to Arabia or come to their descendants in Medina at one time or another in history. Its essentials, applied to Banu Quraizah, were transmitted to at least one important Muslim traditionalist, and in a new garb are enshrined in the Sirah. Stories do indeed grow in the telling and travel far!

A Sequel to Khaibar

As stated above the Jews of Khaibar were kept on sufferance as tenants of the Muslims with the stipulation that they were liable to expulsion at the direction of the latter. The arrangement was maintained until the caliphate of 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab who decided to act on the Prophet's dying behest that within the Arabia Peninsula `there shall be no religion other than Islam'."14"

Since neither the Jews of Khaibar nor the Christians of Najran could by that time have represented any political or military threat to the Islamic state, `Umar's action must have had purely religious motives."15"

This is clear from the decision he personally conveyed to the Khaibar Jews. He first referred to the stipulation that they could be expelled, but then stressed the Prophet's last wish. Apparently in reply to protests that they had a covenant (`ahd) with the Prophet, the Caliph undertook to respect such a covenant if produced, but Khaibar could produce none."16"

They were subsequently removed, like the Christians of Najran, to Syria and Iraq, and were given land and exempted from payment of taxes for two years. Little was heard of Khaibar until about four hundred years later, when a deputation of their chiefs visited Baghdad and submitted to the Abbasid Caliph al-Qa'im (422-453/ 1031-1062) a document which they claimed was in the handwriting of 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib exempting Khaibar from the payment of jizyah (poll-tax). The Caliph was very much impressed, but a high chamberlain, Abu'l Qasim Ibn Maslamah, doubted the authority of the document.

Accordingly it was referred for scrutiny to the celebrated historian, al-Khatib al-Baghdadi. With little difficulty he could point out that Khaibar capitulated in 7 A.H., but one of the witnesses, Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, became Muslim two years later on the conquest of Mecca, and the other witness, Sa'd Ibn Mu'adh, died two years earlier, after delivering judgment in the Quraizah affair. (Apparently the question of 'Ali's handwriting was not examined.) For these reasons the document was declared a forgery and the claim was rejected."17"

"UNQUOTE"

1) cf. The half-page article by Professor Samuel Kraus in The jewish Encyclopedia (1907), vol. VIII, 362.

2) See a plan in Y. Yadin, Masada: Herod's Fortress and the ,Zealots' Last Stand (London, 1966), pp. 38-39. This work is 271 pages (about one third text and two thirds illustrations.) It is an account, with copious quotations from Josephus, of archaeological excavations under the direction of Professor Yadin in 1963 and 1964

3) See the article on ,Josephus' by Abraham Shalit, Emeritus Professor of Jewish History in the Hebrew University, in the Encyclopaedia ,Judaica (new edition, Jerusalem) vol. X, Pp. 253-254- Much of this article is based on an earlier one by Louis H. Gray in Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethnics, vol. VII, pp. 569-578

4) Louis H. Gray, OP- cit., P. 576

5) Yadin, Masada, p. 201.

6) For the latter view see al-Aghani (Bulaq, 1285), VOL X1X, p. 94

7) Sirah, ed. M. Saqqa et al (Cairo, 2nd ed. 1375/1955), part II, pp. 47-50; cf. W. Montgomery Muhammad at Alediua (oxford, 1956), pp. 209-210.

8) Sirah, II, I90-I92; cf. Watt, op. cit., 211i-212.

9) Sirah, II, 233-242; cf. Watt, op. cit., 2 t4-215.

10) Sirah, II, 328-331, cf. Watt, op. Cit., 217-218

11) W. Arafat, `New Light on the Story of Banu Quraizah' in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Sodety (1976), No. 2, pp. 100-107.

12) Uyun al-Athar (Cairo, 1356) vol. I, pp. 10-17; cf. Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah (3rd ed., Beirut, 1900), pp. 439-440 on the infiltration of Islamic tradition by unattested reports from Jews who embraced Islam.

13) Louis H. Gray, op. cit., p. 570.

14) Ibn Sa°d, Tabaqat (ed E. Sachau, Leiden, 1905), II part 2, p. 44, cf. Al-Bukhari, Sahib (Bulaq, 1296), V, 128; Muslim, Sahih (Cairo, 1331) V, 16o

15) cf. A. L. Tibawi, Arabic and Islamic Themes (London, 1976), chapter II but specially pages 66-68.

16) Sirah, II, 356-57.

17) Tarih-i cevdet (The History by the famous Turkish historian, Ahmad Jaudat Pasha in 12 volumes), vol. I (Istanbul, 2nd ed., i 3og), P. 17.

Eviction of Jews from Arabia - 1

RK wrote:

Why not insult Muhammed?

Sahih Bokhari: Book 8, Number 367:

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz: Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet. He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her." Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet . So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, 'Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.' He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-SawTq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walrma (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle."

====================================

Dear Mr RK,

The same Bukhari also says:

It is reported that a funeral of a Jew passed before the Prophet (peace be upon him). As a sign of respect, the Prophet stood up. The Prophet was asked "Why did you stand up for a Jewish funeral?" The Prophet replied, "Is it not a human soul?" (Al-Bukhari).

Safiya bint Huyai [May Allah be pleased with her]:

Safiyah Bin Hai (May Allah be pleased with her) {she was from the family of Moses/Aaron (Peace be upon them] and formerly a Jew. She was amongst the prisoners of Khyber. Her first husband was Kanana Bin Abul Haqeeq who was killed in Khyber war. She was freed by Mohammad from slavery and then got married with her. Once Hazrat Hafsa Bin Omer (WIFE OF MOHAMMAD) {RA} taunt her as a [you Jew] "yahoodi ki beti" and Safiyah complained to Mohammad {PBUH}. Mohammad {PBUH} said don’t worry and further said: why do you care as you are a daughter of Prophet Aaron {PBUH}, niece of Prophet Mosses {PBUH} and wife of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH], I wonder on what Hafsah is proud of?

[{Ref: JILA UL IFHAM FIS SALAT WASSALAM ALA KHAIRUL ANAM BY IMAM SHAMSUDDIN ABU ABDULLAH IBN QAYYAM AL-JOZIYA translated by Qazi Muhammad Suleman Salman Mansoorpuri, Fomrer Session Judge Patyala India}]

There are two views on the background of Eviction of Jews from Medinah.

"QUOTE"

Jews were not there in the Arabian Peninsula. Like any other immigrants, the Jews came to the Arabian Peninsula from somewhere else, most probably the Levant area. In their march into the peninsula, some of them stopped at one point in Khaybar and Fadak and preferred to stay there while others decided to continue journeying till they settled in the city of Yathrib, which came to be known afterwards as Madinah. Therefore, referring to Arabia and especially Madinah as their motherland is questionable.

From the very beginning, the Jews started to develop a kind of relation with their Arab neighbors that was not always peaceful. Of course, they knew the language and the second and third Jewish generations knew the language. But they were still classed as Jews and not as either Aws or Khazraj, the two main tribes that existed in Madinah at that time.

The three main concentrations of the Madinan Jews were known as three distinguished tribes: Banu An-Nadir, Banu Quraizhah and Banu Qaynuqa`. These three ghettos were unique in many ways, including avoiding mixed marriage with the Arabs.

In their dialogues with the Arabs, the Jews kept telling them that soon there would appear a prophet from among themselves and that he would lead them to humiliate the Arab idolaters. They kept on repeating this Jewish dream in front of their fellow residents until Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) appeared and came to Madinah. Thereupon, everything changed because they started to deny their dream and claimed that he was not the long-awaited prophet but just a pseudo-prophet, completing a package of falsifications woven by their Arab contemporaries.

They knew in their hearts that he was a prophet and not a liar, yet they opted to be arrogant rather than surrender to the truth. They wondered why the long-awaited prophet came from the Arabs. In the Jews' opinion, they themselves were the most deserving of that honor, and as they saw it jumping in someone else's lap, they decided to destroy it.

Two of their rabbis were conversing when the Prophet reached Madinah and one of them said to the other, "Is that him?" i.e., is he the prophet? And the other answered, "Yes, it is him." The other continued, "Are you sure it is him?" and the answer came, "By God, I know him as much as I know my own son." "So what will you do with him?" And the final answer came, "I will bear enmity to him till my death." (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakfuri, Ar-Rahiq Al-Makhtum, Dar As-Salam, 1998, p. 145)

When the Prophet settled in Madinah, he wanted to create a cooperating human community and establish an exemplary civil society at a time when these poor Arabs could never imagine what a civil society could mean. So for the first time in history, he established the pact of Madinah or what I like to call the constitution of coexistence.

In this constitution, all signing parties — including Muslims, Jews, and other (pagan) Arabs — agreed that they would live in Madinah together as a society and would defend it in case of an attack and would never help any outsider against any of the other signing parts and would never betray the agreement.

Yet, at the first juncture, the Jews started disrupting the society when one of them, knowing he was backed by others, attacked a Muslim woman who went to buy something from a Jewish shop in the Jewish district of Banu Qaynuqa`. They simply created chaos and disruption in the society (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakfuri, Ar-Rahiq Al-Makhtum, Dar As-Salam, 1998. p. 191).

In order to stop the chaos and let society enjoy the peacefulness reached in the agreement, the Prophet gave them the option to leave Madinah or else people whose children were killed would start avenging them. The decision was they would leave, and that was really the best and easiest option. It needed no justification because their offense was very clear.

The relationship between the Jews of Banu An-Nadir and the Arabs was not much better. Banu An-Nadir conspired to kill the Prophet when he was going to talk with them. Imagine how you would feel, Mohsin, if you were visiting one of your friends and he was preparing to kill you at his house instead of offering you food and hosting you. Imagine if he met you with a conspiracy rather than with hospitality. The threat here was against the leader of the Muslim community and the head of the state; it was actually a conspiracy that reflected how much hatred they bore for the Prophet and how betraying they were.

Thereupon, they had to leave, not because of the Prophet but because of their own handiwork. The Qur'an tells us at the beginning of Surat Al-Hashr that the believers never imagined that the Jews would leave Madinah and were not even planning for that, but the Jews themselves brought that to themselves. And when the Prophet gave them the option, they chose to leave. Actually, that was the least punishment they could get.

Banu Quraizhah, on the other hand, remained in Madinah, but again they did not keep their word and breached the agreement. They helped a confederate army consisting of Quraish and other Arab idolaters who came to attack Madinah.

The Muslim army, which by the highest estimates was only one thousand-strong, was facing a ten thousand-strong army in full arms. The Muslims had to dig a trench in a desperate attempt to defend themselves, and all of a sudden, they discovered that their fellow citizens (the Jews), who were entrusted to defend from the back, were actually helping the enemy.

It was the mercy of Allah that the confederates left without fighting and He blew fear into their hearts, but the unforgivable offense of these betraying Jews was not to pass unnoticed. The kind Prophet went to them and asked them to choose someone who would issue a judgment in their case. Banu Quraizhah chose Sa`d ibn Mu`adh because they knew he was their friend and would be fair with them. Sa`d chose a verdict from their own holy scriptures, the Torah: that the men were to be killed and the women and children were to be enslaved.

Thereupon, many Companions of the Prophet, driven by mercy, told them that they could intercede and get them an amnesty from the Prophet. But Banu Quraizhah said,

"No, we will never violate the judgment of the Torah." Actually, this verdict given by Sa`d is purely from the Torah, and no similar punishment can be found in any Islamic source. Some of them chose to seek forgiveness and were exempted from killing, but many others chose to die to apply the Torah. If they had chosen the merciful Prophet, he would have forgiven them, but arrogance took them to their destiny.

Even the Jews who went to settle up north with their fellows in Khaybar, did not stop conspiring and stirring enmity against the emerging little Muslim community in Madinah. These actions reached such a degree that we can conclude that, like any criminal, they were a massive threat to the public security of the society and were to be dealt with accordingly.

As for the Prophet's treatment of the Jews in general, there are many examples that show his kindness to them. For example, a young Jewish boy used to serve the Prophet and he became sick, and so the Prophet went to visit him.

It is reported that a funeral of a Jew passed before the Prophet (peace be upon him). As a sign of respect, the Prophet stood up. The Prophet was asked "Why did you stand up for a Jewish funeral?" The Prophet replied, "Is it not a human soul?" (Al-Bukhari).

It is reported that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had a Jewish neighbor who used to throw garbage in his way, but when the Prophet heard one day that the neighbor was sick he went to visit him.

In order to show his nearness to the Jews, the Prophet married Safiyyah bint Huyay, daughter of the chief of the Jewish tribe of Banu An-Nadir. She was captured during the Battle of Khaybar. As an honorable gesture showing the magnanimity of Islam, the Prophet freed and married her.

"UNQUOTE"