Sunday 24 April 2011

Myths about the Holy Prophet - Part 3: Massacre of Banu Qurayza

The next myth I want to discuss is a very serious one: the allegation that the Holy Prophet was responsible for the massacre of a Jewish tribe - upto 900 members of Bani Qurayzah were executed in cold blood and dumped in a mass grave. Once again, Western historians point to Sunni books which make this claim, including the prominent biography of the Holy Prophet compiled by Ibn Ishaq.

Before the arrival of the Holy Prophet and the message of Islam, there were three Jewish tribes who lived in Medina along with other Jewish settlements further in the north (most importantly in Khayber and Fadak). At the time, the Holy Prophet hoped that the Jews of Medina, as followers of a divine religion would show understanding to the introduction of a new monotheistic religion, Islam. However, as soon as these Jewish tribes realised that Islam was being firmly established and gaining power, they adopted an actively hostile attitude, with the final result being the disappearance of these Jewish communities from the region.

Two of the three tribes, the Banu Qaynuga and Banu al-Nadir tried to provoke the Muslims. They were besieged and were forced to surrender. They were then allowed to depart the region. According to Ibn Ishaq, the third of the Jewish tribes, Banu Qurayza sided with the Quarysh tribe and made an unsuccessful attack on Medina in an attempt to destroy the Muslims. The challenge failed, and the Banu Qurayza were captured by the Holy Prophet. Although the tribe surrendered, they were subject to arbitration by Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a member of the Aws tribe. He ruled that the grown-up males be killed and the women and children sold to slavery. The Holy Prophet, it seemed, concurred.Consequently, trenches were dug in Medina and the men of Qurayza were brought and their heads cut off by the Holy Prophet himself. Estimates of those killed vary from 400 to 900.

Once again, rather than refute these outrageous claims Muslims try to apologise or justify the events that took place. For example, Muslim scholars argue that the punishment was according to the Bible, Saad ruled in accordance with Jewish/Biblical law, so the Jews had nothing to complain about: for example, the Bible says: “When the Lord thy God delivers [the city] into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.” (Deuteronomy 20:13-14). Muslim scholars also argue that we shouldn’t judge the practises of those times with the human-rights standards we have today; that the Muslims wanted to deter future treachery by setting an example with severe punishment of Bani Qurayzah, that the Prophet feared that if he let them live, the Qurayza would flee and join the Banu Nadir in the fight against the Muslims.

This is all nonsense, no such massacre took place. Once again it is a myth spread to try and condemn and ridicule the Holy Prophet and this time I have six reasons as to why the story is a complete fabrication:
  1. The first person to mention this story about Bani Qurayza was Ibn Ishaq, the author of the Sira, the first biography of Rasooallah, but he was not a contemporary of the Prophet, he was born nearly 80 years after the death of the Prophet and, according to Arafat, he based his narrations about the killing of the Jews of Bani Qurayzah based on the testimonies of the descendants of that tribe. Not exactly impartial, is it? Ibn Ishaq’s contemporary, the early traditionist and jurist Imam Malik ibn Anas, called him unequivocally "a liar" and "an impostor" who transmits his stories from the Jews". In a later age, Allama Ibn Hajar further explained the point of Malik's condemnation of Ibn Ishaq. Malik, he said, 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 Hajar then rejected the stories in question in the strongest terms referring to them as "such odd tales as the story of Qurayza and al-Nadir". An outright rejection!
  2. The Holy Quran makes no mention of the apparent massacre: "And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some." (Surah 33, Verse 26).
    There is no reference to numbers, and only a reference to those people who were doing the fighting. Unlike Ibn Ishaq’s Sirah, which came more than a 100 years later, the Quran is a contemporary text, of that time period, regardless of whether you accept it is the word of God or not.
  3. 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 bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another." (Suran 53, Verse 38) Collective punishment is not an option in Islam. It is obvious in the story that the leaders were numbered and were well known. They were named. Why kill everyone else? On what basis?
  4. 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 it is related that when Khaybar fell to the Muslims, there were among the residents a particular family or clan who had distinguished themselves by excessive 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.
  5. 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. No commemoration.
  6. In the story of Qurayza only a few specific persons were actually 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.
The mass massacre is a complete and total myth. It didn't happen and nor should we ever dream that the Holy Prophet could do such a thing - the slaughter of innocent people is completely un-Islamic and not an act carried out by the greatest of all human beings.

No comments:

Post a Comment