The Banu Qurayzi
klei...@astound.net
tribe of the Banu Qurayza at Yathrib just after the so-called battle of
the ditch. Like almost everyone else I have my doubts about the story.
Apparently all accounts of the massacre stem from the account in Ibn
Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah". Waqidi has additonal details which he, or
his informants, presumably invented and added to Ibn Ishaq.
I have jusr re-read "NEW LIGHT ON THE STORY OF BANU QURAYZA AND THE
JEWS OF MEDINA" By W. N. ARAFAT From Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society of Great Britain and Ireland, (1976), pp. 100-107. On the whole
I agree with Arafat when he says the story is complete fabrication.
However Arafat does make a few small slips.
First off, he says, and repeats, that the only contemporary account of
these events is in the Qur'an. He means verses 25, 26 and 27 of surat
33. But (1) it is surely an error to accept the traditional idea that
these verses refer to the Banu Quarayza blindly, and (2) there is
another contemporary document referring to the Jews of Yathrib - the
so-called Constitution of Madina.
As is well known, there is no mention of the Banu Qurayza in the
Constitution of Madina. This suggest, strongly, that there was no such
tribe at Yathrib. Hence there was no such massacre. Of course, we
should try to explain exactly how the legend of Banu Qurayza was
created.
The verses in the Qur'an read (my translation, omitting the irrelevant
parts)
25. And Allah turned away those who disbelieve in their anger. They did
not gain an advantage. ... 26. And he overthrew those who supported
them among the people of the book from their forts. And he put fear in
their hearts. And some you killed. And you took some prisoner. 27. And
he made you heir to their land
and their houses and their pssessions and to a land where you have not
walked ...
The last phrase makes it unlikely that the events referred to in this
passage took place in Yathrib. The description fits the attack on the
Khaybar better; although, I admit, there is no battle with disbelievers
described immediately before the conquest of the Khaybar. According to
the traditional chronology the last significant event before the
conquest of the Khaybar was the stand-off and armistice in Makka. But
the Qur'an does not mention fighting - only that the disbelievers did
not prevail. This does describe the armistice.
Actually using the Constitution of Madina rather than the Qur'an
improves Arafat's case. In brief, the reason why the story about the
massacre of the Banu Quayza is a fabrication is that there is adequate
evidence that there was no such tribe in Yathrib.
But, in Ibn Ishaq's day there were men in Madina who claimed to be
descended from the Banu Qurayza. Where did this idea come from? I leave
that question for further research. There might have been a Banu
Quaryza tribe in the Khaybar or even closer to Madina in Wadi al-Qura.
There may have been a Jewish paterfamilias named Qurayza (or even Qarz)
who accepted Islam. The Qurayz might be another aspect of the
mysterious Quraysh (given enough dialect borrowing).
Etc. Normal Arabic usage would suggest an "ancestor"; but this is a
Jewish "tribe".
The new light that the title promises is a suggestion about where the
story of the massacre came from. In a word, Masada.
The legend of Masada, familiar to us from Josepheos, was, so far as we
call tell, known very well in every Jewish community in the world in
those days. Including among the Jews of Yathrib and the Khaybar, no
matter what they called themselves.
In the Qur'an we are told about people of the book (almost certainly
meaning Jews) fighting in forts. Whenever things got difficult for Jews
fighting in forts their minds surely turned toward Masada. It seems
that Arafat has indeed correctly identified what lies behind the story
of the massacre.
One would suspect that the original story, as it entered the traditions
about Muhammad, had all the Jews committing suicide. It might even have
entered Muslim tradition as a story about the Jewish defense of their
fort at Masada against the hordes of Khalid ibn al-Walid. He might even
have been the first person to tell it as a contemporary story (I
wouldn't put much past him).
But the legend of Masada, true or false, is too heroic for the Arabs to
let the Jews use it without corrections. We can read the "corrected"
story in Ibn Ishaq.