Is the story of Banu Qurayza reliable?
Fariduddien Rice
Assalamu alaikum,
Every now and then, the topic of the story of Banu Qurayza arises in
our discussions here. As a brief reminder, the story says that during
a particular battle, the Banu Qurayza (a Jewish tribe in Medina)
essentially colluded with the Quraysh against the Muslims, breaking
their treaty with the Muslims. In response, the story says that after
the battle with the Quraysh, the Banu Qurayza were besieged and captured
by the Muslims. According to the story, a judgement on the Banu Qurayza
was made by Sa`d b. Mua`add (who was dying from a wound from the
battle), and he ordered all the men to be killed and the women and
children enslaved. The number said to be killed, according to the
story, was in the many hundreds.
I just recently read an article (by W. N. Arafat -- see
http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/ , under "Miscellaneous Articles") which
strongly challenges the reliability of this story. The only source for
this story seems to be the "Sira" (Life of the Prophet, s.a.w..) of Ibn
Ishaq. Ibn Ishaq, in turn, obtained many of the details of the story from
the descendents of Banu Qurayza. It appears that the only source for many
of the details of the story (such as the huge numbers supposedly killed)
are in fact the descendents of Banu Qurayza.
Such a large event -- hundreds of people killed, and a trench being dug
to bury them, according to Ibn Ishaq -- would have been reported by
others, one would have thought. However, this event is not mentioned in
any of the hadiths, or any other source, except from the descendents of
Banu Qurayza, as reported by Ibn Ishaq. This in itself is sufficient, I
think, to question the reliability of the story. It is also important
to note that Ibn Ishaq died in 151 A.H., which is 145 years after the
story regarding Banu Qurayza was supposed to have happened. This gives
plenty of time for a story to become greatly exaggerated, especially
when the only source for some of the details are the descendents of Banu
Qurayza.
Furthermore, Imam Malik, who was a contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, strongly
criticized Ibn Ishaq, calling him "a liar" and "an imposter" for
transmitting what Imam Malik considered were stories of unreliable
authenticity (according to Arafat's article). One should remember that
stories in the "Sira" of Ibn Ishaq are nowhere near the same authenticity
of Sahih hadiths, for example, and Imam Malik spoke very harshly against
Ibn Ishaq because of his inclusion of unauthenticated stories in his
"Sira." (Quotes can be found in Arafat's article -- see below.)
In addition, the actions regarding the Banu Qurayza according to the
story reported by Ibn Ishaq goes against Islamic principles. The Qur'an
says, "No soul shall bear another's burden" (Qur'an 35:18). Group
punishment of the Banu Qurayza, for the actions of their leaders (who were
well-known, according to the story from Ibn Ishaq) opposes the Islamic
sense of justice.
We also know that Jewish groups in Medina, both *before* and *after* the
clash with the Banu Qurayza, were not subject to such a harsh
punishment. At most, they were asked to leave the city. The story of
Banu Qurayza is completely inconsistent with what we do know about the
treatment of the Jews of Medina of other tribes.
After establishing the inaccuracy of the story, W. N. Arafat in his
article identifies a probable source for this story. In fact, he
notices remarkable similarities between the story of Banu Qurayza, and
stories of wars between the Romans and Jews, which were reported by
Flavius Josephus. One theory of the origin of the Jews in Arabia is
that they came to Arabia after fleeing the Roman wars, so these stories
were probably known in some form by the Jews of Arabia. The numbers are
similar, and even some of the names in both accounts are almost identical.
Arafat then proposes the interesting view that the story of Banu
Qurayza in Ibn Ishaq's "Sira" is probably in part confused with the story
of what occurred in the Roman wars, which were confused in the minds of
the descendents of the Banu Qurayza, who Ibn Ishaq took many details of
the story from.
I have placed the article by W. N. Arafat on the WWW. If you want to
read it in full, you can find it on my "Islamic Web Pages." Go to
http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/
Choose "Miscellaneous Articles," then choose "New light on the story of
Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina."
Wassalam,
**************************************************************************
Fariduddien Rice Email: drice @ mpce.mq.edu.au
(remove the spaces)
WWW Pages: * Sufism and Shari`ah
* Islamic Sufi Orders on the World Wide Web
* Early Christianity and Islam
See the web page: http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/
**************************************************************************
Jochen Katz
In article <6gcajg$bls$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
Fariduddien Rice <dr...@see.text.for.email.address> writes:
} Assalamu alaikum,
}
} Every now and then, the topic of the story of Banu Qurayza arises in
} our discussions here. As a brief reminder, the story says that during
} a particular battle, the Banu Qurayza (a Jewish tribe in Medina)
} essentially colluded with the Quraysh against the Muslims, breaking
} their treaty with the Muslims.
This is the popular version of it. But that is not so clear
either. I will post an extra article about that.
} In response, the story says that after
} the battle with the Quraysh, the Banu Qurayza were besieged and captured
} by the Muslims. According to the story, a judgement on the Banu Qurayza
} was made by Sa`d b. Mua`add (who was dying from a wound from the
} battle), and he ordered all the men to be killed and the women and
} children enslaved. The number said to be killed, according to the
} story, was in the many hundreds.
600-900 according to Ibn Hisham.
} I just recently read an article (by W. N. Arafat -- see
} http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/ , under "Miscellaneous Articles") which
} strongly challenges the reliability of this story.
See Encyclopaedia entry quoted below.
} In addition, the actions regarding the Banu Qurayza according to the
} story reported by Ibn Ishaq goes against Islamic principles. The Qur'an
} says, "No soul shall bear another's burden" (Qur'an 35:18). Group
} punishment of the Banu Qurayza, for the actions of their leaders (who were
} well-known, according to the story from Ibn Ishaq) opposes the Islamic
} sense of justice.
The Crusades go against Biblical principles and they happened anyway.
There is a lot in early and later Islamic history that goes against
Qur'anic principles. That certainly is no argument to dismiss the
historical sources. Not everyone lives always to the principles
they preach.
} We also know that Jewish groups in Medina, both *before* and *after* the
} clash with the Banu Qurayza, were not subject to such a harsh
} punishment.
Have you read all of my article? I showed that Muhammad had
intended the slaughter of all three of the tribes and only
circumstances hindered him in the first two cases. I have shown
that from the sources.
But obviously, one can always dismiss the sources if they
are not liked.
} After establishing the inaccuracy of the story, ...
That sounds as if that is something "established" now.
Maybe it is for him or for you, but the entry in the
Encyclopaedia of Islam has under Kurayza this paragraph:
-----
...
The question of an agreement affects the moral judgement
on Muhamma's treatment of Kurayza. During the siege of of
Medina (Dhu 'l-Ka`da 5/April 627), Muhammad became anxious
about their conduct and sent some of the leading Muslims
to talk to them; the result was disquieting. Though Kurayza
does not appear to have committed any overt hostile act,
they had probably been involved in negotiations with the
enemy. On this ground, as soon as the besiegers withdrew,
Muhammad attacked Kurayza and besieged their forts (atam)
for twenty-five nights. After negotiations they agreed to
surrender unconditionally, Sa`d b. Mu`adh, chief of the
clan of `Abd al-Ashhal, with whom they had an alliance,
was brought to give judgement on them. He decreed that all
the men (who numbered between 600 and 900) were to be put
to death and all the women and children sold as slaves.
This decree was carried out (recently, W.N.Arafat in JRAS
[1976], 100-7, has maintained that by no means all the adult
males were killed, but his argument is not entirely convincing).
Three young men of the clan of Hadl, who had been with Kurayza
in the strongholds, slipped out before the surrender and
professed Islam. One or two others also escaped. As part
of his share of the booty, Muhammad received one of the
women, Rayhana, and married her as a concubine, though
she is said to have become a Muslim. Muhammad b. Ka`b
al-Kurazi (mentioned above) gained distinction as a
scholar. .... (W. Montgomery Watt)
-----
And W.M. Watt is a scholar who is very sympathetic to
Islam. Muslims have recommended me to read his books.
And by the way, Ibn Ishaq is not the only one who reports
on this. Here is what Ibn Sa`d says in his "Kitab al-Tabaqaat
al-Kabir" (he says "between sixhundred and sevenhundred in
number were beheaded):
The Ghazwah of the Apostle of Allah, on Banu Qurayzah.
Then occured the ghazwah of the apostle of Allah against the Banu Qurayzah
in Dhual-Qa'dah in the fifth year from his Hijrah. They said: "When the
polytheists went back from the Ditch and the apostle of Allah returned
(to al-Medinah), he entered the apartment of Ayishah and Gabriel came to
him close to Janziz and said: "(Meet your) helper against your combatant."
Thereupon the apostle of Allah went to him fearing. He said : "Verily
Allah commands you to march to Banu Qurayzah. I also intend to go there
and I shall shake their forts." Thereupon the apostle of Allah called
Ali and gave his banner to him. He sent Bilal to proclaim among the
people that the apostle of Allah commands you not to offer al-Asr prayers
but in (the locality of) Banu Qurayzah. The apostle of Allah appointed
Abd Allah Ibn Umm Maktum as his lieutenant over al-Madinah then marched
against them with three thousand Muslims and thirty six horses on
Wednesday, 23 Dhu al-Qua'dah.
He besieged them very closely for fifteen days. They (Muslims) shot
arrows which went inside and none knew what became of them. When the
siege became very severe they sent (a message) to the apostle of Allah:
Send Abu Lubabah Ibn Abd al-Mundhir to us. He sent him to them. They
consulted him in their affair. He pointed them with his hand signalling
their slaughter. Then he repented saying: "We are for Allah and to Him
we will return." He said (to himself) "I have betrayed Allah and his
apostle." Then he retired and sticked to a mosque and did not come to
the apostle of Allah until Allah revealed (acceptence of) his repentence.
Then they surrendered to the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah
gave directions to Muhammad Ibn Maslamah about them. They were chained
and kept aside. Then their women fold and children were brought and
placed on one side. He gave them in the custody of Abd Allah Ibn Salam
and collected their goods and what armours, household effects and clothes
which were in the forts were collected. There were found one thousand
five hundred swords, three hundred coats of mail, two thousand spears,
one thousand five hundred shields and leather shields, there was wine
and wine-jars, (wine) was poured and its one fifth was not allotted.
There they discovered many water-carrier camels and cattle.
Al-Aws said to the apostle of Allah to give them (captives) to them,
because they were their allies. The apostle of Allah authorised Sa'd
Ibn Muadh to give a decision about them. He passed an order: "He who
is subjected to razors (i.e., the male) should be killed, women and
children should be enslaved, and property should be distributed.
Thereupon the apostle of Allah said: "You have decided in confirmation
to the judgement of Allah, above the seven heavens. The apostle of
Allah returned on Thursday 7 Dhu al-Hijjah. The he commanded them to
be brought into al-Madinah where ditches were dug in the market. The
apostle of Allah, sat with his companions and there were brought in
small groups. Their heads were struck off. They were between six <<=====
hundred and seven hundred in number. The apostle of Allah chose
Rayhanah Bint Amr for himself and ordered the booty to be collected.
Ond fifth portion of goods and captives was separated and the remainder
was sold to highest bidder. He divided it (price) to the Muslims.
There were three thousand and seventy two shares - two shares for
the horses and one share for its owner. The Khums was entrusted to
Mahmiyah Ibn Jaz al-Zabayudi. The apostle of Allah set free or gave
(to some one) or made him servant as he liked. Likewise he did with
the luggage he had received.
----------------
Best regards,
Jochen Katz
Jochen Katz
In article <6gcajg$bls$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
Fariduddien Rice writes:
} It is also important
} to note that Ibn Ishaq died in 151 A.H., which is 145 years after the
} story regarding Banu Qurayza was supposed to have happened. This gives
} plenty of time for a story to become greatly exaggerated, ...
Mr. Rice seems to forget that the earliest hadith collections are
250 years after Muhammad and this does not make him in the least
suspicious...
} Furthermore, Imam Malik, who was a contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, strongly
} criticized Ibn Ishaq, calling him "a liar" and "an imposter" for
} transmitting what Imam Malik considered were stories of unreliable
} authenticity (according to Arafat's article). One should remember that
} stories in the "Sira" of Ibn Ishaq are nowhere near the same authenticity
} of Sahih hadiths, for example, and Imam Malik spoke very harshly against
} Ibn Ishaq because of his inclusion of unauthenticated stories in his
} "Sira." (Quotes can be found in Arafat's article -- see below.)
What Arafat seems to have conveniently overlooked is a personal
animosity between Imam Malik and Ibn Ishaq.
According to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, entry under Ibn Ishak
we read that:
The antagonism of Malik towards Ibn Ishak was of a
different order. It could have been due to professional
jealousy, as the story related by `Abd Allah b. Idris
suggests: "I was with Malik b. Anas when a man said
to him: `Muhammad b. Ishak says: Present to me the
knowledge of Malik, for I am the man to check it'.
Malik said: 'Look at this anti-Christ saying 'Present
to me the knowledge of Malik'" (Udaba', vi, 400).
Already the first comment of Ibn Ishak was not quite polite.
[We don't know whether that was in fact the first. Maybe
that was a long standing animosity.] But it is clear from
this report that the two had personal quarrels and were
saying bad things about each other.
As such, Malik's rejection of Ibn Ishak should be taken
with a grain of salt. There is no wonder that Arafat does
not talk about this, since this would weaken his hypothesis.
But it is not entirely honest scholarship to brush this
under the carpet.
Sincerely,
Jochen Katz
Fariduddien Rice
Assalamu alaikum,
Sorry for the brevity of my response.... at present I am very pressed
for time.
On 8 Apr 1998, Jochen Katz wrote:
[...W. M. Watt's account deleted...]
> And W.M. Watt is a scholar who is very sympathetic to
> Islam. Muslims have recommended me to read his books.
I have nothing against Professor Watt, however, most likely he took Ibn
Ishaq as his source. If that is the case, then if Ibn Ishaq's account
is incorrect (because of the weakness of *his* sources), then any
summary of the story of Banu Qurayza (including Watt's) which follows his
account would suffer from also being incorrect.
I think it is very important for Muslims to realize that Ibn Ishaq does
not verify his sources with the same rigour as did, for example, the
great hadith scholars like Bukhari, Muslim, etc. For example, while in
some cases Ibn Ishaq did give some of his sources, he nevertheless
provided no *isnad* or chain of transmission -- that is, we don't know
who that person heard a story from, and who that person heard it from,
and so on. If Ibn Ishaq's "Sira" or "Life of the Prophet" were judged
at the same level as hadiths, then the whole book would undoubtedly be
judged as either weak or fabricated, simply because there is no isnad
even in existence upon which to make a judgement.
Because of this, Imam Malik (who was a contemporary of Ibn Ishaq)
criticized the authenticity of Ibn Ishaq's account in the strongest
possible terms. (See W. N. Arafat's article for the quotes -- reference
at the end of this post.)
Regarding the story of Banu Qurayza, Ibn Ishaq says that some of his
sources for his story are the descendents of the Banu Qurayza. This
could certainly be a source of great exaggeration in the story, or
perhaps (as W. N. Arafat suggests in his article) they could have it
confused with other events which happened earlier in their history
(pre-Islam), specifically, the war of the Romans against the Jews, as
many believe the Jews of Arabia travelled to Arabia due to the wars of
the Romans against them.
> And by the way, Ibn Ishaq is not the only one who reports
> on this. Here is what Ibn Sa`d says in his "Kitab al-Tabaqaat
> al-Kabir" (he says "between sixhundred and sevenhundred in
> number were beheaded):
[...quote deleted...]
When did Ibn Sa`d live? Is it possible that he also took his account
from Ibn Ishaq? Does he give an isnad? If there is no isnad, then his
account too would have to be considered "weak" or "fabricated," if it
was judged at the same level which hadiths are judged.
By the way, the article challenging the authenticity of the story of
Banu Qurayza, by W. N. Arafat, can be found on the web page
http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/misc/
Salam,
**************************************************************************
Fariduddien Rice Email: drice @ mpce.mq.edu.au
(remove the spaces)
WWW Pages: * Sufism and Shari`ah
* Islamic Sufi Orders on the World Wide Web
* Early Christianity and Islam
See the web page: http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/
* Die Before You Die *
**************************************************************************