The relationship between the Prophet and the Jews from his arrival in to the Battle of the Banu Qurayzah

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Al-Bakri, Mohammad Anwar M. Ali

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 25/09/2021 10:21:39

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/557279 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROPHET AND THE JEWS FROM HIS

ARRIVAL IN MEDINA TO THE BATTLE OF THE BAOTJ QURAYZAH

-by

Mohammad Anwar M. Ali' Al-Bakri

A Thesis.Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF ORIENTAL STUDIES

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1 9 7 9 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of re­ quirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.'

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the . major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judg­ ment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholar­ ship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED:

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR .

This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

n J. WilsonW i l s o n ~ 'U v DateDsfce, 'AdJfepi^late Professor of Oriental Studies ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is indebted to Dr. William J. Wilson for suggesting this investigation and for his guidance, support, encouragement, and pabience throughout its development and successful completion. I have known Dr. Wilson for two years. Whenever I stopped by his office or had an appointment regarding questions, problems, or difficulties, his atti­ tude was one of truly caring. To Dr. Wilson I express my deep and great thanks for his assistance and advice throughout my graduate years at the

University.

The author also wishes to express h-is deep thanks to Dr. Michael

E. Bonine who has been very supportive and encouraging during all my frustrated moments, especially during the first two difficult semesters.

I shall never forget his words when I was experiencing difficulties,

"Anwar, do not get discouraged. You will be all right." Without this kind of help and support, I could not have completed my graduate work. i The author wishes to thank Dr. cAdel'Sv Gamal who introduced me • to other, major works that were important to my research.

I would like to express special appreciation to my friends

Caryn White and Thomas Ferrucci for their assistance during various phases of my study.

Finally, I wish to express my deep admiration and respect for my wife Thabia for her patience and sacrifice. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT...... v

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. THE HISTORICAL DISPUTE REGARDING THE ORIGIN AND THE ARRIVAL OF THE JEWS OF A L - H I J A Z ...... 4

3. THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN MEDINA PRIOR TO THE HIJRAH ...... 11

4. THE IMMIGRATION OF THE PROPHET AND THE EARLY . ATTITUDE OF THE J E W S ...... 14

5. THE INTELLECTUAL ATTACK— "THE WAR OF ARGUMENTS" ...... 25

6. THE PERIOD OF. HOSTILITY AND CONFRONTATION...... 32

The Prophet and Banu Qaynuqac ...... 32 The Prophet and Banu al-Nadir ...... 36 The Battle of al-Khandaq...... 38

7. THE DISPUTE AMONG MUSLIM HISTORIANS REGARDING THE ACCOUNTS OF THE EXECUTION ...... 42

Ibn Ishaq's Account arid its Acceptance by Subsequent Historians ...... 42 Opponents of 's Account ...... 47

8. REASONS AGAINST ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNTS OF THE EXECUTION...... 49

9. CONCLUSION ...... 52

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 54

iv ABSTRACT

Muslim historians and orientalists still dispute the alleged

execution by the of the Jewish clan Banu Qurayzah. Ibn Ishaq was

the earliest biographer of the.Prophet to record an account of

this execution. Subsequent historians often accepted Ibn IshaqTs account

without researching his sources. For years he was considered the only

authority on the military exploits of the Prophet.

Among the groups that did not accept the account of Ibn Ishaq,

however, were the Jurists (aT-fukaha), who were the official recorders

and interpreters of the Traditions of the Prophet. These men did not

take Ibn Ishaq's accounts at face value.but investigated the chain of

sources on which he relied. The Jurists found many of Ibn Ishaq's sources

that referred to the Prophet and his campaigns were not authoritative.

Malik and Ahmad, founders of two of the most famous Islamic schools,

doubted these accounts. Malik referred to him as "the imposter," and i Ahmad believed he was an "embroiderer of tales." Malik discovered Ibn

Ishaq had relied upon descendents of the Jews of Medina, who had converted

,to , for accounts of the struggle between Jews and Muslims.

To be just, Ibn Ishaq is still considered.a major historian, especially in his biography of the Prophet. However, his authority has been questioned regarding the campaign between the Jews and the Prophet.

Thus, by examining all available facts, the execution of Banu Qurayzah which was recorded by Ibn Ishaq did not, in fact, take place.

v CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In light of the recent Camp David accord it is more important

than ever to explore the history of conflict between Jews and Muslims.

In this paper I traveled back through the pages of history to the earli­

est recorded conflict between these groups and studied one example of

this conflict to prove the strong refusal of the Medinan Jews to live with Muhammad and his followers in peace and prosperity as one community.

This refusal was based.on the belief of the Jews that they had

GodTs guarantee to he His chosen and be superior, and they did not accept

Muhammad because he was not from the house of Israel. Therefore, I have examined the historical accounts of this conflict to determine the diffi­ culties and the challenge the Prophet had faced to persuade the Jews of

Medina to his prophecy. This challenge gradually developed into an intellectual attack which resulted in hostility and later in a direct confrontation which led to the final expulsion of the Medinan Jews. I have discussed, the still controversial accounts of the execution of the

Banu Qurayzah clan.

In the second section I have discussed the origin and the arrival of the Jews in al-Hijaz and have cited sources which show the

Jews there were of two origins— pure Israeli and converted . In the third second I have discussed the political, social, and economic 2 situation in Medina prior to the arrival of the Prophet. In this section we also see that the Jews were dominant politically and economically at the time.

In the fourth section I have discussed the immigration,of the

Prophet and have cited sources which mentioned that the Jews had prior knowledge of MuhammadTs prophecy and his arrival in Medina. In this section I have discussed the negative attitude of the Jews toward the

Prophet and,, with some detail, I have discussed the Treaty.of Medina and the advantages the Jews had under its terms. This treaty, known as the

Constitution of Medina, considered them part of ,the- (community):}'.

The war of argument and the philosophical attack against the new religion is discussed in the fifth section. Here we. see that the

Jews attempted to discredit Muhammed through theoretical arguments, hoping to incite his followers against his religion.

In the sixth section I have looked at the series of conflicts between various Jewish tribes and the Muslim community. We see that this conflict originated with the Jewish tribes, and that the actions taken by the Prophet were merely reactions to the provocation by the Jews of

Medina not aggression. Here we see that the Jews decided to oppose

Muhammed and conspired with his enemies to eradicate him and his followers.

In the seventh, and last, section I have discussed the accounts of the execution of the Banu Qurayzah and the historical dispute among ^the historians regarding this story. I have discussed why Ibn'Ishaq’s account was rejected by the jurist who did not believe that the execution fqok place, and I have shown through the investigation of various sources that the execution of Banu Qurayzah clan of Medina did not occur. CHAPTER 2

THE HISTORICAL DISPUTE REGARDING THE ORIGIN AND THE ARRIVAL OF THE JEWS IN AL-HIJAZ

There is no agreement among Muslim, European, or Jewish histo-

.rians regarding the origin and first arrival of Jews in the northern part

of the , especially in Tayma, Khaybar, and Medina

(Yathrib)• The lack of historical evidence or documentation has made it

almost impossible to establish a definite date of arrival. Historians

have generally been forced to rely on oral tradition and tales, which

cannot be substantiated, to estimate the time of arrival of the Jews.

Thus, various periods have been proposed..

Among those who have studied this problem is the Jewish histo­

rian Heinrich Graetz. In his book History of the Jews Graetz states,

"The first immigration of Jewish families into the free peninsula is

buried in misty tradition. According to one account, the Israelites sent

by Joshua [1460 B.C.] to fight the Amalekites settled in the city of

Yathrib (afterwards Medina) and the province of Chaiber (Khaybar).

According to another account, a group of Israeli warriors under Saul

(1100 B.C.) spared the son of the Amalekite king and, spurned by their nation, settled in Hijaz.

1. Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, vol. 3 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1949), p. 54.

4 5

During the reign of David (1013-973 B.C.), a Jewish colony was said to have been founded in northern Arabia. Later. Arabian Jews said they had been told they were descendants of the Jews who fled after the destruction of the First Temple by Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 B.C.). In addition, there can be no doubt that a Jewish population was established 2 in Arabia.as a result of the persecution by the Romans.

Other Jewish historians rely on accounts found in the Torah

(Samuel I) that the Jews entered.the Hijaz under the command of Moses

(1500 B.C.) and later settled there. However, Wensinck believed that the *

Jews arrived in the Hijaz approximately 70 A.D., after the war between the Jews and the Romans, when the Romans destroyed the Second Temple.

This view is supported by another Jewish historian, Josephas Flavius, who 3 witnessed and participated in this war as a leader.

Arab historians, also, have related accounts of the arrival and origin of the Jews of al-Hijaz. &Abd al-

Rasul fi al-Madinah al-Munawwarah (^2^ states that the prophet Moses led a group of Israelites to for pilgrimage, and on the return journey many stayed behind and settled in different communi­ ties in the Hijaz: Tayma, Khaybar9 and Medina (Yathrib). Here the Jews succeeded in adapting to the new environment and, in a short time, they had increased their numbers substantially. They made alliances with local

2. Ibid., p. 54.

3. Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, Banu Israilfi al-Quran wa-al- Sunnah (Cairo Maktabat Kasid Khif, 1969),/p. - 73. tribes and became .acquainted with the Arabic life style. ^ Dr. Chun am does not mention a specific, date nor does he cite.a specific source.

This may refer to the same incident to which the Torah referred (.see above). Dr. Jawad cAli also refers to this story and says that the Jews were sent to al-Hijaz to destroy the Amalekites. Dr. cAli also mentions accounts based on tales and stories received from the descendants of

Jewish converts to Islam. This placed the arrival of the Jews at a time after Moses, around the time of Nabonidus ( ) (555-539 B.C.), when he made Tayma his capital. From there, Jews spread to other commu­ nities in the Hijaz area.^ The authorof Al-Aghani refers to the account of. an Israelite colony in Kbaybar which was founded under the leadership r . of David who later returned to Israel. However, Dr. Caesar F.. Far ah establishes a date. He says:

Although the presence of Jewish tribes in Arabia dates back to 1200 B.C. when Rachel tribes spent forty years in Sinai and al-Nufad, it was not until the first Christian century, follow­ ing the second unsuccessful uprising against the Romans in 136 A.D. and the destruction of Jerusalem, that influx of Jewish tribes and some proselytizing among Bedouins brought them into Hijaz. 7

Most Arab historians agree that the most reliable date for the immigration of the Jews to al-Hijaz is when the Romans under Hadrian attacked the Jewish nation, destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D., and later,

4.

5. Jawad cAli, al-Mufassal fi Tarikh al-cArab qabla al-Islam (Beirut: bar al-cIlm li-al-malayin, 1976) ,~ p. 513.

6. Ibid. , p. 517.

7. Caesar E. Farah, Islam:, Beliefs and Observances (New York: Barron's Educational Series, I n c . 1968), p. 29. in 132 A.D., began to execute Jews. This account is based on historical 8 fact, which is further supported by the great historian Ibn Khaldun6

The orientalist 0 TLeary agrees on this date.^ Wensinck and Josephus 10 Flavius also agree. This would correspond with the historically docu­ mented emigration of Jews to all parts of the world, including the Hijaz.

Certainly5 there may have been -scattered Jewish - settlements in the north­ ern peninsula prior to 70 A. D.; but the influx of settlers after this date is clearly documented and is the most important in the establishment of significant Jewish communities in the area. It would be unwise to rely on oral accounts of converted Jews,attempting to establish their roots in al-Hijaz at a date earlier than may have been the case.

Another possibility regarding the origin of the Jews of al-Hijaz is the proposal of certain historians that they originated from converted

Arabs. This theory relies upon the studies of the family names of these

Jews, i.e., they were Arab names. The proponents of this school argue that true Israelites would not have taken Arab names and, thus, these people must have been converted Arabs. Sociological studies done by

Winkler have shown that the cultural and educational levels of these

Jews were not equal to that of their Palestinian counterparts but.were 11 more closely related to the local Arabs.

8. Jawad PAli,'p - 518.

9. Ibid., p. 522.

10. .Tantawi, p. 73.

11. Jawad cAli, p. 531. 8

W. Caskel studied the surnames■of these Jews and studied their poetry. He concluded that their poetry contained too much Arab flavor to have been written by Israelites.^12 Their social and political customs were distinctly Arab, and they did not differ much from the Arab commu- 13 nity. The famous historian Noeldeke follows this school of thought.

However«, even though the Jews that came to al-Hijaz adopted Arab names and Arab customs this cannot be considered proof that they were really

Arabs. -

It is a common phenomenon that an immigrant group adopts the names and customs of their host country in order to more quickly assimi­ late. Furthermore, we know that Persians, Turks, Indians, and others who later converted to Islam took Arab names. Therefore, it is not at all unlikely that the Jews who settled in al-Hijaz did the same in order to live in peace and prosperity among their Arab neighbors. The one thing that did not change was their religion. This was demonstrated later during the period of Jewish resistance to the new religion of Islam.

Those Jews of Arab origin accepted the new religion, but those of Israeli origin resisted. Watt says, "In.either case there had been much inter­ marriage between Jews and Arabs and in their general manner of life the

Jewish class were hardly distinguished from Arabs.

It would be difficult to accept either theory as the one and only answer. Rather, it is likely that both pure Israeli Jews and

12. Ibid., p. 530.

13. Ibid., p. 532.

14. W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman (Oxford: University Press, 1961), p. 192. converted Arab Jews populated certain communities of al-Hijaz. A1-

Samhudi took this position and divided the Jewish clans into two groups:

those.who were Arab converts and those whose ancestors came from Israeli tribes. 15 The names of the Arab tribes which had converted are as

follow: B. Marthad, B. Muawihi, B, Jadhmah * B. Naghish, B. Zaur ah, and

B. Thalabah. According to al-Samhudi, the first clan was a part of the

Bali tribe, the second a part of Sulaym,, the third and fourth Arabs of

Yemen, and the last two were Arabs of Ghassan which were well-known Arab 16 tribes. The second group consisted of those Jews who had immigrated following the Roman destruction under Hadrian. The most important were the three clans ,. Band al-Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqac • Many sources state that Band al-Nadir and Banu Qurayzah called themselves

Cohanim (al-Kahinani) meaning that they were descendants of Aaron.•

This is further substantiated in the Quran, which called them "children of Israel":

Children of Israel: call to mind the special favor which I have bestowed upon you, and fulfill your covenant.^

Also, the following appears in the same sura:

Ask the children of Israel how many clear signs we have sent to t h e m .

15. W- Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina (Oxford: University Press, 1977), p. 192.

16. Ibid.

17. Graetz, p. 55.

18. Quran, trans. Abdullah Yusuf ^Ali (Libyan Arab Republic: The Call of Islamic Society, 1978), 2:40.

19. Quran 2:216. 10

In another surah9 al-Nisa (the women), it is stated:

For the iniquity of the Jews we have made unlawful for them certain (food) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them; in that they hindered many from God's way.^O

In conclusion, it must be stated that there were at least two groups of Jews in al-Hijaz: those who immigrated after 70 A. D. and those who converted to . In addition, perhaps a very few Jews had immi­ grated before 70 A.D. That the groups which had Arab origin converted to Islam most quickly is further proof of this. They realized they had no ancestral relationship to the Jews of Palestine. Those who did have ancestral relationships resisted the new religion.

20. Quran 4:160. CHAPTER 3

THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN MEDINA PRIOR TO THE HIJRAH

In order to discuss the political situation in Medina? we must examine the ethnic makeup of the Medina (Yathrib) .

Historians agree that the first group to inhabit Yathrib was al-Amalikah (the Amalekites). These people were the descendants of

Yathrib ibn Abil ibn cAwas 9 - hence the early name for the city— 21 Yathrib. We can say, therefore, that the history of Medina began at about 2000 B.C.

The Amalekites remained in the area for quite some time, during which many other Arab groups settled in the area. These groups were dominated by the Amalekites until the arrival of the Jews around 70-132

A. D. Three tribes of Jews were then represented: Banu Qaynuqac? Banu al-Nadir, and Banu Qurayzah. The situation was favorable for Jewish dominance since the Amalekites were in,a period of decline. The Jews then controlled the political and economic functions of Medina until the middle of the fifth century.

In 450 A.D,, after the destruction of the great Marib dam by the flood known as T,Sayl al-cArim.M two tribes from the south (al-Aws and al-Khazraj) migrated to the Yathrib valley. They established themselves

21. Ghunam, p. 23.

11 12 22 near the Jewish settlements - Watt says, "The Aws and the Khazraj were allowed to settle, presumably on lands that had not yet been brought under cultivation and were under the protection of some of the Jewish tribes."23

The Aws and the Kahzraj, being newly-arrived refugees, agreed to live under the terms imposed by the Jews. However, the Arabs resented

Jewish possession of the most fertile farmland and their monopoly on trade. This resentment began to take the form of a struggle when the

Aws and Khazraj became more numerous and more powerful some forty or fifty years later. Malik ibn Ajlan, the leader of al-Khazraj, sought and received aid from the northern Arab tribes (al-Ghasasiriah) who re­ sponded to their southern kin. The king of the Ghassanids, Abu Jubaylah, led an army which put an end to the Jewish domination. From this time, the Aws . and the Khazraj exercised power in Medina. The Jews remained in their settlements practicing craftsmanship until the time of the Prophet.

Unfortunately, the triumph did not last. The control of the

Aws - and Khazraj was weakened by rivalry, each side wanting political superiority. This struggle has been recorded by historians as almost putting an end to the two groups some fifty years before the arrival of the Prophet. The fighting between the two groups became further compli­ cated by the:participation of Jews who shifted alliance between the two combatants.

22. IbrahimcAli Salim, Al-Nifaq- wa-al-Munafiqiin (Cairo : Bar al-Shacb, 1970), p. 39.

23. Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 193. 13

This conflict weakened all participants to the point where a reformer was badly needed. The wishes of the people were answered by

God. The Jews had long believed that a prophet would come to Medina.^

This belief was related to the.Aws and Khazraj who learned of a prophet in Mecca. Therefore, they went to Mecca to see if this prophet was the one described by the Jews.

This was the political situation in Medina prior to the Hij rah of the Prophet. The people were in need of someone to give them politi­ cal direction and unity.

24. Quran 2:89. CHAPTER 4

THE IMMIGRATION OF THE PROPHET AND THE EARLY ATTITUDE OF THE JEWS

All sources mention contact during the period of preparation for

the Hij rah between the Prophet in Mecca and the representatives of the

Medinans (primarily, the two major Arab tribes— al-Aws and al-Khazraj) .

This contact, known in Islamic history as Baycata al~cAqabah ( ), was a secret agreement between the Prophet, as a leader of the community,

and a promise to support him against his enemies and to become faithful

to the new religion of Islam.

Although there is no mention of any direct or indirect contact between the Prophet and the Jews of Medina before the Hij rah, the Prophet was aware of them and their economic and political importance. ^5 (ibn

Hisham mentions their prominence in businesses such as money-lending, gold-smithing, and agriculture.)^ Moreover,'some of the revelations which the Prophet received in Mecca mention the Jews referring to them as alladhina hadu ( \) - ^ The Prophet had to consider the attitude he should adopt toward them.

Because the Prophet believed that the revelations were meant for all, it was natural for him to believe that the Jews would accept them

25. Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 195.

26. Tantawi, p. 79.

27. Quran 6:146; 62:6; 6:18.

14 15 and that they would accept him as a prophet. According to the Torah9 a prophet had been described to the Jews. This description fits Muhammad.

According to the Quran in the Surat,al-cAraf:

Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures)— in the law and the Gospel; For he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and pro­ hibits them from what is bad (and impure); he releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes' that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him. It is they who will prosper.

Below, the situation is summarized in three stages to clarify the attitude of the Jews toward the Hijrah of the Prophet. To this end, the following questions are posed.

1. Did the Jews have prior knowledge of the emergence of"Muhammad

as a.prophet?

2. How was Muhammad received by the Jews of Medina?

3. How did the treaty consider the Jews of Medina?

4. Why did the Jews make peace with the Prophet at the outset?

To answer the first question, we must look at the sources of that period, most notably the Torah. According to the Quran, Musa

(Moses) and Jesus prophesied the coming of a prophet among the Arabs.

His name would be Ahmed and the Torah described him. Most of the rabbis

on in Medina at that time were aware of this prophecy. One of the most commonly related events is the story of the conversion of the Rabbi ^Abd­ ullah ibn-Salam which can be found in most Arab biographies. According

28. Quran 7:157.

29. Path al-Din Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, cUyun al-Athar , 2 vols. (Beirut: Dar al-Afaq al-Jadidah, 1977), 1:74-75. 16 to the account in Ibn Hisham, GAbdullah ibn-Salam was a well-known rabbi and a respected scholar of Medina who converted to Islam. When reproached by the Jewish community, ^Abdullah ibn-Salam cited this

O A description of the prophet in the Torah. A similar story, well-known in Islamic tradition, concerns the conversion of Makhayriq a wealthy Jew w h o ,did not have any descendants. Mukhayriq announced-his conversion the day of the and fought on the side of the Muslims in that battle. He willed his property to Muhammad. As a reward, the

0*1 Prophet called him "the best of Jews."

According to yet another account recorded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, an unnamed rabbi shook his head when approached and questioned by the

Prophet as to the existence of this description in the Torah. However, his son who was present answered in the affirmative and announced his conversion to Islam. Moreover, al-Bukhari recorded the story of cAbd- ullah ibn cAmr ibn al-cAs. When asked how the. Prophet was described in the Torah, he replied that the description was as follows.

Behold my servant, whom I uphold; Mine elect in whom My soul delighteth; I have put My spirit upon him; He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles'. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the markets. And you do not do evil to those who do evil to you, but you deal with them with forgiveness and kindness.^2

30. Abu M. QAbdulmalik Ibn HI sham, Sirat al-Nabi, ed. Muhammad Khalil Harras, 3 vols. (Cairo: Maktabat al-Jumhuriyyah, .1971) , 2:151.

31. Ibid., 3:42.

32. Abu cAbdullah M. L. IsmacIl al-Bukhari, Sahih, trans. Muhammad M. Khan, 9.vols. (Gujran Wala Gantt, Pakistan: Conversion, Ltd., 1971), 3:19. 17

The Quran itself, on which most.Islamic historians rely as a

primary source, supports these accounts in the following verse.

Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures)— in the law and the Gospel; For he commands them what is just and forbids them what isevil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and pro-_ hibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him. It is they who will prosper.^3

Further proof that the Medinan Jews were aware of the emergence of the Prophet canbe found in the account of the Qurayshi delegation to

Medina questioning the Jews on this. Thisaccount is found in Ibn

Khathir.^ According to this story, the delegation was told to ask

Muhammad three questions which, if answered according to the passage in the Torah, would support Muhammad7 s prophecy. Finally, during the period of fighting between the Jews and pagan tribes of Medina (al-Aws and al-

Khazraj)., the Jews were known to have sworn that upon the arrival of the

Prophet, they would join him in taking revenge against their enemies.

This is related in the following verse from the Quran.

And when there comes to them a Book from God confirming what is with them, although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without faith, when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognized, they refused to believe in it. But the curse of God is on those without faith.35

This account gives us clear proof that the Medinan Jews had prior knowledge of the emergence of Muhammad as the Prophet.

33. Quran 7:157.

34. Abu al-Fidai Ismael Ibn Khathir, Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, vol. 3 (Cairo: al-Babi al-Halabi wa-Awladihi, 1964), p. 71.

35. Quran 2:89. 18

In considering the second question, how Muhammad was received

by the Jews of Medina, we can refer to those sources which described the

Prophet’s arrival in Medina. This account can be found in the Sahih of

al-Bukhari. Al-Bukhari recorded that the first person to see the Prophet .

on his approach to Medina was a Jew who had been watching from his roof.

This person alerted the residents of Medina saying, I!0, you Arabs! Here

is your great man whom you have been waiting for!

For the most part, the Jews of Medina accepted the arrival of

Muhammad and participated with the Medinans in receiving him. However,

there are sources which give accounts of Jewish concern and distrust over

the arrival of Muhammad. One such account, found in ibn Hisham, relates the story of Huy ay ibn al-Akhtab ( O* ) e According to his daughter Safiyah, a conversation took place between her father and her uncles upon their return from receiving the Prophet. Her uncle is reported to have asked Huyay ibn al-Akhtab if he (Muhammad) was the man, meaning the one described in the Torah. Huyay replied, "Yes, I swear."

His brother then asked, "How do you feel about him?" Huyay answered, 07 "My hate for him will last as long as I live." Huyay ibn al-Akhtab later led the opposition and succeeded in uniting the various tribes which opposed Muhammad at the Battle of al-Ahzab. This will be discussed later in this paper.

36. Bukhari, 5:166.

37. Abu M.cAbdulmalik Ibn Hisham, Takrib al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, ed. Muhammad al-Shabrawi (Cairo: al-Babi al-Halabi wa-Awladihi, 1961), p. 212. 19

The third question to be addressed is how the treaty affected the Jews of Medina. The Prophet, from the beginning, tried to live in peace with the Jews and convince them to associate with him against his enemies (the Quraysh). The Prophet and the Jews had in common a holy book and a monotheistic tradition. This acted as a unifying factor against the Qurayshi paganism.. Therefore, the Prophet initiated a treaty between (a) the Muslims and the believers of the Quraysh, (b) the

Muslims and the believers of Yathrib (Medina) , ~ and (c) the Muslims and the Jews and their allies.

This treaty contained three divisions.- The first division con­ sisted of a general agreement of principles which concerned all of the participants. Anyone opposing any single part, opposed the entire code.

The second division of the treaty concerned the Muslims and the believers from both Quraysh and Yathrib who became unified as one community under the new religion. The third division, which concerned the Jews, guaran­ teed the agreements already existing between, the Jews and the Medinans as long as the Jews accepted the code of the first and second divisions.

Also contained in the third division were codes concerning principles 38 for the Jews themselves.

The first division of the treaty concerned all parties.

1. They are one community to the exclusion of other people (1).

2. No believer who understands what is said in this document and who believes in and the last day shall give

38. Ibid., p. 201; Ibn Hisham, Sirat al-Nabi, 2:130; Arent Jan Wensinck, Muhammad and the Jews of Medina, trans. Wolfgang Behn (Berlin: Johannes Krause, Freibur i. Br. , 1975), p. 51-60; Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, 1:238.. 20

assistance to a wrongdoer or to give him shelter. If anyone helps him or shelters such a person, upon him be the curse of Allah on the day of resurrection. No price or substitute shall be accepted for him (22). ~

3. When evidence has been given that someone has killed a be­ liever, then he is to be killed in retaliation for him unless the person entitled to revenge is satisfied with blood wite. The believers are against him as one man. They must take action only against him (21).

4. The protection of Allah is one: The protection granted by the least of them is binding on all. The believers protect each other to the exclusion of other people (15).

5. In every expedition made with us, the parties shall take turns with one another (18).

6. The valley of Yathrib is sacred for the people of this document (39).

7- The guest is as his host except he who causes harm or act treacherously (40).

8. No woman can be protected except with the consent of her family (41).

9. Whenever there is disagreement among the people of this document and trouble to be anticipated, the matter is to be referred to Allah and Muhammad (42).

10. No protection is to be given to the Quraysh or to those who help them (43).

11. They are to help one another against those who attack Yathrib (44).

12. Whenever they are summoned to conclude and to accept a peace treaty, then they shall conclude and accept it. And when­ ever they the believers summon to the likes of that, then they have the right for his vis-a-vis the believers, except whoever makes war on account of religion. Everyone has his share from their side (44).

13. No one of them shall go out (to war) without Muhammad?s con­ sent. But no one shall be prevented from taking vengence for wounds. Who ever acts on his own account involves himself and his family, except him who has been wronged. Allah is the truest fulfiller of this document (36). 21

14. Every person:.who becomes guilty loads the guilt only upon himself. Allah is the most just and truest fulfiller of the contents of this document. This writing does not pro­ tect him who practices evil or treachery. He who goes out well as he who. remains is safe.in the city except he who does wrong or acts treacherously. Allah is a protector of whoever is good and faithful, and Muhammad is the messenger of God (47).

The second division of the treaty concerns the believers from

Quraysh and Yathrib.

1. The Muhajirun of the Quraysh are to remain in their condition.. They are to pay jointly blood-wite and ransom their captives. This is to be carried out in an upright and just manner among the believers (2).

2. The Banu cAwf . are to remain in their.condition; they are to pay jointly their previous blood-wite. Every group will ran­ som its captives (3).

3. The treaty included all the following tribes and clans: Banu al-Aws, Banu al-Harith, Banu Saidah, Banu Jusham, Banu al- Najjar, Banu cAmr ibn cAwf, and Banu al-Nabit, all to remain in their condition. They are to pay jointly their previous blood-wites. Every group is to ransom its captives.. This is to be carried out in an upright and just manner among the believers (4-10).

4. The believers shall not fail to give just assistance to a, debtor among them for redemption money or blood-wite (11).

5. The God-fearing believers are to aid against those who cause an act of injustice, fraud, hostility, or harm among the be­ lievers. Their hands are all against him even if he is the son of one of them (13).

6. No believer shall kill a believer on account of.an unbeliever; neither shall he help an unbeliever against a believer (14).

The third division of the treaty concerned the Jews.

1. Whoever of the Jews follows us-will receive help and support without being wronged and without the, one helping the other against them (16).

2. The Jews pay a share of the expenses of the believers so long as they are at war (24). 22

3. The Jews of Banu cAwf are one community with the believers. To the Jews is their religion and to the Muslims their reli­ gion. This applies to their clients and to themselves, with the exception of anyone who.has done wrong or committed treachery9 for he harms only himself and his family (25) .

4. The treaty included all other Jewish clans: the Jews of Banu alyNaj jar, the Jews of Banu al-Harith, the. Jews of Banu Said ah, the Jews of Banu Jusham, the Jews of Banu al-Aws, and the Jews of Banu Thaclabah (26-31) •

5. The friends of the Jews are like them (35).

6. The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims must bear their expenses. They must help one another against those who make war against the people of this document. Between them is good understanding, honorable dealing and honesty, not treachery. Help is to be given to whomever is wronged (37).

7. The Jews of al-Aws, their clients and they themselves, have the same rights as the people of this document. Honesty with­ out treachery is demanded (46).

Thus, this is the text of the treaty which established the foun­

dation for relations between the Prophet, his followers, and the Jews and

their allies. This treaty contained noble principles guaranteeing peace

and prosperity to all people living in Medina regardless of their reli­

gion and origin. This treaty was a clear constitution which laid the

foundation of the new Islamic state and established the policy for deal­

ing with allies, friends, and enemies. Also, the treaty stressed the

principles of Islam: honesty, trustworthiness, loyalty to the community

and to the country.

The major precepts of the treaty can be summarized as follows.

First, as it deals with all concerned parties; second, as it concerns the

Jews; and third, as it deals with general principles. The treaty empha­

sizes the importance of the group.and of the individual. Any attack

' against an,individual was to be considered an act of aggression against 23

the group. The treaty also emphasized the responsibility of the indivi­

dual to the community and the responsibility of the community to the

individual.

The security of Yathrib (.Medina) was the responsibility of all members of the community, both Jews and Muslims. In addition, it was

specified that the Quraysh should be considered the only enemy to the

community of Medina, and any attack upon it was to be ,defended against by all members of the community. The treaty also emphasized the neces­ sity of cooperation among all parties in opposing conspiracy and con­ spirators, regardless of religion or origin.

The treaty gave the,Jews complete freedom to practice their religion and go about their rituals. The treaty declared the intention of the Prophet to cooperate and live in peace with the Jews. The treaty also respected all pre-existing Jewish alliances.

In addition, the treaty outlined certain noble principles. It stated that a responsibility exists to defend the wrongly accused, to protect one’s neighbors and the welfare of the community, and to pay the blood-wite for one unable to do so, as well as to ransom the prisoners of war, and to help the debtor.

The fourth and final question posed at the beginning of this chapter asked why the Jews made peace with the Prophet at the outset.

It can be surmised that the Jews hoped to use the alliance with the

Muslims against their Christian enemies who had driven them from Pales­ tine. Furthermore, in the early days.of Islam the Muslims prayed toward Jerusalem and fasted on the tenth of Muharram. Disputes among . the members of the Jewish community prevented them from uniting to 24 confront the Prophet and his followers, and the Jews did not consider the non-Jewish Medinan community as a threat to their political and economic interests. For all of these reasons, the Jews welcomed Muhammad to Medina hoping that his presence would aid them in fulfilling their expectations of greatness. They were not aware of the Prophet’s inten­ tion to establish a unified independent Islamic state.. This was in accordance with God’s command that sent Muhammad as His new apostle and revealed to him the religion of Islam. CHAPTER 5

THE INTELLECTUAL ATTACK— "THE WAR OF ARGUMENTS"

We have already seen why the Jews welcomed the Prophet to Medina.

This attitude, however, did not endure; especially when the Jews realized that as a result of his arrival,-Medina became a unified religious, poli­ tical, and economic entity.

The Prophet initiated a constitution based on the brotherhood, muakhah ( , between the immigrants Muhaj irun ) from

Quraysh and the Supporters (Ansar) from Aws and Khazraj . He also organ­ ized the relations between this new community and other groups, mainly the Jews. The guaranteed the rights of all groups and considered everyone a member of the new community. It seemed that the Jews of Medina at the beginning did not foresee that the Muslims would unite and form a new power which would threaten their economic monopoly. They thought that the Prophet came essentially to escape the danger that threatened him in Mecca.

Very soon the Jews realized that Islam was spreading throughout * the peninsula. The fighting and hatred between the Aws and the Khazraj disappeared and an army of God was formed having as its constitution the

Quran and having as its goal the unification under Islam. The values urged by the Quran were primarily brotherhood, friendship, mercy, and

25 expulsion of the monopoly, selfishness, and disunity which had weakened 0 the community.

Therefore,' the Jews opposed this new call and its leader. They

aroused suspicion and led the incitation of argument against his revela­

tions. They considered their book, the Torah, to be the word of the

prophets, and they made use of it to embarrass the Prophet Muhammad. Ibn '39 Hisham in his Sirah verifies this.' .

The Jews devised several ways of arguing with the Prophet.

They were:

1. Arguing against his prophecy,

2. Arguing about abrogations in the Quran,

3. Arguing about the changing-of -the Qibla,

4. Asking embarrassing questions, and

5. Altering the Torah to meet their ends.

The Jews berated the Prophet, slandering him and his prophecy to arouse suspicion about his message. They claimed that his words were

.not the words of God. The .Quran responded in the following verse.

And when there comes to them a Book from God, confirming what is with them, although from of old they had prayed for victory against.those without faith— when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognized, they refuse to believe in it. But the curse of God is on those without Faith.40

The gist of this verse is that the Jews, during the period of fighting between them and the pagan tribes of Medina, i.e., al-Aws and al-Khazraj, were known to have sworn that upon the arrival of the Prophet

39. cAli Hasan al-Khurbatti, A1-Rasul fi al-Madinah (Cairo: Matabic al-Ahram, 1973), p. 175.

40. Quran 2:89. 27

they would join him in taking revenge against their enemies. Unfortu­ nately 3 the Jews opposed him and claimed that God told them not to

follow the Prophet until God showed a miracle in the sky. The Quran mentioned this claim and answered with reproach. This is contained in the following verses.

They (also) said: "God took our promise not to believe in an apostle unless He showed us a sacrifice consumed by fire (from heaven) .11

Also: "There came to you apostles before me with clear signs and even with what ye ask for: why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?"41

The meaning of this verse is that the Jews had asked for a burning symbol in the sky. God’s reply is that having sent prophets to them, they re­ jected them and slew them.

A further example of arguments used by the. Jews is that they asked Muhammad to request God to speak to them directly. God’s reply to this was: -

Say those without knowledge: "Why speaketh not God unto us? Or why cometh not unto us a sign?"

So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike. We have indeed made clear the signs unto any people who hold firmly to faith (in their h e a r t s ) .

This answer was sent to Muhammad to reassure him, to tell him that the Jews had used this method of argument with previous prophets.

This retort reached a climax when Fenhas, a Jewish leader, stated to Abu

Bakr al-Sadiq, who later became the first caliph, that the Jews were not

41. Quran 3:183.

42. Quran 2:118. 28

in need of God but that God was in need of them.^ God heard this

remark and replied:

God hath heard the taunt of those who said: "Truly God is indigent and we are rich!" We shall certainly record their word and (their act) of slaying the Prophets in defiance of right9 and we shall say: "Taste ye the Penalty of the Scorching Fire’

These are some of the arguments recorded in the Quran, tradition,

and the books of Sirat al-Rasul which illustrated the negative reaction

to Muhammad’s prophecy.

The second argument of the Jews concerned arguing about abroga­

tion in the Quran. Abrogation of God’s command's ~±n the Quran was a most important point of argument between the Prophet and the Jews. They re­ jected the idea that God would change one command for another, charging that Muhammad was not giving the words of God, . but rather was writing his own Quran and claiming it to be the word of God. God answered this accusation with the following verse.

None of our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be for­ gotten, but we substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God hath power over all things?^

Also, God replied on behalf of His Prophet as in the following verse.

Say: "It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it: I follow naught but what is revealed unto me: if I were to disobey my Lord, I should myself fear the penalty of a great day (to come)."46

43. Ibn Hisham, Takrib al-Sirah al Nabawiyyah, pp. 239-240.

44. Quran 3:181.

45. Quran 2:106.

46. Quran 10:15. 29

God also replied in the following verse.

When we substitute one revelation for another9 and God knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say "Thou art but a.forg­ er" : But most of.them understand not. Say: "The Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from-thy Lord in truth,- in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and glad tidings to Muslims.

All these verses were pointed directly to the Jews who knew of the validity of the revelations. However, their jealousy forced them to create these arguments just to embarrass the Prophet. .

Regarding the argument about the changing of the Qiblah: for a time the Jews felt quite satisfied that followers of Muhammad used their direction of worship. This was changed, however, when God commanded the Qiblah be transferred to Mecca. This was done for two reasons: (1) to reinforce the new religion and assert its independence, and (2) to determine the true followers of Muhammad. The Jews resisted this trans- ferral, and according to Ibn Ishaq, a group of Jewish leaders came to the Prophet and asked him to turn his face once again toward Jerusalem.

z o If he would do so they would believe in his message. ' The Quran answered thus: ,

The fools among the people will say: "What hath turned them from the Qibla to which they were used?" Say: "To God belong both east and west: He guideth whom He will to a way that is straight. And we appointed the Qibla to which thou was used, only to test those who followed the apostle from those who would turn on their heels."^9

47. Quran 16:101-102.

48. Ibn Hisham, Sirat al-Nabi, 2:202-203.

49. Quran 2:142-143. 30

The Jews rejected this answer and continued their resistance,

especially among the:hypocrites of Medina. . These people maintained

that since God seemingly considered Jerusalem to be an improper place of worship, then all previous worship in this direction was invalid.

These challenges were made for the purpose of turning away the new converts who were not yet firm in their belief.

God supported Muhammad in this verse:

We see the turning.of thy face (for guidance) to the heavens: Mow shall we turn thee to a Qibla that shall please thee. Turn then thy face in the direction of the Sacred Mosque: wherever ye are, turn your faces in that d i r e c t i o n . 50

The Jewish rabbis occupied themselves with finding embarrassing questions to put before Muhammad. Ibn Hisham recorded some of these questions. For example, they asked that since God is the creator of the universe, who created God. They also asked what was the soul. Another question was what kind of food was prohibited to the Jews. The Prophet’s answers were identical to those in their book. Although he was quite patient with his challengers and reminded them of God’s blessing to them, they still refused to believe him.

The Jews went so far in their arguments' with the Prophet as to misquote their own book. Ibn Hisham recorded many examples, notably verses from Surat al-Baqarah (The Cow) . ^ Further examples are cited in the Quran. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey": and "Hear what is not heard": and "Raina"; with a twist of their tongues

50. Quran 2:144.

51. Ibn Hisham, Sirat al-Nabi, 3:179-200. 31

and a slander to faith. If only they had said: ,!We hear and we obey"; And, "Do hear and do look us." It would have been better for them, and more proper.

In another place, the Quran cited the punishment of those who change and write the book to meet their end in the following verse.

Then woe to those who write the Book with their hands, and then say: "This is from God," to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make t h e r e b y . ^3

These were the methods employed by the Jews to challenge Muhammad and to cast doubt on his revelations. In spite of these attempts, they were not successful in separating the followers from the Prophet or in shaking his ground as a prophet among his followers.

It can be seen that this war of words escalated to physical hostility..

52. Quran 4:46.

53. Quran 2:79. CHAPTER 6

THE PERIOD OF HOSTILITY AND CONFRONTATION

The lack of success on the part of the Jews to dissuade the

followers of Muhammad forced them to adopt a new strategy aimed chiefly

at the Quraysh and their allies, who were in conflict with Muhammad. On

the other hand, the Muslim victory of Badr enabled the Muslims to take a

new direction in dealing with their enemies.

' Under the Treaty of Medina, as we have seen, the Jews were con­

sidered to he a part of the community (ummah) sharing rights and respon­

sibilities during both war and peace. Instead of siding with the

community, however, they took the part of the Quraysh. They openly

announced their hostility toward Muhammad and his followers. This atti­

tude.of hostility assumed three stages. In the first stage, the Prophet

confronted Banu Qaynuqac. In the second stage he faced"Banu al-Nadir,

and finally he opposed Banu Qurayzah.

The Prophet and Banu Qaynuqac

- The conflict with Banu Qaynuqac started, according to Ibn Ishaq, when a Muslim woman went to the Jewish market of Banu Qaynuqac to have a jeweler repair her ornaments. While she sat there, a number of Jews gathered around her trying to unveil her face which she resisted. One of them lifted the back hem of her dress and pinned it to her upper garment in such a way that when she rose to leave, she was exposed to

32 33

their vulgar laughter. She raised her voice in outraged protest and was

heard by a passing Muslim who immediately attacked and killed the

jeweler. The Jews apprehended and killed the Muslim in retaliation.^

This incident aroused both the Muslims and the Jews. As a leader of the : ® Me din an community, Muhammad went to Banu Qaynuq^Pto address them.

According to Ibn Hisham,

The Prophet gathered Banu Qaynuqacin their market and said, "Oh Jews, you should be aware of what God did to the Quraysh in Badr. Oh Jews, it is time that you .should become Muslims, you are sure that I am the Prophet who had* mentioned in your book,11 but the Jews of Banu QaynuqaP derided him, saying "Think not. Oh Muhammad, that by defeating those who were unskilled in warfare that you have yet triumphed. By God, should we fight you, you will learn that we are different."55

By his words, the Prophet did not intend to cause conflict with

Banu Qaynuqa0'meaning instead to remind them of their obligation under

the treaty. According to Ibn Ishaq, Banu QaynuqaP was the first Jewish

clan to participate in a war between Muslims and non-Muslims.^^ Partly because of the past actions of Banu QaynuqaP, Muhammad had no choice but

to declare war against this clan.

\ The fortress of Banu Qaynuqa^was surrounded, and in fifteen days

they surrendered without casualties on either side. The Prophet accepted

the arbitration of cAbdullah Ibn Ubayy under the following terms.

1. . Three hundred were allowed to leave with their arms.

2. Four hundred had to leave their arms behind.

3. All were permitted their personal possessions.

54. Ibn Hisham,. Takfib al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, p.._ 317.

55. Ibid. , p. 316.

56. Ibn Hisham, Sirat al-Nabi, 2:297. 34

Ibrahim CA1± Salim has disputed the claim of .Wensinck that the expulsion of Banu Qaynuqac was because Muslims wished to confiscate their wealth and because they were living within the city itself. 57 It has been already stated that those were not the reasons. It was reasonable for the Prophet to take this action due to the fact discussed above and due also to his belief that. Banu Qaynuqacwould never accept living to­ gether in peace. Moreover, the Quran supports this action and explains their refusal of new religion with the following verse.

Say to those who reject faith: "Soon will ye be vanquished and gathered together to Hell, on evil bed indeed" (to lie on): "There has already been for you a sign in the two armies that met (in combat) : one was fighting in the cause, of God, the other resisting God; these saw with their own eyes twice their number. But God doth support with his aid whom he pleaseth. In this a warning for such as have ye to see."^8

From this verse it can be seen that the events were not exactly as Wensinck related. The Prophet was forced to confront the Banu

Qaynuqac after they refused to honor their obligations according to the

Treaty of Medina, and allied themselves with the Quraysh, declaring their animosity toward the Prophet and his followers. By this action, they also exhibited their intention of not becoming members of the community (ummah) in Medina.

An historian living in an age where one constantly hears that the

Jewish people have been discriminated against just because they are Jews must ask himself if the Jews of Medina were expelled just because they

57. Salim, p. 109.

58. Quran 3:12-13. 35 were Jews. Did the Prophet intend to confiscate their wealth? This is what Wensinck has claimed.

It can be shown that the Jews were not discriminated against

simply because they were Jews. First, the Banu Qaynuqacwas not the only

Jewish clan living in Medina. The .Jewish clans of Banu al-Nadir and

Banu Ourayzah were living in . Medina at the same time and were allied with

the Prophet and his followers. The Prophet did not go to those other

Jewish tribes and ask them to leave, as he did with the Banu Qaynuqac -

This was because he had no reason to do so. Furthermore, the Prophet did not go to the Banu Qaynuqacand surround them until after he had received the revelation explaining their attitude and reproaching them for their disloyal action. With reference to this., verse, it is found that it was directed toward the Banu Quaynuq^and not toward the other Jewish clans.

According to Ibn Hisham, in the interpretation of this verse, the reve­ lation told Muhammad in advance that Banu Qaynuqacwas to be surrounded, and this was the miracle of the Quran..

Thus, it can be said that the expulsion of Banu Qaynuaqc was neither a personal matter nor a political maneuver on the part of the

Prophet. Rather, it was an execution of Qodfs commands. This is corrob­ orated by the following verse. ,■ .

They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of God). If thou.fearst .treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms. For God loveth not the treacherous.59

59. Quran 8:58. 36

Here it is necessary to emphasize a fact that is often ignored

by orientalists, i.e., the oneness of religious and political phenomena .

in the life of the Prophet. It is often found that historians interpret

the Prophetf s actions as being politically motivated when, in fact, they were religious actions. Caution must be taken to note the connection between the two.

It must also be. emphasized that the expulsion of the Banu

Qaynuqac from Medina was not the command of the Prophet but an agreement reached with the aid of arbitration with cAbdullah Ibn Ubayy who was. the leader of the Hypocrites and an old ally of them.^

The Prophet and Banu al-Nadir

Having discussed the first confrontation between the Jews and the Muslims of Medina, the subsequent confrontations which resulted in the expulsion of all Jews from Medina must be reviewed. The conflict with the Banu .al-Nadir originated with their refusal to take part in the

Battle of Uhud or to take even a neutral position. Instead, :they openly supported the Quraysh and used the indecisive nature of the outcome to lower Muslim morale. According to Mohammad Ibn al-Sharif, the Banu al-

Nadir circulated the rumor that Muhammad was just a man looking for a monarchy because they had never heard of a prophet sustaining an injury in a battle as Muhammad had.

60. Ibn Hisham, Sirat al-Nabi, 2:498.

61. Mahmud Ibn al-Sharif, AL Yahud ,fi*.al-Quran (Cairo: Dar al-Kitab al-cArabi, 1969), p. 64. 37

The conflict grew worse when an attempt to kill Muhammad was

made. Ibn Hisham recorded the story as follows. A delegation consisting

of the Prophet, Abu Bakr, cUmar,- and cAli went to the Banu'al^Nadir to

collect the blood-wite for two members of an allied tribe who were killed

by cAmr Ibn Umayyah al-Dumayri. According to the treaty , the Banu al~

Nadir, as well as other tribes.of Medina, were responsible for paying

ransom. The Banu al Nadir professed their willingness to give a satis­

factory answer and invited the Prophet to feel comfortable. Muhammad

and his companions sat with their backs to the wall. At that time, the

Banu al-Nadir conspired to kill him by having cAmr Ibn Jahsh" drop a

large stone from the roof and make it look like an accident. The Prophet

received a revelation from God and quietly slipped out without returning.

His companions missed him and left, later meeting Muhammad at home where

he explained what had happened. According to Ibrahim Salim, an important

member of the Banu al-Nadir, Sail am Ibn Mashkam, opposed the assassina­

tion and predicted that God would warn Muhammad. Sallam Ibn Mashkam

considered this action to be a severe violation of the treaty and urged his people to listen to him.^

Following this incident, the Prophet sent a messenger to Banu

al-Nadir asking them to leave Medina or prepare for war. He gave them a

grace period of ten days. The Banu al-Nadir refused this ultimatum and

remained in their fortresses hoping for assistance from their ally cAbd­ ullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salud, who had promised to aid 'them. However, he

did not assist them because he was not in a position to do so. At that

62. Salim, p. 148. 38 time 5 the Prophet and an army surrounded the Banu al-Nadir and remained for ten days. The Banu al-Nadir surrendered under the condition that they be able to leave Medina carrying whatever camels could carry in money, arms, and household goods. This story is also recorded in the

Quran.0 « -

The Battle of al-Khandaq

Having discussed the second conflict between the Muslims and the

Jews of Medina, it is now possible to look at the final confrontation.

This was precipitated by the Jews attempting to get rid of the Prophet and his followers. They.wanted to put an end to Islam by uniting into one body all the tribes that were hostile to Islam. The Jews, allied with the Quraysh, succeeded in raising a large army which was known as al-Ahzab ( ) •

The Banu Qurayzah! s position in this confrontation, especially during the Battle of al-Khandaq, will be examined. How did the Banu

Qurayzah respond to their obligation under the treaty? According to most

Arabic sources, the Battle of Al-Khahdaq was a crucial period in the history of the struggle of the Muslims against the non-Muslims (the

Quraysh) and their allies. In this encounter the Quraysh, with the encouragement of the Jews and most of Muhammad?s Arab opponents on the peninsula, had decided to put an end to Muhammad and his followers and bury Islam forever. ^ Ibn Hisham and all other historians, as well as

63. Quran 59:1-5.

64. Ibn Hisham, Sirat al-Nabi, 3;253-254- 39 the orientalist,^ explained the major role the Jews played in convincing all Muhammad? s opponents to ally themselves in a confederation to attack

Muhammad and to slay him and his followers.^ The allies had no doubt that they could overwhelm the city and exterminate the Muslims.

By means of a simple illustration, it will be seen how the

Battle of Khandaq was a critical battle for Muslims and a favorable one for the other side. It will also be seen why the Banu Ourayzah1 s posi­ tion as an ally of Muhammad .was very important. - Because they were living in the northeastern part of Medina, any change of alliance on their part could change the outcome of the battle in favor of .the .Quraysh. In addition, the Meccan army consisted of ten thousand men, three hundred horses, and fifteen hundred camels; while the Muslim army consisted of '• 67 only three thousand men, a few horses, and a small number of camels.

The Battle of al-Khandaq lasted for almost one month. During this period, there had been no serious engagements except person-to- • person challenges and minor skirmishes. The Quraysh infantry made several assaults by night, but the trench was well-guarded.

Under these circumstances, the only hope for the Quraysh was to make attacks from several sides simultaneously. - They thought that, with the Qurayzah1 s help in the northeastern part of the city, they could stab the Muslims in the back. This was their only chance to enter the city

65. Graetz, p. 79.

66. Abu ^Ab dull ah Muhammad al-Qurtubi, Al~ Jamic li-Ahkam al- Quran, vol. 14 (Cairo: Dar al-Kitab al-cArabi,_1967),*p. 132.

67. Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, 2:78. as long as the Muslims protected themselves with the trench surrounding

the open areas.The confederation sent a delegation headed by Huyya

ibn al-Akhtab9 the leader of the Jewish clan of Banu al-Nadir which was

allied with the Quraysh, the most distinguished element in the conflict

among Muhammad’s opponents. 69 Ibn al-Akhtab succeeded in persuading

the Jewish clan of the Banu Qurayzah’s renouncement of Muhammad and abro­

gation of the treaty. The entire forces were to attack the Muslim army

from the south and the north. When word of the abrogation reached the

Muslim camps, the Prophet sent a delegation to the Banu Qurayzah to dis­

cuss the situation and .remind the Banu Qurayzah of their obligation

under the treaty; however, their response, was very negative. They had

decided to side with the confederation against the Muslims.

Here the difficulty brought upon the Prophet and his followers

can be assessed. If only the psychological impact on the Muslim troops

■is taken, the discouragement alone is a disastrous element.. If the

strategic implications are added, it is possible to see how this treach­

ery affected the Muslim camp. Despite all of this, the Muslims won the

battle for several reasons. Watt, in his book, illustrates some of these

reasons. The Muslims proved sufficiently numerous^ and sufficiently well-

organized to contain all assaults from the north. The enemy’s morale

sank, the leaders despaired of success, and the great confederacy split

up into several contingents and retired. Also, the Prophet welcomed the

68. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, Hayat Muhammad (Cairo: Dar al-' Macarif, 19.69)%; ,p. . 342.'

69. Graetz, p. 78.

70. Qurtubi, p. 132. 41

suggestion of NuCayin Ibn Mascud to create mistrust between the Quraysh

and the Banu Qiirayzah. Nucaym himself succeeded in creating distrust between the two camps. And finally, God's help came as a perfect cause

for the departure of the Quraysh. This is made clear in the following verse from the Quran.

• Ye who believe remember the Grace of God. (Bestowed) on you when there came down on your Hosts (to overwhelm you) . But we sent against them a hurricane and forces that ye saw not : But God

see (clearly) all that ye d o . 72

Now, if the treachery of the Banu Qurayzah * is considered and judged according to any military law known to mankind, it could be expected that the Prophet would have taken serious action against the

Banu Qurayzah (who were his former allies and who broke the treaty).

However, the Prophet had no intention of taking any serious action after the battle was over.

71. Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, p. 169.

72. Quran 33:0. CHAPTER 7

THE DISPUTE AMONG-MUSLIM HISTORIANS ' REGARDING THE ACCOUNTS OF THE EXECUTION

Ibn Ishaq's Account and its Acceptance by Subsequent Historians

Ibn Ishaq said in his Sirah that the Prophet arid the Muslims returned to Medina from the field of battle, both exhausted and needing some time to recover from the pressure they had been under for about one month. It was not as much a physical war, in the sense of fighting, as it was a psychological war. They had spent almost one month under full seige. Therefore, soon after his arrival, the Prophet laid down his arms and uniform and all the Muslim soldiers were sent to their homes.

According to Ibn Ishaq, Gabriel came to the Prophet wondering with sur­ prise and asked the Prophet: "Did you lay down your arms?" The Prophet replied that he had, and Gabriel then said, "But the angels did not..

God commands you to go and fight." Muhammad asked where he should go, 71 and Gabriel said, "Toward this side," pointing toward the: Banu Qurayzah.

The Prophet then sent a message to all his followers saying that if they were believers in God, they should offer the Midday Prayer (al- 74 Asr) at the Banu Qurayzah territory. From this account, one can say that in the first place the Prophet did not decide what action he should

73. Ibn Hisham, 3:233.

74. Bukhari, 5:306. 42 43

have taken in response to the Banu QurayzahT s treachery during the battle.

This should answer all the claims raised by some historians, especially

the Jewish sources, who say that the Prophet intended to expel the Jews

of Banu Qurayzah from Medina after the Battle of al-Khandaq, which he won.

Wensinck claims that the hostile forces.had already decided to depart when they heard that Muhammad order the assault on the Qurayzah. 75 This

claim contradicts all Muslim sources which recorded that the Prophet did not take any action against Banu Qurayzah, in spite of their negative

attitude during the battle, until after he had returned to Medina and

laid down his arms. He then received the command through Gabriel.

Wensinck supports his. claim by mentioning an account recorded by al-Waqidi that Banu Qurayzah did not fight against the Prophet in al-

Khandaq. ^ It seems that Wensinck did not read all of the Muslim sources which indicated that al-Khandaq was not a real battle in the sense of a war* It was an attempt by the confederation to demolish Islam. When they arrived in Medina, they were surprised by the new tactic the Prophet applied, i.e., surrounding the northwest side.of the city with a deep, wide trench, and by his superior strategy and information service and secret agents. 77 One thing Wensinck * forgot to record was that .the con­ federation decided to deploy their infantry along the whole length of the trench hoping the end the battle quickly in their favor as they had in the previous battles of Uhud.

75. Wensinck, p. 124.

76. Ibid.

77. Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, p. 169. 44

The confederation sent a message to the Banu Qurayzah that they would attack Medina on Saturday, but the Qurayzah replied they they could % not fight on Saturday because it was their holy d a y . 78 This is why the

Qurayzah refused to participate with the confederation in fighting Muham­ mad on Saturday, and it is also why the confederation was discouraged

.from attacking.

To continue the account of Ibn Ishaq, the Prophet and his followers again put their arms on and proceeded to the Banu Qurayza’s strongholds. The Muslims instituted a seige which lasted for twenty- five days. During this period, the leader of the Banu Qurayzah, Kacb ibn

Asad, proposed three,alternatives to his people. One, to -declare their conversion to Islam based on the facts they had in their book, the Torah, that Muhammad was a true prophet. Two, to kill all the women and chil­ dren and face reality by meeting Muhammad and his followers with their swords. And finally, he suggested that, since it was Saturday and the

Muslims would not be expecting an attack, they surprise the Muslims by raiding their camp. These proposed alternatives were rejected by his people. Here, Ibn Ishaq recorded that Banu Qurayzah asked Muhammad to send an old friend called Abu Lubabah to consult with them. Abu

Lubabah advised the Banu Qurayzah to surrender and accept MuhammadTs judgment. However, neither Ibn Ishaq nor any other Muslim historian mentions what kind of judgment the Prophet had in mind. Ibn Ishaq’s account stated that Abu Lubabah had put his hand to his neck, signalling to the Banu Qurayzah that the Prophet had decided to execute them.

78. Ibn Hi sham, 3:278. 45

This claim is not acceptable for several reasons. First9 this

contradicts Ibn Ishaq’s original account that said that the Prophet and

Banu Qurayzah had accepted Sacd Ibn MuCadh as an arbitrator between them.

If the Prophet had intended to execute the Banu Qurayzah 9 as Abu Lubabah

indicated, what need would there have been for arbitration. Second, why

did the Banu Qurayzah agree on the surrender when they had clear evidence

that they would be executed by Muhammad. To the Banu Qurayzah, ,±t was a

matter of survival. They had no choice other than to fight, and this

choice would be very justifiable and reasonable. It would have been

more honorable for them to have died in a battle of survival than to have

surrendered to the execution.

To this historian, this decorative...story-is not acceptable by

any means. If the Banu Qurayzah had known that they would die if they

surrendered, they most certainly would rather fight and die in a battle

than be executed. Again, according to Ibn Ishaq, the Banu Qurayzah

accepted the judgment of Abu Lubabah and surrendered unconditionally.

Ibn Ishaq said that Banu Qurayzah accepted the judgment of the Prophet.

He did not say what kind of judgment the Prophet intended to pass on

them. According to him, the al-Aws tribe (supporters of Muhammad) had

appealed to the Prophet to forgive the Banu Qurayzah as he had the Banu

Qaynuqacand Banu al-Nadir. When the al-Khazraj tribe had appealed to the

Prophet to let them leave Medina, the Prophet accepted SaCd ibn MuCadh as

the judge of the matter. The Prophet called Sacd, the leader of the al-

Aws tribe, who was stationed in a tent near the mosque. He had been in­ jured in the Battle of al-Khandaq. Sacd came, and the Banu Qurayzah accepted him as a judge. According to this account, all of the Aws 46 members had reminded Sacd that they had allied with the Ourayzah, and it has been said that they asked Sacd to be lenient in his decision; however,

Sacd did not take any suggestion with any measure of consideration.

Instead, he decreed that all men should be put to death, and the women and children should be subjected to slavery.^ The next day, according to his account, the Prophet ordered .that trenches be dug in the market and all men executed there. The numbers varied according to Ibn Ishaq.

He did not cite a specific number, but he said between 600 and 900 were killed.

This account, which was recorded by Ibn Ishaq, has been accepted by most historians who followed him. They either related it as it appeared in his Sir ah, or they presented the same story with a different style and some minor changes. The reason they accepted the account as it was.can be attributed to several factors: first, Ibn .Ishaq was the first to write a full biography of the Prophet; second, he interviewed a few “ of the second generation of those who had been contemporaries of the

Prophet’s companions; and third, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Khathir, al-Waqidi, al-

Tabari, Ibn S.aCd, and many other historians throughout the history of

Islam, followed this account.

Some historians were not convinced, 'however, but they were not 80 prepared to take the trouble to disprove this account. To any histo­ rian, the account is just one more event to report. Finally, most

79. Ibid., p.,292.

80. W. N. cArafat, "New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina," Royal Asiatic Society Journal 2 (October 1976) : 103. 47 historians and biographers did not care as much about the chain of authority as the jurists did with regard to the tradition of the Prophet.

Opponents of fbn Ishaq's .Account

In contrast, it is found that most of the jurists in the history of Islam did not accept Ibn Ishaq's account. For example, Malik Ibn Anas 81 the founder of the Malikiya School called Ibn.Ishaq an imposter.

He also condemned him because he obtained information regarding the cam­ paign between the Prophet and Jews from Jewish descendants who had ob- 82 tained those accounts from their forefathers. In addition, Ahmad Ibn

Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbalite School, described Ibn Ishaq as a man who craved talking and, therefore, tookXotherJs'books and put them in his books. ^ Ahmad went a little further when he called Ishaq a man who liked to deceive. And finally, when Ahmad Ibn Hanbal was asked if he trusted Ibn Ishaq for tracing a hadith (tradition), Ahmad replied that he saw Ibn Ishaq giving accounts of traditions without indicating from whom he had received the information.^^

Turning now to the writings of some of the other jurists, Ibn

Hajar mentioned in his book Tahdhib al-Tahdhib those who did trust Ibn

Ishaq's accounts in which he was not cautious about the chain of

81. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol. 9 (Beirut: Bar Sadir,. 1968), p. 41.

82. Ibid. , p. :45.

83. Ibid., p. 43.

84. Ibid.

85. Ibid. : authority. In addition9 we shall review some famous historians such as

al-Tabari, who came nearly one and one-half centuries after Ibn Ishaq and

who attempted to either discover another version of the stories he re­

corded or to investigate the accounts he recorded by comparing all other

sources at hand with what the jurist had said or interpreted. Al-Tabari

recorded Ibn Ishaq’s account regarding the execution of the Banu Qurayzah with some doubt and said, "Al-Waqidi [a well-known historian] alleged .86 that the Prophet caused trenches to be dug for the execution.

86. %r a f a t , p. 102. CHAPTER 8

REASONS AGAINST ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNTS OF THE EXECUTION

To this historian, the account cannot be accepted for the

following reasons. First, the verse which referred to Muhammad and the

campaign against the Banu Qurayzah was very brief. Surat al-Ahzab says,

"And those of the people of the Book who aided them— God did take them

down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. [So

that] some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.,T 87 Thus, this state- ( ment is very clear in that the Prophet was to punish those who engaged

in fighting during the seige and was to take others as prisoners. This

is in keeping with the Quranic tradition of freeing prisoners or allow-

ing them to be ransomed. 88 Second, the account of Ibn Ishaq simply

contradicts the Quranic verse because, in the first place, since there

was a revelation which judged the -problem between the Prophet and the

Jews, there was no need for the Prophet himself to give his own judgment,

or to accept the idea of arbitration, and to appoint Sacd ibn Mucaz to

judge the matter. The Prophet had this command in his hand, and he had

to obey it. Third, Ibn Ishaq said that when Abu Lababah went to consult

with the Banu Qurayazh, he suggested that they accept the judgment of the

Prophet without knowing what he had in mind. This contradicts the rest

87. Quran 33:26

88. Arafat, p. 103.

49 50

of this account, which said that Abu Lubabah signalled to the Banii

Ourayzah that Muhammad had intended to kill them. Fourth, the rule in

Islam, according to the Quran, is to punish only those who commit the

crime. In Surat Fatir God said, "Nor can a bearer of burdens bear

* 89 another? s burdens."

Thus, an execution of all the Banu Qurayznh„would have been in

direct violation of the command. As already stated above, it would also

contradict the Quranic law regarding prisoners of war. Furthermore, no

reason can be found to account.for why the Banu were not treated as the

other two Jewish clans, which were allowed to leave Medina. According to

Ibn Ishaq, the Banu al-Nadir conspired to assassinate the Prophet yet were allowed to leave Medina. Moreover, any historian who has lived in

Medina can simply visit all the sites of the Prophet1s •transactions, the

mosques, and the.shrines of that period which are preserved until today.

It is also possible to visit the trench the Prophet dug to protect Medina

during the Battle of al-Ahzab. Yet no sign can be found of the trenches

the Prophet allegedly dug for the execution of Banu Qurayzah. This casts

doubt on the credibility of the account.

A last argument centers on the fact that had the Prophet exe­

cuted all of the Banu Qurayzah, the jurists would have accepted this and

included it in the tradition (Hadith) as a precedent. However, this is

clearly not the case. In later incidents, such as the Battle of Khaybar

in which the Muslims fought the Jews, the Jews were not executed but were allowed to live on the condition they pay Kharaj (farm tax).

89. Quran 35:8. 51

Throughout the history of Islam, it has been the tradition not to execute captives but to grant their freedom. WhenRJmar ibn al-Khattab? the second caliph, captured Jerusalem in 635 A.D., he declared that all were to have freedom of religion. CHAPTER 9

CONCLUSION

We have seen from the discussion of the conflict between the Jews

of Medina and the Prophet and his followers that the expulsion of the

Jews was largely the result of their own actions and treachery. From

the period of suspicion upon Muhammad1s arrival in Medina to the period

of argument and developing hatred and finally to the period of open con­

flict, we have seen that the Jewish tribes violated a treaty made in

good faith, deceived the Prophet, and took the side of the.enemies of

the Prophet. We have further seen that the Prophet was fair and just,

giving the Jewish tribes the benefit of the doubt in each case, and that his trust was betrayed.

In the case of the Banu Quynuqacand * the Banu al-Nadir, he went in person; and in the case of the Banu Qurayzah, he sent a high delega­ tion. The expulsion of these tribes was the direct result of their violations of the Treaty of Medina and not an arbitrary decision to expel them because they were.Jews. Furthermore, we must remember that

the Prophet was not acting out of personal hatred of the Jews but was acting on God's commands. Most non-Muslim historians and orientalists view the events in the life of the Prophet as politically motivated rather than seeing them in light of their religious significance. We must keep in mind the divine nature of Muhammad1s actions.

52 53

Thus 9 all of the evidence we have discussed here clearly contra­ dicts Ibn Ishaqfs account of an execution of the Banu Qurayzah in Medina.

The numerous discrepancies in Ibn IshaqT s account explains the reluc­ tance of the jurists to accept it. The Islamic ruling on the treatment of prisoners, the evidence from the Quran, and the action of Muslim forces in later encounters with the Jews as well as with the other ' . ' nations all point to the conclusion that the execution of Banu Qurayzah did not, in fact, take place. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

All, Abdullah Yousef. The Glorious Kuran. Libyan Arab Republic: The Call of the Islamic Society9 1973.

cAli5. Jawad. Al-Mufassal fi Tarikh al“-cArab qabla al-Islam. Beirut: ' Bar al~cllm'*li“al~Malayin9 1976. cArafat5 W. N. "New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina." Royal Asiatic Society Journal 2 (October 1976): 100-107. cAsqalani9 al-5 Ibn Hajar. Tahdhib al-Tahdhib."Vol. 9. " Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1968/

Bukhari9 al- 9 Abu cAbdullah. M. L. Ismacil. Sahih. Trans. Muhammad M. Khan. 9 Vols. Gujran Wala Cantt9 Pakistan: Conversion Ltd., 1971.

Farah, Caesar E. Islam: Beliefs and Observances. New York: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 1968.

Farukh, cUmar. t Tarikh al-JahCiyah. Beirut: Dar al^Ilm li-al-Malayin, 1964.

Ghunam, cAbd al-cAziz Ghunam. Maca al-Rasul fi al-Madinah al-Munawwarah. Ed. A. A. Muhammad. Cairo: Dar al-cItisam, 1973.

Graetz, Heinrich. History of the Jews. Vol. 3. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of American, 1949.

Hasan, Ibrahim H. Tarikh al-Islam al-Siyasi. Cairo: Matbac-at Hijazi,

Haykal, Muhammad Husayn. Hay at Muhammad. Cairo : Dar al-Macarif, 1969.

Ibn Hisham, Abu M. CAbdulmalik. Takrib al-Sirah al—Nabawiyyah. Ed. Muhammad al-Shabrawi. Cairo: al-Babi al-Halabi wa-Awladihi, 1961.

y Sirat al-Nabi. Ed. Muhammad Khalil Harras. 3 Vols. Cairo: Maktabat al-Jumhuriyyah, 1971. c Ibn al-Kayyim, Sahms al-Din. Zad al-Ma ad. Cairo: Mustafa al-Babi al- Halabi wa-Awladihi, 1970.

Ibn Khathir, Abu al^Fidai Ismacil. Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah. Vol. 3. Cairo: al-Babi al-Halabi wa-Awladihi, 1964.

54 55

Ibn Khathir, Abu al-Fidai Ismacil. Tafsir al-Quran al-cAziin. Cairo: al-Babi al-Halabi, Inc. 1970. Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, Path al-Din. cUyun al-Athar. 2 Vols. Beirut: Dar al-Afaq al-Jadidah, 1977.

Ibn al-Sharif, Mahmud. Al-Yahud fi al-Quran. Cairo: Dar al-Kitab al-cArabi, 1969.

Jad al-Mawla, M. Ahmad. Ayyam alcArab fi al-Jahilayyah. Cairo: al- Halabi, Inc., 1969.

Khatib, cAbdulkarim. Al-Yahud fi al-Quran. Beirut: Dar al-Sharq, 1974.

Kheirallah, G. I. Islam and the Arabian Prophet. New York: Islamic Publishing Company, 1938.

Khurbatti, al-,cAli Hasan. A1-Rasul fi al-Madinah. Cairo: Matabic al- Ahram, 1973.

Nicnacah, Mahmud. Al-Mushkilah al-Yahudiyyah. Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglu al-Misriyyah, 1972.

Quran. Trans. Abdullah Yusuf cAli. Libyan Arab Republic: The Call of Islamic Society, 1978.

Qurtubi, al-, Abu cAbdullah Muhammad. Al-Jamic li-Ahkam al-Quran. Vol. 14. Cairo: Dar al-Kitab al-^Arabi, 1967.

Siddiqui, Abdul Hameed. The Life of Muhammad. Lahore-Pakistan: Islamic Publication Limited, 1975.

Salim, IbrahimcAli. Al-Nifaq wa-al-Munafiqun. Cairo: Dar al-Shacb, 1970.

Tantawi, Muhammad Sayyid. Banu Israil fi al-Quran wa-al-Sunnah. Cairo: Maktabat Kasid Khir, 1969.

Tucaymah, Sabir. Banu Israil fi Mizan al-Quran wa-al-Sunnah. Beirut: Dar al-Jabal, 1975.

Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford: University Press, 1961.

______. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford: University Press, 1977.

Wensinck, Arent Jan. Muhammad and the Jews of Medina. Trans. Wolfgang Behn. Berlin: Johannes Krause, Freiburg i. Br., 1975. 38 71