Question
Brother Omar asked you a question which you answered under the titled “Why did the Prophet (pbuh) Order The Killing of the Banu Qurayzah?“.
Then brother Razwan asked/discussed that question further and you answered him under the title “Contradictory Information regarding the Events with Banu Qurayzah…“.
I have some notes and comments on the questions/discussions of brother Razwan.
In his discussion with you, brother Razwad wrote:
In your response your write:
Even then, had the Banu Qurayzah sought forgiveness for their betrayal, the Prophet (pbuh) may have given them respite, as he did so in the past.
However, in Ibn Hisham’s abridged version of Ibn Ishaq’s biography of the Prophet (p), he writes:
[After the Muslims had defeated the Banu Qurayzah] `Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul went to him when God had put them in his power and said, ‘O Muhammad, deal kindly with my clients’ (now they were allies of Khazraj), but the apostle put him off. He repeated the words, and the apostle turned away from him, whereupon he thrust his hand into the collar of the apostle’s robe; the apostle was so angry that his face became almost black. He said, ‘Confound you, let me go.’ He answered, ‘No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my clients. [Guillame, “Life of Muhammad”, p. 363]
Does this not seem to show that the Prophet (p) was going to execute the Jewish tribe, regardless?
I have checked Seerat Ibn Hisham, the Arabic version, and I found that the event of Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul, which our brother Razwan quoted, is not related to Banu Quraizah. In fact the event is related to Banu Qaynuqaa’. I would like to say:
-
I don’t know who inserted the opening sentence “[After the Muslims had defeated the Banu Qurayzah]”. This is not in the original Arabic version and I think that it is this insertion that caused all the errors in that quote.
-
I don’t know who inserted the sentence “(now they were allies of Khazraj)”. Actually, Banu Qurayza are allies of Ous not allies of Khazraj. It is Banu Qaynuqaa’ who are allies of Khazraj.
-
I don’t know why the author ignored the remaining part of that narrative. The narrative in the original Arabic version continues to inform us that the prophet accepted the request of Abdullah bin Ubayy. Unfortunately, I’m not qualified to give an accurate translation for the remaining part of the narrative.
-
If these errors are in the translation then this means someone should talk with the publishers of that translation.
Brother Razwan wrote:
Secondly, you write:
Ultimately, the Banu Qurayzah requested the arbitration of Sa`d Ibn Mu`aaz (ra) – one of the leaders of the tribe of Aws – a traditional ally of the Banu Qurayzah and promised that they would accept whatever Sa`d ibn Mu`aaz decided for them. Later on, Sa`d decided that all those among the Banu Qurayzah, who could fight be killed, while all their women and children be taken as slaves and all their wealth and property be confiscated and distributed among the Muslims. Subsequently, the sentence pronounced by Sa`d was implemented by the Muslims.
However, from the same source I have quoted, there seems contradictory information surrounding the events leading to the choice of Sa’d:
O Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgment on them?’ When they agreed he said that Sa`d b. Mu`adh was the man. [Ibid., p.463]
This seems to suggest that Sa’d was chosen by the Prophet (p) and not the Banu Qurayzah.
The beginning sentence of the original narrative in arabic have been ignored in this quote.
Razwad said: “This seems to suggest that Sa’d was chosen by the Prophet (p) and not the Banu Qurayzah”. Actually, directly the next narrative after that narrative in Seerat Ibn Hisham is telling that it is Banu Qurayza who informed the prophet (pbuh) that they want Sa’d to judge.
We can combine between the two narratives by saying that:
-
Banu Qurayza informed the prophet that they want Sa’d to judge on them because they consider him as their ally.
-
Before the prophet informed the Muslims officially about Banu Qurayza’s request, the Ous (allies of Banu Qurayza) came and asked the prophet to give the matter of Banu Qurayza to the Ous as he has given the matter of Banu Qaynuqaa’ (allies of Khazraj) to the Khazraj in the past.
-
The prophet answered to the Ous: “Will you be pleased, O Ous, if one of your own number pronounces judgment on them?” When they said “Yes”. he said “Sa`d bin Mu`adh was the man”. Here the prophet informed them that there is already a person have been chosen to judge and that person was already from among the Ous (the allies of Banu Qurayza). Actually Sa’d bin Mu’adh is the head of the Ous.
Brother Razwan wrote:
From the same source (p.462), there is also a suggestion that before Sa’d had been chosen, the decision had already been made to kill the Banu Qurayzah:
They [the Jewish tribe] said, ‘Oh Abu Lubaba, do you think that we should submit to Muhammad’s judgement?’ He said, ‘Yes,’ and pointed with his hand to his throat, signifying slaughter. Abu Lubaba said, ‘My feet had not moved from the spot before I knew that I had been false to God and His apostle.’ Then he left them and did not go to the apostle but bound himself to one of the pillars in the mosque saying, ‘I will not leave this place until God forgives me for what I have done,’ and he promised God that he would never go to B. Qurayza and would never be seen in a town in which he had betrayed God and His apostle.
I think brother Razwan here means that according to this narrative, it seems that the prophet was planing to kill Banu Qurayza anyway.
Isn’t this their punishment because they have broken their treaty and helped the polytheist of Arabs in the Battle of Khandaq against Muslims?
Our brother Razwan wote:
There is also the contention that the chosen arbiter, Sa’d, did not like captured prisoners:
While the folk were laying hands on the prisoners the apostle, as I have been told, saw displeasure on the face of Sa`d at what they were doing. He said to him, “You seem to dislike what the people were doing.” “Yes, by God,” he replied, “it is the first defeat that God has brought on the infidel and I would rather see them slaughtered than left alive. [Ibid., p.301]
There is also the suggestion that Sa’d was keen to kill anyone who opposed the Prophet (p):
Sad bin Mu’adh got up and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! by Allah, I will relieve you from him. If that man is from the tribe of the Aus, then we will chop his head off, and if he is from our brothers, the Khazraj, then order us, and we will fulfill your order.’ [Saheeh al-Bukhari, Sahih, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 829]
The first quote is related to the prisoners of the battle of Badr. The second quote is related to the slander story on our mother Aisha (ra).
I think here our brother Razwan would like to bring your attention to the claim of some non-Muslims that Muhammad (pbuh) had intentionally chosen Sa’d bin Mu’adh for the arbitration on Banu Qurayza because Muhammad (pbuh) knew that Sa’d (according to these two narrative) likes to kill the opponents of the prophet (pbuh) and so most propably Sa’d will judge that the men of Banu Qurayza be killed. And (as some non-Muslims claim) this is what the prophet wanted to happen to Banu Qurayza.
These were some notes and observation on the comments of brother Razwan from United Kingdom.
Alhamdu Lillah
Answer
Thank you for your invaluable contribution.
Your analysis of the first two points is quite plausible and seem to explain the apparent discrepancy in the source books.
With reference to Abu Lubaba’s gesture, you ask:
Isn’t this their punishment because they have broken their treaty and helped the polytheist of Arabs in the Battle of Khandaq against Muslims?
Even though this could indeed have been the case and the Prophet could indeed have subjected these rejecters to the punishment of death in retribution of breaking their pledge with the Prophet of God, yet we must not ignore the point that Abu Lubaba’s gesture can simply be construed as his personal opinion and assessment regarding the Prophet’s prospective decision, which may not have been correct. There is no evidence to suggest that the Prophet (pbuh) had informed Abu Lubaba of his intentions.
With reference to the third point, you write:
I think here our brother Razwan would like to bring your attention to the claim of some non-Muslims that Muhammad (pbuh) had intentionally chosen Sa’d bin Mu’adh for the arbitration on Banu Qurayza because Muhammad (pbuh) knew that Sa’d (according to these two narrative) likes to kill the opponents of the prophet (pbuh) and so most propably Sa’d will judge that the men of Banu Qurayza be killed. And (as some non-Muslims claim) this is what the prophet wanted to happen to Banu Qurayza.
In my opinion, irrespective of whether the Prophet (pbuh) was aware of Sa`b ibn Mu`adh’s prospective decision or not, the fact remains that Sa`d was selected as the arbitrator by the Jewish leaders of Banu Quraizah in the hope that he would forgive them. Thus, under these circumstances, it is irrelevant what the Prophet (pbuh) wanted for Sa`d to decide.
I thank you once again for your invaluable contribution.
Regards,
Moiz Amjad
August 20, 2002