Q. & A. 711 to 1707 with solved Papers css 1971 to date

Opinions of Various Authors on Banu QnraizahS Fate
Dr. M. Hamidullah comments: ”Ir the case of Banu Quraizah, it was the arbitrator of their own choice who awarded exactly what Deuteronorm irovided. Upon bearing the decision of the arbitrator, the Holy Pr het made only the comment that God had predestined that from -ove the sever heavens. Had the Jews appealed to the mercy of tin Holy Prophet, Jiey might have received a more lenient treatment, but they chose ? former ally of theirs, an ordinary Muslims; and the Muslims has reason to be extremely angry with the Jews at the moment: they had treated the Nazirite Jews with

148 Political and Cultural History of Islam

leniency, who instead of being grateful, had arranged the siege of Khandaq, and just before the siege caused the Holy Prophet to go, with a small army, to Daumat’ ul-Jandal. place at a distance of two weeks from Medina, b-it fortunately the Holy Prophet escaped the trap and returned to Medina in time to prepare for the defence against the besiegers; and during the terrific siege of Khandaq these Jews of Banu-Quraizah lived in Medina tried iu stab the Muslims in the back. Even Wensinck, who is otherwise very hostile to the Holy Prophet, admits that the leniency she wr, previously to the Jews of Banu Nazir had produced to the contrary of the desired effect, and no statesman could possibly commit the same mistake of leniency again.”7
S. Ameer Ali says, ”Human nature is so constituted that, however criminal the acts of an individual may be, the moment he is treated with a severity which to our minds seems harsh or cruel, a n».lural revulsion of feeling occurs, and the sentiment of justice gives place to pity within our hearts. No doubt the sentence on the BaniKuraizha, from cur pc-’ust of ”:PW, was served. But, however much we may regret that the fate of these poor peop’e should have been, thought at their own special request, left in the hands of an infuriated
soldier however much we may regret that the sentence of this man
should hav? txcn so carried into effect we must not, in tne
sentiment of pity, overlook the stern question of justice and culpability. We must bear in mind the crimes of which they are guilty, their treachery, their open hostility, their defection from an alliance to which they we* 3 bound by every sacred tie. Nor must we altogether forget the temptations which they, the worshippers of the pure Jehovah, held out to the heathen Arabs to continue in the practice of idolatry. Some Muslims might naturally be inclined to say, with the Christian moralist: It is better that the wicked should be destroyed a hundred times over than that they should tempt those who are yet innocent to join their company.
Other Muslims, however, might look upon this fearful sentence on the Bani-Kuraizna in the same light as Carlyle looks upon the order of Cromwell for the promiscuous massacre of the Irish inhabitants of Drogheds: An armed soldier solemnly conscious of himself that he is the soldier of God the just, a consciousness which is well beseems all soldiers and all men to have always, armed
7 Dr. M. Hamidullah, PP. 240-241.
149
Conquest ofKhayber
soldier, terrible as death, rentless as doom; doing God’s judgement on the enemies of God. We, however, are not disposed to look at the punishment of these Jews from either of these points of view. We simply look upon it as an act done in complete accordance with the laws of war as then understood by the nations of the world: A strict application of admitted customs of war According to S. Ameer Ali’s research: ”The number of men executed could not have been more than 200 or 250.” He further says, ”The mistake (’n calculating the number of Jews executed) probably arose from confounding the whole body of prisoners, who fell into the hands of the Muslims with those executed.” Lane-Poole writes, ”It was a harsh, bloody sentence.... but it must be remembered that the crime of these men was high treason against the State during a time of siege, and those who have read how Wellington’s march could be traced by the bodies of deserters and pillagers hanging from the trees, need not *>e surprised at the summary execution of a traitorous clan.”
Commenting upon Jew’s behaviour and Holy Prophet’s (PBUH) nice treatment to them, \V. Montgomery \Vatt says, ”The Jews in general by their verbal criticism of the Quranic revelation were trying to undermine the foundation of the whole Islamic community; and they were also giving political support to Muhammad’s (PBUH) enemies and to opponents such as the Hypocrites. In so far as th-* ;~n* aLordcr^ri these forms of hostile uCtlviiy -vluhamuiau (PBUH) allowed them to I:-.-; :n Medina unmolested.”
We finally quote S. Ameer Ali’s again, ”People judge of the massacres of king David according to the ’light of his time.’ Even the fearful slaughters committed by the Christians in piimitive times are judged according t-~> ”erfam lights’. Why should not the defensive wars of the early Muslims be ic”}---’ -•: £-.:m the same standpoint. But, whatever the point of view, an unprejudiced mind w;;; ^rrce’ve that no blame can possibly attach to the Holy Prophet in the execution of the Bani-Kuraizha.”*
Syed Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam, PP 81 - 82

CHAPTER
11