The Banu Qurayza incident and the

critics of Islam
The Banu Qurayza issue is a favourite of the critics of Islam. An enitre Jewish tribe
was put to the sword, sparing only the women and children, who were enslaved
instead.

I can understand that many will find this incident shocking. However, what I find
superficial is the conclusion that is drawn that Islam is a barbaric religion.

Such conclusion only comes from a superficial reading of the Banu Qurayza incident
and similar events, and a (perhaps deliberately) selective reading of the Prophet’s life.

This incident cannot be justified to anyone who is bent on finding faults with Islam.
For example, I have even heard someone blaming the Prophet for provoking the
Quraysh during the Meccan period of his da’wah, whereas it was the Muslims
including the Prophet himself, who were, in fact, the victims of Qurayshi aggression.
Now, how can you rebut that?!

However, the superficialities that abound in most criticisms made of the Banu
Qurayza issue need to be pointed out. Also, it is important to understand how many
Muslims view this issue.

Firstly, the crux of most criticisms made against Islam, not just this incident, relates to
questions of morality. For example, the critic would exclaim in shock, “How could
someone who claims to be a prophet kill so many people?”. In other words, according
to some moral framework that the critic subscribes to, the Prophet did something
inhumane, or morally wrong.
These claims are made in a manner which presupposes the critic’s moral code to be
universal, allowing them to criticise Islam without having to explain or prove their
own moral criteria. But that presumption can always be questioned. Is killing people
always wrong? How about killing in self-defence? How about punishing a murderer?
How about killing non-humans?

No matter how “peace-loving” one is, we will be hard pressed to find someone who
considers taking someone’s life to be absolutely unjustifiable in all circumstances. For
example, even if one believes that killing is wrong in most cases, they will still allow
for exceptions, e.g. killing in self-defence. So the question is, what are the limits to
determine when it is justifiable to take another life? And who decides?

Therefore, just because the men of Banu Qurayza were killed, doesn’t necessarily
mean the Prophet did something morally reprehensible. Rather, that judgement would
depend on the context surrounding the event and the criteria being used to judge it.

Muslims don’t use a moral standard independent of God and His messenger. God
shows us how to be ethical human beings through revelation and the example of His
prophet. Therefore it wouldn’t make any sense for Muslims to judge God and His
messenger, when it is from them that we learn our morality. If we could already tell
the right from the wrong totally independent of God and His messenger, what would
be the point of revelation and prophethood?

Regarding the Banu Qurayza issue, as Muslims, we don’t question the Prophet’s
decision. Rather we seek to understand the context in which he allowed such a heavy
punishment to be prescribed upon Banu Qurayza.
I will not repeat the details of the incident here as they can be found in seerah books.
However, it is important to emphasise that Banu Qurayza betrayed the Muslims at a
time when they were surrounded by a coalition of enemies that vastly outnumbered
them. Had Banu Qurayza been successful in their plan, the Muslims would have faced
a consequence far worse than what Banu Qurayza was put through. The Muslims
would most likely have been totally wiped out of existence. Also, it was not the first
time that Banu Qurayza had shown hostility to Muslims.

Therefore, when Muslims today argue that Banu Qurayza was punished for their
treason, they are not simply trying to whitewash an unpleasant chapter of their history.
Rather they are trying to highlight the severity of the crime committed by Banu
Qurayza.

It should also be noted that the Prophet did not just command the Muslims to barge
into Banu Qurayza’s fortress and massacre them without giving them a chance to
speak. Banu Qurayza were allowed to consult a person they trusted, Abu Lubaba,
even before they surrendered. They were given the chance to choose the person they
wanted to be their judge, and they chose their former ally Sa’d ibn Mu’adh. The Jews
used to live according to their own religious laws. And the judgement pronounced by
Sa’d was in accordance with the punishment prescribed by Jewish law for treason.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the Prophet was unleashing pure mindless vengeance
at them. Rather, he allowed them a chance for consultation and afforded them a proper
judicial process despite what they had done.

However, it can be said that even if Banu Qurayza committed treason, why punish the
entire tribe? Why not just punish the perpetrators? Someone even gave me the
analogy of the modern state. If the government does something wrong, can we punish
the citizens for it?
This is a good example of how our worldview shaped by our current social conditions
often skew our reading of history. The above analogy takes the modern state as a
naturally existing entity, which allows for its sociopolitical structure to be
anachronistically applied to a tribal society existing 1400 years ago. This is almost
like the reverse of the critic’s own claim that a religion revealed 1400 years ago is not
fit for today’s society! I wonder why would they then think that the standards of
today’s society are fit for a tribal society that existed 1400 years ago!

There are some important differences that are missed when we compare the tribes of
the Prophet’s time to modern states. The tribes did not imagine a political realm
separate to “civil society”. Also they did not have a separate military such that one
could distinguish between civilian and combatant. Every adult male was bound by
tribal loyalties and was obliged to fight when the need arose. If they broke ties with
their tribe, they weren’t offered protection by their tribe anymore. Also, these tribes
did not necessarily always fight for what is right. They fought for glory, pride,
revenge, booty etc. We know how Aws and Khazraj used to fight endless battles with
each other before accepting Islam. And the Jewish tribes of Madina used to ally with
either of these tribes and fight among themselves even though the Torah prohibited it.
Every member of the tribe was bound by the collective decision of their tribe
regarding war and peace.

Banu Qurayza, as a tribe, was no different. To demonstrate this point, let me ask, was
every adult male of Banu Qurayza killed? Every single one of them?

The answer is: No.

There were a couple of them who disagreed with the decision of their tribe and left
them. The Muslims let them go unharmed. It is important to note that when the
Muslims let them go without punishment due to their faithfulness they had not entered
Islam yet. Therefore it would be wrong to claim that they were pardoned after being
forced to accept Islam. One of them, Rifa’ah ibn Samaw’al, accepted Islam later, after
he had already been granted shelter by Salma bint Qays. The other man, Amr ibn
Su’da, was allowed to go his own way and it is not known where he went. There is no
record of him accepting Islam. In fact, when the Prophet was told about him, He said
about Amr, “That is a man whom God delivered because of his faithfulness.”

There were also three young Jews from another tribe who were present with Banu
Qurayza at that time. They advised Banu Qurayza to accept Islam since they already
believed Muhammad to be the Prophet. But they rejected the idea.

Ka’b ibn Asad, the leader of Banu Qurayza, said to his tribe, “We will follow this man
and accept him as true, for by God it has become plain to you that he is a prophet who
has been sent and that it is he that you find mentioned in your scripture; and then your
lives, your property, your women and children will be saved.” But his own tribe
rejected his offer saying, “We will never abandon the laws of the Torah and never
change it for another.”

Amr ibn Su’da suggested to his tribe to surrender to the Muslims and pay them a tax.
But they rejected the idea saying death was preferable to them rather than paying
taxes to the Arabs.

There was one more survivor. An old man of Banu Qurayza, Zabir ibn Bata. He was
given protection by a man of Khazraj, Thabit ibn Qays, but Zabir’s wife and children
were enslaved. He then lamented to Thabit about life without his family. When the
Prophet was told about it, he returned the old man’s family to him. But then Zabir
lamented about life without his tribesmen and wanted to die like them. He kept
insisting until he was also put to death like his tribesmen.

These examples clearly show that whoever was killed from Banu Qurayza were not
simply innocent “civilians”. Rather, all of them stood by their tribe’s decision to
betray the Muslims. And had they been successful in their plot, they would have
fought Muslims to annihilate them. Also, as is clear from these examples, they
preferred death over either conversion to Islam or living under Muslim authority
paying them a tax despite knowing full well the extent of their crime. Such a stubborn
attitude is reflected in the words of Huyayy ibn Akhtab, who said to the Prophet
before being put to death, “By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he
who forsakes God will be forsaken.” Therefore, claiming that the Prophet killed
innocent people results from a superficial and ideologically skewed reading of events.

Quite apart from the details of the incident, another thing to consider is that not every
report found in seerah books is authentic. Seerah books do contain many weak
narrations as well. Although the Banu Qurayza incident can be found in reliable
seerah books, I’ve heard in a couple of lectures that Imam Malik did not consider the
chain of narration to be strong. Therefore, according to Imam Malik this is not an
authoritative event. The issue of authenticity is something that most critics are
completely oblivious to when they cherry-pick events from the seerah to criticise the
Prophet.

Lastly, a few general points can be mentioned regarding most critics of Islam and the
Prophet. Their reading of Islamic texts seems to be deliberately selective. For
example, they would bring up numerous examples of incidents when the Prophet
engaged in battles, or ordered someone’s execution or punished someone. Yet, they
would ignore the countless instances when the Prophet forgave and displayed
exemplary standards of mercy, compassion and restraint. This seems to be a result of a
deliberate attempt to portray the Prophet in a negative light. If they took a holistic
view of the Prophet’s life, they would have to take into account all events within their
contexts and reconcile them, something that they are either completely unwilling or
unable to do. That’s why their description of the Prophet provides an ideologically
biased view of the person and lacks any credibility.

Any criticism of the Prophet is also a criticism of his ummah. For example, the Banu
Qurayza incident and similar issues are often brought up not just to show the Prophet
as violent, but also to make the point that Muslims generally are inherently hateful
and intolerant towards non-Muslims. Such ridiculous claims ignore the many
Prophetic ahadith, scholarly quotes and numerous historical examples that show that
not only does Islam teach kindness and compassion towards non-Muslims and secures
their rights, but that non-Muslims have actually lived peacefully with Muslims
throughout Islamic history.

To conclude, I don’t claim to be coming from a neutral perspective. I don’t believe