In the year 627 Muslim forces destroyed the Jewish Bani Quraiza tribe at Medina, in present day Saudi Arabia. Following the orders of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, the attacking Muslims killed all the men and boys—estimates range from 600 to 900— and took the women and younger children into slavery. The males were beheaded in a trench especially dug for that purpose in the marketplace of Medina.
Is this slaughter proof of a deep-seated Muslim hatred of Jews —or, conversely, did it inspire later anti-Semitism? Perhaps, as some claim, it never occurred but was invented years later to justify the Muslim attitude toward Jews—or, was it simply a custom of the time? As this incident is still being used to influence policies in the modern Middle East, a look at the range of Muslim interpretations of this incident is both necessary and revealing.
Tariq Ramadan's "Benign Interpretation"
Swiss philosopher and commentator on Islam, Tariq Ramadan, characterizes the relationship between Muslim and Jew in old Medina as one of "mutual recognition and respect." Not all accept that bromide: as Paul Berman, American writer and thinker, so ably shows in The Flight of the Intellectuals, Ramadan conveniently glosses over the slaughter of the Jews at Medina. He implies that the Jews had "behaved badly" and Muhammad "needed to impose a stern lesson," according to Berman—a "benign interpretation."
Berman expertly dissects Ramadan's euphemistic description of carnage: "The tone of civic virtue and multicultural piety can begin to seem overdone after a while." He goes on to "wonder whether some crucial element hasn't been deleted or suppressed in Ramadan's account of seventh-century affairs ..."
Tarek Fatah, Muslim-Canadian writer, explains a little further about Ramadan's views. In The Jew is not my Enemy: Unveiling the Myths that Fuel Muslim Anti-Semitism he states that Ramadan "refers to the slaughter... as a 'twofold victory'" —the immediate defeat of those who refused to join Muhammad's religion and the "powerful message" to all neighboring tribes. Ramadan, he says, "defends the doctrine of collective punishment and mass executions," as do Saudi sheikhs and the radical ayatollahs of Iran.
In this way, Ramadan coolly downplays the slaughter—although a harsh lesson, it was apparently justified, a needed punishment to quell unruly Jews, and beneficial to Muslims by intimidating those who would resist their advance. Fatah asserts that Ramadan praises the massacre "in glowing terms" from the viewpoint of Islam, while ignoring its devastating effects on the Jewish tribes. There is little doubt that Ramadan believes the slaughter is fact—no matter how his view is interpreted.
Tarek Fatah's Denial
Fatah takes a completely different approach than Ramadan. He frankly states that the incident never happened—that it is a "medieval myth." Nonetheless, it must be a powerful one since Fatah continues," ...hatred of the Jew in Islamdom today is rooted in the narrative of this supposed slaughter of Jews by Prophet Muhammad, which makes it acceptable for a fanatic Muslim to kill a Jew."
Fatah's interpretation is problematic in that it raises the question as to why a long-ago massacre carried out by Muslims against Jews would thereafter increase Jew-hatred. Why is the opposite reaction not more likely: shamed to have committed such slaughter, the followers of Muhammad refrain from any future animosity towards Jews—Judeophobia, as Fatah calls it?
Herein lies a conundrum: to criticize is to question the actions of Muhammad, al-insan al-kamil—- the "Perfect Man." Islamic scholars teach that his behavior should be copied. "Muslims, as a part of religious observance, not only obey but also seek to emulate and imitate their Prophet in every aspect of life," according to Dr. Muqtedar Khan, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Adrian College, Michigan.
However, there is another solution put forward by some to excuse these actions of Muhammad: consider the customs of that era and that place, or "the contingencies of his time" as Khan phrases it.
Mustafa Akyol's Apologetics
Turkish columnist and author, Mustafa Akyol, gives a nod to those who deny that the massacre ever happened, but takes pains to absolve Muhammad of blame, "even if the mass execution had really happened, as the mainstream view holds ..." In Islam Without Extremes: a Muslim Case for Liberty, Akyol asserts that the massacre was carried out "not as a commandment of the Qur'an but as a result of the customs of the time."
By stating that Muhammad was responding according to the customs of seventh-century Arabia, Akyol has entered a theological quagmire. How that approach can be resolved with Muhammad, al-insan al-kamil, is a thorny issue for Islamic scholars. Akyol, however, doesn't hesitate: he asserts that "the 'historical' and the 'religious' aspects of Muhammad must be separated." Hence, moral judgment on Muhammad's slaughter of the Medina Jews is apparently irrelevant because it was not Islamically motivated—simply an event in history.
Downplay, Deny, Deflect
Here we have three modern Muslim writers, all well-educated, and considered "moderate." Yet their interpretation of the Medina slaughter is completely different. One downplays; one denies; one deflects. Regardless, the slaughter of the Jews of Medina has had a real and significant effect on Muslim attitudes to Jews. It reverberates still in the politics of the Middle East: one place where it has come to the fore is in the post-Arab Spring restructuring in Egypt.
Egyptian Salafist Leader Cites Al-Medina as Inspiration
Whether the fate of the Jews of Medina in 627 was due to political or religious strategy, or simply a myth, it "caused modern Muslims [to] hold anti-Jewish prejudices" according to Fatah. However, this ancient precedent has now been invoked against the increasingly persecuted Christians of Egypt as well.
A leader in the Egyptian Salafi movement recently held forth a plan for "dealing with" the Christians of Egypt. The Salafi al-Nour Party, along with the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party— both Islamist—won an overwhelming vote in the first two phases of parliametary elections there. Yassir Al-Burhami, in a December 2011 broadcast, said, "Can the Christians of Egypt be compared to the Jews of Al-Medina? The case of the Jews of Al-Medina is one example of the relations between the Muslims and the infidels. The Muslims can implement any form of conduct used by the Prophet Muhammad ."
He concluded with a chilling recommendation, "The Christians of Egypt can be dealt with like the Jews of Al-Medina."
In modern Egypt, in the 21st century, a leader of a popular movement capitalizes on a 7th century victory, regurgitating it to perpetuate anti-Semitism and urging that a similar campaign be aimed at Christians.The massacre of the Bani Quraiza is still being exploited for political gain.
Sources:
Akyok, Mustafa, Islam Without Extremes: a Muslim Case for Liberty, New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2011.
Berman, Paul, The Flight of the Intellectuals, New York: Melville House Publishing, 2010.
Fatah, Tarek, The Jew is not my Enemy: Unveiling the Myths that Fuel Muslim Anti-Semitism, Toronto: McClelland & Stewart,Ltd., 2010.
Israel National News, "Egypt's Salafi Party Claims to Honor Peace with Israel, But ..." Chana Ya'ar, December 21, 2011.
Khan, Muqtedar, Ijtihad, "The Legacy of Muhammad and the issues of Polygamy and Pedophilia," May 2003.
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) "Egyptian Salafi Leader Yassir Al-Burhami Compares the Christians of Egypt to the Jews of Al-Medina" December 3, 2011.
Jen L. Jones - Based in Canada, Jones writes on human rights, history,and the natural world. She focuses also on Turkish and Scottish travel and ...
Join the Conversation