James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr. (Born October 1, 1924) served as the 39th President of the United States; Carter intends to be buried in front of his home in Plains, Georgia. Carter also noted that a funeral in Washington, D.C. with visitation at the Carter Center is being planned as well. Perhaps it would seem Carter is fearful of having to take his sins to the grave.

‘I Confess For Stigma I Created Against Israel’; Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has written a letter to the Jewish people, asking for forgiveness for ’stigmatizing Israel’ and asked for forgiveness for his actions against Israel as a result of his biased anti Semitic agenda for Arab-Israeli peace.

On December 21, 2009, in a letter sent to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA); Carter wrote: “We must recognize Israel’s achievements under difficult circumstances, even as we strive in a positive way to help Israel continue to improve its relations with its Arab populations, but we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel. As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an ‘Al Het’ for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so.”

“Al Het” (literally “for the sin”) is a fundamental component of the Yom Kippur prayer service, in which penitents ask for Divine forgiveness for sins committed against G-d. However, the term could also be used to mean a general plea for pardoning.

The general public consensus on this latest revelation from Carter is that he issuing a statement which is insincere and likely has a hidden agenda as a sly liar and con artist. Terrorists & Jihadists blow up people while their leaders apologize but repeat the same action another day.  Genesis 12:3 clearly puts Carter in a position whereby he will be cursed all the way to the grave and thereafter. Carter would have to do some miraculous good deeds, on behalf of Israel; one of which would be the recommendation of ratifying the entire Holy Land as set out in the Bible as the legitimate territory of Israel and the Jews.

Carter’s position on Jews and Arabs in the Land of Israel has been controversial since his presidency and thereafter. During his term, Carter directed the signing of the Camp David Accords by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, which resulted in the forced expulsion of Jews from the Sinai town of Yamit, as well as the transfer of the giant Sinai region to Egypt. Thus forcing the Jews to give up their land rights of the Sinai which is the location where Moses received the tablets of the Ten Commandments and Torah. The Israelite tribe of Simeon settled in the region.

In 2006, Carter authored the book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” in which he highly praised former Arab PLO chief Yasser Arafat, progenitor of high-jackings of international airlines and jihad terrorism attacks around the world. Carter further stated modern U.S. administrations have been “submissive” to “powerful political, economic, and religious” pro-Israel advocates. Carter’s vitriolic compared Israel’s development of biblical Judea and Samaria to South African anti-black apartheid and called the biblical heartland of Israel “Palestinian land”, stating the Jewish state must retreat to the 1949 armistice lines.

Such statements and actions of Carter disgraced the concept of Christianity which founded its faith dogma from excerpts of the Hebrew Bible or Torah whereby in some Christian circles Carter was likened to the anti-Christ or a man possessed by demonic entities while amongst moderate Muslim’s he was influenced by an evil jinn [spirit]. Amongst these circles Carter was held responsible for the revolution in Iran and the assassination of Egypt’s Anwar Sadat and the Shah of Iran. The final year of his presidential tenure was marked by several major crises, including the 1979 takeover of the American embassy in Iran and holding of hostages by Iranian students, an unsuccessful rescue attempt of the hostages, serious fuel shortages, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Carter teaches Sunday school and is a deacon in the Maranatha Baptist Church in his hometown of Plains, Georgia. In 2000, Carter severed ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, saying the group’s doctrines did not align with his Christian beliefs. In April 2006, Carter, former-President Bill Clinton and Mercer University President Bill Underwood initiated the New Baptist Covenant.

Jimmy Carter supported legalized abortion, subsequent to the landmark US Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973). He did not support increased federal funding for abortion services as president and was criticized by the ACLU for not doing enough to find alternatives to abortion.

In April 2008, the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat reported that Carter met with exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal on his visit to Syria. The Carter Center initially did not confirm nor deny the story. The US State Department considers Hamas a terrorist organization. Within this Mid-East trip, Carter also laid a wreath on the grave of Yasser Arafat in Ramallah on April 14, 2008. Carter spoke to Mashaal on several matters, including “formulas for prisoner exchange to obtain the release of Israeli Corporal Shalit”

In November 2008, President Carter, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and Graca Machel, wife of Nelson Mandela, were stopped from entering Zimbabwe, to inspect the human rights situation, by President Robert Mugabe’s government.

In December 2008, Carter visited Damascus again, where he met with Syrian President Bashar Assad, and the Hamas leadership. During his visit he gave an exclusive interview to Forward Magazine, the first ever interview for any American president, current or former, with a Syrian media outlet.

In June 2009, Carter visited Arab leaders in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria, receiving the Palestine International Award for Excellence and Creativity. During the ceremony, he told attendees, “I have been in love with the Palestinian people for many years” and promised to bolster Palestinians “as long as I live, to win your freedom, your independence, your sovereignty and a good life.” He also visited with Hamas’ leadership in Syria.

According to the JTA, Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman, who in the past claimed Carter’s comments bordered on anti-Semitism, welcomed the former president’s statement. “We welcome any statement from a significant individual such as a former president who asks for Al Het,” Foxman said. “To what extent it is an epiphany, time will tell. There certainly is hurt which needs to be repaired.

Translation: “Well, I don’t think there is a Palestinian nation at all. I think there is an Arab nation. I always thought so and I did not change my mind. I do not think there is a Palestinian nation, I think its a colonialist invention - Palestinian nation. When were there any Palestinians? Where did it come from? I think there is an Arab nation. I never turned to be a Palestinian nationalist, despite of my decisive struggle against the occupation. I think that until the end of the 19th century, Palestine was the south of Greater Syria.”

People should investigate the basic claims of the Middle East conflict before expressing strong opinions. “History did not start in 1967. The modern day Hebrews, have over a 4,000 year old history and an uninterrupted presence in their homeland for over 3,300 years. The Palestinian nation was invented in the 1960s by Yassir Arafat and Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu in an attempt to erase Jewish history and steal the Jewish Holy Land. The term ‘Palestine’ was initially a foreign colonialist concept invented by the Romans who massacred, exiled and enslaved the Jewish people. It is not an authentic Arab identity.

Since his background in Jewish Law is not extensive, and his mistakes in this area include the following: Basic Jewish Law allows Jews to enter the Temple Mount, after having purified themselves of a certain level of legal impurity, but they may not enter the site where certain parts of the Temple itself stood. Many rabbis today adhere to the leniencies of this law, while others say that Jews should not enter any part of the Temple Mount, for fear that they will enter the wrong areas.

Furthermore, as Rabbi Zalman Melamed noted on Tuesday in response to Riyan’s statement, Jewish Law most certainly forbids non-Jews from entering the holy areas of the Mount. (See Mishna, Tr. Kelim 1,8)

Rabbi Melamed, who heads the Beit El Yeshiva Center and is Chief Rabbi of Beit El, is among those who discourage Jews from ascending to the Temple Mount.  However, he stated, “Riyan’s statement that Jewish law forbids Jews from ascending to the Temple Mount is an expression of nerve. It is true that according to Jewish Law, a Jew who is not in a pure state cannot ascend to the Temple Mount - but certainly Arabs may not ascend to the Temple either.”

Riyan released a statement saying that the “extremist settlers” and the “Jerusalem extremists” are linked by a desire to “create facts on the ground in opposition to international law, humanism, and even the word of the Creator.”

“If Israel does not intend to build a synagogue [on the Temple Mount] or build the fake Holy Temple,” Sheikh Riyan said, “it must prove this to the entire Arab world.”

Many Muslim clerics have claimed that there never was a Jewish Holy Temple atop the site – contradicting not only Jewish sources and countless historical and archeological proofs, but also an Islamic Waqf booklet of 1925 describing the Temple Mount that mentions, twice, the historic existence of the Holy Temples there.

A historical journey to visit scattered Jewish communities was undertaken by Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela from 1165 to 1173 that crossed and tracked some of the areas that are today in the geographic area of Oman. His trek began as a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. He had hoped to settle there and may have had a commercial motive as well as a religious one. He intended to catalogue the Jewish communities on the route to the Holy Land so as to provide a guide to where hospitality may be found for Jews travelling to the Holy Land. He took the “long road” stopping frequently, meeting people, visiting places, describing occupations and giving a demographic count of Jews in every town and country. One of the known towns that Benjamin of Tudela reported as having a Jewish community was Muscat located in the area of Oman in the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula.

Map of the travels of Benjamin of Tudela

In the mid 19th century, the British Lieutenant J.R. Wellsted documented the Jews of Musqat in his memoirs Travels in Arabia, volume one. He mentions that there are “a few Jews in Musqat, who arrived there in 1828, being driven from Baghdad, by the cruelties and extortions of the Pacha Daud.” He also notes that Jews were not discriminated against at all in Oman, which was not the case in other Arab countries (they did not have to live in Ghettos, nor identify themselves as Jews, not walk in the road if a Muslim was walking on the same street, as was the case in Yemen). The Jews of Musqat [Muscat] were employed mostly in the making of silver ornaments, banking, and liquor sales. Despite the lack of persecution in Oman, the community is believed to have disappeared before 1900. During World War II, a Jewish American Army enlisted man, Emanuel Glick, encountered a small community of Omani Jews in Muscat, but this community consisted mostly of recent migrants from Yemen.

Omani officials have begun to reach out to Jewish American and Israeli leaders. The American Jewish Committee recently hosted a meeting at which: “Israeli and Omani leaders gathered at AJC to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Middle East Desalination Research Center, one of the success stories of efforts to deepen Arab-Israeli cooperation. Speakers include Sayyid Badr, secretary-general of the Foreign Ministry of Oman; Israeli Tzipi Livni; and Charles Lawson of the U.S. State Department.

Bible Discovered Maps Category will have future postings related to Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela in this article.

Khedouri explained, “Most of the Jewish men were traders and the women worked as teachers, nurses, and from the very start developed strong bonds of friendship with the local citizens.” Ms. Khedouri was quoted by the Gulf News as saying that her book “shows how Bahrain has practiced religious tolerance all these years and how privileged everyone should feel to be living in this beautiful Kingdom, which has always offered and will continue to offer peace and security to all its citizens.” In an earlier interview, with the Bahrain Tribune, Khedouri said, “The peaceful co-existence we have with the Bahrainis is proof of the religious tolerance advocated by His Majesty the King, Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa.”

Before the establishment of the State of Israel, nearly 600 Jews lived in Bahrain, but many fled in the wake of anti-Semitic rioting in 1947-48 and again in 1967. Currently, Bahraini Jews are not allowed to visit Israel, although, officially, Bahrain agreed to cease adherence to the economic boycott of Israel in exchange for a free-trade agreement with the United States in 2004. According to a Jewish Virtual Library entry by Jewish researcher, Ariel Scheib, Jews have lived in what became the modern kingdom of Bahrain since the times of the Talmud. He further stated that it is mentioned in Arabian sources that Jews lived in Hajar, the capital of Bahrain, in 630 AD and refused to convert to Islam when Muhammad sent an army to occupy the territory.

Various sources cite Bahrain’s Jewish community as being from 36 to 50 people and is the only Arab Persian Gulf state with a synagogue. Jews are one of several communities that form the core of the liberal middle classes and several are even active in politics: a Jewish businessman, Ebrahim Daoud Nonoo, sits in the appointed upper house of parliament and a Jewish woman, Houda Ezra Nonoo heads a human rights group which has campaigned against the reintroduction of the death penalty in the tiny Kingdom. Neither are considered controversial figures, even among Salafist politicians.

The modern Jewish community in Bahrain dates from the beginning of the twentieth century when families immigrated from the large Iraqi Jewish community in Baghdad. At its height it is said to have over six hundred people, although it declined after the establishment of the State of Israel and the Six-Day War. There were riots in 1948, but Houda Nonoo told The Independent newspaper: “I don’t think it was Bahrainis who were responsible. It was people from abroad. Many Bahrainis looked after Jews in their houses.” This view is supported by Sir Charles Belgrave, formerly a political adviser to the government of Bahrain – which at the time was subject to treaty relations with Britain – who recalled in a memoir: “The leading Arabs were very shocked … most of them, when possible, had given shelter and protection to their Jewish neighbours… [the riots] had one surprising effect; it put an end to any active aggression by the Bahrain Arabs against the Bahrain Jews.”

As of 2007, the Jewish population of Bahrain numbers approximately 36. At this time, the tolerance extended to the island’s Jewish community is the result of the policy of its leader, King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa. Bahraini Jews are prohibited from traveling to Israel, and the island’s boycott of Israeli products was in effect until 2004, when a free-trade agreement with the United States put an end to the official boycott.

At present, there have been no acts of physical violence or harassment of Jews or vandalism of Jewish community institutions, such as schools, cemeteries, or the synagogue. The Government has not enacted any laws protecting the right of Jews to religious freedom; however, it has not interfered with their freedom to practice. The Government has made no effort specifically to promote antibias and tolerance education. Some anti-Semitic political commentary and editorial cartoons continue to appear, usually linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jews practice their faith privately without interference from the Government.

Bahrain has nominated [Houda Ezra Nonoo|Houda Nonoo], a Jewish woman as its ambassador to the United States.

Geographic location of Bahrain - Jews lived in the areas as highlighted on this map

The history of Jews in Saudi Arabia’ refers to the Jewish history in the areas that are now within the territory of Saudi Arabia. It is a history that goes back to Biblical times. The first mention of Jews in the areas of modern-day Saudi Arabia dates back, by some accounts, to the time of the First Temple. Immigration to the Arabian Peninsula began in earnest in the 2nd century CE, and by the 6th and 7th centuries there was a considerable Jewish population in Hejaz, mostly in and around Medina, in part because of the embrace of Judaism by such leaders as Dhu Nuwas (who was very aggressive about converting his subjects to Judaism, and who persecuted Christians in his kingdom as a reaction to Christian persecution of Jews) and Abu Karib Asad.

The Hejazi Jews were mostly wine merchants and traders. At the same time, a considerable Jewish population was growing in nearby present-day Yemen, particularly in Aden and Hadramaut, which sustained their Jewish populations until relatively recently. Jewish settlement also existed in the northern parts of the peninsula.

There were three main Jewish tribes in Medina, forming the most important Hejazi community before the rise of Islam in Arabia. These were the Banu Nadir, the Banu Qainuqa, and the Banu Qurayza. Most of the Jewish tribes were later killed by Arab Muslims of the 7th and 8th centuries following a massive betrayal by the Jews towards a previously agreed truce with the Muslims of Madinah. In this clean-up operation, only those adult males were killed who took active part in breaking the truce and trying to kill the prophet Muhammad following Islamic law of sparing elderly, disabled, women & minors.

Other Arabian Jewish tribes in Muhammed’s time: Banu Awf; Banu Harith; Banu Jusham; Banu Najjar; Banu Sa’ida; Banu Shutayba

The Banu Nadir were a Jewish tribe who lived in northern Arabia until the 7th century, at the oasis of Yathrib (now known as Medina). They came into conflict with Muhammad and, having been expelled from the city, together with the Quraysh planned the Battle of the Trench. They later participated in the battle of Khaybar.

In early Medina, in addition to the Banu Nadir, there were two other major Jewish tribes: the Banu Qurayza and the Banu Qaynuqa. They were joined centuries later by two non-Jewish Arab tribes from Yemen, Banu Aus and Banu Khazraj.

The Banu Nadir settled outside the city of Yathrib, now Medina, because of the Roman persecutions of the Jews in Roman Palestini. According to the Muslim historian al-Yaqubi, the Banu Nadir were an Arab tribe ethnically, which had converted to Judaism and initially settled on the eponymous Mount Nadir. Some, however, believe them to be an ethnically Jewish tribe connected with the Khaybar Jews. Like other Medinese Jews, Banu Nadir bore Arabic names, but spoke a distinct dialect of Arabic. They earned their living through agriculture, money lending, and trade in weapons and jewels, maintaining commercial relations with Arab merchants of Mecca. Their fortresses were located half a day’s march to the south of Medina. Banu Nadir were wealthy and lived in some of the best lands in Medina.

When the two Arabian tribes of Aws and Khazraj went to war against each other in the Battle of Bu’ath in 617, the three Jewish tribes split on different sides of the war. The Banu Nadir, led by Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf and Huyayy ibn Akhtab, and the Banu Qurayza fought with the Banu Aus, while the Banu Qaynuqa were allied with the Banu Khazraj. The latter were defeated after a long and arduous battle.

Muhammad was invited to Medina to broker a peace between the warring tribes, and in September 622, he arrived with a group of his followers, who were given shelter by members of the indigenous community known as the Ansar. Amongst his first actions was the construction of the first Mosque in Medina, as well as obtaining residence with Abu Ayyub al-Ansari. He then set about the establishment of a pact, known as the Constitution of Medina, between the Muslims, the Ansar, and the various Jewish tribes of Medina to regulate the matters of governance of the city, as well as the extent and nature of inter-community relations. Conditions of the pact included boycotting Quraysh, abstinence from “extending any support to them”, assistance of one another if attacked by a third party, as well as “defending Medina, in case of a foreign attack”.

When Muhammad expelled the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qaynuqa, the Banu Nadir did not get involved, viewing the conflict as another example of tribal struggle. The conflict led to a ruling that such future action by any of the other parties to the Constitution of Medina would constitute a voiding of their benefits under the system, and requiring subsequent punishment.

After the Battle of Badr, one of the Banu Nadir’s chiefs Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf, who was also a gifted poet, wrote a poetic eulogy commemorating the slain Quraish notables; later, he also wrote erotic poetry about Muslim women, which the Muslims found offensive. This poetry influenced so many that his actions were considered directly against the Constitution of Medina which states, loyalty gives protection against treachery and this document will not (be employed to) protect one who is unjust or commits a crime

Other historians cite that Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf went to the Quraish in order to lament the loss at Badr and to incite them to take up arms to regain lost honor, noting the statement of Muhammad: “He (Ka’b) has openly assumed enmity to us and speaks evil of us and he has gone over to the polytheists (who were at war with Muslims) and has made them gather against us for fighting”. This too was thought to be in contravention of the Constitution of Medina, of which the tribe led by Ka’b ibn al-Asharf was a signatory, which prohibited them from “extending any support” to the tribes of Mecca, namely Banu Quraish.

Muhammad called upon his followers to kill Ka’b. Muhammad ibn Maslama offered his services, collecting four others. By pretending to have turned against Muhammad, Muhammad ibn Maslama and the others enticed Ka’b out of his fortress on a moonlit night, and killed him in spite of his vigorous resistance. Some attribute this action to norms of the Arab society of that period that demanded retaliation for a slight to a group’s honor. The Jews were terrified at his assassination, and as the historian ibn Ishaq put it “…there was not a Jew who did not fear for his life”.

After defeat by the Quraish at the Mount Uhud in March, 625, the Banu Nadir challenged Muhammad as the leader of Medina.

In July of the same year, two men were killed during skirmish in which the Muslims were involved. As a result Muhammad went to the Nadir, asking them to make a contribution towards the blood money of two men killed. Initially most of the Nadir, except Huyayy ibn Akhtab, were inclined to accept Muhammad’s request. However, Ibn Ubayy communicated to ibn Akhtab of his intent, along with allied nomads, to attack Muhammad. The Nadir, then postponed the contribution until later that day.

Muhammad left the locality immediately accusing the Banu Nadir of plotting to assassinate him, saying to have learned this either through revelation or Muhammad ibn Maslama. Watt suggests that, in accordance with 7th century Arabian ideals, Muhammad knew the Banu Nadir sought an opportunity to kill him, in order to avenge the death of Ka’b bin Ashraf. Watt deduces that Banu Nadir’s postponement of the contribution gave them such an opportunity.

According to other sources, the Banu Nadir invited Muhammad to their habitations for a religious debate, to which Muhammad accepted. Muhammad also accepted the condition that he bring no more than three men with him. On his way he was notified by a Banu Nadir convert to Islam of an assassination attempt at the debate.

Muhammad besieged the Banu Nadir. He ordered them to surrender their property and leave Medina within ten days. The tribe at first decided to comply, but “certain persons of Medina who were not Believers sent a message to the Banu al-Nadir, saying, ‘Hold out, and defend yourselves; we shall not surrender you to Muhammad. If you are attacked we shall fight with you and if you are sent away we shall go with you.’” Huyayy ibn Akhtab decided to put up resistance, hoping also for help from the Banu Qurayza, despite opposition within the tribe. The Nadir were forced to surrender after the siege had lasted for 14 days, when the promised help failed to materialize and when Muhammad ordered the burning and felling of their palm-trees. Under the conditions of surrender, the Banu Nadir could only take with them what they could carry on camels with the exception of weapons.

The Banu Nadir left on 600 camels, parading through Medina to the music of pipes and tambourines. Al-Waqidi described their impressive farewell: “Their women were decked out in litters wearing silk, brocade, velvet, and fine red and green silk. People lined up to gape at them.” Most of Banu Nadir found refuge among the Jews of Khaybar, while others emigrated to Syria. According to Ibn Ishaq, the chiefs of Nadir who went to Khaybar were Sallam b. Abu’l-Huqayq, Kinana b. al-Rabi and Huyayy b. Akhtab. When these chiefs arrvied in Khaybar, the Jewish inhabitants of Khaybar became subject to them.

Muhammad divided their land between his companions who had emigrated with him from Mecca. Until then, the emigrants had to rely upon the Medinese sympathizers for financial assistance. Muhammad reserved a share of the seized land for himself, which also made him financially independent.

Upon expulsion of the Banu Nadir, Muhammad is said to have received a revelation of the Surah al-Hashr.

A number of Jews who had formed a party against Muhammad, including Sallam b. Abu’l-Huqayq, Kinana b. al-Rabi and Huyayy b. Akhtab, the chiefs of Nadir who had gone to Khaybar, together with two chiefs from the tribe of B. Wa’ili went to Quraysh and invited them to form a coalition against Muhammad so that they might get rid of him altogether. Then they persuaded the tribe of Ghaftan to join the battle against Muhammad. Banu Nadir promised half the date harvest of Khaybar to nomadic tribes if they would join the battle against Muslims. Abu Sufyan, the military leader of Quraysh, with the financial help of Banu Nadir had mustered a force of size 10,000 men. Muhammad was able to prepare a force of about 3000 men. He had however adopted a new form of defense, unknown in Arabia at that time: Muslims had dug a trench wherever Medina lay open to cavalry attack. The idea is credited to a Persian convert to Islam, Salman the Persian. The siege of Medina began on March 31, 627 and lasted for two weeks. Abu Sufyan’s troops were unprepared for the fortifications they were confronted with, and after an ineffectual siege lasting several weeks, the coalition decided to go home. The Qur’an discusses this battle in verses Qur’an 33:9-33:27

In 628, Muhammad attacked Khaybar. According to William Montgomery Watt, this was motivated by the presence of the Banu Nadir in Khaybar, who were inciting hostilities along with neighboring Arab tribes against Muhammad. Laura Veccia Vaglieri adds other motifs such as raising his prestige among his followers, as well as to capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests.

Later, Muhammad sent a delegation under Abdullah bin Rawaha to ask another chief of the Banu Nadir, Usayr (Yusayr) ibn Zarim to come to Medina along with other Nadir leaders to discuss the two groups political relations. Among whom were Abdullah bin Unays, an ally of Banu Salima, a clan hostile to the Jews. When they came to him they spoke to him and treated him saying that if he would come to Muhammad he would give him an appointment and honour him. They kept on at him until he went with them with a number of Jews. Abdullah bin Unays mounted him on his beast until when he was in al-Qarqara, about six miles from Khaybar, al-Yusayr changed his mind about going with them. Abdullah perceived his intention as he was preparing to draw his sword so he rushed at him and struck him with his sword cutting off his leg. Al-Yusayr hit him with a stick of shauhat wood which he had in his hand and wounded his head. All Muhammad’s emissaries fell upon the thirty Jewish companions and killed them except one man who escaped on his feet. Abdullah bin Unays is the assassin who volunteered and got permission to kill Banu Nadir’s Sallam ibn Abu al-Huqayq at a previous night mission in Khaybar.

Muhammad and his followers attacked Khaybar in May/June 628 after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Although the Jews put up fierce resistance, the lack of central command and their unpreparedness for an extended siege sealed the outcome of the battle in favor of the Muslims. When all but two fortresses were captured, the Jews managed to negotiate their surrender. The terms required them to hand over one-half of the annual produce to the Muslims, while the land itself became the collective property of the Muslim state.

The agreement, however, did not cover the Banu Nadir tribe, who were not given any quarter. Muslims killed all the men of the Banu Nadir and divided the women among themselves.According to Ibn Ishaq, when the Banu Nadir’s treasurer Kinana ibn al-Rabi was discovered hiding some of the tribe’s wealth, he was tortured by Muhammad’s order to compel him to reveal the location of the rest, then beheaded. Muhammad took al-Rabi’s widow Safiyya bint Huyayy, who was also the daughter of the killed Banu Nadir chief Huyayy ibn Akhtab, as his wife.

Muslim biographers of Muhammad tell a story that a Jewish woman of the Banu Nadir attempted to poison Muhammad to avenge her slain relatives. She poisoned a piece of lamb that she cooked for Muhammad and his companions, putting a particularly high amount into the shoulder — Muhammad’s favorite part. The attempt on Muhammad’s life failed because he reportedly spit out the meat, feeling that it was poisoned, while one of his companions ate the meat and died. Muhammad’s companions then reported that on his deathbed Muhammad said that his illness was the result of that poison.

The Banu Qaynuqa (also spelled Banu Kainuka, Banu Kaynuka, Banu Qainuqa) were one of the three main Jewish tribes living in the 7th century of Medina, now in Saudi Arabia. In 624, they were expelled by Muhammad.In the 7th century, the Banu Qaynuqa were living in two fortresses in the south-western part of the city of Yathrib, now Medina, having settled there at an unknown date. Although the Banu Qaynuqa bore mostly Arabic names, they were both ethnically and religiously Jewish. They owned no land, earned their living through commerce and craftsmanship, including goldsmithery. The marketplace of Yathrib was located in the area of the town where the Qaynuqa lived. The Banu Qaynuqa were allied with the local Arab tribe of Khazraj and supported them in their conflicts with the rival Arab tribe of Aws.

In September 622, Muhammad arrived at Medina with a group of his followers, who were given shelter by members of the indigenous community known as the Ansar. He proceeded to set about the establishment of a pact, known as the Constitution of Medina, between the Muslims, the Ansar, and the various Jewish tribes of Medina to regulate the matters of governance of the city, as well as the extent and nature of inter-community relations. Conditions of the pact, according to traditional Muslim sources, included boycotting the Quraysh, abstinence from “extending any support to them”, assistance of one another if attacked by a third party, as well as “defending Medina, in case of a foreign attack”.

The nature of this document as recorded by Ibn Ishaq and transmitted by Ibn Hisham is the subject of dispute among modern historians many of whom maintain that this “treaty” is possibly a collage of agreements, oral rather than written, of different dates, and that it is not clear when they were made or with whom.

In March 624, Muslims led by Muhammad defeated the Meccans of the Banu Quraish tribe in the Battle of Badr. Ibn Ishaq writes that a dispute broke out between the Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa (the allies of the Khazraj tribe) soon afterwards. When a Muslim woman visited a jeweler’s shop in the Qaynuqa marketplace, she stole (shoplifted) many pieces of expensive gold jewellery, hiding it in her clothing. She was pestered to uncover her face. The goldsmith, a Jew, pinned her clothing such, that upon getting up, she was stripped naked. A Muslim man coming upon the resulting commotion killed the shopkeeper in retaliation. The Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa.

Traditional Muslim sources view these episodes as a violation of the Constitution of Medina. Muhammad himself regarded this as casus belli. Western historians, however, do not find in these events the underlying reason for Muhammad’s attack on the Qaynuqa. According to F.E. Peters, the precise circumstances of the alleged violation of the Constitution of Medina are not specified in the sources. According to Fred Donner, available sources do not elucidate the reasons for the expulsion of the Qaynuqa. Donner argues that Muhammad turned against the Qaynuqa because as artisans and traders, the latter were in close contact with Meccan merchants. Weinsinck views the episodes cited by the Muslim historians, like the story of the Jewish goldsmith, as having no more than anecdotal value. He writes that the Jews had assumed a contentious attitude towards Muhammad, and as a group possessing substantial independent power, they posed a great danger. Wensinck thus concludes that Muhammad, strengthened by the victory at Badr, soon resolved to eliminate the Jewish opposition to himself. Norman Stillman also believes that Muhammad decided to move against the Jews of Medina after being strengthened in the wake of the Battle of Badr.

Muhammad then approached the Banu Qaynuqa, gathering them in the market place and addressing them as follows,O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God’s covenant with you.

To which the Banu Qaynuqa tribe replied,Muhammad, do you think that we are like your people? Do not be deluded by the fact that you met a people with no knowledge of war and that you made good use of your oppurtunity. By God, if you fight us you will know that we are real men!

Shibli Nomani and Safi al-Mubarakpuri view this response as a declaration of war. According to the Muslim tradition, the verses 3:10-13 of the Qur’an were revealed to Muhammad following the exchange. Muhammad then besieged the Banu Qaynuqa for fourteen or fifteen days, according to ibn Hisham, after which the tribe surrendered unconditionally. It was certain, according to Watt, that there were some sort of negotiations. At the time of the siege, the Qaynuqa had a fighting force of 700 men, 400 of whom were armoured. Watt concludes, that Muhammad could not have besieged such a large force so successfully if the Qaynuqa’s allies did not whole-heartedly support Muhammad.

After the surrender of Banu Qaynuqa, Abdullah ibn Ubayy, the chief of a section of the clan of Khazraj, pleaded for them. According to Ibn Ishaq: Abd Allah b. Ubbay b. Salul rose up when God had put them in his power, and said, “Muhammad, treat my mawali well”; for they were the confederates of al-Khazraj. The Prophet delayed his answer, so ‘Abd Allah repeated, “Muhammad, treat my mawali well.” The Prophet turned away from him, and he put his hand into (The Messenger’s) collar. The Messenger of God said, “Let me go!” - he was so angry that they could see shadows in his face (that is, his face coloured). The he said, “Damn you, let me go!” He replied, “No, by God, I will not let you go until you treat my mawali well. Four hundred man without armour and three hundred with coats of mail, who defended me from the Arab and non-Arab alike, and you would mow them in a single morning? By God, I do not feel safe and am afraid of what the future may have in store.” So the Messenger of God said, “They are yours.”

According to Michael Cook, Muhammad initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah’s insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa. According to William Montgomery Watt, Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy was attempting to stop the expulsion, and Muhammad’s insistence was that the Qaynuqa must leave the city, but was prepared to be lenient about other conditions; Ibn Ubayy argument was that presence of Qaynuqa with 700 fighting men can be helpful in the view of the expected Meccan onslaught. Rodinson states that Muhammad wanted to put all the men to death, but was convinced not to do so by Abdullah ibn Ubayy, who was an old ally of the Qaynuqa. Because of this interference and other episodes of his discord with Muhammad, Abdullah ibn Ubayy earned for himself the title of the leader of hypocrites (munafiqun) in the Muslim tradition.

The Banu Qaynuqa left first for the Jewish colonies in the Wadi al-Kura, north of Medina, and from there to Der’a in Syria, west of Salkhad. In the course of time, they assimilated with the Jewish communities, pre-existing in that area, strengthening them numerically.

Muhammad divided the property of the Banu Qaynuqa, including their arms and tools, among his followers, taking for himself a fifth share of the spoils for the first time. Some members of the tribe chose to stay in Medina and convert to Islam, possibly more out of opportunism than conviction. One man from the Banu Qaynuqa, Abdullah ibn Sailam, became a devout Muslim. Although some Muslim sources claim that he converted immediately after Muhammad’s arrival to Medina, modern scholars give more credence to the other Muslim sources, which indicate that 8 years later, 630, as the year of ibn Salam’s conversion.

The Banu Qurayza alternate spellings include Quraiza, Qurayzah, Quraytha, and the archaic Koreiza) were a Jewish tribe who lived in northern Arabia until the 7th century, at the oasis of Yathrib (now known as Medina).

Jewish tribes reportedly arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a culturally, economical and politically dominant position. However, in 5th century, the Banu Aws and the Banu Khazraj, two Arab tribes that had arrived from Yemen, gained dominance. When these two tribes became embroiled in conflict with each other, the Jewish tribes, now clients or allies of the Arabs, fought on different sides, the Qurayza siding with the Aws.

In 622, the Islamic prophet Muhammad arrived at Yathrib from Mecca and reportedly established a compact between the conflicting parties. While the city found itself at war with Muhammad’s native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh, tensions between the growing numbers of Muslims and the Jewish communities mounted.

In 627, when the Quraysh and their allies besieged the city in the Battle of the Trench, the Qurayza entered into (eventually inconclusive) negotiations with the besiegers. Subsequently, the tribe was charged with treason and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad. The Banu Qurayza eventually surrendered and all the men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were beheaded, while the women and children were enslaved.

Extant sources provide no conclusive evidence whether the Banu Qurayza were ethnically Jewish or Arab converts to Judaism. Just like the other Jews of Yathrib, the Qurayza claimed to be of Israelite descent and observed the commandments of Judaism, but adopted many Arab customs and intermarried with Arabs.They were dubbed the “priestly tribe” (kahinan in Arabic from the Hebrew kohanim). Ibn Ishaq, the author of the traditional Muslim biography of Muhammad, traces their genealogy to Aaron and further to Abraham but gives only eight intermediaries between Aaron and the purported founder of the Qurayza tribe.

In the 5th century CE, the Qurayza lived in Yathrib together with two other major Jewish tribes: Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir. Al-Isfahani writes in his 10th century collection of Arabic poetry that Jews arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars; the Qurayza settled in Mahzur, a wadi in Al Harrah. The 15th century Muslim scholar Al-Samhudi lists a dozen of other Jewish clans living in the town of which the most important one was Banu Hadl, closely aligned with the Banu Qurayza. The Jews introduced agriculture to Yathrib, growing date palms and cereals, and this cultural and economic advantage enabled the Jews to dominate the local Arabs politically. Al-Waqidi wrote that the Banu Qurayza were people of high lineage and of properties, “whereas we were but an Arab tribe who did not possess any palm trees nor vineyards, being people of only sheep and camels.” Ibn Khordadbeh later reported that during the Persian domination in Hijaz, the Banu Qurayza served as tax collectors for the shah.

Ibn Ishaq tells of a conflict between the last Yemenite King of Himyar and the residents of Yathrib. When the king was passing by the oasis, the residents killed his son, and the Yemenite ruler threatened to exterminate the people and cut down the palms. According to Ibn Ishaq, he was stopped from doing so by two rabbis from the Banu Qurayza, who implored the king to spare the oasis because it was the place “to which a prophet of the Quraysh would migrate in time to come, and it would be his home and resting-place”. The Yemenite king thus did not destroy the town and converted to Judaism. He took the rabbis with him, and in Mecca, they reportedly recognized Kaaba as a temple built by Abraham and advised the king “to do what the people of Mecca did: to circumambulate the temple, to venerate and honor it, to shave his head and to behave with all humility until he had left its precincts.” On approaching Yemen, tells Ibn Ishaq, the rabbis demonstrated to the local people a miracle by coming out of a fire unscathed and the Yemenites accepted Judaism.

The situation changed after two Arab tribes named Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj arrived to Yathrib from Yemen. At first, these tribes were clients of the Jews, but toward the end of the 5th century CE, they revolted and became independent. Most modern historians accept the claim of the Muslim sources that after the revolt, the Jewish tribes became clients of the Aws and the Khazraj. William Montgomery Watt however considers this clientship to be unhistorical prior to 627 and maintains that the Jews retained a measure of political independence after the Arab revolt.

Eventually, the Aws and the Khazraj became hostile to each other. They had been fighting possibly for around a hundred years before 620 and at least since 570s. The Banu Nadir and the Banu Qurayza were allied with the Aws, while the Banu Qaynuqa sided with the Khazraj. There are reports of the constant conflict between Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadir, the two allies of Aws, yet the sources often refer to these two tribes as “brothers”. Aws and Khazraj and their Jewish allies fought a total of four wars. The last and bloodiest altercation was the Battle of Bu’ath, the outcome of which was inconclusive.

The Qurayza appear as a tribe of considerable military importance: they possessed large numbers of weaponry, as upon their surrender 1,500 swords, 2,000 lances, 300 suits of armor, and 500 shields were later seized by the Muslims. Kister notes that these quantities are “disproportionate relative to the number of fighting men” and conjectures that the “Qurayza used to sell (or lend) some of the weapons kept in their storehouses”. He also mentions that the Qurayza were addressed as Ahlu al-halqa (”people of the weapons”) by the Quraysh and notes that these weapons “strengthened their position and prestige in the tribal society”.

The continuing feud between the Aws and the Khazraj was probably the chief cause for several emissaries to invite Muhammad to Yathrib in order to adjudicate in disputed cases. Ibn Ishaq recorded that after his arrival in 622, Muhammad established a compact, the Constitution of Medina, which committed the Jewish and Muslim tribes to mutual cooperation. The nature of this document as recorded by Ibn Ishaq and transmitted by Ibn Hisham is the subject of dispute among modern historians, many of whom maintain that this “treaty” is possibly a collage of agreements, of different dates, and that it is not clear when they were made. Watt holds that the Qurayza and Nadir were probably mentioned in an earlier version of the Constitution requiring the parties not to support an enemy against each other.

Aside from the general agreements, the chronicles by Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi contain a report that after his arrival, Muhammad signed a special treaty with the Qurayza chief Ka’b ibn Asad. Ibn Ishaq gives no sources, while al-Waqidi refers to Ka’b ibn Malik of Salima, a clan hostile to the Jews, and Mummad ibn Ka’b, the son of a Qurayza boy who was sold into slavery in the aftermath of the siege and subsequently became a Muslim. The sources are suspect of being against the Qurayza and therefore the historicity of this agreement between Muhammad and the Banu Qurayza is open to grave doubt. Among modern historians, R. B. Serjeant supports the historicity of this document and suggests that the Jews knew “of the penalty for breaking faith with Muhammad”. On the other hand, Norman Stillman argues that the Muslim historians had invented this agreement in order to justify the subsequent treatment of the Qurayza. Watt also rejects the existence of such a special agreement but notes note that the Jews were bound by the aforementioned general agreement and by their alliance to the two Arab tribes not to support an enemy against Muhammad. Serjeant agrees with this and opines that the Qurayza were aware of the two parts of a pact made between Muhammad and the Jewish tribes in the confederation according to which “Jews having their religion and the Muslims having their religion excepting anyone who acts wrongfully and commits crime/acts treacherously/breaks an agreement, for he but slays himself and the people of his house.”

During the first few months after Muhammad’s arrival in Medina, the Banu Qurayza were involved in a dispute with the Banu Nadir: The more powerful Nadir rigorously applied Lex talionis against the Qurayza while not allowing it being enforced against themselves. Further, the blood money paid for killing a man of the Qurayza was only half of the blood-money required for killing a man of the Nadir, placing the Qurayza in a socially inferior position. The Qurayza called on Muhammad as arbitrator, who delivered the surah 5:42-45 and judged that the Nadir and Qurayza should be treated alike in the application of lex talionis and raised the assessment of the Qurayza to the full amount of blood money.

Tensions quickly mounted between the growing numbers of Muslims and Jewish tribes, while Muhammad found himself at war with his native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh. In 624, after his victory over the Meccans in the Battle of Badr, Muhammad expelled the Banu Qaynuqa from Medina. The Qurayza remained passive during the whole Qaynuqa affair, apparently because the Qaynuqa were historically allied with the Khazraj, while the Qurayza were the allies of the Aws.

Soon afterwards, Muhammad came into conflict with the Banu Nadir. He had one of the Banu Nadir’s chiefs, the poet Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf, assassinated and after the Battle of Uhud accused the tribe of treachery and plotting against his life and expelled them from the city. The Qurayza remained passive during this conflict, according to R. B. Serjeant because of the blood money issue related above.

In 627, the Meccans, accompanied by tribal allies among whom were Abyssinian mercenaries as well as the Banu Nadir - who had been very active in supporting the Meccans- marched against Medina - the Muslim stronghold - and laid siege to it. It is unclear whether or not their treaty with Muhammad, obliged the Qurayza help him defend Medina or merely to remain neutral, according to Ramadan, they had signed an agreement of mutual assistance with Muhammad. The Qurayza did not participate in the fighting - according to David Norcliffe, because they were offended by attacks against Jews in Muhammad’s preaching - but lent tools to the town’s defenders. According to Al-Waqidi, the Banu Qurayza helped the defense effort of Medina by supplying spades, picks, and baskets for the excavation of the defensive trench the defenders of Medina had dug in preparation. According to Watt, the Banu Qurayza “seem to have tried to remain neutral” in the battle but later changed their attitude when a Jew from Khaybar persuaded them that Muhammad was sure to be overwhelmed and though they did not commit any act overtly hostile to Muhammad, according to Watt, they entered into negotiations with the invading army.

Ibn Ishaq writes that during the siege, the Qurayza readmitted Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Banu Nadir whom Muhammad had exiled and who had instigated the alliance of his tribe with the besieging Quraysh and Ghatafan tribes. According to Ibn Ishaq, Akhtab persuaded the Qurayza chief Ka’b ibn Asad to help the Meccans conquer Medina. Ka’b was, according to Al-Waqidi’s account, initially reluctant to break the contract and argued that Muhammad never broke any contract with them or exposed them to any shame, but decided to support the Meccans after Huyayy had promised to join the Qurayza in Medina if the besieging army would return to Mecca without having killed Muhammad. Ibn Kathir and al-Waqidi report that Huyayy tore into pieces the agreement between Ka’b and Muhammad.

Rumors of this one-sided renunciation of the pact spread and were confirmed by Muhammad’s emissaries, Sa’d ibn Mua’dh and Sa’d ibn Ubadah, leading men of the Aws and Khazraj respectively. Sa’d ibn Mua’dh reportedly issued threats against the Qurayza but was restrained by his colleague. As this would have allowed the besiegers to access the city and thus meant the collapse of the defenders’ strategy, Muhammad “became anxious about their conduct and sent some of the leading Muslims to talk to them; the result was disquieting.” According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad ordered Nuaym ibn Masud, an well-respected elder of the Ghatafan who had secretly converted to Islam, to go to Muhammad’s enemies and sow discord among them. Nuaym went to the Qurayza and advised them to join the hostilities against Muhammad only if the besiegers provide hostages from among their chiefs. He then hurried to the invaders and warned them that if the Qurayza asked for hostages, it is because they intended to turn them over to the Medinan defenders. When the representatives of the Quraysh and the Ghatafan came to the Qurayza, asking for support in the planned decisive battle with Muhammad, the Qurayza indeed demanded hostages. The representatives of the besiegers refused, breaking down negotiations and resulting in the Banu Qurayza becoming extremely distrustful of the besieging army. The Qurayza did not take any actions to support them until the besieging forces retreated. Thus the threat of a second front against the defenders never materialised.

On the day of the Meccans’ withdrawal, Muhammad led his forces against the Banu Qurayza neighborhood. According to the Muslim tradition, he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. The Banu Qurayza retreated into their stronghold and endured the siege for 25 days. As their morale waned, Ka’b ibn Asad suggested three alternative ways out of their predicament: embrace Islam, kill their own children and women, then rush out for a charge to either win or die; or make a surprise attack on the Sabbath. The Banu Qurayza accepted none of these alternatives. Instead they asked to confer with Abu Lubaba, one of their allies from the Aws. According to Ibn Ishaq, Abu Lubaba felt pity for the women and children of the tribe who were crying and when asked whether the Qurayza should surrender to Muhammad, advised them to do so. However he also “made a sign with his hand toward his throat, indicating that [their fate] would be slaughter” The next morning, the Banu Qurayza surrendered and the Muslims seized their stronghold and their stores.The men numbering between 400 and 900 were bound and placed under the custody of Muhammad ibn Maslamah, who had killed Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf, while the women and children numbering about 1,000 were placed under Abdullah ibn Sallam, a former rabbi who had converted to Islam. [Bedouin]

The circumstances of the Qurayza’s demise has been related by Ibn Ishaq and other Muslim historians. Since their accounts are contradictory, modern scholars have interpreted them differently:

According to Watt, Peters and Stillman, the Qurayza surrendered to Muhammad’s judgement - a move Watt classifies as unconditional. The Aws, who wanted to honor their old alliance with the Qurayza, asked Muhammad to treat the Qurayza leniently as he had previously treated the Qaynuqa for the sake of Ibn Ubayy. (Arab custom required support of an ally, independent of the ally’s conduct to a third party.) Muhammad then suggested to bring the case before an arbitrator chosen from the Aws, to which both the Aws and the Qurayza agreed to. Muhammad then appointed Sa’d ibn Mua’dh to decide the fate of the Jewish tribe.

According to Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore, the tribe agreed to surrender on the condition of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing. According to Khadduri (also cited by Abu-Nimer), “both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them” in accordance with the Arabian tradition of arbitration.

Muir holds that the Qurayza surrendered on the condition that “their fate was decided by their allies, the Bani Aws”.

In all accounts, the appointed arbitrator was Sa’d ibn Mua’dh, a leading man among the Aws. During the Battle of the Trench, he had been one of Muhammad’s emissaries to the Quarayza (see above) and now was dying from a wound he had received later in the battle. When Sa’d arrived, his fellow Aws pleaded for leniency towards the Qurayza and on his request pledged that they would abide by his decision. He then pronounced that “the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives”. Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God’s judgment.

Sa’d dismissed the pleas of the Aws, according to Watt because being close to death and concerned with his afterlife, he put what he considered “his duty to God and the Muslim community” before tribal allegiance.Tariq Ramadan argues that Muhammad deviated from his earlier, more lenient treatment of prisoners as this was seen as “as sign of weakness if not madness” and Peterson concurs that the Muslims wanted to deter future treachery by severe punishment.

According to Stillman, Muhammad chose Sa’d so as not to pronounce the judgment himself after the precedents he had set with the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir: “Sa`d took the hint and condemned the adult males to death and the hapless women and children to slavery.” Furthermore, Stillman infers from Abu Lubaba’s gesture that Muhammad had decided the fate of the Qurayza even before their surrender.

Ibn Ishaq describes the killing of the Banu Qurayza men as follows:Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, ‘Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!’ This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, ‘By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.’ Then he went to the men and said, ‘God’s command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.’ Then he sat down and his head was struck off.

Several accounts note Muhammad’s companions as executioners, Ali and Al-Zubayr in particular, and that each clan of the Aws was also charged with killing a group of Qurayza men. Subhash Inamdar argues that this was done in order to avoid the risk of further conflicts between Muhammad and the Aws. According to Inamdar, Muhammad wanted to distance himself from the events and, had he been involved, would have risked alienating some of the Aws.

It is also reported, that alongside all the men, one woman who had thrown a millstone from the battlements during the siege and killed one of the Muslim besiegers, was put to death. Ibn Asakir writes in his History of Damascus that Banu Kilab, a clan of Arab clients of the Banu Qurayza, were killed alongside the Jewish tribe.

Three boys of the clan of Hadl, who had been with Qurayza in the strongholds, slipped out before the surrender and converted to Islam. The son of one of them, Muhammad ibn Ka’b al-Qurazi, gained distinction as a scholar. One or two other men also escaped.

The spoils of battle, including the enslaved women and children of the tribe, were divided up either upon the warriors that had participated in the siege or among the emigrees from Mecca (who had hitherto depended on the help of the Muslims native to Medina. Muhammad himself took a fifth of the value, as was customary among Muslims. As part of his share of the booty, Muhammad selected one of the women, Rayhana, and took her as part of his captives. She is said to have later become a Muslim. and Muhammad offered to free and marry her. According to some sources she accepted his proposal, while according to others she rejected it.

Some of the women and children of the Banu Qurayza were bought and sold by Jews, in particular the Banu Nadir. Peterson argues that this is because the Nadir felt responsible for the Quarayza due to the role of their chieftain in the events.

Walid N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad have disputed that the Banu Qurayza were killed on a large scale. Arafat disputes large-scale killings and argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who embellished or manufactured the details of the incident. Ahmad argues that only some of the leaders of the tribe were killed, while some of the fighters were taken prisoners. Watt finds Arafat’s arguments “not entirely convincing”, while Meir J. Kister has contradicted the arguments of Arafat and Ahmad.

The Qur’an briefly refers to the incident in Surah 33:26 and Muslim jurists have looked upon Surah 8:55-58 as a justification of the treatment of the Banu Qurayza, arguing that the Qurayza broke the pact with Muhammad, and thus Muhammad was justified in repudiating his side of the pact and declaring war on the Qurayza. Arab Muslim theologians and historians have either viewed the incident as “the punishment of the Medina Jews, who were invited to convert and refused, perfectly exemplify the Quran’s tales of what happened to those who rejected the prophets of old” or offered a political explanation.

In the 8th and early 9th century Muslim jurists, such as Ash-Shafii, based their judgements and decrees about collective punishment for treachery on the accounts of the demise of the Qurayza, with which they were well acquainted. However, the proceedings of Muhammad with regard to the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qurayza were not taken as a model for the relationship of Muslim states toward its Jewish subjects.

Paret and Watt say that the Banu Qurayza were killed not because of their faith but for “treasonable activities against the Medinan community”. Watt relates that “no important clan of Jews was left in Medina” but he and Paret also note that Muhammad did not clear all Jews out of Medina.

Aiming at placing the events in their historical context, Watt points to the “harsh political circumstances of that era” and argues that the treatment of Qurayza was regular Arab practice. Similar statements are made by Stillman, Paret, Lewis and Rodinson. On the other hand, Michael Lecker and Irving Zeitlin consider the events “unprecedented in the Arab peninsula - a novelty” and state that “prior to Islam, the annihilation of an adversary was never an aim of war.” Similar statements are made by Hirschberg and Baron.

The Banu Awf was one of the Jewish tribes of Arabia during Muhammad’s era.The Banu Awf were an Arab tribe who wished to settle in the Jewish-ruled Tayma. The population there insisted that in order to settle the Banu Awf must adopt Judaism. After having done so, they moved on to Yathrib. They were included in Point 30 of the Constitution of Medina as allies to the Muslims, being as “one nation”, but retaining their Jewish religion

The Banu Harith was one of the Jewish tribes of Arabia during Muhammad’s era. They were included in point 31 of the Constitution of Medina as allies to the Muslims, being as “one nation”, but retaining their Jewish religion.

The Banu Jusham was one of the Jewish tribes of Arabia during Muhammad’s era. They were included in point 31 of the Constitution of Medina as allies to the Muslims, being as “one nation”, but retaining their Jewish religion.

The Banu Najjar was one of the Jewish tribes of Arabia during Muhammad’s era. They were included in point 31 of the Constitution of Medina as allies to the Muslims, being as “one nation”, but retaining their Jewish religion

The Banu Sa’ida was one of the Jewish tribes of Arabia during Muhammad’s era.They were included in point 31 of the Constitution of Medina as allies to the Muslims, being as “one nation”, but retaining their Jewish religion.

It was in their Saqifah that Abu Bakr was elected as the first Sunni Caliph.

The Banu Shutayba was one of the Jewish tribes of Arabia during Muhammad’s era. They were included in point 31 of the Constitution of Medina as allies to the Muslims, being as “one nation”, but retaining their Jewish religion.

Banul Nadir

Detail from miniature painting The Prophet, Ali, and the Companions at the Massacre of the Prisoners of the Jewish Tribe of Beni Qurayzah, illustration of a 19th century text by Muhammad Rafi Bazil. Manuscript now in the British Library.

Map of Jews in Saudi Arabia

“O my people! Enter the Holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you!

VII. 137. And We made a people, considered weak (and of no account), inheritors of lands in both east and west, ­ lands where on We sent down Our blessings. The fair promise of thy Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, because they had patience and constancy, and We leveled to the ground the great works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his people erected (with such pride).

VII. 71. We delivered him (Abraham) and (his nephew) Lut (and directed them) to the land which We have blessed for the nations.

XVII. 101-104. To Moses We did give Nine Clear Sings: As the Children of Israel: when he came to them, Pharaoh said to him: “O Moses! I consider thee, indeed, to have been worked upon by sorcery!

Moses said, “Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!” So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him.

And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, “Dwell securely in the land (of promise)”: but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.

II. 248. And their Prophet said to them: “A Sign of his authority is that there shall come to you the Ark of the covenant, with (an assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol for you if ye indeed have faith.”

X. 93. We settled the Children of Israel in a beautiful dwelling­ place, and provided for them sustenance of the best: it was after knowledge had been granted to them, that they fell into schisms. Verily Allah will judge between them as to the schisms amongst them, on the Day of Judgment.

XXXIII. 23. Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah. of them some have completed their vow (to the extreme), and some (still) wait: but they have never changed (their determination) in the least:

II. 51,52. And remember We appointed forty nights for Moses, and in his absence ye took the calf (for worship), and ye did grievous wrong.

Even then We did forgive you; …The Bible, as given to the Jews is called “Allah’s revelation” and contains guidance and light!

VII. :45. It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): with therein guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed to Allah’s will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah’s book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.

XXXIII. 7. And remember We took from the prophets their covenant… from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant.

XXXVII114-122. Again (of old) We bestowed Our favour on Moses and Aaron, And We delivered them and their people from (their) Great Calamity; And We helped them, so they overcame (their troubles); And We gave them the Book which helps to make things clear; “Peace and salutation to Moses and Aaron!” Thus indeed do We reward those who do right. For they were two of our believing Servants.

III. 3. It is He Who sent down to thee, in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

III. 187. And remember Allah took a covenant from the People of the Book, to make it known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it;

VII. 69. Say: “O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.” It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith.

XL. 16,17. We did a foretime grant to the Children of Israel the Book the Power of Command, and Prophethood; We gave them, for Sustenance, things good and pure; and We favoured them above the nations.

XL. 53,54. We did aforetime give Moses the (Book of) Guidance, and We gave the book in inheritance to the Children of Israel,- A Guide and a Message to men of Understanding.

II. 63. And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you (The towering height) of Mount (Sinai) : (Saying): “Hold firmly to what We have given you and bring (ever) to remembrance what is therein: Perchance ye may fear Allah.”

VII. 70. Those who believe, those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,­ any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,­ on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

XXIX. 46. And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, “We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow.”

V. 21,22. Remember Moses said to his people: “O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.

“O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you!

VII. 137. And We made a people, considered weak (and of no account), inheritors of lands in both east and west, ­ lands where on We sent down Our blessings. The fair promise of thy Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, because they had patience and constancy, and We leveled to the ground the great works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his people erected (with such pride).

VII. 71. We delivered him (Abraham) and (his nephew) Lut (and directed them) to the land which We have blessed for the nations.

XVII. 101-104. To Moses We did give Nine Clear Sings: As the Children of Israel: when he came to them, Pharaoh said to him: “O Moses! I consider thee, indeed, to have been worked upon by sorcery!

Moses said, “Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!”

So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him.

And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, “Dwell securely in the land (of promise)”: but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.

 V. 6 The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. [Muslims have permission from Allah to eat the (kosher) food of Jews]

II. 62. Those who believe, and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,­ any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.II.82. Those who have faith and work righteousness, they are companions of the Garden: Therein shall they abide (for ever).

III. 113-115. Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right)…

They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous.

Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.

VII.170. As to those who hold fast by the (Jewish) Book and establish regular prayer, ­ never shall We suffer the reward of the righteous to perish.