This is the story of the tragic end of the Jews of Medina. A case of ethnic cleansing, betrayal and genocide carried out by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). The prophet raided the 2000 year old Jewish communities of Medina, killed their men, confiscated their properties, enslaved their wives and children and banished the unwanted with no provocation on the part of he Jews. The holy Prophet's sole motive was greed for their wealth and lust for their women.
It is difficult for us to find the truth
about what really happened to the Jewish inhabitants of Medina at the time of
Muhammad. There are no independent sources and the Jews who where eventually
exterminated by Muhammad left nothing for us to refer to. We are left only with
the Muslim historians’ version, which obviously tell the story tainted with
their fanatical faith to their prophet and their hatred of the Jews that is
conspicuous in every sentence they wrote about them.
Many Muslim apologists downplay the
importance and the number of the Jews of Medina. Dr. A. Zahoor and Dr. Z. Haq
writes, “History does not record much as to when first Jewish migration from
north to Yathrib (Medina) began as their numbers remained small throughout their
stay there. (1)
It may be true that all the writings of
the Jews of Medina is lost or destroyed by Muslims, but digging into the
writings of the Muslim scholars and reading between the lines one can find some
glimpses of what really happened here and there. Maududi, in his comments
on the Surah 59 of Quran (2) reporting from Kitab al-Aghani, [a
book of songs, an important source for information on medieval Islamic society,
vol. xix, p. 94, by Abu al-Faraj Ali of Esfahan (897-967)] writes.
“The Jews of the Hejaz claimed
that they had come to settle in Arabia during the last stage of the life of the
Prophet Moses (peace be upon him). They said that the Prophet Moses had
despatched an army to expel the Amalekites from the land of Yathrib and had
commanded it not to spare even a single soul of that tribe. The Israelite army
carried out the Prophet's command, but spared the life of a handsome prince of
the Amalekite king and returned with him to Palestine. By that time the Prophet
Moses had passed sway. His successors took great exception to what the army had
done, for by sparing the life of an Amalekite it had clearly disobeyed the
Prophet and violated the Mosaic Law. Consequently, they excluded the army from
their community, and it had to return to Yathrib and settle there forever. Thus
the Jews claimed that they had been living in Yathrib since about 1200 B.C.
The second Jewish immigration, according
to the Jews, took, place in 587 BC. when Nebuchadnezzer, the king of Babylon,
destroyed Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews throughout the world. The Arab Jews
said that several of their tribes at that time had come to settle in Wadi
al-Qura, Taima, and Yathrib.(Al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan).”
Maududi rejects both these claims and
says that “these have in fact no historical basis and probably the Jews had
invented this story in order to overawe the Arabs into believing that they were
of noble lineage and the original inhabitants of the land.”
However he maintains, “what is
established is that when in A.D. 70 the Romans massacred the Jews in Palestine,
and then in A.D. 132 expelled them from that land, many of the Jewish tribes
fled to find an asylum in the Hejaz, a territory that was contiguous to
Palestine in the south. There, they settled wherever they found water springs
and greenery, and then by intrigue and through money lending business gradually
occupied the fertile lands. Ailah, Maqna, Tabuk, Taima, Wadi al Qura, Fadak and
Khaiber came under their control in that very period, and Bani Quraizah, Bani
al-Nadir, Bani Bahdal, and Bani Qainuqa also came in the same period and
occupied Yathrib.”
Since there are no compelling historical
evidences for us to accept Maududi’s version of the History we may as well
conclude that Muslims (perhaps Maududi himself) invented this story in order to
undermine “the noble lineage of the Jews as the original inhabitants of
Yathrib”. It seems that the Jews, who were well established in Yathrib and by
the very admission of Maududi were “practically the owners of this green and
fertile land” (2) had little use for making such false claim about their
origin. On the other hand Muslims whose enmity of the Jews dates back to the
time of Muhammad himself and even a reputed scholar like Maududi cannot contain
his hatred of them when he writes about them, had more to gain in inventing
false stories to justify their expulsion and their ethnic cleansing from their
homeland.
No matter what, Muslim historians admit
that the Arab Jews, where living in Yathrib for centuries. “In the matter of
language, dress, civilization and way of life they had completely adopted
Arabism, even their names had become Arabian. Of the 12 Jewish tribes that had
settled in Hejaz, none except the Bani Zaura retained its Hebrew name. Except
for a few scattered scholars none knew Hebrew. In fact, there is nothing in the
poetry of the Jewish poets of the pre-Islamic days to distinguish it from the
poetry of the Arab poets in language, ideas and themes. They even inter-married
with the Arabs. In fact, nothing distinguished them from the common Arabs except
religion. Because of this Arabism the western orientalists have been misled into
thinking that perhaps they were not really Israelites but Arabs who had embraced
Judaism, or that at least majority of them consisted of the Arab Jews.” (2)
Western orientalists may not be that far
from the truth after all. Because even if originally the Jews migrated to
Arabia, after centuries, or if we believe in the Jewish version of the history,
close to 2000 years of intermarrying with Arabs, they must have become Arabs for
all intent and purposes.
Maududi writes, “No authentic history
of the Arabian Jews exists in the world. They have not left any writing of their
own in the form of a book or a tablet which might throw light on their past, nor
have the Jewish historians and writers of the non-Arab world made any mention of
them, the reason being that after their settlement in the Arabian peninsula they
had detached themselves from the main body of the nation, and the Jews of the
world did not count them as among themselves. For they had given up Hebrew
culture and language, even the names, and adopted Arabism instead.” (2)
Another reason that no authentic history
of the Arabian Jews exists is because Muhammad exterminated all of them. Dead
people are not known to write histories.
If the Jews were so Arabianized that
they were indistinguishable from the rest of the Arabs, then perhaps the Jewish
version of the history is more accurate and the Jews settled in Arabia much
earlier than the Muslim historians are willing to admit. But even if we had to
accept the Muslim version of the history, we learn that these Jews made Arabia
their home 500 years before the birth of Muhammad and they were as much entitled
to their land (Yathrib) as Muslim Albanians (originally Turks) are to Kosovo.
In A. D. 450 or 451, a great flood in
Yaman forced different tribes of the people of Saba to migrate to other parts of
Arabia. Among them Aus and the Khazraj went to settle in Yathrib. These two were
big tribes yet they were unskilled people. Unlike the Jews who practically were
the master of all trades, and the owners of most businesses, Arabs in Yathrib
made their living serving the Jews in their farms and households. They were
looked down at, by their Jewish masters and this was the cause of resentment
Yet these two tribes could not see eye to eye and each sought the alliance of one of the Jewish tribes. This worked out well; since the Bani Qainuqa, was not on friendly terms with the other two Jewish tribes also. So Bani Qainuqa and Khazraj formed an alliance together and Bani Quraizah, Bani al-Nadir and Aus Joined their strength together. It is important to note that these feuds were not religiously motivated but were tribal skirmishes.
Maududi comments, ”Because of
this they (the Jews) had not only to take part in the mutual wars of the Arabs
but they often had to go to war in support of the Arab tribe to which their
tribe was tied in alliance against another Jewish tribe which was allied to the
enemy tribe.”
If we could see through the tick fog of prejudice that has shortened the vision of Muslim scholars, we can see, these tribes living in Medina were all Arabs, practicing different religions. And just as other tribes and nations anywhere in the world they had their skirmishes, but as the structure of their alliances suggest, their conflicts were not religiously motivated. This is extremely important. Tribal skirmishes are short lived but religious hatred never dies. It transcends time and space. As we shall see later, it was Muhammad who introduced the religious hatred. It is him who should be credited as the founder of religious intolerance in Arabia and perhaps the entire world. Muhammad is often hailed as the man who united warring Arab tribes. That may be true. But without him these tribes would have put aside their conflicts sooner or later, one way or another, just as other feuding tribes did eventually in other parts of the world. Almost everywhere, formerly hostile tribes have joined together to form stronger nations. Muhammad united the Arabs and turned them into a mighty force, which invaded other countries, devastating other civilizations and imposing their own language, culture and religion.
By embracing Islam Arabs benefited
economically from their unity, yet the harm of religious hatred that Muhammad
inflicted upon the entire humanity for centuries has outweighed all the good
that the unity of few desert dwellers of Arabia might have brought to them.
Arabs were always at war with each
other. But among them, Meccans had an envious position. Ka’ba, the holy place
of all the Arabs was in Mecca. It was a place for pilgrimage and that meant
power and money for Meccans.
When Abu Talib, Muhammad’s uncle and
Khadija, his wife died he lost two of his most powerful supporters and the
people of Mecca increased their hostility towards him. He recalled the offer of
few men from Thaif who had told him if he made their town the holy place of his
new religion, thus making it the religious and the commercial hub of his
followers, the Bani Thaqif, people of Taif, might support his cause. So he and
his adoptive son Zaid ibn Harith secretly went to Taif in 620 C.E. (Common Era)
seeking the alliance of its inhabitants and promising them to make their city
the holy place for the Muslims. But instead the Bani Thaqif mocked him and even
his plea to keep their visit a secret was not granted. The leaders of Taif may
have envied Mecca’s religious prestige but they did not wish to jeopardise
their comfortable life for a risky adventure with an obscure religious
pretender.
When the Quraish learned of this they
were enraged and they escalated their hostility to Muhammad until a couple of
years later they decided to assassinate him.
Muhammad learned of the plot against his
life and escaped to Yathrib. In Yathrib he had some followers. They belonged to
both Khazraj and Aus. These two tribes were weary of constant fighting and
especially of a recent Battle (Bu’ath) that occurred among them. They were
looking for a way to end the hostilities. So the leaders of both parties
accepted Muhammad to act as the mediator among them.
It was an Arab custom and it is also
practiced everywhere else, even to this day, that two feuding parties agree on
someone to act as the arbitrator. Muhammad who was at first considered to be an
outsider and therefore impartial was called to act as an arbitrator in one of
these conflicts. It is important to note that the conflict in Yathrib was not
between Muslims and Jews; otherwise Muhammad could not have acted as the
arbitrator. Also as we saw earlier there were no religious disagreements in
Yathrib. However Jews were part of the treaty because of their alliances with
the Arab tribes.
This must have been a golden opportunity
in the prophetic carrier of Muhammad, which changed his fortune and turned the
odds in his favour. As part of the pledge, they were to protect the Prophet as
they would protect their women and children if he were attacked by the Meccans.
The numbers of the Muslims in Yathrib
grow thanks to the tolerance of the Jews and their error in giving the
immigrants a safe haven. Jews did not foresee that the man to whom they give
asylum today would be so ungrateful that would turn against them and eventually
would be the cause of their destruction.
The treaty did not give Muslims a
mandate to govern. Ibn Hisham reports part of that treaty. But as we shall see
this treaty must have been forged. It states.
"The Jews must bear their expenses
and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who
attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and
consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. They shall
sincerely wish one another well. Their relations will be governed by piety and
recognition of the rights of others, and not by sin and wrongdoing. The wronged
must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as the war lasts.
Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. If any dispute or
controversy likely to cause trouble should arise, it must be referred to God and
to Muhammad the Apostle of God; Quraish and their helpers shall not be given
protection. The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any
attack on Yathrib; Every one shall be responsible for the defence of the portion
to which he belongs" (lbn Hisham, vol. ii, pp. 147 to 150).
There are several clues that make us
realize that this treaty is altered. The most obvious is that the Jews could not
have signed a document, which would have acknowledged Muhammad to be the Apostle
of God. This would have meant acceptance of Muhammad’s claim by the Jews,
which obviously never happened. So the above document is most likely forged.
Also there are contradictions in the context of the document. It starts as a
treaty signed by two sovereign nations (tribes) with equal rights and powers.
However the phrases “The Jews must pay with the believers so long as the war
lasts” and “If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should
arise, it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the Apostle of God;”
contradict that notion of equality.
These sentences are more likely inserted
later. They give Muslims superiority, which is in conflict with the rest of the
document that gives an impression of an agreement between two equals. But the
most important point is how could Muhammad be the arbitrator if he is the
beneficiary in this treaty? It is amazing that Muslim scholars have read this
document for centuries and it has never occurred to them to ask how could
Muhammad be the arbitrator if he is part of the treaty? But that is exactly the
point. A religious mind is shackled. Although they would laugh if a similar
story is said about another group, they do not seem to have any difficulty is
accepting it when it is about their own religion.
These are telltales that the above
treaty is not authentic. Yet, since the real document, along with the Jews who
were a part of that treaty, was destroyed by Muhammad and his ready-to-assassin
followers, we are left with nothing, but this lame document to find the truth.
Which makes our task not unlike trying to find a needle in a haystack.
After the incident of Badr that Muhammad’s men ambushed
a merchant caravan, and brought the booty his fortunes changed. He was enriched
by the stolen booty, and his popularity grew. He promised wealth and slave girls
to those how took part in his armed robberies and paradise with hoories and
rivers of wine to those who were killed. For an ignorant fanatic and at the same
time greedy Arab this was a proposition hard to resist. If he survived he would
have his share of booty including women and if he died he would go to paradise
and have more of the same plus the pleasure of Allah. It is interesting that the
Arabs had some kind of decency when they captured married women but the prophet
of Allah did away with that decency and proclaimed the it is lawful for a man to
have sexual intercourse with a women captured in war. (Q.
4: 24) Jews, having a religion of their own, could not
accept Muhammad’s pretentious claim of prophethood. They probably derided at
him and at his followers. This is perfectly understandable. How would Muslims
react, if someone in their midst call himself a messenger of God and start a new
religion? Does the persecution of the Bahai’s give us a clue?
1) http://users.erols.com/zenithco/treaty22.html#note1
2) http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau59.html
By: Ali Sina