Spice Module

Muhammad, The Jews and the Constitution of Medina1 Muhammad, The Jews and the Constitution of Medina: Retrieving the historical Kernel Pa u l L aw r e n c e R o s e Pennsylvania State University Abstract The Constitution of Medina (Kit a b) is perhaps the earliest surviving text of Islam that is accepted as authentic even by most revisionist historians. It embodies crucial material for the history of Muhammad’s relations with the Jews of Medina as well as for the historical emergence of Islam, but its meaning and significance are difficult to ascertain, and it has proven difficult to extract the substantial kernel of historical truth which is contained within it. This article proposes a new method of doing so based on the triangulation of the Sira narratives, the Qur#a n, and the Kit a b, in which the last may be used as a control on the other sources. The Kit a b itself is analyzed on the basis of R. B. Serjeant ’s critical dissection of the text into a series of component treaties concluded at various times with the Muslim, Jewish and Munafiq u n residents of Medina. The particular episode of the Jewish Qaynuqa# tribe and its Munafiq u n allies is investigated to demonstrate the potential of the method. a. Problems of the Early Islamic Sources – and a Suggested Solution One of the most curious aspects of the vigorous debate on the origins of Islam which has been going on between mainstream and revisionist historians in an acute form since the publication of Crone and Cook ’s Hagarism in 1977 is that so little attention has been paid to the quarrels between Muhammad and the Jews which are central to the history of early Islam.1 P . Crone and M. Cook , Hagarism. The Making of the Islamic World, Cambridge, 1977, which emphasizes the fundamental impact of Judaism on early Islam. For comments on the place of the Jewish issue in Islamic mentality as well as the difficulties of interpretation, see J. Lassner, The Middle East Remembered. Forged Identities, Competing Narratives, Contested Spaces, Ann Arbor MI, 2000, pp. 2–6, Der Islam Bd. 86, S. 1–29 © Walter de Gruyter 2011 ISSN 0021-1818 DOI 10.1515/ISLAM.2011.012 1) 2 P . L. Rose With a few exceptions, recent standard accounts of the strained relations between Muhammad and the three Jewish tribes of Medina have generally followed the earliest biographies of the Prophet, known as the Sira, which date from the mid-8th century.2 But the revisionist school has offered little in place of these conventional accounts and generally avoided any attempt to situate the Jewish issue in the framework of the thorough-going scepticism characteristic of their approach to the biography of the Prophet and the history of Islam in its first century.3 At present there seems to be an impasse between those historians of a “sanguine” disposition who optimistically believe that the Sira (the early biographical material on Muhammad) and the Qur#a n itself embody valid historical data that can be retrieved with comparative ease and those of a sceptical temperament who remain convinced that the the Sira, far from being a reliable and transparent historical source, is essentially a corpus of much later exegetical invented “historical” traditions intended to elucidate recondite allusions in the Qur#a n which is itself a document of questionable authentic historical (as opposed to religious) content. The current debates on these issues are of a difficult technical nature which renders them understandable only by specialists, but the fundamental issue is all too plain: To what extent is the Sira historically true?4 The tendency of most historians has 27–59, 267–91, 318–40; J. Lassner and M. Bonner, Islam in the Middle Ages. The Origins and Shaping of Classical Islamic Civilization, Santa Barbara CA, 2010, pp. 36–7, 49–76. I am most grateful to Patricia Crone for her generous critical comments on this essay, despite our fundamental difference of approach. For useful discussion of some issues I am indebted to my colleague Gonzalo Rubio. 2) For example, F. E Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, Albany NY, 1994, a generally judicious survey of the origins of Islam. 3) The only extensive revisionist attempt at reinterpreting the Jewish issue is M. Schöller, Exegetisches Denken und Prophetenbiographie. Eine quellenkritische Analyse der Sira-Überlieferung zu Muhammads Konflikt mit den Juden, Wiesbaden, 1998, which is unconvincing in several respects (see below). The revisionism of B. Ahmad , Muhammad and the Jews. A Re-Examination, New Delhi, 1978, is of a different type, being a traditionalist effort to evade the harshness of Muhammad’s attacks on the Jews. 4) Lucid guides to these issues are Lassner, The Middle East Remembered ; F. M. Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins. The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing, Princeton, 1998 (and idem, “The Historical Context”, in J. D. Mcauliffe, ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 23–39); R. S. Humphries, Islamic History. A Framework for Inquiry, revised edition, Princeton, 1991, pp. 69–103; J. P . Berkey, The Formation of Islam. Religion and Society in the Near East, 600–1800, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 55–75. H. Berg, The Development of Muhammad, The Jews and the Constitution of Medina 3 been to follow the broad lines of the Sira. Thus, “orthodox” historians such as W. M. Watt and R.B. Serjeant have argued vigorously that the general picture of Muhammad’s life and the origins of Islam depicted there is largely true and, with some critical reservations, this line has been taken by many others.5 Apart from the vivid plausibility of the Sira and the historical traditions (had i th) relating to Muhammad, the acceptance has been faute de mieux: As F. E. Peters nicely puts it, using the Muslim sources “is a calculated risk based on the plausibility and internal coherence of the material, or … simply a counsel of despair: if the hadiths are rejected, there is nothing notably better to put in their place”.6 The revisionist sceptical response to this position as far as concerns the Jews has been blunt. Thus, Patricia Crone declares: “They [the storytellers] must also have invented something, possibly everything, about the position of the Jews”; “These stories [about the Ethiopians] are no different from those on Muhammad’s encounter with Jews and others … They could be true. In fact, they are clearly not”.7 For current revisionists, the Sira is not in the least “historiExegesis in Early Islam. The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period, Richmond, 2000, and in his article “Context: Muhammad”, in A. Rippin , ed., The Blackwell Companion to the Qur’an, Oxford, 2006, pp.187–204, offers interesting comments on the current state of the historiography. See also the recent objectively critical survey of 2008 by P . Crone, “What Do We Actually Know about Mohammed?”, available on the internet http://www.opendemocracy.net. 5) See the surveys by J. M. B. Jones, “The Maghazi Literature”, and M. J. Kister, “The Sirah Literature”, in A. F. L. Beeston et al., eds., Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 344–51 and 352–67 respectively; J. Horovitz , The Earliest Biographies of the Prophet and Their Authors (1927), rev. ed. with introduction by L. I. Conrad, Princeton, 2002. M. W. Watt , Muhammad at Medina, Oxford, 1956. 6) Peters, Muhammad, p. 265. 7) P . Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Princeton, 1987, pp. 218–9, 222. The author is speaking here of the position of the Jews in Medina just before Muhammad’s arrival, but it is clear that the remark applies implicitly also to postHijra Medina. Professor Crone concedes these are indeed historical kernels of truth in the sources, but holds that they have been so corrupted and confused with exegetical material that the original elements can no longer be retrieved. Crone justifiably dismisses most orthodox biographies of Muhammad as “arbitrary summaries of the Muslim tradition”; even a more “sanguine” though critical historian such as H. Motzki , “The Murder of Ibn Abi l-Huqayq: On the Origin and Reliability of Some Maghazi Reports”, in idem, ed., The Biography of Muhammad. The Issue of the Sources, Leiden, 2000, pp. 170–239, pp. 232–3, notes that “it is obvious that the biographies of the Prophet written by Western scholars do not give a historically reliable picture of his life”. or to give incomplete ones. The core of the Sira is the first and fullest biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq (d. the whole accepted version provided by the Sira is mainly a projection of 8th and 9th century religious and political realities back onto a quite alien early 7th century setting. but he is quite willing either to forgo the isna d altogether. (Throughout this essay translations have been cited wherever possible for the benefit of readers without Arabic). Serjeant . criticizes Crone’s category of “storytelling” as too vague and points out the difference between qisas and the literary-historical genres of Sira and Maghazi. The Life of Muhammad. reissued Oxford. Recent treatments include the two highly sceptical works by Schöller. Princeton. ed. points out how early Islamic historians are closer to modern historians in their sophistication in contrast to the crudeness of medieval European chroniclers. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Hawting. 1992. Meccan Trade. Islam in History. “Serjeant and Meccan Trade”. pp. “Muhammad and the Medinan Jews: A Comparison of the Texts of Ibn Ishaq’s Kitab Sirat Rasul Allah with al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi”. and P .8 Yet the matter does not appear to be as simple to most historians.9 Thus. Guillaume. A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah (1955). 28. cf. “The Issue of Authenticity regarding the Traditions of al-Waqidi as Established in his Kitab al-Maghazi”. S. 218–26. 1993. 110. Exegetisches Denken und Prophetenbiographie and U. exhibiting a critically-minded approach in dealing with its sources that is far more sophisticated than that of medieval Christian chroniclers. by G. Amherst NY. pp. The sceptical view of the Sira as exegesis devoid of historical actuality was pressed by J. Lewis. . Crone. who intuitively find the Sira and its related genre the Maghazi (which focuses on Muhammad’s politics and wars) to be congenial and attractive sources for their intrinsic historical-mindedness. but rather a species of tafs ir or exegesis of the Qur#a n which uses “storytellers’ tales” (qass) to supply the occasion and significance of the original qur#anic verses. 104–5. Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History (1978). L. rev. 216–40. Rose cal”. La Salle IL. sees the Sira more as literary genre than exegesis and argues on literary-critical grounds against its factuality. Idem. 2007. 1999. Journal of Near Eastern Studies. B. pp. International Journal of Middle East Studies. 463–89. 39. R. 1996. 1–49. Thus. Rubin .. 1990. The Eye of the Beholder: The Life of Muhammad as Viewed by the Early Muslims. 97–106. 9) A. “Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam: Misconceptions and Flawed Polemics”. 2006. Ibn Ishaq sometimes provides isna ds (chains of oral transmission with names) to justify his accounts of the Prophet’s deeds. 58. Arabica. the ensuing abrasive exchange on method between R. 767) which is indeed a fascinating historical work in its own right. Wansbrough . 1995. B. 472–86. Faizer. and the more restrained line of Berg.4 P . The Sectarian Milieu. The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam. rather than manufacture 8) Crone. Watt . “Waqidi’s Account of the Status of the Jews of Medina: A Study of a Combined Report”. 1962. Jones. Edinburgh. “The Chronology of the Maghazi – A Textual Survey”. Watt . 14–5. Watt ’s introduction to The History of al-Tabari. M. Albany NY. 1882. and Donner. Journal of Near Eastern Studies.Muhammad. 1990. Wellhausen . From this spectrum of sources al-Waqidi would skilfully synthesize a narrative that was almost positivistic and included for the first time proper datings for the events. pp. in B. dismiss the content of these had i ths as mere exegesis and “salvation-history” and “story-telling” rather than “history”. 14–6. ed. Collected Articles. much of it now lost – supplied the “basic framework” for . Muhammed in Medina. finds some confusion natural but accepts most of the dates as accurate. Kit a b al-Maghazi. pp.. Motzki .Lewis and P Middle East. points out the defects of Waqidi’s method relating to the genre of Maghazi (military biography) and regards the dates and other information as invention for the most part rather than history. “Reliability” and “Materials”. “The Murder of Ibn l-Huqayq”. Historians of the Materials Used by Ibn Ishaq”. pp. B. 823) was especially assiduous in seeking out at Medina oral and written traditions about Muhammad and in submitting them to highly critical evaluation that would eliminate the unreliable data. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Holt . 19. which offers a reasoned listing. London. VI. M. 23–34. Berlin. M. Wansbrough and Crone. 1966). 1988. An Annotated Translation. M. M. For problems of chronology. “The Reliability of Ibn Ishaq’s Sources”. eds. pp. 102–5. pp. 15–32. while Faizer. “The Issue of Authenticity”. xvii-xxvi. argues that the “Maghazimaterial” – much of it oral. Development. Das ist Vakidi’s Kitab alMaghazi in verkürzter deutscher Wiedergabe. Umar al-Waqidi.12 Most importantly. a key point in favor of the Sira here is the widely admitted difference as to reliability between the historical had i th and their often forged legal and theological counterparts. Berg. 22. Narratives of Islamic Origins. cf. pp. 1957. pp. 13–23.10 Most importantly. Lecker. J. The Jews and the Constitution of Medina 5 them as the authors of legal and theological had i th were all too ready to do. 12) J. Professor Crone questions whether this was indeed a solid framework. in his Early Islam. idem. 11) As argued persuasively by Watt . 245–80. Hence. 227–8. So too Crone and other sceptics see the dates as spurious. “Reliability”. see J. 1995. however. historical 10) On the authenticity of the historical had i th as a separate Sira-linked genre from tafs ir (exegesis) see W. B. Jones. 54. “The . A spirited defence of the historicity of these reports is in W. (Standard Arabic edition: Muhammad b. Oxford. Waqidi’s reliability (with some crucial exceptions) is defended by M.11 Ibn Ishaq’s successor al-Waqidi (d. 106–11. the sceptics have not been able to come up with any convincing argument against the self-evident fact that Ibn Ishaq was working with a fairly solid framework of Muhammad’s career that clearly had been constructed and agreed by preceding generations of scholars on the basis of oral (and perhaps written) traditions whose authenticity was a matter of general knowledge. 13 This in turn calls for a degree of scepticism: Is it possible that this picture of an insistently oppositional Judaism is the product of a later 7th or 8th century tradition rather than a true depiction of Muhammad’s own attitudes and actions? Might Muhammad rather than the Jews have been the provoker? Might he have set out from the start to subdue them into subservience? Any account of the Medinan Jews’ behavior as it is depicted in the Qur#a n and the early Sira must be treated with some caution and not swallowed uncritically. go beyond what might be easily dismissed as historian’s intuition (or worse. In the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary their conduct may be taken as in large part a reasonable response to the introduction of a confrontational new religious challenge. Can one. 13) For the possible use of information from Jewish sources concealed in the Sira. much of it seems very plausible to a general historian of antisemitism. F. pp. 1994. see Lassner. Robinson . Narratives of Islamic Origins. 318–40. thought this a pointless exercise since he believed that no Ibn Ishaq’s properly historical narrative. Cambridge. Finally. Rose truth seems to speak out clearly in those passages in Ibn Ishaq and alWaqidi where Muhammad is depicted unfavorably or uncomprehendingly. T. Arabic Historical Thought in the Classical Period. the crucial period of the formation of Islam. And from the other side. . then. In general see Donner.6 P . the picture painted in the earliest Muslim sources of Muhammad’s angry and contemptuous. L. The Jewish reactions and the Jewish arguments against Muhammad’s revelations are consistent with Jewish thinking and behavior in the face of religious proselytizing in other contexts. it is difficult for most historians to resist the impression that despite these authors’ Muslim bias. John Wansbrough . C. they are attempting to be fair-minded and “historical”. desperation and alleged gullibility) and devise an objective method of controlling the Sira narratives and retrieving the historical core? The inspirer of the current school of scepticism. Khalidi . Middle East Remembered. Islamic Historiography. The sources as we have them (and it must be stressed that we do not have a shred of evidence from the Jewish side to control them) portray a Muhammad religiously and violently in conflict with the Jews of Medina because of their alleged campaign to vilify and humiliate him and extinguish Islam in spite of his initially benevolent overtures to them. Yet an anti-Jewish bias is certainly operating. Cambridge 2003. All these traits can be seen in the descriptions of Muhammad’s relations with the Jews of Medina during his years there (622–632). and ultimately murderous reactions to Jewish opposition is very convincing in terms of the emotionality of his own unique personality. Even so. “Ibn Ishaq’s Use of the Isna d”. 126. Berlin. at least may be allowed as “reasonably substantiated”?17 J. F. 449–65. Applying a combined source-criticism and textual analysis method to the isna ds. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. “The Murder of Ibn Abi l-Huqayq”. 1977. 1995.“no one has yet provided a method of extracting this core” and that there is no “fool-proof” method for distinguishing what is true and what is false in the Sira. the issue now for any historian is whether the reality of early 7th century Islam and the Prophet can ever be reached – or are the sources too encrusted with later accretions and distortions to be taken at their face value and the kernel of historical truth in them isolated and recovered? Recently new analytical techniques have been devised which offer a convincing methodology for evaluating the genuine historical content of the Sira that might enable for the first time the compilation of a critical biography of Muhammad. Lecker. p. 34. The Jews and the Constitution of Medina 7 “chronology/ topography of revelation is even feasible” and he complained of “the arbitrary ‘historical’ method which for a century has dominated the course of Islamic and particularly that of qur#anic studies”. who uses topographical evidence to attempt a critical history of Muhammad that largely confirms the Sira. Motzki . 464. “The Historical Context”. 21–28. Leiden. pp. Berg. Robson . Muslims. “The Question of the Authenticity of Muslim Traditions Reconsidered”. Method and Theory in the Study of Islamic Origins. M. but it will leave the status of a great quantity of crucial data unresolved. in The Biography of Muhammad. at p. p. idem. in the Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an. This method of “saving the kernels” is an on-going project of great promise. 1996. Wansbrough . 38. 14) . Oxford. Schoeler and Motzki have begun to reconstruct a minimalist archive of critically secure “facts” about Muhammad and the earliest years of Islam capable of resisting the scythe of revisionist scepticism. idem. Quranic Studies. 2003.Muhammad. 17) Another interesting approach is M. pp. and so produce only a “certain” biography that is very slim indeed. Leiden. while it may not be proven absolutely authentic. Schoeler.15 In the light of this scepticism. 15) J. in H. 1965. Donner. 16) For examples of the method see G. neither proven nor disproven. al-Zubayr”.16 Is it possible to add to this biography a body of information regarding Muhammad and the Jews that. 211–257. Jews and Pagans: Studies on Early Islamic Medina.14 Even less doctrinaire historians have expressed similar misgivings. Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation. H. ibidem. Charakter und Authentie der muslimischen Überlieferung über das Leben Mohammeds. suggesting that even if there is a genuine core. “Foundations for a New Biography of Muhammad: The Production and Evaluation of the Corpus of Traditions according to Urwah b. since leading historians of the school have conceded the early date of the Kit a b. (For difficulties in Lecker’s approach. exegetical. and the Tahr im of Yathrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents Comprised in the so-called ‘Constitution of Medina’”. 20) Wansbrough . Rubin. Serjeant . Muhammad. Serjeant’s findings have for the most part not made their way into the general history of early Islam and the biography of Muhammad. p. 151–92). 36–49. are used to control the accounts of Muhammad and the Jews in the Sira. 18) . Princeton. 2004. The particular approach taken in this essay is to adopt the Constitution as a skeletal framework (as anatomized by Serjeant ) on to which the Sira’s data can be grafted so as to present a compatible integrated narrative. in the interest of a literary-critical argument of a speculative sort. Cambridge. admitted by Crone and others. 126. Cook . 1998. 19) Cf. the earliest surviving document of Islam (apart putatively from the Qur#a n itself). idem. In the first place. ed. narrative elaborations. see below). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies.19 Wansbrough almost alone has tried to write off the Constitution as a literary device that proves the Sira is mere exegesis. Rose The method of doing so that is proposed here is threefold. Crone. L. p. 75: “[It] could well be authentic in substance”. 1–41 (reprinted in U. even if failing to grant it the analysis it deserves. 41. pp. rejects them on largely a priori grounds. p. The Sectarian Milieu.20 On proceeding to test the passages in the Sira dealing with the Medinan Jewish opposition (see below). 1983. P . B. that is. The Evolution of the Islamic Polity. M. 7: “This document is a patently anomalous and plausibly archaic remnant of the Islamic tradition”. The only scepticist attempt to follow up The document is dissected into its component treaties in the pioneering investigation by R. The “Constitution of Medina”. 7: “It sticks out [in Ibn Ishaq’s Sira] like a piece of solid rock in an accumulation of rubble”. Slaves on Horses.8 P . 1978. p. and for the Constitution itself. Wansbrough duly discovered what he called “midrashic” characteristics.18 This neutralizes the a priori revisionist objection to the use of late sources. And it ignores the self-evident antiquity and historical character of the Kit a b. Hagarism. The Sectarian Milieu. Aldershot. Pacts with the Yathrib Jews. Lecker. the composite treaties known as the Constitution of Medina (Kit a b) concluded between Muhammad and the Arab and Jewish tribes of Medina in the 620’s. The argument is somewhat circular. M. 1980.21 But this is a fallacious argument of a literary-critical type that looks for cases which seem fictional and then assumes that the whole Sira is similarly fictional. Neither Crone nor Cook have attempted to analyze the Constitution. pp. “The Sunnah Jami’ah.12–22. Oxford. namely. Quranic Studies. Crone and Cook . Muhammad’s First Legal Document. un-historical. for example. pp. 40–9. The Life of Muhammad.. 21) Wansbrough . cf. Bell et al. Oxford. 1991. with a critical re-arrangement of the Surahs. 25) Informative essays are in The Blackwell Companion to the Qur’an and The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an. 24) R. see Motzki . but they may also include formulaic material that Muhammad was simply repeating. the detailed dating of individual verses of the Qur#a n by R. sceptical essays in Ibn Warr aq. 190–204. Watt . 1–18.230–60 (Qaynuqa ). in any case they are adopted here more for their illustrative rather than probative value. Abu Rafi and Sallam b. The Origins of the Koran. A Very Short Introduction. Amherst NY. Thus. Cf. As to Bell ’s datings. Besides. Amherst NY. notably Finhas. 2000. pp. 270. For critical comments.Muhammad. Rippin . pp. Bell are used as a further control on the Sira. see R.23 Secondly. Schöller has rejected the historical reality of the assault on the Qaynuqa . But his comments on the Constitution at pp. The Qur’an. 24–33). 9. in his Virgins? What Virgins? and other Essays. A Commentary on the Qur’an. 43–120. 46–56. “The Dating of the Qu’ran: A Review of Richard Bell’s Theories”. 112. Manchester. For the scholarly rationale of these datings. Schöller. A. Cf. Bell . W. Cook . Journal of the American Oriental Society. ed. see M.. pp. Journal of Qur’anic Studies.. the fact that those Schöller. A. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 2010. but there is the revisionist view that the Qur#a n text itself is of a much later 7th century date than is commonly supposed (even if the irretrievable substance may be much erlier). 23) Like Wansbrough. Edinburgh.24 This is not as secure a control as the Constitution. 1998. Neuwirth . 276. “The Murder of Ibn Abi l’Huqayq”. 1992.25 Yet most historians find it difficult to credit that the mass of references to the Jews has been invented out of nothing. 256–312 (Nadir and Qurayza). pp. are incidental. 5. (reprinted in his Early Islam. “Some Aspects of the History of Koranic Criticism 700 CE to 2005 CE”. Mishkam. 22) . 224–8. 336–41 (the Jewish opponents). “Reading the Qur’an with Richard Bell”. Professor Crone is sceptical about Bell’s method since not only may some of the suras be more unitary than he assumed.22 But again this “test” of the Sira as history which finds the narratives failing does not take the evident historical core of the Constitution of Medina into account. Ibn Warray. 639–47. 282–5. 1937. 234–9. M. they are the product of a long expert understanding of the Qur#a n and should be treated seriously despite their nesessarily speculative nature. and thrown doubt on the identities and even existence of some of the Prophet’s leading Jewish opponents. Exegetisches Denken. p. For a refutation of these radically sceptical claims. conflated the Nadir and Qurayza onslaughts. The Koran. Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book. for not only may objections be raised to Bell’s datings. 1957. 133. The Jews and the Constitution of Medina 9 this line is that of Schöller whose re-writing of the whole history of Muhammad’s attacks on the Jewish tribes is deeply problematic. Translated. proposes “testing the argument”. “Qur’an and History: A Disputed Relationship”. 2003. but for all the obvious pitfalls. Doubtful readers are welcome to accept it here merely as a term of convenience. I have used the two earliest extended Sira sources. While the Qur#a n and the Sira sides of the triangle may be less certain. 28) I am fully aware of the historical problems involved in the use of the term “antisemitism” which I treat in a forthcoming large-scale work. the city was still a strongly Jewish one with perhaps its 36–42. the Qur#a n’s very nature as a compilation of religious visions render it dangerous to use as a straightforward historical source.26 Of course.10 P . the third side. Thirdly. the three sources – the Constitution. the Qur#a n and the Sira may be harmonized to provide a narrative of probabilistic truth based on the interlocking of the three controls. there has been no convincing argument – indeed no argument at all. but there is enough to deduce a reasonably substantiated picture of the triangle. Of course. 27) 26) . L. Muhammad’s Religious Antisemitism28: The Qur#an and Jewish Religious Opposition When Muhammad came to Medina in 622.27 The power of this methodological integration of the sources lies in its mutually reinforcing triangular structure. the occasional references to later collections may be excusable on the ground that such writers as al-Bukhar i. even if speculatively. almost exclusively here on the principle of Ockham’s Razor. As largely in Schöller.000 Jews numbering half the population. Rose verses relating to the Jews are cryptic may make difficult to “prove” them to be referring to certain events does not disprove that they are original pronouncements by Muhammad on the Jewish tribes. has a strong certitude and allows us to set limits to the less known sides. simply assertion – that the passages relating to his attacks on the Jews of Medina are not his own utterances and that the Qur#a n cannot be used as a historical source in this respect. Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi. to particular clauses of the Constititution b. The important point here is that the Sira and the Qur#a n contain enough potentially specific references to be linked. the sheer abundance of obvious references to events regarding the Jews suggest that it is worth attempting to unearth specific historical data from it. Exegetisches Denken. However. Though some of the Qur#a n’s allusions to the specific events of Muhammad’s life may conceivably have been of later origin. the Constitution. which include the Jewish view and other unknown information. knowledge is still lacking of other important data such as the angles. Ibn Sa d and al-Tabar i had access to the lost unabridged original of Ibn Ishaq which contained valuable source material that was omitted from Ibn Hisham’s recension and also to data from lost works by al-Waqidi. Göttingen. have their reward with their Lord” [Bell II. A History of the Jews of Arabia from Ancient Times to their Eclipse under Islam. but they were not the murderers of God as in Christianity. where the argument is not affected. etc. 59a. for example. it is not difficult to extract the lines of Muhammad’s structural antisemitism as well as his intensifying hostility to his Jewish contemporaries (as will be done in a separate work). Flügel. the gentile Muhammad’s revelation of his prophetic status to the Jews provoked their leaders and rabbis to scorn. In an early Medinan verse. 75. that was because 29) See G. the intense emotions of Christian antisemitism were not lacking. Not surprisingly. Columbia. D. those who have Judaized … whoever has believed in Allah and the Last Day. ed. V . namely. Newby . seems to have emerged as an antisemitic theme only subsequently. This injurious rejection of Muhammad as prophet became the central element in his quarrel with the Jews who were repeatedly condemned in the Qur#a n as the mockers and killers of prophets. and might be enemies of God. 155. IV . .29 Muhammad thus encountered a tribally organized Jewish power far different from the individual Jews he had conversed with at Mecca. 62].Muhammad. 29–31.31 Muhammad’s attacks certainly lacked the demonizing tenet of Christian antisemitism. For the Jewish fortresses. 70. Al-Samhudi: Geschichte der Stadt Medina.30 The charge that the Jews were a depraved and superseded people. 1860. Muhammad wrote benevolently: “Those who have believed. addicted to usury. F. in two contiguous qur#anic verses. XLV . The Jews. 1988. and as such the “enemies of God”. Leaving aside the problem of the Qur#an’s dating as a whole. The progression from initial hope to disappointment that the Jews would welcome him is evident. IV . 30) II. then. A bitter antisemitic emotion is evident in Muhammad’s rising invective against his stubborn Jewish opponents who refuse to acknowledge him as prophet and pervert his message. Some of the verses in this section are treated without regard to date. The Jews and the Constitution of Medina 11 The twenty or so Jewish tribes there had built up wealth and property and developed the date-agriculture of the oasis. 161. and they settled under anger from Allah. 157). that the Jews were the murderers of God Himself: For even though he believed the Jews had attempted to murder the prophet Jesus. pp. IV . 16. Secure in their 59 or so forts (compared to the 13 Arab ones). Muhammad’s own refusal to admit Jesus as divinity precluded the idea of deicide (Qur#a n.. SC. though the quotations are from Bell’s version which has different numbers. and has acted uprightly. as well as the dating of individual verses. the main Jewish tribes manufactured and owned a large quantity of arms. 31) For example. References are to the Flügel numbering. Yet though the deicide accusation may have been absent. II. might be wicked. But the second later version was hostile: “Humiliation and poverty were stamped upon them. Wüstenfeld . The lists of names have remained curiously un-analyzed in the secondary literature. Leuven. Why do the rabbis and scholars not restrain them … We have cast enmity and hatred amongst them until the day of resurrection. regards the names as largely invented). 59b.. The Jewish opposition is excoriated in many verses: “And when they come to you. See below. Neuwirth . Annali dell’Islam. Arnzen and J. 241–2. I. Akhtab.12 P . 34) Ibn Ishaq. the day of prayer from Saturday to Friday and so on. as when they tried to trick him into restoring the qibla towards Jerusalem by promising to follow him if he did. It is hard to escape the conclusion that these Jewish opponents rightly or wrongly provoked Muhammad to his break with Judaism that occurred in early 624 (a year and a half after his arrival) when the direction of prayer was changed from Jerusalem to Mecca. . 239–70. 33) Ibn Ishaq. gives a breakdown by tribe. Thielmann . Mishkam of the Nadir and Ka b b.32 Ibn Ishaq gives many details of this Jewish opposition. 35) Ibn Ishaq. Words. 413–4. 207–8. 237–40. They sought to discredit Muhammad himself.Caetani . Flügel II. they strive after corruption in the land” [V . see A.34 Huyayy and his brother Abu Yasir “were the most implacable enemies of the Arabs when God chose to send them an apostle from among themselves and they used to do all they could to turn men away from Islam”. Life of Muhammad. pp. L. Huyayy b. such as Sallam b. 61–64]. pp. pp. 258–9. including the names of 66 Jewish opponents. Rose they had been disbelieving in the signs of Allah. “Meccan Texts – Medinan Additions? Politics and the Re-reading of Liturgical Communications”. Texts and Concepts Cruising the Mediterranean Sea. I shall be his enemy as long as I live!”. Asad of the Qurayza. though L. in R. her father exclaiming: “By God. edd. Exegetisches Denken. ( Schöller. pp. One point that has never been noted but that helps explain Muhammad’s attack on the Qaynuqa tribe is that group’s prominence among his religious opponents. and slaying the prophets unjustly” [Bell II. pp. 61]. Allah will put it out. as well as other interactions with Jewish religion.33 These included many prominent leaders of the powerful Nadir tribe. they say: We have believed’. though they have entered in unbelief. every time they light a fire for war.35 Other Jewish chiefs. on several 32) For his initial adoption of the Yom Kippur fast as the ashura and its replacement by Ramadan. Life of Muhammad. among them perhaps Muhammad’s greatest Jewish enemy. 2004. however. Many of them does one see vying in guilt and enmity … surely evil is what they have been working. Allah knoweth very well what they have been concealing. 1905–26. whose daughter Safiyya (later Muhammad’s wife) recollected that when she was a child her father and uncle came home dejected from a meeting with the Prophet. 71–94. Milan. “The religion of Abraham”. or why has he not a garden from which to eat?’ The wrong-doers also say: You follow only a man who has been enchanted’”. Muhammad. 38) Ibn Ishaq. etc.12. Exegetisches Denken. Allah created creation. The Jews and the Constitution of Medina 13 occasions sought to “seduce Muhammad from his religion” or humiliate him in public by similar traps. Several instances of Jewish ridicule and attempted humiliation of Muhammad are recounted by Ibn Ishaq. the Jews “agreed among themselves that they should affect to believe in what had been sent down to Muhammad and his companions at one time and deny it at another so as to confuse them. The Qur#a n records the blasphemous insults to which Muhammad believed himself to be subjected by the Jews. This was enough to send the Prophet into a violent rage and only later did the angel Gabriel provide him with the right answer. and others have helped him with it’. They say: What is there to this messenger who eats food and goes about the marketplaces? Why has not an angel been sent down to him to be with him as a warner? Why does not a fortune fall to him. 37) 36) . the historical consciousness of the Sira depicting the Jews as practical opponents seems to be far more realistic than that of the essentially theologizing New Testament. However.36 Subsequently they were to pay with their lives for what Muhammad considered their later treachery.37 The religious disputes were certainly intense and emotional on both sides.39 Ibn Ishaq. 24. Cf. Schöller. 260–70.Muhammad. but who created Allah?”. p. XVI. so they have arrived at wrong-doing and falsehood. p. 268. Once when Muhammad entered a Jewish school to try to convert them. tries to dismiss the depiction of Muhammad’s Jewish opponents as an invented cadre of enemies playing the role of agents provocateurs similar to that of the falsified portrait of the Pharisees in the Gospels. for “old world tales”. “Those who have disbelieved have said: This is nothing but a fraud which he has devised. the Jews there insulted him by asking: “What is your religion. One group of Jews sought to confuse Muhammad by asking him. they mocked him: “But Abraham was a Jew”. especially as experienced by Muhammad who felt himself being subjected to Jewish ridicule both for his pretensions to prophecy and his ignorance of the Hebrew Scriptures. “Now. For their later fates see below. 39) XXV . 4–8. Muhammad?” When he replied. On another occasion. They have said too: Old-world tales which he has written for himself! They are recited to him morning and evening’. pp. with the object of getting them to follow their example and give up his religion”.38 The Nadir leaders in particular seem to have been active in perhaps five different rounds of this game. 42 Jewish converts were few and the first and most prominent of them was Abdallah b. 44) Ibn Ishaq. seems to see Fin41) 40) . Behind them is Gehenna (hell). 64 for an allusion to this matter. 269–70). Salam.44 al-Waqidi. “And when [the Jewish liar] gets to know something of Our signs. Ubayy as “a hater of the Jews”. 260. It is not clear if the taunting hat occurred at a prior or subsequent occasion to Finhas’s complaint (pp. was recollected by the moderate Abdallah b. exclaiming. 270. pp. you enemy of Allah !”. nor will what they have amassed avail them anything” [XLV . Exegetisches Denken. I would cut off your head. one of Muhammad’s most fervent followers and the first prayer-leader. Ibn Ishaq. V . his companion would not die’”.43 The general Jewish refusal to convert could only have inflamed Muhammad’s frustration and his missionizing soon acquired an undertone of violence. Zur ara. Azura of the Qaynuqa tribe to convert. p. Akhtab and a delegation of leading Jews that “there is no prophecy among the Arabs – your master is only a political leader”. who was reprimanded by Huyayy b. “Were it not for the treaty between us. Finhas’s subsequent complaint. pp. 263–4. 8–9]. Rose For the infuriated Prophet such humiliating rejection demanded punishment. When Muhammad’s confidante Abu Bakr went into a Jewish academy and called upon the learned rabbi Finhas b. how unfortunate is the death of Abu Umama! The Jews and the Hypocrites are sure to say: If Muhammad were a prophet. as an insulted ally. Finhas ironically remarked that if Muhammad’s God were so great. p. 42) See Ibn Ishaq. he takes them as a butt of ridicule – for such is a punishment humiliating. This apparent blasphemy infuriated Abu Bakr who struck Finhas in the face.40 His early death in Muhammad’s first year at Mecca was occasion for the Jews to reject Muhammad as a prophet: “Muhammad said. 414. Schöller. to Muhammad was unavailing. 234–7. Abu Umama As ad b. p.41 Worsening tensions were reflected in Muslim demands for conversion. pp. 363.14 P . The bitterness of these arguments would certainly have fuelled Muslim religious antisemitism. “He would not ask us to lend Him money as your master pretends” – a barbed reference to Muhammad’s demands for the Medinans to contribute to his war expenses and the upkeep of the Emigrants. 43) Ibn Ishaq. (Finhas’s taunting Muhammad on his claim to have written a holy book to replace the Torah would in any case not have predisposed the Prophet in his favor). See Qur’an. L. especially after the victory at Badr in 624 when Muhammad felt elated by his divine mission. 235. 47) II. and in the hereafter is for them a mighty punishment” [V . for you do not know the outcome’”. or that they should be banished from the land. III. 45) Ibn Ishaq. 46) IV . Thus. p. they say. The Jews and the Constitution of Medina 15 The issue of contributions for war and the Muslim Emigrants’ expenses helped to transform these religious quarrels into open political dissension as Huyayy b. And those who spend their wealth (yunfiq u na) …”. 37–38. 38. see below. Qur’anic verses on the withholding of expenses include III: 180. 33]. 41. 69–73. For these contributions and the Munafiq u n. or that their hand and feet on opposite sides should be cut off. . 76. the Ansa r. 98–100. LXIII. We have prepared for the unbelievers a punishment humiliating. 7. “These are the names of the Jewish rabbis who took refuge in Islam along with the Muslims and hypocritically professed it … They used to assemble in the mosque and listen to the stories of the Muslims and laugh and scoff at their has as an unhistorical invention.45 Muhammad’s response here was the qur’anic imprecation on “those who are niggardly and urge the people to niggardliness. V . the fearful verse: “When they meet those who have believed. IV . Some of these refer to the Munafiq u n (Muslim “Hypocrites”. Cf. Akhtab and other Jews urged Muhammad’s Medinan followers. the “Hypocrites” (Munafiq u n) and the Jews was to be was announced in a qur’anic verse of the period: “The recompense of those who make war on Allah and His messenger and exert themselves to cause corruption in the land is that they should be killed or crucified. mis-translated from the Arabic.46 What this punishment for the “unbelievers”. “not to contribute to the public expenses. Muhammad was convinced that the Jews were out to get him by pretending to convert and seducing his Arab followers away from him. that is humiliation for them in this world. 46. 264. whose “figure and name are possibly taken over from Jewish tradition and adapted for the Sira”. There are several qur’anic references to this effect uttered at a high emotional pitch. but when they are alone with one another they say: “Do ye tell them of what Allah hath revealed to you.Muhammad. that they [the Muslims] may dispute with you in the presence of your Lord? Have ye no sense?’”. We have believed’. see below) but in most of the references the Jews are targeted as culprits. We fear [they said] that you will come to poverty. Don’t be in a hurry to contribute. XLVII.47 Muhammad was finally incensed to violence by what he fancied as the Jewish pseudo-converts coming into his own mosque to ridicule him. etc. and conceal the bounty which Allah hath bestowed upon them. may now be resolved by interpreting both sources in the light of the political antagonisms embodied in our third source. He ordered that they should be ejected and they were put out with some violence”. This was a symptom not only of Jewish decline but of the intense conflicts typical of Arab tribal society which generated an always urgent need for security pacts that overrode ethnic and tribal divisions and so produced an unstable network of Jewish-Arab alliances and clientages. Despite their apparent strength as manifested in their forts. As far as Muhammad’s religious antagonism to the Jews is concerned. In 617 the intense rivalry between the Arab Aws and Khazraj and their respective Jewish 48) Ibn Ishaq. For Muhammad. then. Evidently. the Jews and the Munafiq u n were united by a reluctance to pay “contributions” (nafaq) to support Muhammad’s domestic and military enterprises. This matter of nafaq indeed gave the Munafiq u n their name. pp. Whether this is merely an instance of the circularity or simple mirroring of the sources. c. was the meaning projected onto the term only much later. L.16 P . derived from the Arabic “undecided” and indicating insincere Muslims. the dating and content of the relevant qur#anic verses are consistent with the historical narrative provided by Ibn Ishaq. then. . the Munafiq u n represented a political as well as a religious problem which led him to frame a strategic policy aimed at dividing the Jews from their Arab allies so as to render both groups powerless. or whether it is a matter of mutually reinforcing independent evidence. the association between the Jews and the “Hypocrites” (Munafiq u n) was so close that it led to confusion of the main figures by Ibn Ishaq’s time. Rose religion … One day the apostle saw them talking with lowered voice among themselves huddled together. the Constitution of Medina. the usual translation “Hypocrites”. armaments and commercial power. Jews were slowly being displaced from areas of the city and its environs and their tribes were becoming subordinated to Arab tribes through a growing system of ally and client relationships.48 As it happens. the individuals identified by Ibn Ishaq with details of how each was ejected seem to have been Arab “Hypocrites” rather than the Jewish ones whom he names at the beginning of the passage. Muhammad’s Political Antisemitism: The Constitution of Medina and the Jewish Clients By the late 6th century Jewish predominance in Medina was waning. 246–7. Apart from their traditional alliances. 2010. 221–5. (See also his earlier. Gil . History of the Jews of Arabia. but this is doubly inaccurate since the text is obviously a composite of several treaties reached at different times. pp. J. Pacts with the Yathrib Jews”. 1975. Studia Islamica. Jews in Islamic Countries in the Middle Ages. Muhammad and the Jews of Medina. Newby. J. apart from a handful of them. this was primarily between the rival Arab tribes but was quickly extended to cover their Jewish allies. The Jews and the Constitution of Medina 17 allies culminated in the battle of Bu’ath in which the various Jewish allies fought on opposite sides. The “Constitution of Medina”. Muhammad and the Believers. pp. 231–3.49 Once there Muhammad clearly began to see his task as uniting the warring Arab tribes in his new religion that would replace kinship as the main bond of Arab culture. 50) Ibn Ishaq gives the continuous text in his Life of Muhammad. ed. Serjeant divides the Kit a b into eight Documents designated A to H. 221–45. which includes a new translation at pp. “The Constitution of Medina’”. pp. reached primarily between the Jews and Muhammad. 3–16). Rubin . Der Koran und die Juden. p.cit. This would be done with or without the participation of the Jews. Lecker.50 In general see A. 1985. A revised version of Lecker’s translation is given in M. and a fundamentally re-edited one by Serjeant . transl. 92–8.Muhammad. Leiden. pp. M. 2010. the easiest way to overcome Jewish tribal autonomy was by entangling them in a new net of Islamic alliances and Arab security pacts. M. It was this state of exhaustion which produced the invitation to Muhammad to come as an arbiter and peacemaker to Medina in 622. 32–9. provides much information but arbitrarily rejects Serjeant’s analysis. 192–220. The first step taken was a general security pact that Muhammad concluded in its initial form within five months of his arrival in 622. 2004. 8. Cambridge MA. pp. 49) . Muhammad at Medina. Muhammad at Medina. pp. 5–23 (an early sceptical account). 62. Wensinck . the Constitution of Medina. 21–45. Since the Jews. Islamic History. Freiburg. Islamic Quarterly. The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad. Appendix. 61–79. U.. An alternative translation is offered by F. Brockopp. pp. Donner. and the Jews are not the prime signatories.Wensinck . pp. (given in shortened form in his chapter in Beeston .134–9). 1964. The detailed monograph by Lecker. refused to recognize Muhammad as the Prophet sent to redeem them. “The Constitution of Medina’: Some Notes”. in J. “The Sunnah Jami’ah. “Glimpses of Muhammad’s Medinan Decade”. Darmstadt. Detailed treatments include Watt . 1990. Bouman . At the Origins of Islam. pp. Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period. loc. 227–32. Muhammad at Medina. An improved English translation with numbered articles is in Watt . E. Ibn Ishaq introduces this pact as a unitary treaty. Cambridge. Die Geschichte einer Tragödie. 82–95. Muhammad and the Jews of Medina (1908). Watt . There is an extensive literature on the Constitution to which a useful introduction is Humphreys. 54 It makes much more sense to see the Jews as being bound up as pp. P . were not parties to the treaty? This is difficult to believe (though some authors do so argue). pp. Qurayza and Qaynuqa?”. 17. 1967.com. it will be argued. 128–38 for a translation of J. My thesis is that the “Mu’minun” are in fact those non-Muslims who were . pp. asserts that the only Jewish parties were “small groups of obscure origin” rather than the major tribes. 280. 15–23 (forming clauses 1–19 in Watt’s version. pp. “Muhammad and the Medinan Jews”. Pacts with the Yathrib Jews”. The main Jewish tribes are not named. “The Sunnah Jami’ah”. that the three main Jewish tribes were not party to the treaty since only the Banu Tha laba appear therein as a Jewish tribe. 51) Ibn Sa d. 1997. 51–71 (ibidem. Donner. but rather there is a series of references to Jews who were attached to the Medinan Arab tribes: “The Jews of Banu Awf” and so on. which begs the question: Why bother dignifying these “small groups” with a formal treaty? See also M.tabletmag. 47–87. Does this mean that the independent Jewish tribes such as the Qurayza. 466–7). 221–3). 23–8 (B = Watt. 10 August 2010). I. 52) Serjeant . however. Muhammad and the Believers. Ibn Ishaq was trying to make historical sense of it by reading back Muhammad’s later attacks on the Jews as punishments for their breach of this single original treaty. (Similarly Faizer. Muhammad at Medina. 68. 53) Serjeant . pp.18 P . 29–36.. i. transl. probably followed directly on the Muslim alliance “between the Muhajir u n (Meccans) and the Ansa r (Medinans) that was signed in the house of Anas”.52 The specific engagements of the non-Muslim Arabs not to act against the signatories (Document B) and of the treaty binding the Jews to the Arab tribes (Document C) were attached at the same time or very soon after.53 Precisely which Jews were involved in the Kit a b has long been a matter of debate. p. “The Sunnah Jami’ah. between the non-Muslims of Medina who wished to be “faithful” to the pact and the Muslims – forms Serjeant’s Document A.51 The foundation treaty concluded (clause A1) between the “Mu#minun and the Muslimun” – that is. Crone’s sharply critical review “Among the Believers”. L. www. pp. clauses 20–3. “Glimpses of Muhammad’s Medinan Decade”. Israel Oriental Studies. Lecker. Lecker. C = clauses 24–33). invokes the distinction in clause 1 between “Mu’minun” (Believers) and “Muslimun” (Muslims) to maintain an untenable hypothesis that the “Believers” are in fact the local “monotheists” who would include Jews (cf. Wellhausen’s 1908 analysis. 54) Rather implausibly Lecker argues in The Constitution of Medina’. Rose Clearly mystified by the document and having no way of dissecting the text in its parts. That original core. “Did Muhammad Conclude Treaties with the Jewish Tribes Nadir. 4. Karachi. the Nadir and the Qaynuqa . pp. On the other hand. “Muhammad’s Constitution of Medina”). 71–4. Kit a b al-Tabaqa t al-Kab ir. Kafir in A5 does not have the now conventional meaning of infidel. the Nadir and the Qurayza. These Mu#minu n are not Muslim “Believers” as usually translated anachronistically by its later meaning. That the first sections of the Constitution of Medina were originally a security pact for the mixed residents of the city is further borne out by the frequent mention of Mu#minu n in contexts where Mu#minu n cannot be identical with Muslimu n who are distinguished from one another. Muhammad’s political position was still too insecure to demote the Jews further in these initial treaties. “the Jews of Banu Awf” doubtless referred to the Awf/Khazraj Jewish clients. but rather its original qur#anic (LX.Muhammad. 39–47. “Ummah in the Constitution of Medina”. 36. pp. the term acquiring its standard meaning of “Believer/Muslim” only later. Muhammad was obliged to concede at this stage to the Jews full membership of the Umma of Medina. “the secured”. 22. where Umma evidently designates the members of the security pact (am a n) covering the Muslim. Arab. 55) These remarks on Umma and Mu’minu n are derived in part from Serjeant’s analysis (pp. 32. while “the Jews of the Banu l-Aws” meant the Aws’ clients. Journal of Near Eastern Studies. as the Qureish were disowned by Muhammad). but this is rendered unnecessary by the retention of the phrase umma wahida in his clause 2. Within a very few years. Thus. They are the Arab tribes and individuals of Medina who had not yet converted to Islam but in virtue of their political alliance with Muhammad were admitted as part of the Umma of Medina – along with their Jewish allies and clients. “the secured”). but rather those who are parties in a mutual security pact (from the Arabic root # – m – n). clause 28) umma ma a (“forms a community with”) as amana mina (“secure from/by the Mu’minu n”). . Lecker. 35. Similarly.55 To apply this term thus to include Jews would soon become unthinkable when Umma would come forever to refer exclusively to Muslims. 35–136. p. As to umma. Muhammad’s theocratic conception of the Umma as a community only of Muslims had been finalized and Jews and other non-Muslims were to be admitted to co-existence only as subordinated and protected Dhimm is. The formula in Document B3a strongly suggests that the signatory Mu’min “who has affirmed what is on this sheet” need not be a (Muslim) Believer (again confirming the view that the differentiating term “Mu’minun” in clause A1 refers to those who are faithful to the pact or whose security is guaranteed by the pact). Thus. that is “the faithful”. party to the security pact (“the faithful”. at p. points out. But despite this legal clientization. as Serjeant. needlessly attempts to read the phrase (p. M. 1977. The Jews and the Constitution of Medina 19 clients of their Arab allies rather than as independent tribes. 4) sense of “the disowned” (when Abraham renounces (kafarna) the idolaters. the Qaynuqa . The “Constitution of Medina“. Denny. 12–4) and F. and Jewish inhabitants of the city. 143. Cf. p. 2005.. and. Rose The Constitution of Medina has been represented contradictorily both as an edict of toleration and the declaration of an antisemitic strategic policy. but rather with control: The Jews are bound tightly to their Arab allies. If they violate the treaty. The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims. Spencer. Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition. Amherst NY. 13–56. and they are strictly engaged to share in expenses and “maintenance” (nafaqa) for Muhammad’s campaigns. As far as I know. and I [Allah] have mine” [CIX. “The Jews having their religion/ law (d in). more polemically. For example. . they will be punished for their “treachery”. and the Muslims having their religion/law”.56 Certainly the characterization of the Constitution as an expression of idealistic Muslim toleration of the Jews is misconceived as both the document itself and the political attacks on the Jews of Medina which followed in the next few years amply show. 6] – then this optimistic note disappears and the Jews become inferior to the Muslims. The antisemitic innocence of the Constitution’s intent has been seriously doubted by later critics. Gil has gone so far as to argue that it was the conscious first step of a long-term antisemitic strategy of eliminating Jewish independence: “[The Constitution] had an a priori view of the expulsion. this Qur#a n reference has not previously been cited in connection with the Constitution clause. Muhammad at Medina. The “toleration” they receive here as members of the Umma (security confederation) of Medina is in fact a precursor to the subsequent repressive and controlled Dhimm i status that they found themselves in soon enough after Muhammad’s death. Y.20 P . L. p. The only toleration they receive in both the Constitution and in the Dhimma – and it is certainly an important one – is the right to remain in their religion. clause 25). 4: “… the patently false claim that medieval Islam was tolerant in the modern sense of the word”. 57) Typical of such apologetics is Ahmad . 2003. ed. 147–57. has been taken to be a benign equalizing of the two religious groups. However. Muhammad and the Jews: “[It was based] on a liberal conception of the rule of law with two simple principles: the safeguarding of individual rights by impartial juridical authority. pp. the oft-quoted phrase. the dispossession.57 An objective reading demonstrates that the Constitution is not in the least concerned with liberal Western ideas of “toleration”. 107–14. if it is interpreted in the light of a similar phrase in the Qur#a n – “Ye [unbelievers] have your religion. Tolerance and Coercion in Islam. 38). 27 (Watt. and the principle of equality before the law” (p. Friedmann . “The Sunnah Jami’ah”. R. Cambridge. and even the annihilation of the Jews of 56) Clause numbered C2a by Serjeant . albeit in straitened status. it is clear that this non-theocratic situation could only be a temporary arrangement that would hold until the political situation was resolved in Muhammad’s favor. 45–47.59 Despite the Prophet’s prudential and expedient reasons for “tolerating” or admitting non-Muslim Arabs and Jews as Mu#minu n – i. p. 4–8. Flügel. Watt interestingly discerns no particular hostility to the Jews here. “Muhammad’s Constitution of Medina”. however. more specific perhaps. those protected as parties to the Umma. 88. The Jews and the Constitution of Medina 21 Medina. V . while others seem more specific in presaging Muhammad’s determination to mount a vengeful campaign of cunning brutality against his Jewish opponents. Muhammad and the Jews of Medina. when he could not have foreseen exactly how affairs would unfold.Muhammad. Wellhausen . Yet it is hard to disagree with the verdict of Wellhausen (himself not a friend of the Jews) that the document exhibited “a certain mistrust of the Jews” that was the seed of subsequent events for which “Tradition has a simple explanation … Every hostile act of Muhammad was precipitated by the Jews and justified by planned or accomplished treachery … We. 136–7.e. many of which can be dated to the early Medinan years. d. 41. Muhammad’s War Against the Jewish Tribes: The Qaynuqa and the Muna ¯ fiqu ¯ n Alliance The Qur#a n contains a number of dire threats against the Jews. 32]: “Our messengers have already come to them ([the Jews] with the Evidences. will find that it was Muhammad who committed the perfidy. and XXII.60 Particularly interesting is an indignant veiled threat which . V [. Some have an air of general menace. For Muhammad the matter of the Jews’ status was an urgent one and essential for the emergence of his final theocratic system of Islam. The original threat is in Bell . 59) 58) . XVI. Jews in Islamic Countries. in Wensinck . 60) General in tone are XVI. at the very moment it was being written”. pp. XVII. 25. 134. but even after that many of them are acting extravaGil.58 This is perhaps imputing too much precise intent to Muhammad’s mind at the time of the original core of the treaty in 622. He gladly used every chance to punish the Jews and to contrive to create reasons if there were none”. 36 was made concrete in verses added later. It was to be settled decisively by the political conflict through which Muhammad subdued the Jews between 624 and 628 and whose stages are illustrated by the later security pacts which accreted to the original core of the Constitution. Salam. which suggests they were connected with Muhammad’s revision of that law – to which there it seems to be a reference in Document D4. V The first Jews to experience the earthly punishment were the Qaynuqa tribe and their case has many intriguing aspects which merit detailed analysis here for its historical circumstantiality. beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance he brought upon Quraysh [the Meccans] and become Muslims. pp. . 62) I deal in detail with the other Jewish tribes elsewhere for reasons of space. 33–34). 230–60. Muhammad decided to put an end to Jewish intransigence and mockery by making an example of the Qaynuqa who lived in the center of Medina. or that they should be banished from the land. 262.63 Other verses written at this time [III.22 P . Leiden. Rose gantly in the land”. You have already a sign in the two forces which met [at Badr] … One force fought in the way of Allah. 267. The month after Badr. p. suggests that the Qaynuqa affair is apocryphal and the result of exegetical confusion by Ibn Ishaq. 363 (cf.62 The assaults began when. The article s. Flügel . and in the Hereafter is for them a mighty punishment. p. Flügel V . 2004. Exegetisches Denken. for by God if we fight you. III. 10–11. Salam – the “most learned of the Qaynuqa” – was an enthusiastic assistant in his conversion campaign. The verses added after Muhammad’s physical assaults on the Jews are graphic: “The recompense of those who make war on Allah and His messenger and exert themselves to cause corruption in the land is that they should be killed or crucified. probably buoyed by the fact that his first Jewish convert. Abdallah b. an evil resting place. J. L. 240–1. You know that I am a prophet who has been sent – you will find that in your Scriptures’ … They replied. Do not deceive yourself because you encountered a people with no knowledge of war and got the better of them.v. Schöller in the Encyclopedia of the Qur’an. McAuliffe. or that their hands and feet on opposite sides should be cut off. ‘O Muhammad. D. For Abdallah b. see Ibn Ishaq. ed. 12–13] came down about them: ‘Say to those who disbelieve: you will be vanquished and gathered to Hell. you will find that we are real men!’ … The following verses [Bell III. 260.61 your power” ( Bell . Except those who have repented before ye get them in . you seem to think that we are your people. “Qaynuqa” by M. see for details Schöller. This all seems unnecessarily sceptical. following his unexpected victory against the Meccan polytheists at Badr in March 624. 63) Ibn Ishaq. the other [were] disbelievers’”. cited above). 19–24] adverted to those Jews who had the temerity to argue over religion with Muhammad and 61) The context of these verses is the Biblical law of retaliation. 37–8. that is humiliation for them in this world. “Muhammad assembled the Qaynuqa in their market and addressed them as follows: ‘O Jews. pp. a codicil to Document C. hitherto the most powerful chieftain in Medina and now the leader of the Munafiq u n.Muhammad. and kill those of the people who urge justice – give them tidings of punishment painful”.67 It was becoming clear that this potentially dangerous Jewish-Arab front had to be broken. There was too the tempting fact that the Qaynuqa alliance was with Ubayy’s Khazraj tribe and that the Qaynuqa could thus expect no help from the Nadir and Qurayza who were allies of the rival Arab tribe. in Berg. According to al-Waqidi. These rebuffs freed Muhammad to attack the Qaynuqa . pp. 65) Ibn Ishaq. Ubayy.64 Importantly. Life of Muhammad.66 But there was a plethora of factors which may have motivated the selection of the Qaynuqa for the first attack. The placing of the dispute in the Qaynuqa market is significant. 92). 92. politically. was provoked by the Qaynuqa ’s actions. and kill the prophets wrongfully. there is Abu Bakr’s reference to the treaty when he struck Finhas. Method and Theory. 29–71. The Jews and the Constitution of Medina 23 threatened: “Verily those who disbelieve in the signs of Allah. . cite as the trigger the episode where a Muslim woman was publicly degraded in the Qaynuqa market and a murderous brawl ensued. there was their close alliance with those Arab leaders reluctant to grant their full loyalty to Muhammad. Ibn Ishaq himself blames the Qaynuqa for being “the first of the Jews to break their agreement with the apostle and go to war” but this may be reading the pretexts of covenant-breaking used for the subsequent wars on the Nadir and Qurayza back onto this first onslaught. p. 66) This episode does not appear in Ibn Ishaq. Then. Two very practical factors should also be seriously be considered. especially Abdallah b. unlike Ibn Ishaq. First. Relations with the Qaynuqa were also exacerbated by daily contact with them since they were the only Jewish group in the center of the city and friction was frequent and bitter and apt to result in violence as the cases of the Qaynuqa rabbi Finhas and the Jews gathering in Muhammad’s mosque show. quoted above. “King Ibn Ubayy and the Qussas”. 55–59. the Aws.65 Al-Waqidi and Ibn Hisham. The Qaynuqa were makers of arms and metal goods and their 64) Ibn Ishaq. 363. The covenant in question would have been Serjeant’s Document C. pp. however. the condemnation of covenant-breakers in the Qur#a n VIII. but in Ibn Hisham’s notes to Ishaq ( Guillaume. there was the predominance of Qaynuqa among Muhammad’s religious opponents and their rejection of Muhammad’s conversionary sermon to them in their marketplace after Badr. p. 269–70. 751) and al-Waqidi (edited by Wellhausen. p. Muhammed in Medina. though Bell attributes it possibly to the Qurayza (it could equally apply to the Nadir). Lecker. 67) See M. There seems to be no good reason to doubt its veracity. p. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam. 133–47. but it may also be that the crushing of the witnesses of his humiliation became an imperative for the prophet’s self-esteem as well as his political and religious standing. #Ali complained to Muhammad who came to investigate. pp.24 P . 1985. Rose large storehouses of weapons and armor would prove most useful to Muhammad’s army if they could be seized. another prominent companion of the Prophet. Isma il al-Bukhar i.000 had i ths. his uncle Hamza. And Muhammad was keen at this time on establishing his own marketplace which was badly sited and would be better placed in the Qaynuqa central market. . J. M. pp. The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawwiya). 226–8. Al-Bukhar i claimed to be so critical as to have retained only 10. L. Book 34 (Sales). The incident depicts Muhammad in such an unfavorably weak light that it cannot have been invented by the later traditionists. arranged with the Qaynuqa for the animals to be used as carriers for the idhkir grass needed by their goldsmiths for their work with the object of earning a dowry for his marriage with the Prophet’s daughter Fatima. 272–6. A month after Badr Muhammad’s companion #Ali. 206–7. who had won two camels as booty from the battle. killed them for a feast. Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi both relate the attack on the Qaynuqa . Aldershot. Khan . verse 340.68 Finally. pp. reprinted in his Jews and Arabs in Pre. 1986. “The Market of the Prophet”. pp. 70) al-Waqidi. 366–7. verse 302. See also M. But while the camels were in the street awaiting their load. V . 8. IV . Lecker. M. ed. 1998–2000. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. The psychological insult to Muhammad was profound: one immediate result probably was the ban on wine. Cf. II. 1965. 8. there is another intriguing though neglected context for the attack. “On the Markets of Medina (Yathrib) in pre-Islamic and Early Islamic Times”.000 of 300. 363–4. Sahih al-Bukha r i (The Translation of the Meanings).70 According to al-Waqidi the brawl over the dishon68) M. Book 57 (Companions). only to find Hamza and his friends so drunk that Hamza even insulted the Prophet to his face with the contemptuous remark: “What were you but my father’s slave?”69 The Jews apparently witnessed this dangerous spectacle and probably took it as a further opportunity to ridicule the behavior of Muslims and the weakness of Muhammad. transl. Book 53 (Booty). article IX. Ibn Kathir. the latter in more detail. but must have been irrefutably attested as true. 1998. III. 69) This strange incident is recounted in the authoritative 9th century collection of traditions of al-Bukhar i: Muhammad b. Given all these contexts. p. 4th edition. Beirut. Reading. 171. verse 324. 92–4. Kister.and Early Islamic Arabia. it would seem that Muhammad’s decision to move on the Qaynuqa was over-determined both practically and psychologically. Ibn Ishaq. Abdallah. Ubayy desperately tried to avert this and came with several of his Jewish allies to Muhammad’s house. relates an astonished Ibn Ishaq. then a crowd of Jews to kill the Muslim. The expulsion of the Jews from the city was entrusted to their former Khazraj ally Ubada al-Samit. even if they could not be executed. Qudama. such a damaging humiliation of Muhammad simply could not have been invented by later traditions and must be taken as historically true). saying … I take God and His apostle and the believers as my friends. However.When Muhammad rejected his appeal and turned away from him. He said: Confound you. Maslama who was to become Muhammad’s hatchet-man for dealing with the Jews. I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my clients. by God.71 71) The foregoing conflates the accounts of Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi. After 15 days of siege. ours cannot hope to be greeted otherwise’”. drove them to the Wadi Qur a Oasis. (Again. Ubayy tried in vain to reassure them. “Ubayy thrust his hand into the collar of the apostle’s robe [or his armor]: the apostle was so angry that his face became almost black. but it was now futile. the Qaynuqa Jews’ fate was sealed. they could be expelled from Medina. Fortunately. who after a three day grace period. Ubayy answered: No. but the guard there struck him in the face so hard that he was rammed into the wall and bled. where your face is repudiated. however. The Jews and the Constitution of Medina 25 ored Muslim woman in the marketplace provoked first a Muslim to kill the Jewish joker. another Khazraj chieftain Ubada al-Samit. when they were tied up by Muhammad’s officer al-Mundhir b. The apostle said: You can have them’”. the Jews surrendered on condition of losing their property but keeping their lives. and I renounce my agreement and friendship with these unbelievers’”. They were driven out of their quarter and all their property confiscated by Muhammad b. With this crucial defection. This rough encounter was a rare example of Muhammad backing down and indicates his awareness of the danger of his situation. would you cut them down in one morning. By God. the worst was expected and this led Abdallah b. let me go’. whereupon the Qaynuqa withdrew to their strongholds. Ubayy of the Munafiq u n to intervene forcefully on behalf of the Qaynuqa who were old allies of his Khazraj tribe. . “who had the same alliance with the Jews went to the apostle and renounced all responsibility for them. so that the Jews panicked exclaiming. where they stayed for a month before moving on to Adhri at in Syria.Muhammad. I am a man who fears that circumstances may change’. Four hundred men without mail and three hundred mailed protected me from all mine enemies. as with the Hamza incident. Book 52. “The shade of my spear” was what protected Islam. L. verse 162. p.75 At the time of the late raid on Tabuk. unless he did indeed die then and the reference here to the raid of Year 9 is parenthetical and meant to include deceased as well as still living leaders of the Munafiq u n. but these seem to have been mainly those who formally converted to Islam while remaining resentful of Muhammad and loyal to their former protector Ubayy. when Ubayy “separated from Muhammad and stayed behind with the Munafiq u n and doubters”. later mocking him for being unable. 73) al-Waqidi. to locate his missing camel. Muhammad took a fifth of the booty. we find frequent accounts in the early Sira of the plunder gained from each expedition against his enemies.72 He himself acquired two coats of mail. The despoiling of the Qaynuqa is mentioned in LIX. the “principal men who wished ill to Islam and its people” included Rifa a b.74 Hence.73 This brings up the question of the role of Jewish material wealth in Muhammad’s antisemitic policy against the Jewish tribes. An earlier reference at p. 93. 76) Ibn Ishaq. Kit a b al-Tabaqa t al-Kab ir. while at his funeral in 631 72) al-Waqidi cites Muhammad’s taking of one-fifth. Karachi. transl. 1967. al-Tabut of the Qaynuqa . 398. IV .26 P . which continues: “and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying Jizya”. p. p. From his arrival in Medina Muhammad was effectively a war-lord who financed his religious movement by the spoils of war – as he put it. 604. The crucial significance of plunder in Muhammad’s career and for the success of early Islam is exposed in the care with which details of the quantity and the division of the spoils are recounted in the Sira. Rose The plunder from the Qaynuqa included their metal-working tools as well as their large stores of armor and weapons. chapter 88. pp. the indignity of indebtedness to the Jews lends verisimilitude to these accounts. 581. though a prophet. Ibn Ishaq. 2. his Munafiq u n followers sought to visit him against the efforts of his Muslim son. . Zayd b. 605–6. Again. three lances and three bows (one of which he used in the battle of Uhud soon afterwards).Ibn Sa d. I.76 During Ubayy’s final illness. Thus Zayd al-Lusayt survived as a thorn in Muhammad’s side. 75) al-Waqidi. money and land that flowed into Muhammad’s possession as a result of the destruction of the Jewish tribes must be seen as a crucial factor in his thinking and planning. The resources in arms. 491 to Rifa a having died in Year 6 seems mistaken. 577–8. Some Qaynuqa were to remain in Medina. three swords. 74) Sahih al-Bukha r i. sharing the rest among his followers. and for them in the Hereafter is the punishment of the Fire.Muhammad. whether the pattern in reality was as it is depicted in the Qur#a n and the Sira is a problem that may well never be solved. He would surely have punished them in this world. 2–4]. verily Allah is severe in punishment” [LIX. 79) Additional sentences (LIX. 2–17) were interpolated after “round-up” on the occasion of the expulsion of the Nadir. Zur ara that he hated the Jews?”78 These fragmented references demonstrate an original nexus between the Jews and Munafiq u n that seems essential for understanding the political decisions taken by Muhammad at Medina – even if the general narratives may be attempting to conceal the full circumstances of the case. This pattern of Muslim attack and Jewish surrender was to be the template for his next two campaigns. p. possibly in contemplation over the futile opposition of his old rival (al-Waqidi. Ubayy replied: What did it profit Asad b. p. When Muhammad visited Ubayy on his deathbed and reproached him for his friendship towards the Jews. p. To the indignation of #Umar. That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger: if anyone opposes Allah. 623). Of course. but it seems plausible in terms of Jewish and Arab historical behaviors alike.77 Ubayy himself. Muhammad would prophesy with satisfaction: “He it is who hath expelled those of the People of the Book who have disbelieved from their dwellings at the beginning of the round-up [of the disbelievers to judgement] … Were it not that Allah had prescribed exile for them. Zur ara. e. 78) al-Waqidi. Ibn Ishaq. After the expulsion of the Qaynuqa . p. 414. See above for Abu Umama Asad b. remained friendly to the Jews. The Historical Kernel How does all this information from the Qur#a n and Sira square with the Constitution of Medina? The central feature of the whole Qaynuqa story is growing disrespect for Muhammad evinced by such episodes as Jewish al-Waqidi. 77) . 415. he had won enormous plunder and supplies.79 This was a stunning success for Muhammad: he had demonstrated that he could crush a powerful and rich Jewish tribe which turned out to be afraid to fight him. Muhammad also prayed over Ubayy’s grave. 415. and he had captured some of the most valuable central property in Medina. The Jews and the Constitution of Medina 27 “the Qaynuqa [including Zayd] and others pressed forward to the bier”. though later reconciled to the prophet. Rose mockery. Whether Muhammad had the fully developed policy in his mind at the outset or whether he improvised at each stage. The date varies between July and September. L. 74. . 1990. To forestall this coalition. “Waqidi’s Account of the Status of the Jews of Medina”. including his mistaking the main assassin Sa d b. the Qaynuqa and the Munafiq u n is mirrored in the Constitution as well as in the Qur#a n’s imprecations against the “niggardly” and the Sira’s elucidation of Jewish scorn for Muhammad’s demands for contributions which was being communicated to the Munafiq u n.28 P . 368. pp. 482. “Our attack upon God’s enemy cast terror among the Jews. This is all perfectly in accord with the Constitution’s incorporation of the initial security pacts with the non-Muslims and the Jews (Documents A. pp. formerly the evictor of the Qaynuqa and now the organizer of the murdersquad. argues that Waqidi’s version of the murder contains errors. al-Ashraf and Abu Rafi . and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life”. 95–9. Muhammad ordered the murder of Ka b. the assassination in the late summer of 624 of the Jewish Nadir chieftain Ka b b. B and C) which Muhammad deemed to have been broken by the Jewish tribe’s behavior.al-Waqidi. the terrifying massacre of the Qurayza tribe. Thus. crowed Muhammad b. alAshraf can be linked to Documents D and E. is open to debate. Mu#adh for Maslama. Oriens. Moreover. Muhammad’s subsequent campaign of political assassination of his Jewish opponents such as Ka#b b. U. 32. Ubayy’s manhandling of the Prophet. “The Assassination of Ka b b. Together they reinforce one another complementarily in producing a multifaceted picture of the political situation at the time of the Qaynuqa crisis. Maslama. Rubin . the emphasis on financial contributions in the growing tension between Muhammad. p. but the argument seems to be based on al-Waqidi’s judging one of Ibn Ishaq’s contradictory statements preferable to the other. Following the Qaynuqa expulsion Ka b had been plotting with the Meccans to attack Muhammad. his expulsion of the powerful Nadir tribe. See the narrative in Ibn Ishaq. describes the later tradition concerning Ka b’s treaty with Abu Sufyan. 364–9. and Abdallah b.80 Document D5 (“Whoever assassinates. But in all these episodes a coherent reading of all the evidence and sources suggests that the retrieval of the historical kernels is feasible. Lecker. “The Issue of Authenticity”. Faizer. The resolution of the problem was to be the failure of the Munafiq u n-Qaynuqa alliance and the expulsion of the Qaynuqa . All three sources are in agreement about the crucial role of contributions in Muhammad’s early political manoeuvring at Medina. the Ali/Hamza insult. and the final crushing of the Jewish citadels at Khaybar – all these may be seen as the prosecution of a policy that began with the attack on the Qaynuqa . Al-Ashraf”. 65–71. assassinates himself and 80) Ibn Ishaq. clauses 37–38). Medina. fits well with al-Waqidi’s circumstantial narrative. pp. indicating that the non-Jewish Arabs now regarded themselves as a unitary and separate Muslim party to the treaty rather than being just one group associated with others in a security pact. the treaty which forms Document G.Muhammad. 28. Telling them that nothing would have happened to Ka b had he kept quiet. Cf. . “The Sunnah Jami’ah”. whose tearing up by the Qurayza provided the pretext for their murder. “The Sunnah Jami’ah”. p. pp.82 In the light of this provisional reconstruction. Cairo. 32–4 ( Watt . Al-Kaki . Mostafa . Historical Sites of Madina (A Pictorial Record). 1997. 1999. 36–8 (Watt . 81) For Document E see Serjeant . al-Waqidi. al-Waqidi. pp. These interesting archaeological sites cannot be visited by non-Muslims. pp. 406–7. II. K. The Jews and the Constitution of Medina 29 the people of his house. see A. The Pictorial Collection of the Most Peculiar Places in Almadinah Almonawwarah. deals with this case as an instance of what he alleges is Waqidi’s invention of false data and dates for literary purposes. except if he assassinate one who acts wrongly”) seems very much to be an assertion of Muhammad’s right to political assassination. For photographs of the remains of what is reputedly Ka b b. 190–210. This is unconvincing. al-Ashraf ’s fort. there seems to be no sound reason why historians should feel obliged to surrender to the exigencies of Pyrrhonist scepticism when basic historical techniques and approaches indicate that a substantially true – if in certain respects unreliable – version of early Islamic relations with the Jews of Medina can be reconstructed using the key evidence of the Constitution of Medina as a primary control. So cowed were the Jews by Ka b’s murder that the next day a deputation of Jews and polytheists came to Muhammad for reassurance that the security pact with them (Document C) was still in force. 14. pp. 82) Again. primarily because Faizer seems to assume that any new information in Waqidi is ipso facto false information. 102–5.81 Most significantly Document E3b uses the very specific and exclusive Muslimu n without Mu’minu n. Serjeant . clauses 43–46). Muhammad graciously granted them a renewal of the treaty (Document E) – “written under the date palm at the house of Ramla bint al-Harith” – which re-affirmed “goodwill and sincerity of intention” towards the Jewish signatories as long as they did not deal “treacherously and break treaties” as well as meeting their obligation of contributing to the “expenses” while the Muslims continued at war with the Meccans. 98. or email articles for individual use.Copyright of Der Islam is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. . download. However. users may print.