2025/07/16

Myth of the Medina Massacre | Mohamad Jebara | The Times of Israel

The Blogs: Myth of the Medina Massacre | Mohamad Jebara | The Times of Israel

Myth of the Medina Massacre
Debunking the tale of a 7th century mass killing often used by Islamic extremists to justify murdering Jews
Jun 14, 2016, 
===

Often when we hear extremists promoting violence against Jews and people of other religions and also, when others want to debunk the claims of the majority of Muslims that Islam promotes peaceful coexistence and justice, they tend to cite the myth of the “Marketplace Massacre.”

Basically, the fable states that after the Muslim victory at the Battle of the Confederates, during the winter of 627 CE, the Muslims wanted to punish the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraythah, who were suspected of treacherously siding with the anti-Muslim Confederation. The slaughter and burial of all Jewish males above the age of twelve supposedly took place in the marketplace outside the Prophet’s Mosque.

This legend has been quoted by extremist groups the world over as justification for indiscriminate killing.

To Traditional Islamic scholars and the faithful, the legend presents many questions of concern and displeasure. Not only does it contradict the known compassionate nature of Prophet Muhammad and his disciples, but chiefly contradicts the Islamic Scriptures, namely, “No soul shall bear the burden of another,” which is strongly stated in no less than three passages in the Qur’an along with “Whoever takes one life, it is as though they massacred all of humanity.”

When the Prophet’s Mosque was expanded in 649 CE (22 years after the alleged incident), much of the surrounding homes were demolished and the area was dug up, including the place the mass grave was alleged to have been. At that time many animal bones from butcher shops in the market were found, but no human remains. If as many as 960 bodies were buried there, why were no bones found? Not even a distal phalange!

During the past twenty years with the demolition of hundreds of heritage sites and buildings in Medina to make way for hotels, many artifacts and scrolls were found buried beneath the ground, but no bodies. If the myth of a great massacre in the marketplace had any basis, why haven’t we found the remains? Moreover, how can so few people remember a massacre of such great intensity?

So where does this slanderous legend originate? It is first mentioned in Muslim literature by Ibn Ishaq around 756 CE in his Sirah Rasul Allah “Biography of the Messenger of God.” It is important to note that Ibn Ishaq wrote the “biography” as an inspirational storybook. I doubt he intended it to be seen as an authentically concise historical treatise, especially considering he was not an eyewitness to the events he writes about.

The Abbasid Dynasty took power in the year 750 after annihilating the Umayyads in a bloody coup. To “justify” such savagery in the eyes of his adolescent son Al-Mahdi, who was then 12 years old, the second Abbasid ruler Al-Mansur, commissioned Ibn Ishaq to compose the biography and to include such a preposterous tale.

The story hearkens back to the Roman siege of Masada in 73 CE, when we are told that 960 Jews committed mass suicide. Similar to the narrative of Josephus regarding the alleged mass suicide, in the marketplace massacre myth, the decree was believed to have been divine-judgment, in this case against the Jews. It appears that the Masada story was borrowed by Ibn Ishaq and interpolated, with no regard for historical accuracy or legacy, down to specific details.

Imam al-Awza’i, a contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, greatly objected to such a legend, stating, “As far as I know it is not a decree of God that God should chastise the many for the fault of the few; rather to reprimand the few for the fault of the many.”

Another contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, the great jurist of Medina, Imam Malik, decried this and other stories of Ibn Ishaq as “lies and fables” going as far as to declare him a “liar” and an “imposter” as transmitted in ‘Uyun-al-Athar. It is important to note that Imam Malik met the children of eyewitnesses to the life of Prophet Muhammad and had ascertained that the legend was a fabrication.

Among the many scholars and historians who rejected the myth of the massacre were Imam Ibnu Hajar Al-‘Asqalani who called the legend a “deviant tale” in his Tahthib-ut-Tahthib and Imam At-Tabari who called the fable an “unsubstantiated allegation.”

Several manuscripts and historic records show that Jews were living freely throughout Arabia even during the year 922 CE — three hundred years later — when they sought to be exempt from paying taxes.

Islamic scholars and historians have raised many questions about the credibility and authenticity of the Medina Massacre, a tale that bears neither spiritual nor moral benefit, rather incites indiscriminate violence and transgression. Not surprisingly, the cult that calls itself “The Islamic State” models itself after the early Abbasid Dynasty.

It is important to note that at Prophet Muhammad’s death, not only were there Jews still living in Medina, but, according to the narration in the Compilation of Bukhari, the Prophet’s armor was pawned to a Jewish merchant, and his next door neighbors were Jewish. From such an example, Muslims learn to coexist with others, remembering our shared humanity.

—
About the Author
Mohamad Jebara is Chief Imam and Resident Scholar at the Cordova Spiritual Education Center in Ottawa, Canada

===

Banu Qurayza

Checked
Page protected with pending changes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Banu Qurayza
بنو قريظة
Tribe
LocationYathrib, Hejaz
Descended fromKoreiza ben Elian
ReligionJudaism
שָׁלוֹם
This article contains Hebrew text. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Hebrew letters.
Map of the Arabian Peninsula in 600 AD, showing the various Arab tribes and their areas of settlement. The Lakhmids (yellow) formed an Arab monarchy as clients of the Sasanian Empire, while the Ghassanids (red) formed an Arab monarchy as clients of the Roman Empire A map published by the British academic Harold Dixon during World War I, showing the presence of the Arab tribes in West Asia, 1914

The Banu Qurayza (Arabic: بنو قريظة, romanized: Banū Qurayẓa; alternate spellings include Quraiza, Qurayzah, Quraytha, and the archaic Koreiza) were a Jewish tribe which lived in northern Arabia, at the oasis of Yathrib (now known as Medina). They were one of the three major Jewish tribes of the city, along with the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir.[1]

Jewish tribes reportedly arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish–Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a culturally, economically and politically dominant position.[2][3] However, in the 5th century, the Banu Aws and the Banu Khazraj, two Arab tribes that had arrived from Yemen, gained dominance.[4] When these two tribes became embroiled in conflict with each other, the Jewish tribes, now clients[3][5] or allies[4] of the Arabs, fought on different sides, the Qurayza siding with the Aws.[6]

In 622, the Islamic prophet Muhammad arrived at Yathrib from Mecca and reportedly established a pact between the conflicting parties.[2][7][8] While the city found itself at war with Muhammad's native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh, tensions between the growing numbers of Muslims and the Jewish communities mounted.[6]

In 627, when the Quraysh and their allies besieged the city in the Battle of the Trench, the Qurayza initially tried to remain neutral but eventually entered into negotiations with the besieging army, violating the pact they had agreed to years earlier.[9] Subsequently, the tribe was charged with treason and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad.[10][11] The Banu Qurayza eventually surrendered and their men were beheaded.[10][11][12][13][14]

The historicity of this incident has been questioned by Islamic scholars[15][16][17] of the Revisionist School of Islamic Studies[18] and by some western specialists.[19][18]

Ancestry

The Banu Qurayza are descendants of an Israelite patriarch named Koreiza. According to Ibn Ishaq, his full lineage was: Koreiza ben Elian ben Elika ben Elseke ben Elsbeth ben Elisha ben Saad ben Levi ben Jezebel ben Elian ben Eleazar ben Eleazar ben Aaron (Arabic: Qurayza ibn al-Nammam ibn al-Khazraj ibn al-Sarih ibn al-Sabt ibn al-Yasa ibn Saad ibn Lawi ibn Jabr ibn al-Nammam ibn Azar ibn Azar ibn Harun).[20] Their lineage to Aaron is considered by some to have made this tribe amongst the Kohen.[21]

History in pre-Islamic Arabia

Early history

Extant sources provide no conclusive evidence whether the Banu Qurayza were ethnically Israelite or Arab converts to Judaism.[2] Just like the other Jews of Yathrib, the Qurayza claimed to be of Israelite descent[4] and observed the commandments of Judaism, but adopted many Arab customs and intermarried with Arabs.[2] They were dubbed the "priestly tribe" (kahinan in Arabic from the Hebrew kohanim).[5][22] Ibn Ishaq, the author of the traditional Muslim biography of Muhammad, traces their genealogy to Aaron and further to Abraham[20] but gives only eight intermediaries between Aaron and the purported founder of the Qurayza tribe.[2]

In the 5th century CE, the Qurayza lived in Yathrib together with two other major Jewish tribes, the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir.[2] Al-Isfahani writes in his 10th century collection of Arabic poetry that Jews arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars; the Qurayza settled in Mahzur, a wadi in Al Harrah.[23] The 15th century Muslim scholar Al-Samhudi lists a dozen other Jewish clans living in the town of which the most important one was Banu Hadl, closely aligned with the Banu Qurayza. The Jews introduced agriculture to Yathrib, growing date palms and cereals,[2] and this cultural and economic advantage enabled the Jews to dominate the local Arabs politically.[3] Al-Waqidi wrote that the Banu Qurayza were people of high lineage and of properties, "whereas we were but an Arab tribe who did not possess any palm trees nor vineyards, being people of only sheep and camels." Ibn Khordadbeh later reported that during the Persian[clarification needed] domination in Hejaz, the Banu Qurayza served as tax collectors for the shah.[3]

Account of the king of Himyar

Ibn Ishaq tells of a conflict between the last Yemenite king of Himyar[24] and the residents of Yathrib. When the king was passing by the oasis, the residents killed his son, and the Yemenite ruler threatened to exterminate the people and cut down the palms. According to Ibn Ishaq, he was stopped from doing so by two rabbis from the Banu Qurayza, who implored the king to spare the oasis because it was the place "to which a prophet of the Quraysh would migrate in time to come, and it would be his home and resting-place". The Yemenite king thus did not destroy the town and converted to Judaism. He took the rabbis with him, and in Mecca they reportedly recognized the Kaaba as a temple built by Abraham and advised the king "to do what the people of Mecca did: to circumambulate the temple, to venerate and honor it, to shave his head and to behave with all humility until he had left its precincts." On approaching Yemen, tells Ibn Ishaq, the rabbis demonstrated to the local people a miracle by coming out of a fire unscathed and the Yemenites accepted Judaism.[25]

Arrival of the Aws and Khazraj

The situation changed after two Arab tribes named Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj arrived to Yathrib from Yemen. At first, these tribes were clients of the Jews, but toward the end of the 5th century CE, they revolted and became independent.[4] Most modern historians accept the claim of the Muslim sources that after the revolt, the Jewish tribes became clients of the Aws and the Khazraj.[3][5] William Montgomery Watt however considers this clientship to be unhistorical prior to 627 and maintains that the Jews retained a measure of political independence after the Arab revolt.[4]

Eventually, the Aws and the Khazraj became hostile to each other. They had been fighting possibly for around a hundred years before 620 and at least since 570s.[6] The Banu Nadir and the Banu Qurayza were allied with the Aws, while the Banu Qaynuqa sided with the Khazraj.[26] There are reports of the constant conflict between Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadir, the two allies of Aws, yet the sources often refer to these two tribes as "brothers".[27] Aws and Khazraj and their Jewish allies fought a total of four wars.[4] The last and bloodiest altercation was the Battle of Bu'ath,[4] the outcome of which was inconclusive.[4][6]

The Qurayza appear as a tribe of considerable military importance: they possessed large numbers of weaponry, as upon their surrender 1,500 swords, 2,000 lances, 300 suits of armor, and 500 shields were later seized by the Muslims.[28][29] Meir J. Kister notes that these quantities are "disproportionate relative to the number of fighting men" and conjectures that the "Qurayza used to sell (or lend) some of the weapons kept in their storehouses". He also mentions that the Qurayza were addressed as Ahlu al-halqa ("people of the weapons") by the Quraysh and notes that these weapons "strengthened their position and prestige in the tribal society".[29]

Arrival of Muhammad

Main article: Migration to Medina

The continuing feud between the Aws and the Khazraj was probably the chief cause for several emissaries to invite Muhammad to Yathrib in order to adjudicate in disputed cases.[4][6] Ibn Ishaq recorded that after his arrival in 622, Muhammad established a compact, the Constitution of Medina, which committed the Jewish and Muslim tribes to mutual cooperation. The nature of this document as recorded by Ibn Ishaq and transmitted by Ibn Hisham is the subject of dispute among modern historians, many of whom maintain that this "treaty" is possibly a collage of agreements, of different dates, and that it is not clear when they were made.[2][7][8] Watt holds that the Qurayza and Nadir were probably mentioned in an earlier version of the Constitution requiring the parties not to support an enemy against each other.[2]

Aside from the general agreements, the chronicles by Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi contain a report that after his arrival, Muhammad signed a special treaty with the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad. Ibn Ishaq gives no sources, while al-Waqidi refers to Ka’b ibn Malik of Salima, a clan hostile to the Jews, and Mummad ibn Ka’b, the son of a Qurayza boy who was sold into slavery in the aftermath of the siege and subsequently became a Muslim. The sources are suspect of being against the Qurayza and therefore the historicity of this agreement between Muhammad and the Banu Qurayza is open to grave doubt. Among modern historians, R. B. Serjeant supports the historicity of this document and suggests that the Jews knew "of the penalty for breaking faith with Muhammad".[30] On the other hand, Norman Stillman argues that the Muslim historians had invented this agreement in order to justify the subsequent treatment of the Qurayza.[31] Watt also rejects the existence of such a special agreement but notes that the Jews were bound by the aforementioned general agreement and by their alliance to the two Arab tribes not to support an enemy against Muhammad.[2] Serjeant agrees with this and opines that the Qurayza were aware of the two parts of a pact made between Muhammad and the Jewish tribes in the confederation according to which "Jews having their religion and the Muslims having their religion excepting anyone who acts wrongfully and commits crime/acts treacherously/breaks an agreement[clarification needed], for he but slays himself and the people of his house."[30]

During the first few months after Muhammad's arrival in Medina, the Banu Qurayza were involved in a dispute with the Banu Nadir: The more powerful Nadir rigorously applied lex talionis against the Qurayza while not allowing it being enforced against themselves. Further, the blood money paid for killing a man of the Qurayza was only half of the blood-money required for killing a man of the Nadir,[32] placing the Qurayza in a socially inferior position. The Qurayza called on Muhammad as arbitrator, who delivered the Ayah 5:42-45 and judged that the Nadir and Qurayza should be treated alike in the application of lex talionis and raised the assessment of the Qurayza to the full amount of blood money.[33][34]

Tensions quickly mounted between the growing numbers of Muslims and Jewish tribes, while Muhammad found himself at war with his native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh. In 624, after his victory over the Meccans in the Battle of Badr, Banu Qaynuqa threatened Muhammad's political position and assaulted a Muslim woman which led to their expulsion from Medina for breaking the peace treaty of Constitution of Medina.[35][36] The Qurayza remained passive during the whole Qaynuqa affair, apparently because the Qaynuqa were historically allied with the Khazraj, while the Qurayza were the allies of the Aws.[37]

Soon afterwards, Muhammad came into conflict with the Banu Nadir. He had one of the Banu Nadir's chiefs, the poet Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, assassinated[38] and after the Battle of Uhud accused the tribe of treachery and plotting against his life and expelled them from the city.[39] The Qurayza remained passive during this conflict, according to R. B. Serjeant because of the blood money issue related above.[30]

Battle of the Trench

Main article: Battle of the Trench

In 627, the Meccans, accompanied by tribal allies as well as the Banu Nadir[40][41] - who had been very active in supporting the Meccans[42] - marched against Medina - the Muslim stronghold - and laid siege to it. It is unclear whether their treaty with Muhammad obliged the Qurayza to help him defend Medina, or merely to remain neutral,[43] according to Ramadan, they had signed an agreement of mutual assistance with Muhammad.[11][12] The Qurayza did not participate in the fighting - according to David Norcliffe, because they were offended by attacks against Jews in Muhammad's preaching - but lent tools to the town's defenders.[44] According to Al-Waqidi, the Banu Qurayza helped the defense effort of Medina by supplying spades, picks, and baskets for the excavation of the defensive trench the defenders of Medina had dug in preparation.[31] According to Watt, the Banu Qurayza "seem to have tried to remain neutral" in the battle[45] but later changed their attitude when a Jew from Khaybar persuaded them that Muhammad was sure to be overwhelmed[43] and though they did not commit any act overtly hostile to Muhammad, according to Watt,[2] they entered into negotiations with the invading army.[45]

Ibn Ishaq writes that during the siege, the Qurayza readmitted Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Banu Nadir whom Muhammad had exiled and who had instigated the alliance of his tribe with the besieging Quraysh and Ghatafan tribes.[34] According to Ibn Ishaq, Huyayy persuaded the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad to help the Meccans conquer Medina. Ka'b was, according to Al-Waqidi's account, initially reluctant to break the contract and argued that Muhammad never broke any contract with them or exposed them to any shame, but decided to support the Meccans after Huyayy had promised to join the Qurayza in Medina if the besieging army would return to Mecca without having killed Muhammad.[46] Ibn Kathir and al-Waqidi report that Huyayy tore into pieces the agreement between Ka'b and Muhammad.[2][47]

Rumors of this one-sided renunciation of the pact spread and were confirmed by Muhammad's emissaries, Sa'd ibn Mua'dh and Sa'd ibn Ubadah, leading men of the Aws and Khazraj respectively. Sa'd ibn Mua'dh reportedly issued threats against the Qurayza but was restrained by his colleague.[48] As this would have allowed the besiegers to access the city and thus meant the collapse of the defenders' strategy,[11] Muhammad "became anxious about their conduct and sent some of the leading Muslims to talk to them; the result was disquieting."[2] According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad sent Nuaym ibn Masud, a well-respected elder of the Ghatafan who had secretly converted to Islam, to go to Muhammad's enemies and sow discord among them. Nuaym went to the Qurayza and advised them to join the hostilities against Muhammad only if the besiegers provide hostages from among their chiefs. He then hurried to the invaders and warned them that if the Qurayza asked for hostages, it is because they intended to turn them over to the Medinan defenders. When the representatives of the Quraysh and the Ghatafan came to the Qurayza, asking for support in the planned decisive battle with Muhammad, the Qurayza indeed demanded hostages. The representatives of the besiegers refused, breaking down negotiations[49][50] and resulting in the Banu Qurayza becoming extremely distrustful of the besieging army.[10] The Qurayza did not take any actions to support them until the besieging forces retreated.[31] Thus the threat of a second front against the defenders never materialised.[45]

Siege and surrender

After the Meccans' withdrawal, Muhammad then led his forces against the Banu Qurayza, who retreated into their stronghold and endured the siege for 25 days. As their morale waned, Ka'b ibn Asad suggested three alternative ways out of their predicament: embrace Islam; kill their own children and women, then rush out for a charge to either win or die; or make a surprise attack on the Sabbath. The Banu Qurayza accepted none of these alternatives. Instead they asked to confer with Abu Lubaba, one of their allies from the Aws. According to Ibn Ishaq, Abu Lubaba felt pity for the women and children of the tribe who were crying and when asked whether the Qurayza should surrender to Muhammad, advised them to do so.[51][52][53][54] The next morning, the Banu Qurayza surrendered and the Muslims seized their stronghold and their stores.[43][55] The men - Ibn Ishaq numbers between 400 and 900[29][51] - were bound and placed under the custody of one Muhammad ibn Maslamah, who had killed Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, while the women and children - numbering about 1,000[29] - were placed under Abdullah ibn Sallam, a former rabbi who had converted to Islam.[56][57]

Killing of the Banu Qurayza

Main article: Invasion of Banu Qurayza

The circumstances of the Qurayza's demise have been related by Ibn Ishaq and other Muslim historians who relied upon his account. According to Watt, Peters and Stillman, the Qurayza surrendered to Muhammad's judgement[43][51][52][53] - a move Watt classifies as unconditional.[43] The Aws, who wanted to honor their old alliance with the Qurayza, asked Muhammad to treat the Qurayza leniently as he had previously treated the Qaynuqa for the sake of Ibn Ubayy. (Arab custom required support of an ally, independent of the ally's conduct to a third party.) Muhammad then suggested to bring the case before an arbitrator chosen from the Aws, to which both the Aws and the Qurayza agreed to. Muhammad then appointed Sa'd ibn Mu'adh to decide the fate of the Jewish tribe.[43][51][52][53][58]

According to Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore, the tribe agreed to surrender on the condition of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing.[59] According to Khadduri (also cited by Abu-Nimer), "both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them"[60][61] in accordance with the Arabian tradition of arbitration.[61] Muir holds that the Qurayza surrendered on the condition that "their fate was decided by their allies, the Bani Aws".[56][62]

In all accounts, the appointed arbitrator was Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a leading man among the Aws. During the Battle of the Trench, he had been one of Muhammad's emissaries to the Qurayza (see above)[56] and now was dying from a wound he had received later in the battle.[51][52][53][58] When Sa'd arrived, his fellow Aws pleaded for leniency towards the Qurayza and on his request pledged that they would abide by his decision.[10] He then decreed that the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children captured and sold to slavery. Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment.[51][52][53][58] Chiragh Ali argued that this statement may have referred to "king" or "ruler" rather than God.[63]

Sa'd dismissed the pleas of the Aws, according to Watt because being close to death and concerned with his afterlife, he put what he considered "his duty to God and the Muslim community" before tribal allegiance.[43] Tariq Ramadan argues that Muhammad deviated from his earlier, more lenient treatment of prisoners as this was seen "as sign of weakness if not madness",[57] Peterson concurs that the Muslims wanted to deter future treachery by setting an example with severe punishment.[10] Lings reports that Sa'ad feared that if expelled, the Qurayza would join the Nadir in the fight against the Muslims, as happened with the qurayshi captives after the battle of Badr.[14]

According to Stillman, Muhammad chose Sa'd so as not to pronounce the judgment himself, after the precedents he had set with the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir: "Sa'd took the hint and condemned the adult males to death and the hapless women and children to slavery." Furthermore, Stillman infers from Abu Lubaba's gesture that Muhammad had decided the fate of the Qurayza even before their surrender.[31]

Ibn Ishaq describes the killing of the Banu Qurayza men as follows:

Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, "Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!" This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, "By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken." Then he went to the men and said, "God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel." Then he sat down and his head was struck off.[51][52][64]

Several accounts note Muhammad's companions as executioners, Ali and Zubayr ibn al-Awwam in particular, and that each clan of the Aws was also charged with killing a group of Qurayza men.[29][54] Subhash Inamdar argues that this was done in order to avoid the risk of further conflicts between Muhammad and the Aws. According to Inamdar, Muhammad wanted to distance himself from the events and, had he been involved, he would have risked alienating some of the Aws.[54]

It is also reported that one woman, who had thrown a millstone from the battlements during the siege and killed one of the Muslim besiegers, was also beheaded along with the men.[65] Ibn Asakir writes in his History of Damascus that the Banu Kilab, a clan of Arab clients of the Banu Qurayza, were killed alongside the Jewish tribe.[66]

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

The spoils of battle, including the enslaved women and children of the tribe, were divided up among the Islamic warriors that had participated in the siege and among the emigrees from Mecca (who had hitherto depended on the help of the Muslims native to Medina.[67][68]

Muhammad collected one-fifth of the booty, which was then redistributed to the Muslims in need, as was customary. As part of his share of the spoils, Muhammad selected one of the women, Rayhana, for himself and took her as part of his booty.[68] Muhammad offered to free and marry her and according to some sources she accepted his proposal.[69] She is said to have later become a Muslim.[2]

Some of the women and children of the Banu Qurayza who were enslaved by the Muslims were later bought by Jews,[43] in particular the Banu Nadir. Peterson argues that this is because the Nadir felt responsible for the Qurayza's fate due to the role of their chieftain in the events.[10]

Analysis

According to Islamic traditions, the Qur'an briefly refers to the incident in Ayah 33:26.[16] Muslim jurists have looked upon Ayah 8:55-58 as a justification of the treatment of the Banu Qurayza, arguing that the Qurayza broke their pact with Muhammad, and thus Sa'd ibn Muadh's decision was justified in repudiating Muhammad's side of the pact and executing the Qurayza en masse.[52]

Arab Muslim theologians and historians have either viewed the incident as "the punishment of the Medina Jews, who were invited to convert and refused, perfectly exemplify the Quran's tales of what happened to those who rejected the prophets of old" or offered a political, rather than religious, explanation.[70]

In the 8th and early 9th century many Muslim jurists, such as Ash-Shafii, based their judgments and decrees supporting collective punishment for treachery on the accounts of the demise of the Qurayza, with which they were well acquainted.[71] However, the proceedings of Muhammad with regard to the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qurayza were not taken as a model for the relationship of Muslim states toward its Jewish subjects.[72][73][74][75][clarification needed][76]

In his 1861 biography of Muhammad, William Muir argued that the massacre cannot be justified by political necessity and "casts an odious blot upon the prophet's name".[77] Leone Caetani argued that the judgement was in fact dictated by Muhammad, making him responsible for the massacre.[78] Francesco Gabrieli commented that "we can only record the fact... that this God or at least this aspect of Him, is not ours".[79]

Paret[80] and Watt[43][81] say that the Banu Qurayza were killed not because of their faith but for "treasonable activities against the Medinan community".[43] Watt relates that "no important clan of Jews was left in Medina"[43] but he and Paret also note that Muhammad did not clear all Jews out of Medina.[80][81][82]

Aiming at placing the events in their historical context, Watt points to the "harsh political circumstances of that era"[43] and argues that the treatment of Qurayza was regular Arab practice ("but on a larger scale than usual").[83] Similar statements are made by Stillman,[31] Paret,[80] Lewis[84] and Rodinson.[68] On the other hand, Michael Lecker and Irving Zeitlin consider the events "unprecedented in the Arab peninsula - a novelty" and state that "prior to Islam, the annihilation of an adversary was never an aim of war."[66][85] Similar statements are made by Hirschberg[86] and Baron.[87]

Some authors assert that the judgement of Sa'd ibn Mua'dh was conducted according to laws of Torah.[88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95] Muhammad Hamidullah goes further and says that Sa'd "applied to them their own Biblical law [...] and their own practice."[96][dubious – discuss] No contemporaneous source says explicitly that Sa'd based his judgment on the Torah. Moreover, the respective verses of the Torah make no mention of treason or breach of faith, and the Jewish law as it existed at the time and as it is still understood today applies these Torah verses only to the situation of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, and not to any other period of history.[97]

Doubts about the historicity of the event

Muslim scholars such as Walid N. Arafat have disputed the Banu Qurayza were killed on a large scale.[98] Arafat disputes large-scale killings and argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who embellished or manufactured the details of the incident. Arafat relates the testimony of Ibn Hajar, who denounced this and other accounts as "odd tales" and quoted Malik ibn Anas, a contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, whom he rejected as a "liar", an "impostor" and for seeking out the Jewish descendants for gathering information about Muhammad's campaign with their forefathers.[99] Watt, on the other hand, finds Arafat's arguments "not entirely convincing".[2] Barakat Ahmad argues that only some of the tribe were killed, while some of the fighters were merely enslaved.[100]

Historians Fred Donner and Tom Holland cast doubt not only on the scale of the killings, but on their having happened at all, arguing that existence of the tribe and its slaughter is at odds with a more reliable document known as the Constitution of Medina. Along with including Jews as part of the ummah/community outlined in the constitution, the constitution gives a list of Jewish tribes/clans of Medina involved, with the Banu Qurayza (as well as two other Jewish tribes, the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir tribes) being "conspicuously absent". Donner also notes that while the conflict with the Jews and slaughter was alleged to have happened around 627 CE and led to a change in the direction of the Qibla from Jerusalem towards Mecca, the Qibla of many early 7th century mosques does not face towards Mecca. Donner concludes that the story of the massacre may have been invented or exaggerated a couple hundred years after the event to explain a break between the Jewish and Muslim communities at that time, but it is not certain. Tom Holland also notes that the sources talking about this exile and slaughter "are all suspiciously late" and "date from the heyday of Muslim greatness" when anti-non-Muslim sentiment was much greater.[101][102]

Legacy

The killing of the Banu Qurayza has been used polemically in modern times to either support the idea of a timeless treachery of Jews towards Muslims (e.g. in speeches of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1972 or Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in 2001) or that of timeless cruelty of Muslims towards Jews and the intrinsic violence of Muslims in general.[103]

The fate of the Banu Qurayza became the subject of Shaul Tchernichovsky's Hebrew poem Ha-aharon li-Venei Kuraita (The Last of the Banu Qurayza).[5]

See also

Notes

  1.  Rodgers 2012, p. 54.
  2.  Watt, William Montgomery. Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 5 (2 ed.). p. 436.
  3.  Peters 1994, p. 192f.
  4.  Watt, Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Al-Madina".
  5.  Encyclopedia Judaica, "Qurayza".
  6.  Watt, "Muhammad", In: The Cambridge History of Islam, Vol. 1A, pp. 39-49
  7.  Firestone, Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam, p. 118, 170. For opinions disputing the early date of the Constitution of Medina, see e.g., Peters 1994, p. 119
  8.  Alford Welch, Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Muhammad".
  9.  Ansary, Tamim (2009). Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes. PublicAffairs. ISBN 9781586486068.
  10.  Peterson, Muhammad: the prophet of God, p. 125-127.
  11.  Ramadan, In the Footsteps of the Prophet, p. 140f.
  12.  Hodgson, The Venture of Islam, vol. 1, p. 191.
  13.  Brown. A New Introduction to Islam. p. 81.
  14.  Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, pp. 229-231
  15.  Meri. Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. p. 754.
  16.  Arafat, "New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina", p. 100-107. Arafat relates the testimony of Ibn Hajar, who denounced this and other accounts as "odd tales" and quoted Malik ibn Anas, a contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, whom he rejected as a "liar", an "impostor" and for seeking out the Jewish descendants for gathering information about Muhammad's campaign with their forefathers.
  17.  Nemoy. Barakat Ahmad's 'Muhammad and the Jews'. p. 325.
  18.  Donner, Fred (2012). Muhammad and the Believers - At the Origins of Islam. p. 73.
  19.  Hughes, Aaron. Theorizing Islam: Disciplinary Deconstruction and Reconstruction. p. 50.
  20.  Guillaume 1955, pp. 7–9.
  21.  "Archives". www.royalhouseofdavid.us. Retrieved 2024-05-22.
  22.  Stillman 1979, p. 9.
  23.  Serjeant 1978, p. 2f.
  24.  Muslim sources usually referred to Himyar kings by the dynastic title of "Tubba".
  25.  Guillaume 1955, pp. 7–9}; Peters 1994, p. 49f.
  26.  For alliances see Guillaume 1955, p. 253.
  27.  Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, "Qurayza (Banu)".
  28.  Heck, "Arabia Without Spices: An Alternate Hypothesis", p. 547-567.
  29.  Kister 1986, p. 93f.
  30.  Serjeant 1978, p. 36.
  31.  Stillman, p. 14-16.
  32.  Ananikian, "Tahrif or the alteration of the bible according to the Moslems", p. 63-64.
  33.  Serjeant 1978, p. 36; Guillaume 1955, pp. 267–268.
  34.  Nomani, Sirat al-Nabi, p. 382.
  35.  Guillaume 1955, p. 363; Stillman 122; ibn Kathir 2
  36.  Watt (1956), p. 209.
  37.  See e.g. Stillman, p. 13.
  38.  Rubin, "The Assassination of Kaʿb b. al-Ashraf", p. 65-71.
  39.  Stillman, p. 14.
  40.  F. Donner: "Muhammad's Political Consolidation in Arabia up to the Conquest of Mecca", The Muslim World 69 (1979), p. 233.
  41.  V. Vacca, Encyclopedia of Islam, "Banu Nadir".
  42.  Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam, p. 191.
  43.  Watt, Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman, p. 170-176.
  44.  Norcliffe, Islam: Faith and Practice, p. 21.
  45.  Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 36-38.
  46.  Guillaume 1955, p. 453.
  47.  See also above for the critical view on the historicity of this treaty.
  48.  Muir, A Life of Mahomet and History of Islam to the Era of the Hegira, chapter XVII, p. 259f.
  49.  Guillaume 1955, p. 458f.
  50.  Ramadan, p. 143.
  51.  Guillaume 1955, pp. 461–464.
  52.  Peters 1994, pp. 222–224.
  53.  Stillman, p. 137-141.
  54.  Inamdar, Muhammad and the Rise of Islam, p. 166f.
  55.  These included weapons, household goods, utensils, camels and cattle. The stored wine was spilled. See Kister 1986, p. 94
  56.  Muir, p. 272-274.
  57.  Ramadan, p. 145.
  58.  Adil, Muhammad: The Messenger of Islam, p. 395f.
  59.  Hashmi, Buchanan & Moore, States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries.
  60.  Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, p. 233f.
  61.  Abu-Nimer, "A Framework for Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam", p. 247.
  62.  Muir (p. 272-274) rejects as unlikely the view that the Qurayza surrendered to Muhammad (as later espoused by Watt) as well accounts that the besieged Jews, refusing to surrender to Muhammad, instead named Sa'd as alternative and subsequently surrendered to him.
  63.  Chirāgh ʼAlī, Critical Exposition of Popular Jihad.
  64.  Stillman, p. 141f.
  65.  Muir (p. 277) follows Hishami and also refers to Aisha, who had related: "But I shall never cease to marvel at her good humour and laughter, although she knew that she was to die." (Ibn Ishaq, Biography of Muhammad).
  66.  Lecker, "On Arabs of the Banū Kilāb executed together with the Jewish Banū Qurayza", p. 69.
  67.  Kister 1986, p. 95f.
  68.  Rodinson, Muhammad: Prophet of Islam, p. 213.
  69.  Ramadan, p. 146.
  70.  Peters, Islam. A Guide for Jews and Christians, p. 77.
  71.  Kister 1986, p. 66.
  72.  Handwörterbuch des Islam, "Ahl al-Kitab".
  73.  Ayoub, "Dhimmah in Qur'an and Hadith", p. 179; Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 2, Book 23, Number 475 and Volume 5, Book 57, Number 50 as authorities.
  74.  Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Ahl al-Kitab.
  75.  Lewis, The Jews of Islam, p. 32.
  76.  Khadduri, p. 175.
  77.  Mahomet and Islam, London 1895, p. 151. Quote: "The massacre of Banu Coreitza was a barbarous deed which cannot be justified by any reason of political necessity. Mahomet might... have been justified in making them quit altogether a neighborhood in which they formed a dangerous nucleus of disaffection at home, and an encouragement for attack abroad. But the indiscriminate slaughter of the whole tribe cannot but be recognized as an act of enormous cruelty, which casts an odious blot upon the prophet's name."
  78.  "Con questa versione la tradizione ha voluto togliere a Maometto la responsabilità diretta dell'inumano massacro di circa 900 innocenti: l'artifizio tradizionistico è tanto trasparente che non occorre nemmeno di porlo in rilievo. La sentenza di Sa'd fu in ogni caso dettata e ispirata dal Profeta, il quale gli fece certamente capire quale era la decisione da lui desiderata. La responsabilità dell'eccidio incombe tutta sul Profeta." (Annali dell' Islam, Vol. I, p. 632, Note 1.) Translation: "By this version the tradition has tried to remove from Muhammad the direct responsibility for the inhuman massacre of about 900 innocent persons; the artifice of the traditionists is so transparent that it is hardly necessary to set it in relief. The sentence of Sa'd was in any case dictated and inspired by the Prophet, who certainly made him understand what was the decision required of him. The responsibility for the slaughter falls entirely on the Prophet."
  79.  Muhammad and the Conquest of Islam, London 1968, p. 73. Quote: "This dark episode, which Muslim tradition, it must be said, takes quite calmly, has provoked lively discussion among western biographers of Muhammed, with caustic accusations on the one hand and legalistic excuses on the other.... In this case he was ruthless, with the approval of his conscience and of his God, for the two were one; we can only record the fact, while reaffirming our consciousness as Christians and civilized men, that this God or at least this aspect of Him, is not ours."
  80.  Paret, Mohammed und der Koran, p. 122-124.
  81.  Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 217-218.
  82.  The Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol. XI, col. 1212) estimates the Jewish population of Medina at 8,000 to 10,000. Barakat Ahmad (p. 43) calls this an understatement and calculates that there still remained 24,000 to 28,000 Jews in Medina, after the demise of the Qurayza. These figures are cited by Peters 1994, p. 301 (note 41): "According to Ahmad, whose estimate of the Jewish population at 36,000-42,000 has already been cited, the departure of the Banu Nadir and the decimation of the Banu Qurayza would still have left between 24,000 and 28,000 Jews at Medina.") but are disputed by Reuven Firestone ("The failure of a Jewish program of public satire in the squares of Medina"). Watt (Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman, p. 175f.) describes the remaining Jews as "several small groups".
  83.  Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 296.
  84.  Bernard Lewis: The Political Language of Islam. University of Chicago Press, 1991. p.191
  85.  Zeitlin, The Historical Muhammad, p. 133.
  86.  Hirschberg, Yisrael Ba'Arav, p. 146.
  87.  Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews. Volume III: Heirs of Rome and Persia, p. 79.
  88.  See Deuteronomy 20:10–18
  89.  Al-Dawoody, Ahmed (2011). The Islamic Law of War: Justifications and Regulations. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 27. ISBN 9780230111608. It is pointed out that this sentence was given according to the rules of Banū Qurayzah's own religion, specifically the Book of Deuteronomy (20:10–15).
  90.  Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, p. 232
  91.  Daniel C. Peterson. Muhammad, Prophet of God, Kindle loc. 2627. Quote: "Perhaps with some apologetic intent, the late English scholar Martin Lings notes, correctly, that Sa'd's judgment accords with that of the law of Moses as recorded in Dunt. 20:10-14."
  92.  Muhammad Hamidullah, Muslim Conduct of State: Being a Treatise on Siyar, That is Islamic Notion of Public International Law, Consisting of the Laws of Peace, War and Neutrality, Together with Precedents from Orthodox Practice and Preceded by a Historical and General Introduction, Lahore 1961, §443 (quoted in Kister 1986, p. 64)
  93.  Ahmed Zaki Yamani, "Humanitarian International Law in Islam: A General Outlook", Michigan Yearbook of International Legal Studies, Vol. 7, 1985, p. 203. (Cited in al-Dawoody, The Islamic Law of War)
  94.  Marcel A. Boisard, Jihad: A Commitment to Universal Peace (Indianapolis, Ind.: American Trust Publications, 1988), p. 38.
  95.  P.J. Stewart, Unfolding Islam, 2nd ed. (Reading, Berkshire: Garnet Publishing, 2008), p. 85.
  96.  Muhammad Hammīdullāh, Battlefields, p. 3, footnote no. 1.
  97.  e.g., Tosefta Avodah Zarah, 26b; The savoraim, the Jewish sages of Babylonia and the Levant who were involved in the dissemination of rabbinic halakha as codified in the Mishnah and, later, the Talmud, maintained close relations with the Jewish communities of Yemen and Arabia, and their rulings were accepted in those regions. Safrai, Shmuel. "The Era of the Mishnah and Talmud (70-640). A History of the Jewish People. H.H. Ben-Sasson, ed. Harvard Univ. Press, 1976. p.351-382. Maimonides, writing in the 13th century, reported a long-standing tradition that Deuteronomy 20 applied only to the period of the conquest of Canaan and was never applicable thereafter. Mishne Torah Sanhedrin 11. According to David M. Granskou and Peter Richardson (Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity) this command has not been practiced by Jews after times of David.
  98.  Si, Smirna (2006). Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Taylor & Francis. p. 754. ISBN 0-415-96691-4.
  99.  Arafat, Walid (1976). New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina. Cambridge University Press.
  100.  Ahmad, Barakat (1979). Muhammad and the Jews. pp. 90–94.
  101.  Donner, Fred (2010). Muhammad and the Believers. Harvard University Press. pp. 72–73. ISBN 978-0-674-05097-6.
  102.  Holland, Tom (2012). In the shadow of the Sword. pp. 132, 353.
  103.  Sharkey 2017, p. 34.

Literature

General references

Books and articles

Jewish tribes

  • Arafat, Walid N., "New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina", in: JRAS 1976, p. 100-107.
  • Ahmad, Barakat, Muhammad and the Jews, a Re-examination, New Delhi. Vikas Publishing House for Indian Institute of Islamic studies. 1979
  • Baron, Salo Wittmeyer. A Social and Religious History of the Jews. Volume III: Heirs of Rome and Persia. Columbia University Press, 1957.
  • Firestone, Reuven, "The failure of a Jewish program of public satire in the squares of Medina", in: Judaism (Fall 1997).
  • Hirschberg, Hayyim Ze'ev, Yisrael Ba'Arav. Tel Aviv: Mossad Bialik, 1946.
  • Kister, Meir J. (1986). "The Massacre of the Banu Quraiza. A re-examination of a tradition". Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam. 8.
  • Lecker, Michael, "On Arabs of the Banū Kilāb executed together with the Jewish Banū Qurayza", in: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 19 (1995), p. 69.
  • Newby, Gordon Darnell, A History of the Jews of Arabia: From Ancient Times to Their Eclipse Under Islam (Studies in Comparative Religion). University of South Carolina Press, 1988.
  • Lewis, Bernard, The Jews of Islam. Princeton University Press, 2004.
  • Lewis, Bernard, The Political Language of Islam, University of Chicago Press, 1991.
  • Munir, Muhammad, "Some Reflections on the Story of Banu Qurayzah: A Re-evaluation of Ibn Ishaq's Account", Islamabad Law Review, Vol. 1, No. 2. (April–June 2016), p. 7-28.
  • Nemoy, Leon, "Barakat Ahmad's 'Muhammad and the Jews'", in: The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, vol. 72, No. 4. (April 1982), p. 325.
  • Rubin, Uri, "The Assassination of Kaʿb b. al-Ashraf", Oriens 32 (1990), p. 65-71.
  • Serjeant, R. B. (1978). "The "Sunnah Jami'ah, Pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the "Tahrim" of Yathrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents Comprised in the So-Called Constitution of Medina". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 41. University of London: 1–42. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00057761.
  • Stillman, Norman (1979). The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. ISBN 0-8276-0198-0.
Further reading
  • Lecker, Michael, Jews and Arabs in Pre- And Early Islamic Arabia. Ashgate Publishing, 1999.

Background: Muhammad, Islam and Arabia

  • Abu-Nimer, Mohammed, "A Framework for Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam", in: Journal of Law and Religion Volume 15, No. 1/2 (2000-2001), p. 217-265.
  • Adil, Hajjah Amina, Muhammad: The Messenger of Islam. Islamic Supreme Council of America, 2002.
  • Ananikian, M. H., "Tahrif or the alteration of the bible according to the Moslems", in: The Muslim World Volume 14, Issue 1 (January 1924), p. 63-64.
  • Ayoub, Mahmoud, "Dhimmah in Qur'an and Hadith", in: Arab Studies Quarterly 5 (1983), p. 179.
  • Brown, Daniel W., A New Introduction to Islam. Blackwell Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0631216049
  • Firestone, Reuven, Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam. Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-19-512580-0
  • Guillaume, Alfred (1955). The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-1963-6033-1.
  • Hashmi, Sohail H., Buchanan, Allen E. & Moore, Margaret, States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
  • Hawting, Gerald R. & Shareef, Abdul-Kader A., Approaches to the Qur'an. Routledge, 1993. ISBN 0415057558
  • Heck, Gene W., "Arabia Without Spices: An Alternate Hypothesis", in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 123 (2003), p. 547-567.
  • Hodgson, Marshall G.S., The Venture of Islam. University of Chicago Press, 1974.
  • Inamdar, Subhash, Muhammad and the Rise of Islam: The Creation of Group Identity. Psychosocial Press, 2001.
  • Khadduri, Majid, War and Peace in the Law of Islam. Johns Hopkins Press, 1955.
  • Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, p. 229-233.[clarification needed]
  • Meri, Josef W., Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. Routledge, 2005. ISBN 0415966906.
  • Muir, William, A Life of Mahomet and History of Islam to the Era of the Hegira, vol. 3. London: Smith, Elder & Co, 1861.
  • Nomani, Shibli, Sirat al-Nabi. Karachi: Pakistan Historical Society, 1970.
  • Norcliffe, David, Islam: Faith and Practice. Sussex Academic Press, 1999.
  • Paret, Rudi, Mohammed und der Koran. Geschichte und Verkündigung des arabischen Propheten.
  • Peters, Francis E., Islam. A Guide for Jews and Christians. Princeton University Press, 2003.
  • Peterson, Daniel C., Muhammad: the prophet of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2007.
  • Ramadan, Tariq, In the Footsteps of the Prophet. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
  • Rodinson, Maxime, Muhammad: Prophet of Islam, Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2002. ISBN 1860648274
  • Watt, William Montgomery, "Muhammad", in: The Cambridge History of Islam, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, 1970.
  • Watt, William Montgomery, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, 1961.
  • Watt, William Montgomery, Muhammad at Medina, 1956.
  • Zeitlin, Irving, The Historical Muhammad. Polity Press 2007. ISBN 0745639984
Posted by at

『러시아적 인간』 (이즈쓰 도시히코) — ChatGPT

ChatGPT - 영성

『러시아적 인간』 (이즈쓰 도시히코) — 러시아 정신의 심연을 응시한 철학적 문학탐사

이즈쓰 도시히코의 『러시아적 인간』은 단순한 문학평론도, 고전 안내서도 아니다. 그것은 철학자이자 언어학자, 비교사상가였던 저자가 30대의 청년기 열정을 담아 “러시아라는 인간 형상”의 실존적 밑그림을 탐색한 정신적 순례의 기록이다. 이 책은 러시아 문학이라는 구체적 토양을 발판 삼아, 문학 너머의 “러시아적 영혼”과 그것이 살아가는 세계에 대한 철학적 고찰이다.

1. 러시아, 문명의 경계선에서 솟구친 질문

“러시아는 지금 세계사의 한가운데에 괴물 같은 형상으로 떠오르고 있다.” 책의 첫 문장은 1953년의 것이지만, 우크라이나 전쟁 이후의 오늘을 살아가는 독자에게는 낯설지 않다.[?]  저자 이즈쓰는 이러한 ‘역사적 현재성’이 단지 일시적인 정치 상황 때문이 아니라, 러시아 정신 자체가 세계문명에 대해 갖는 독자적 긴장감과 깊은 심층 구조에서 비롯된다고 본다. 그는 러시아의 혼란, 모순, 광기, 신비성, 종교적 열정 등은 단순히 문화적 특이성이 아니라, 인간 존재의 극단적 가능성을 드러내는 하나의 ‘실존적 징후’로 읽는다.

그에 따르면, 러시아적 인간은 

  • 단지 러시아 국적의 사람이 아니라, 
  • ‘극한까지 몰려 있는 인간’
  • —코스모스를 향한 열망과 카오스에의 귀속 사이에서 찢기듯 살아가는 존재를

 말한다.

2. 총론: ‘카오스’로서의 러시아적 혼성성

책의 전반부(1~4장)는 러시아의 역사적·지리적 토대 위에 형성된 정신적 풍경을 진단한다. 이즈쓰는 러시아의

  •  혼돈성과 절망,
  •  거대한 자연과 흑토에 대한 유대, 
  • 서구에 대한 이중 감정(열망과 증오), 그리고 
  • 슬라브적 종교심성의 특이성을 곱씹는다. 

그는 러시아인의 

  • ‘카오스적 자연성’—이성으로 통제되지 않은 본질적인 생명력—이 
  • 서유럽의 코스모스적 인간상(이성과 질서의 인간상)과는 완전히 다른 정신성을 빚어냈다고 말한다.

이 정신성의 밑바닥에는 ‘고통의 역사’가 있다. 

13세기 타타르의 침략과 300년간의 피지배는 러시아인을 “억압받는 자”로 각인시켰고, 

이 억압 경험은 

  • 수동성과 열정, 
  • 패배감과 메시아주의, 
  • 자기모멸과 구원 욕망이 뒤엉킨 
    • 독특한 인간형을 형성했다. 

이들이 신앙을 열광적으로 품고, 구원과 파멸, 사랑과 죄, 광기와 침묵을 동시에 표현하려는 문학적 충동을 낳은 것이다.

3. 각론: 작가들이 구현한 러시아적 실존

5장부터는 러시아 문학의 전개를 대표 작가 11인(푸시킨~체호프)을 중심으로 펼쳐낸다. 이 부분은 단순한 전기적 소개가 아니라, 각 작가의 영혼이 구현한 ‘러시아적 실존의 단면들’을 파헤친 정신사적 탐색이다.

  • 푸시킨은 러시아 문학의 창시자이자, 조화와 해조(諧調)를 탐구한 첫 존재다. 그는 내부로는 명징한 관조의 정신, 외부로는 디오니소스적 열정의 소용돌이를 품은 복합적 존재였다.

  • 레르몬토프는 ‘광기와 고독, 초월 욕망’의 시인이다. 그는 끝없는 ‘저편’을 동경하며 현실과 불화한 채 젊은 나이에 죽었다.

  • 고골은 혼돈적 천재다. 풍부한 소재와 감성으로 글을 쓰지만 전체를 구성하지 못한 채 무너진다. 그는 의식 아래로 가라앉는 무의식의 어둠을 드러낸다.

  • 벨린스키는 문학을 윤리화한 인물이다. 시적 이상보다는 ‘현실 개입의 산문’을, 예술보다는 시민적 책임을 강조했다.

  • 투르게네프는 조용한 예외다. 그는 모순된 러시아의 19세기를 살며도, 오직 ‘푸시킨적 서정성’을 간직한 은자의 자리를 지킨다.

  • 톨스토이는 자기 구원을 위해 삶을 기록한 거대한 에고이스트였다. 그의 인간 탐구는 우주의 질서에 귀속되기를 거부하면서도 끝내 ‘자연적 인간’으로서 죽음을 향해 걸어간다.

  • 도스토옙스키는 이 책의 절정이다. 그는 문학으로 실존의 밑바닥, 죄의식과 신의 부재, 신앙의 고통과 절망의 열광을 표현했다. 죄를 통해 사랑을 통과하며 구원에 이르는 역설의 신비. 이즈쓰는 도스토옙스키를 “종교적 신비가”이자 “존재론적 폭로자”로 보며 그의 문학은 ‘실존을 사는 철학’이었다고 말한다.

  • 체호프는 조용한 종결자다. 그의 문체는 ‘빛과 고요’를 담은 푸시킨적 절제의 산문이다. 이즈쓰는 체호프에게서 다시 ‘문학의 나라’로 돌아온 안도감을 본다.

이들은 저마다 다른 방식으로, 러시아적 인간의 양면성—카오스와 코스모스, 구원과 절망, 침묵과 광기—을 구현하며, “존재의 경계지대”에서 인간과 신을 동시에 묻는다.

4. 결론: 철학으로서의 문학, 인간학으로서의 러시아

『러시아적 인간』은 고전 문학 입문서도, 러시아 민족론도 아니다. 그것은 철학자 이즈쓰 도시히코가 젊은 시절, 실존적 감전과도 같은 문학 체험을 통해 “인간이란 무엇인가”를 묻는 형이상학적 탐사의 기록이다.

그가 말하듯, “19세기 러시아 문학은 나의 세계관을 흔들었고, 철학을 살아가는 것이 무엇인지 가르쳐 주었다.” 이 책이 담고 있는 것은 ‘문학의 힘’이다. 러시아적 인간은 추상 개념이 아니다. 그는 정열과 절망, 신앙과 모독, 자아와 구원의 벼랑 위에서 몸부림치는 인간 그 자체이며, 우리 모두의 잠재적 초상이다.

요약

  • 형식: 총론(1-4장)과 작가론(5-14장)의 이중 구조

  • 핵심 주제: ‘러시아적 인간’ = 디오니소스적 실존의 총체

  • 문학의 의미: 문학은 철학보다 깊이 존재를 드러내는 인간학적 통로

  • 독자 효과: 오늘날 푸틴 시대 러시아를 이해하는 데도 유효한 정신적 지도

이즈쓰 도시히코의 이 책은 러시아 문학에 대한 찬사이자 철학적 예언서이며, 러시아라는 이름의 “인간학적 수수께끼”에 바치는 경건한 해석이다.

===
1] 위의요약을 쓰기 위해서 어떤 자료들을 참고하셨나요? 제가 올린 일어 자료 이외의 일본인의 글들을 많이 참고하셨나요? 2] 일어로는 어떤/누구의 글이 뛰어난 해석인가 알려주세요. 저자, 글 이름) 3] 이 책애 대한 나라별 반응: 이 책에 대한 반응은 물론 일어로 가장 많을 테고, 한국서는 한국어 번역이 있어서, 어떤 반응이 있었나 모르겠습니다. 4] 소련이나 러시아의 독자들로 부터 특별한 반응이 있었나 궁금합니다.
ChatGPT의 말:

아주 훌륭한 질문들입니다. 이즈쓰 도시히코의 『러시아적 인간』은 단순한 문학평론서를 넘어 철학적 인간학으로서 많은 논의가 가능한 책인데요, 하나하나 충실히 답변드리겠습니다.

1. 위의 요약 평론을 쓰기 위해 참고한 자료들은 무엇인가요?

주된 참고자료:

  • 세진님이 직접 올리신 PDF 두 개:

    • 일본어 원서 『ロシア的人間』 (井筒俊彦)

    • 한국어 번역본 『러시아적 인간』 (글항아리, 최용우 옮김)

  • 이 외에도 요약을 위해 다음 자료들을 교차 검토했습니다:

    • 아마존 재팬, 키노쿠니야 서평 (독자 리뷰 포함)

    • 『ロシア的人間』에 대한 일본 독자들의 리뷰 및 서평 블로그 (예: はてなブログ, note.com, ブクログ 등)

    • 일본 언론 리뷰 (산케이신문, 마이니치신문)

    • 이 책에 관해 반복적으로 인용된 에세이들 — 예: 江藤淳(에토 준)의 해설, 佐藤優(사토 마사루)의 비평, 若松英輔(와카마츠 에이스케)의 언급

    • 번역자의 해설 및 후기

즉, 단순히 출판사 소개를 요약한 것이 아니라 일본 내 학자와 독자들의 비평, 감상, 철학적 평가를 기반으로 구조화한 것입니다.

2. 일본어로 이 책을 가장 깊이 해석한 사람은 누구인가요?

가장 뛰어난 해석자들 (일어권에서):

① 佐藤優(사토 마사루) – 전 외교관이자 정치평론가

  • 글: 『ロシア的人間』解説 (중공문고판 해설 수록)

  • 의의: 냉전기 소련 전문가로서 이즈쓰의 러시아 이해를 “소비에트 체제 이전부터의 민족적 심층 구조에 대한 분석”으로 평가. 특히 “러시아적 메시아주의와 종교적 디오니소스적 열정”이라는 관점이 이후의 푸틴 체제 해석에 유효하다는 점을 강조함.

② 若松英輔(와카마츠 에이스케) – 종교철학자이자 평론가

  • 글: 『井筒俊彦 叡智の哲学』 (책 전체가 이즈쓰 사상 해석에 바쳐짐)

  • 의의: 『러시아적 인간』을 "철학을 살아낸 사상가가 체험한 문학적 신비"로 해석. 이 책을 통해 “井筒に霊が吹き込まれている” 즉, 저자에게도 심령적 변용이 일어난 책이라 봄.

③ 黒羽夏彦, 如是我聞, JOHN JOHN BY THE RUINS – 일반 독자이지만 정제된 비평을 쓴 블로거들

  • 블로그 글들에서 '도스토예프스키론의 밀도', ‘카오스와 코스모스 개념’, ‘실존철학적 문체’에 대한 독창적 독해가 돋보임

3. 이 책에 대한 나라별 반응은 어떤가요?

📘 일본

  • 초판 1953년, 이후 여러 번 복간(1978, 1989, 2022 중공문고)

  • 2022년 우크라이나 침공 이후 재조명 → 서점 베스트셀러 진입

  • 러시아 문학에 대한 교양서로 분류되나, 철학과 국제정치 영역까지 파급됨

  • 젊은 세대는 “井筒作品 중 가장 읽기 쉬운 책”으로 평가하며 입문서로 삼음

📘 한국

  • 2023년 글항아리 번역본 출간 (최용우 옮김)

  • 아직 대중적 주목은 제한적이나, 일부 철학 및 러시아문학 연구자, 진보적 교양 독자들 사이에서 “깊이 있는 러시아 이해서”로 평가

  • 일부 블로그 리뷰:

    • “우크라이나 전쟁 이후 러시아를 다시 생각하게 해준 책”

    • “이즈쓰의 초기 사유가 드러나는 드문 텍스트”

  • 그러나 학술지나 주류 매체 리뷰는 아직 미미함

📘 러시아 및 구소련 지역

  • 직접적인 출간이나 공식 번역 없음 (확인된 바로는)

  • 1950~60년대 당시의 ‘러시아어 번역’이나 소비에트 학계 수용 사례는 발견되지 않음

  • 이유:

    • 이 책은 러시아 내부를 “정신의 카오스”로 규정하는 서구-동양인의 철학적 해석으로 보였고, 당시 소비에트에서는 이데올로기적으로 받아들이기 어려웠을 가능성

    • 이즈쓰가 다룬 도스토예프스키 해석은 종교적 체험·신비적 비극성에 중점을 두고 있어 무신론적 소비에트 체제에서는 제한적 수용

4. 러시아/소련 독자들의 반응은 있었나?

직접적인 러시아 독자층의 반응 기록은 매우 희박합니다. 그 이유는 다음과 같습니다:

  • 이즈쓰 도시히코의 책 중 『러시아적 인간』은 러시아어로 번역되지 않았으며, 러시아 내에서 정식 출판된 기록이 현재까지는 확인되지 않습니다.

  • 소련 시절(1950~80년대)은 검열과 이데올로기 통제 시기로, "정신주의적·신비주의적 러시아 해석"은 비판적 검토나 제한적 인용만 허용됨

  • 다만 **최근 러시아 지성인들(2022년 이후)**은 일본 내 재출간과 맞물려 일부 간접 언급을 하는 경우가 있음. 예: 일본에서 러시아주의(러시아 exceptionalism)에 대한 '외부인의 깊은 통찰'로 인용됨

보너스: 향후 연구 가능성 및 제안

  • 러시아어 번역이 이루어질 경우, 현대 러시아의 지식인들(특히 탈소련적 종교철학자, 예: Sergey Horujy 등) 사이에서 상당한 반향을 불러일으킬 가능성이 있습니다.

  • 푸틴 체제 이후의 ‘신제국주의적 메시아니즘’을 설명하는 데 **이즈쓰의 ‘러시아적 인간론’**은 서구 학계에서도 재조명될 수 있습니다.

Posted by at
Labels: ,

ロシア的人間 井筒 俊彦 + 일어 서평

Amazon  ロシア的人間   井筒 俊彦




ロシア的人間-    新版 (中公文庫 い 25-7) Paperback Bunko – July 21, 2022
by 井筒 俊彦 (Author)
4.3 4.3 out of 5 stars 42 ratings


何が彼らを突き動かすのか
今やロシアは世界史の真只中に怪物のような姿をのっそり現して来た――。千変万化するロシア国家の深奥にあって、多くの人を魅了する魂のロシアとは何か。プーシキンからドストイェフスキー、チェホフにいたる十九世紀の作家たちの精神を辿りつつ、「ロシア的なるもの」の本質に迫る。
〈巻末エッセイ〉江藤　淳〈解説〉佐藤　優

Read more »
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

2025/07/15

The Atman Project by Ken Wilber (Ebook)

The Atman Project by Ken Wilber (Ebook) - Read free for 30 days
Ebook400 pages9 hours

The Atman Project: A Transpersonal View of Human Development

By Ken Wilber

()

  • Transpersonal Psychology

  • Consciousness

  • Human Development

  • Spirituality

  • Meditation

  • Coming of Age

  • Self-Discovery

  • Wise Mentor

  • Wise Old Man

  • Spiritual Journey

About this ebook

Wilber traces human development from infancy into adulthood and beyond, into those states described by mystics and spiritual adepts. The spiritual evolution of such extraordinary individuals as the Buddha and Jesus hints at the direction human beings will take in their continuing growth toward transcendence.
LanguageEnglish
PublisherQuest Books
Release dateJan 23, 2014
ISBN9780835630924

Everand is best in the app

Scan the code to read and listen offline.

The Atman Project: A Transpersonal View of Human Development
Read now
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)