Muhammad and The Jews — Page 92
The Qur"an mentions only two groups which were punished: one was executed and the other was taken captive. Unfortunately Ibn Isl,laq and other maghiizi writers were not interested in those members of the B. Quray'. ('. ah who were not punished. Some of them might have stayed ·and others (as Jabal b. Jawwal al-Tha"'labi said) might have migrated: 0 Sa"d, Sa"d of B. Mu"adh, For what befell Quray?ah and al-Na<;llr. By thy life, Sa 0 d of B. Mu"adh The day they departed was indeed steadfast. 1 In the whole affair of the B. Quranah Sac. d b. Mu"adh plays the most important role, and the account of his appointment as the judge is the most controversial and confusing element in it, as we have noted earlier. The sirah writers generally agree that the Apostle appointed him as a judge to satisfy the A ws; out of the two reports al-Bukhari and Muslim give, one agrees with the sirah writers and the other says that the B. Quranah surrendered to sac. d b. Muc. adh's judgment. The reports of his appearance on the scene as the judge seem to be concerned with details regarding his personal status and standing; when the Apostle called Sa"d b. Muc. adh Sayyid, a chief, did he mean Sayyid of the An~iir only or the Muhiijiri1n as well; how did the Apostle describe the sentence pronounced by Sac. d: did he compare his sentence with the judgment of Allah, the angel, or the King?2 While the controversy throws some light on dissent and friction among the An~iir. and Muhiijiri1n, the significance of the whole episode seems to lie else- where. Al-Nawawi (d. 676/1277) commenting on the Sabif1 Muslim report of Sac. d's judgment says: In their disputes Muslims are allowed to resort to tabkim. There is general consensus on this principle; Khawiirij, however, do not accept it. The I;Iadith also establishes 1 Ibn Hisham, p. 713. Guillaume's translation. 2 See W. Montgomery Watt, "The Condemnation of the Jews of Banii Quray,. :ah", The Muslim World, XLII (3 July, 1952), pp. 160-171 for the different versions of the reports about Sa"d's appointment as bakam. The heading of Watt's learned article though not incorrect is misleading; it deals partly with Caetani's charge that "the tradition has tried to remove from Mul:tammad the direct responsibility for the inhuman massacre" of the B. Quray:i:ah and partly considers how Schacht's "methods and conclusions (in Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudenc e) affect the study of historical traditions". He has not dealt either with Sa 0 d's judgment, its execution, or the events leading to the "massacre".