Banu Qurayza: Applying Their Law, Not the Prophet’s Law
Editorial verification status: This claim atom was extracted from an explanatory audiovisual source, and it has now been linked to the closest books within Shahrur’s project at the book level. For precise academic citation, consult the original book and the original episode together.
Formulation of the claim
Shahrur says that what happened with Banu Qurayza was not the application of Islamic law to them, but rather the application of their own law as wars were conducted within their legislative logic at that time.
Explanation
Shahrur links the Banu Qurayza incident to its historical context and to earlier laws, and he says that the judgment carried out was not among the rulings of Muhammad’s law as a law specific to him. He therefore believes that the incident should be understood as a procedure within the context of war, covenant, and breach of treaty, not as a general rule in Islam. He also emphasizes that the Prophet did not pronounce the judgment himself but left it to Sa‘d ibn Mu‘adh, so that it would not be attributed to him as a ruling from his own law.
Its place in the episode’s argument
This atom is central to building the idea that the civil state in Islam is managed through a legal/historical logic, not through a logic of issuing fixed rulings for all times. It also supports the distinction between what is specifically prophetic and what is generally legislative.
Limits of the claim
This idea does not say that everything that occurred in the Prophet’s wars lacks authority; rather, it says only that the Banu Qurayza incident is not to be understood as an eternal law.
Brief witness
“This is their law… he did not speak because it is not his law”
Related links
- Shahrur - the Sunna
- Shahrur - the civil state
- Book: The Messengerial Sunna and the Prophetic Sunna