Muhammad's Jewish Wife
By Maia Zelkha
Safiyyah bint Huyayy stood before the man who had ordered the slaughter of her father, brother, husband, and the very disintegration of her ancient Jewish community in Yathrib (pre-Islamic Medina), and she made a decision that would be preserved through the next 1400 years. Her decision was one that is rather unconventional when analyzing the world of Jewish history and resilience.
Safiyyah’s legacy is Islamic, after all: she was a wife of the Prophet Muhammad and is a beloved figure in Islam, a “Mother of Believers,” the title bestowed to all of Muhammad’s wives. Islamic scholarship praises Safiyyah for her sensitivity, humility, love, care, and empathy; in Sufi Islam, she is memorialized for her suffering and crying, emblematic of deep spiritual endurance. Her name is rarely spoken outside Islamic history books or theology. It certainly is unknown in the Jewish world. Yet Safiyyah’s life— her very existence itself— is testimony to centuries of Jewish women’s survival in the face of unimaginable cultural destruction, to apocalyptic loss in the shadow of conquest. This is the story of Muhammad’s Jewish wife.
Safiyyah was born in the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir in the Hijaz. She was the daughter of the tribe’s chief, Huyayy ibn Ahktab, and the new bride of Kinana ibn Abi I-Huqayq, the tribe’s treasurer. Her maternal grandfather was Samaw’al (Arabic for Shmuel) ibn Adiya, a renowned pre-Islamic Arabian Jewish poet from the tribe of Banu Harith, who the great Jewish sage Moshe Ibn Ezra writes about in his book Shirat Yisrael.
The Banu Nadir were also Kohanim, direct patrilineal priestly descendants of Aharon, the High Priest (Kohen HaGadol) in the time of the Temple [1]. The Islamic historian al-Sam’ani writes that the tribal name Banu Nadir itself comes from their descendant al-Nadir, a Judean man who migrated from Judea to Arabia [2]. It is important to note the name al-Nadir likely came from the Hebrew name Ha-Nazir, “the Nazir,” a title for an Israelite who took a vow to refrain from consuming any wine or grape products, cutting their hair, or coming into any contact with graves or corpses so not to become impure.
The Banu Nadir spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic; they traded weapons and jewels, developed agriculture, were wealthy, and by all means lived in an oasis in Medina. Their territory flourished with palm trees and flowed with natural springs. It was this life and lineage, rich with Jewish heritage and tradition distinct in the Arabian Peninsula, that Safiyyah was immersed in.
When she was fifteen, life as she knew it began to end.
622 - 627 C.E. The Banu Qurayza
Shortly after Muhammad’s arrival in Medina, the Banu Nadir, along with the rest of the Jewish tribes in the area, were presented with the Constitution of Medina: it proposed to them to accept Muhammad as the political leader and mediator between the various tribal and religious communities of the area, effectively pushing their territory under the growing confederation that pledged loyalty to the new order [3]. Although they would continue to be free to practice their faith and customs and were not required to accept Muhammad as a prophet, they still had their reservations. It’s important to note that the Constitution required all member groups, including Jewish tribes, to seek Muhammad’s approval for matters of war and peace— effectively curbing independent military or political alliances.
It’s also likely that the Jewish tribes of Medina feared that the consolidation of Muslim power in Medina would undermine their own economic power and autonomy in the region. And as Muhammad consolidated power, he also promoted Islam, which directly challenged the religious teachings of Jewish communities who until then had been the dominant monotheistic group in the area. No matter; the Jewish tribes of Medina— that is, the Banu Nadir, the Banu Qurayza, and the Banu Qaynuqa— still accepted his terms. Soon, the treaty would begin to fall apart.
The trouble began in 625 C.E., when the Muhammad asked the Banu Nadir for financial help in order to pay blood money after one of his companions, Amr b. Umayya Damuri, killed two people from a neighboring tribe who were carrying letters of protection from Mohammad. The Banu Nadir accepted. Renowned historian of Islamic history, Norman Stillman, writes, “Muhammad had no difficulty finding a cacus belli. On the basis of a divine revelation, he accused the Nadir of plotting against his life and ordered them to leave Medina.” [4]
More specifically, Muhammad had a divine revelation that the Banu Nadir conspired to enlist someone to assassinate Mohammad by throwing a large stone on his head while he would wait to receive the money. [5] Upon this supposed divine revelation, Muhammad gave the Banu Nadir ten days to leave Medina with all they could carry [6]. A siege was laid around their forts, and despite their initial resistance, they eventually surrendered. Their property and highly coveted date groves were subsequently divided and distributed among the Prophet’s followers, and the Banu Nadir made their way North to the Jewish oasis of Khaybar to resettle their communities.
Yet despite their overwhelming loss of property, resources, and political influence, the Banu Nadir thrived in Khaybar, too. It was a fertile oasis, strategic location, and had other nearby Jewish tribes like the Banu Qurayza, the original tribe of Safiyyah’s mother. They fortified their homes, continued to cultivate date palms, trade goods, and once again amassed wealth.
The economic success of Khaybar and their desire for autonomy, once again, would eventually create more conflict for the Jewish tribes of Medina. In 627 C.E., only two years after Banu Nadir’s expulsion, their leader, Huyayy ibn Ahktab, had a plan. To restore their previous political position, they formed alliances with large Arab tribes to organize a coalition to attack Medina. Soon, a huge army of ten thousand warriors from Arab tribes and the Banu Nadir surrounded the city in a siege [7]. According to Islamic historians, during the siege, Huyayy also persuaded the Banu Qurayza to break their neutrality treaty with Muhammad and give covert support to the opposition.
It is important to note that many secular scholars of Islamic history, like Stillman and William Montgomery Watt, believe the existence of such a neutrality treaty was “doubtful,” an invention made by Muslim historians to justify the brutal treatment of the Banu Qurayza. Watt agrees that this cited treaty did not exist, and adds that they were probably conflicted between the Constitution and their alliances to other tribes in the area to not support Muhammad [8]. Some historians mention that the Banu Qurayza were also deeply offended by Muhammad’s recitation of revelations, some of which criticized Jews [9].
Weeks passed in stalemate. Internal dissent was widespread; the weather became bad; supplies were dwindling; eventually, the opposition disbanded, and the siege failed.
It was the beginning of the end for the Jews of Medina.
As punishment for breaking their treaty, the Banu Qurayza were annihilated. Muhammad immediately laid siege upon the Banu Qurayza’s strongholds. After 25 days, Ka’b ibn Asad, the chief of the tribe, called an emergency meeting. He suggested three alternative ways out of their predicament: make a surprise attack on the Jewish Sabbath, kill their own children and women before rushing out to fight and either win or die, or convert to Islam (some opinions hold that the option of fighting to the death was inspired by the tribe’s Jewish ancestors fight in Masada) [10]. No one in the community accepted any of those choices. They sent their messenger to negotiate the terms of their surrender with Muhammad: Will you permit us to depart with only what we can carry on camel? The proposition was rejected. The messenger returned to Muhammad with a counteroffer: Will you permit us to depart without any property at all, taking only with us our families? That too was rejected. Muhammad insisted that they surrender unconditionally and submit themselves to his judgment.
Once the Banu Qurayza surrendered, Muhammad appointed one of his companions, Sa’d ibn Muadh, to decide their fate. Some Islamic scholars theorize that Sa’d ibn Muadh chose this punishment specifically because it was the prescribed consequence according to Jewish law [11], although that specific law’s relevance to treaty breaking is, at most, a stretch.
The order was merciless: “The men should be killed, the property divided among Muslims, and the women and children taken as slaves,” Ibn Muadh declared. Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it in accordance with God’s decree pronounced above the seventh heaven. Historian M.J. Kister writes in The Massacre of the Banu Qurayza, “The Prophet’s approval of the cruel judgment of Sa’d cannot be explained in this case. Never before had the Prophet inflicted such a punishment on any tribal group.”
All male members of the tribe who had reached puberty were tied at the wrists and beheaded; the exact number of executed boys and men is disputed. While the Islamic jurist al-Tabari quotes 600 to 900 being killed, another eminent Jurist, al-Māwardī writes that 700 were killed in one day; 8th century Islamic scholar Muqātil ibn Sulayman writes that 450 were killed, and 650 enslaved; others write it was 900 killed [12]. Accordingly, some hundreds of men and boys from Banu Qurayza were taken to pits, executed and buried there. There are diverse traditions on where exactly they were beheaded— many reports write that they were beheaded in the market and buried there, while some write that it was in a location adjacent to the market. 15th century Sunni scholar al-Samhūdī quotes the report of early Medinian historian Musa ibn Uqba that “some people claimed that their blood flowed and reached the ahjar al-zayt (the olive trees) which were in the market.” [13]
One hadith narrates Atiyyah al-Qurazi’s survivor testimony of Banu Qurayza’s massacre:
“I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.” [Sunan Abu Dawud, 38:4390, Sunni hadith collection]
Another hadith narrates one harrowing scene, of a Jewish woman who appears to have lost her mind during the massacre [and was later executed because she had killed a Muslim warrior by flinging a grinding stone upon him]:
“Only one of their women was killed. She was actually with me and was talking with me and laughing immoderately as the apostle was killing her men in the market when suddenly an unseen voice called out her name… “What is the matter?” I cried. “I am to be killed,” she replied. “What for?” I asked. “Because of something I did,” She answered. She was taken away and beheaded… I shall never forget my wonder at her good spirits and loud laughter when all the time she knew that she would be killed.” [14]
Safiyyah’s father and chief of Banu Nadir, Huyayy, was also executed with the Banu Qurayza. Before he was beheaded, he had poked large holes in every part of his flowered robe, in order that it could not be taken from him as spoil after death. In unflinching defiance, he declared unyielding hatred for Muhammad:
“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 ibn Akhtab [chief of Banu Nadir] and Kaab ibn Asad, their chief [Banu Qurayza]. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. ... 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 repent of having opposed 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 a massacre has been written against the Sons of Israel.’ Then he sat down and his head was struck off.” [15]
Women and children were sold into slavery; a number of them were distributed as gifts among the Companions. Within only a few days, the Banu Qurayza were wiped from existence.
628 C.E.: Khaybar
While the Banu Qurayza were annihilated, the Banu Nadir still remained in Khaybar, although tragedy would soon follow them. Khaybar had become a central point of resistance against Muhammad; present there were the Banu Nadir, who had been forming partnerships with neighboring Arab tribes to protect themselves from Medina’s Muslim community, who had earlier attacked and exiled them for violating the Charter of Medina. Khaybar was also an attractive target to Muhammad: its land was fertile, had strong fortresses, and was incredibly wealthy. If Muhammad were to conquer Khaybar, that wealth would no doubt enrich his growing community in Medina which required many resources.
In 628 C.E., Mohammad launched a surprise attack against Khaybar, with a force of around 1,600 men including calvary. The campaign followed the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with the Meccans, which allowed Muhammad to focus on neutralizing internal threats like Khaybar. Muhammad and his army systematically conquered Khaybar’s well-fortified fortresses over several weeks; Safiyyah’s brother was likely murdered during one of the battles to defend Khaybar. The final and most critical fortress that fell, Al-Qamus, was commanded by Kinana ibn Abi I-Huqayq, the treasurer of Banu Nadir. More importantly, Safiyyah’s husband.
After the fall of Al-Qamus, Kinana was captured. He was interrogated about the treasure the Banu Nadir had brought with them when they had been expelled from Medina; Kinana denied the tribe possessing any treasure. Muhammad ordered his companion Zubayr ibn Al-Awwam to torture Kinana by applying burning hot metal to his chest until he was close to death, but Kinana refused to speak [16]. He was subsequently executed.
With her husband, brother, and father killed, Safiyyah, along with some other women of Khaybar, were taken captive as slaves during the battle.
One of Mohammad’s companions, Dihya al-Kalbi, requested to take a slave from one of the captives, and Mohammad allowed him to choose whoever he pleased. Dihya took Safiyyah, but other companions believed her to be more suited for Mohammad, given her immense beauty as well as status as the daughter of the chief of Banu Nadir. While being brought to Mohammad along with another woman, they were confronted with the corpses of the Banu Nadir men, either executed or fallen in battle. The woman that accompanied Safiyyah began to scream, hit herself, and pour sand on her head, which frightened Muhammad. He ordered her— the “she-devil”— to be taken away, and chastised his companion Bilal for allowing the women to see the corpses of their dead husbands and men. He covered Safiyyah with his cloak, indicating that he had chosen her for himself; Dihya received seven slaves in exchange [17].
According to one Hadith, the proposition Mohammad gave to Safiyyah is as followed:
“The Messenger of Allah had chosen Safiyyah, daughter of Huyay, for himself and offered her a choice between having her freedom and marrying him, or joining her family; she had chosen for him to free her and to be his wife.” [18]
Safiyyah was given a choice— although critically, we can understand that it wasn’t a choice at all. She was a young widow in 7th century Medina with no husband, father, or brother for protection. Her tribe’s sovereignty was effectively gone, with the remaining Jews of Khaybar becoming dhimmi agricultural laborers under Muslim authority. She was a young, beautiful, high-status widow without male-protection, a defeated captive with no independent means of survival. What would happen to her then? What chances did have left for a meaningful, dignified life? Marriage, even if coerced, was her only chance. According to Muhammad al-Bukhari, a 9th century Islamic scholar, Muhammad stayed for three days between Khaybar and Medina, where he consummated his marriage with Safiyyah. She had become his tenth wife.
Some of Mohammad’s companions feared that in revenge for killing her father, husband, and brother, Safiyyah would attempt to harm him in their wedding tent; one of Mohammad’s companions, Abu Ayyub stayed the night at the outside of the tent with a sword [19]— after all, how could any woman want to lie with the man who murdered her tribe, husband, father, and brother? In the following days, Mohammad’s followers were unsure if Safiyyah would be a “mother of believers” (one of Mohammad’s wives) or “just of what his right hand possesses” (a female slave). Some of them said, “If the Prophet makes her observe the veil, then she will be one of the mothers of the believers, and if he does not make her observe the veil, then she will be his lady slave.” So when he departed, he made a place for her behind him and made her observe the veil.”[20] [Hadith 253, Book 64, Sahih al-Bukhari].
They began their journey to Medina. After the battle was over, some Jews approached Muhammad to negotiate a surrender agreement and requested to continue to cultivate their orchards and remain in Khaybar; he agreed, so long as in return they gave half of their annual produce to the Muslims. [22] According to Islamic historian Ibn Hisham’s version of the Khaybar pact, it also included the condition that the Muslims “may expel you if and when we wish to expel you.” [23] Stillman writes that such a stipulation seems highly unlikely and is certainly a later interpolation inserted to justify the expulsion of Jews from the Hijaz under the Caliph Umar in 642 C.E. [24] After Khaybar, they had become dhimmi agricultural laborers.
Safiyyah’s life didn’t become easier after marrying Muhammad or converting to Islam; in fact, Safiyyah frequently faced prejudice from the Prophet’s other wives. Upon arriving in Medina, Aisha, Muhammad’s favorite wife, immediately told Muhammad with contempt when asked for her opinion on Safiyyah, “I saw a Jew.” [25] Another famous incident is when Aisha and Mohammad’s other wife, Hafsa, taunted her to tears, calling her “Daughter of a Jew.” Despite Muhammad assuring his wives that she was “one of them” now, their disdain and suspicion for her was present throughout her time in Medina.
Perhaps their contempt and suspicion were justified; Safiyyah’s connection to her Jewish lineage, even after marrying the Prophet, is indisputable. After the Prophet’s death, during the time of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, a servant of hers once approached him with a scandalous accusation: Safiyyah was, in fact, keeping the Jewish sabbath in secret, and keeping in contact with her Jewish family. When confronted by Umar, Safiyyah denied the accusations and swiftly dismissed her servant, a rather mild punishment for such an outrageous rumor— especially considering that banishment or even death were plausible outcomes. It raises a troubling question: why would an otherwise unremarkable servant risk such severe consequences to bring such a bold accusation against a wife of the Prophet? The latter accusation turned out to be true: Safiyyah was, in fact, in contact with her people, stating “I have relatives among them, so I keep the ties of kinship with them.” [26] Upon her death, Safiyyah bequeathed one-third of her estate to her Jewish nephew, the maximum for a non-Muslim according to Islamic law. She was very mysterious.
Both old and contemporary Islamic sources actually do state that Safiyyah first hated the Prophet— a natural response, given that he had orchestrated the destruction of her tribe and murder of her family. Yet these same sources whitewash her emotions, painting her eventual acceptance of Muhammad as a testament to his “good character.” The Islamic literature on her life borders on comical in its attempt to sanitize her suffering and effectively dehumanizes her in the process. One Sunni scholar, Sheik Muhammad Aqil, is quoted in “The Illustrious Women of Islam From The First Generation” By Imam Adh-Dhahabi & Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani:
“Safiyyah said that the Prophet used to be the most hated man to her. This was because they killed her people during the Battle of Khaybar. The Muslims killed her husband, her father, and her uncle… She said, ‘He was the most hated man to me, but he continued to treat me in a loving manner until he was the most beloved man to me.’ Look at the tremendous effects of good manners. The Muslims killed her husband, her father, her uncle, and her brother in the Battle of Khaybar. But she forgot all of that due to the kind treatment of the Messenger of Allah. This is proof of his great character. How else could a woman love a man who was responsible for the death of her family except if he had great morals and character?!” [pg 48].
Such narratives conveniently erase the brutality of Safiyyah’s circumstances; a young woman, enslaved after the destruction of her tribe, forced to marry the very man responsible for their deaths. By the end of her life, Safiyyah was indeed a devoted wife, and she wept on the Prophet’s death bed. She was also a human being, navigating unimaginable trauma, shock, and loneliness in a century where women weren’t regarded as equal human beings deserving of autonomy. Survival often demands emotional compromises that cannot be reduced to simple categories of love or loyalty. To reduce her life to those categories is cruel and unjust. It is true that, according to the scriptures, Safiyyah loved Muhammad by the end of her life, but it is equally true that her emotions were likely far more layered and conflicted than those sources would have us believe. The giving of one-third of her estate to her Jewish nephew after her death is a poignant reminder of that complexity.
As a Jewish woman, as I look at her story among others of Jewish tribal resistance during this period, I can’t help but read between the lines. Hers is not merely the tale of a woman absorbed into another culture through conquest. To call Safiyyah a convert is to miss the point. Her life was less about faith than about surviving the destruction of her people, and carving out dignity from the wreckage of Islamic colonization. Her story is one of a survivor who navigated the crushing weight of loss while keeping the embers of her past alive. Her life, like so many others, demands that we reconsider what survival and resilience look like— especially for Jewish women, who beyond forced conversion, faced the threat of sexual enslavement or coerced marriage during periods of war and conquest.
Saffiyah’s story defies neat conclusions about Jewish survival and resilience during periods of unimaginable suffering. It forces us to confront the messy, painful realities of survival and resistance under coercion. Her story is so uneasy, because it resists easy narratives about resistance or submission. As a Jewish woman, her life was marked by survival under extreme coercion, yet she still found ways to assert her connection to her people and heritage. While we’ll never know the full details of that resilience, her story demands that we grapple with the painful complexities of Jewish survival under Islamic rule and honor the ways she preserved her dignity and identity in the face of profound loss.
References:
Ibn Hazm. Jawame Al-Syira Al-Nabawyia (Beirut, 2009) pg 26.
Abdulkarim al-Sam’ani. Al-Ansab. (Beirut, 1988) vol. 4, pg 475.
Ovamir Anjum. (2021, February 4. Updated 2024, July 22). The “Constitution” of Medina: Translation, commentary, and meaning today. Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research. Link.
Stillman, Norman. The Jews of Arab Lands, a History and Source Book. Jewish Publication Society of America. (Philadelphia, 1979). pg 14.
Tafsir [commentary] of Surah Al-Hashr.
Ibid.
Al-Dawoody, Ahmed Mohsen. WAR IN ISLAMIC LAW: JUSTIFICATIONS AND REGULATIONS. (2009). [PhD, The University of Birmingham]. pg 48.
Watt, William Montgomery. Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 5 (2 ed.). pg 436.
Norcliffe, David. Islam: Faith and Practice, Sussex Academic Press, 1999. pg 21.
al-Mubarakpuri, Saifur Rahman. “Invading Banu Qurayza” in Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar). Translated by Issam Diab Maktaba, Dar-us-Salam Publishers. pg 201.
Al-Dawoody, Ahmed Mohsen. WAR IN ISLAMIC LAW: JUSTIFICATIONS AND REGULATIONS. (2009). [PhD, The University of Birmingham]. pg 49.
Ibid. pg 48.
Kister, M.J. The Massacre of the Banu Qurayza, A Reexamination of a Tradition. Article, online. pg 73.
Guillaume, A. The Life of Mohammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. (Oxford University Press (New York, 1995). pg 465. Accessed online.
Ibid. pg 464.
Stillman, Norman. The Jews of Arab Lands, a History and Source Book. Jewish Publication Society of America. (Philadelphia, 1979). pg 147.
Ibn Mājah, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Yazīd (2007). English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah with Commentary. Vol. 3, No. 2272. Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers & Distributors. pg 298.
[al-San‘ani, ‘Abdul Razzaq, al-Musannaf, Edited by Habib al-Rahman al-A‘zami (Dabhel: Majlis al-‘Ilmi, 1983) Hadith 9771; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Edited by Shu‘aib al-Arna’ut (Beirut: Al-Resalah Publishers, 2001) Hadith 12409. Graded as sahih according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim.
History of Al-Tabari, State University of New York Press, vol 39. Translated by Ella Landau Tasserson, pg 185.
Hadith 253, Book 64, Sahih al-Bukhari.
Watt, William Montgomery. Muhammad at Medina (New York: Oxford University Press) 1956. pg. 218.
Ibn Hisham. Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (The Life of Muhammad). English translation by Alfred Guillaume (1955), pg 145–146.
Stillman, Norman. The Jews of Arab Lands, a History and Source Book. Jewish Publication Society of America. (Philadelphia, 1979). pg 19.
Imam Adh-Dhahabi & Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, The Illustrious Women of Islam from the First Generation. Authentic Statements Publishing. (Philadelphia, 2018). pg. 46.
Ibid.
Maia Zelkha is the editor of Yad Mizrah Magazine.