Muhammad's Jewish Wife

Why should Safiyyah bint Huyayy matter to Jews?

Maia Zelkha is the founding editor of Yad Mizrah Magazine.

---

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). Her decision to marry him—the Prophet Muhammad—would be immortalized for the next fourteen hundred years, though not by us, the Jews. 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, and empathy. In Sufi Islam, she is memorialized for her suffering and crying, emblematic of deep spiritual endurance. Many Muslim women are named after her, but she remains unknown in the Jewish world. Yet Safiyyah’s life, before the destruction of her tribe’s sovereignty, was Jewish. For Jews, she exists as an emblem among centuries of Jewish women’s survival in the face of conquest and cultural loss, although her story would unfold in the most intimate corridors of power.

Safiyyah was born into the Banu Nadir, a Jewish tribe of the Hijaz descended, by their own account, from the priestly line of Aaron. Her father, Huyayy ibn Akhtab, was the tribe’s chief; her grandfather, Samaw’al 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 spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic, kept their own courts and calendar, and governed a fertile oasis of palm groves and freshwater springs—a Jewish civilization in miniature, one that developed agriculture, traded weapons and jewels, and was wealthy.

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. 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. It was this life and lineage, rich with Jewish heritage and tradition distinct in the Arabian Peninsula, that Safiyyah was immersed in, until she was fifteen and life as she knew it began to end.

Muhammad’s arrival in Medina brought the Constitution of Medina, a treaty that folded the Jewish tribes into his new political order, where he would act as political leader and mediator between various communities while leaving their right to practice their religion, in theory, untouched. Yet, as Michael Lecker argues, the three largest Jewish tribes—the Banu Nadir, Banu Qurayza, and Banu Qaynuqa, were not in fact party to the Constitution at all. Joining the Constitution would have meant submitting their military and political alliances to Muhammad’s approval, a concession that these three sovereign and powerful Jewish tribes had little reason to accept. 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. As a result, it’s likely they negotiated their own separate, more limited non-belligerency treaties with Muhammad instead.

The trouble began shortly after, in 625, when Muhammad asked the Banu Nadir for financial help in order to compensate 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 Muhammad. The Banu Nadir accepted, but as Norman Stillman writes in The Jews of Arab Lands, “Muhammad had no difficulty finding a cacus belli. On the basis of divine revelation, he accused the Nadir of plotting against his life and ordered them to leave Medina.”

More specifically, Muhammad had a divine revelation that the Banu Nadir conspired to enlist someone to assassinate him by throwing a large stone on his head while he would wait to receive the money. He gave the Banu Nadir ten days to leave Medina with all they could carry. 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.

Despite their overwhelming loss of property, resources, and political influence, the Banu Nadir eventually 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. But 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 the Jews’ previous political position and finally be rid of Muhammad, he formed alliances with large Arab tribes to organize a coalition to attack Medina. Soon, a huge army of ten thousand warriors surrounded the city in a siege. 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 Normal 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 once Huyayy’s coalition had lost to the Muslims. Watt adds that they were probably conflicted between the Constitution and their alliances to other tribes in the area to not support Muhammad. Some historians mention that the Banu Qurayza were also deeply offended by Muhammad’s recitation of revelations, some of which criticized Jews. No matter, the 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). 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, although that specific law’s relevance to treaty breaking is, at most, a stretch. Ibn Muadh’s order was merciless: “The men should be killed, the property divided among Muslims, and the women and children taken as slaves,” Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it in accordance with God’s decree pronounced above the seventh heaven. 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, while others write that it was 900 killed. 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, while some write that it was in a location adjacent to the market. 15th century Sunni scholar al-Samhūdī quotes the report of early Medinan 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.”

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.” [From Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah]

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.” [Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah]

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.

While the Banu Qurayza were annihilated, the Safiyyah remained in Khaybar with her tribe, the Banu Nadir. Khaybar had become a central point of resistance against Muhammad—the Banu Nadir had formed partnerships with neighboring Arab tribes to protect themselves from Medina’s Muslim community, who had earlier attacked and exiled them. 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, Muhammad launched a surprise attack against Khaybar with a force of over a thousand men. Over several weeks, Muhammad and his fighters systematically conquered Khaybar’s well-fortified fortresses—Safiyyah’s brother was likely killed 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. Kinana was the treasurer of Banu Nadir, but more importantly, he was Safiyyah’s husband.

After Al-Qamus fell, Kinana was captured and interrogated about the treasure he had hidden, although he denied possessing any. 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, and when he was close to dying, he was executed.

With her husband, brother, and father killed, Safiyyah, along with some other women of Khaybar, were taken captive after the battle. One of Muhammad’s companions, Dihya al-Kalbi, requested to take a slave from one of the captives, and Muhammad allowed him to choose whoever he pleased. Dihya took Safiyyah—but the other companions thought she should be presented to Muhammad. She was beautiful, and of high status, giving that she was the daughter of her tribe’s chief. While she was brought to Muhammad along with another woman, they were confronted with the corpses of the Banu Nadir men, either executed or fallen in battle. The woman with 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.

According to one Hadith, the proposition Muhammad 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.” [Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad]

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. After the battle, 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. 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.” 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.

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.

Yet, on their wedding night, some of Muhammad’s companions feared that in revenge for killing her father, husband, and brother, Safiyyah would attempt to harm him. One of Muhammad’s companions, Abu Ayyub, stayed all night outside of the tent with a sword— after all, how could any woman want to lie with the man who murdered her tribe, husband, father, and brother? In the following days, Muhammad’s followers were unsure if Safiyyah would be a “Mother of Believers” (one of Muhammad’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.” [Hadith 253, Book 64, Sahih al-Bukhari]. They began their journey to Medina.

But her life never became easier. Safiyyah frequently faced prejudice and bullying from Muhammad’s other wives. When she first arrived in Medina, Aisha, Muhammad’s favorite wife, immediately told Muhammad with contempt when asked for her opinion on Safiyyah, “I saw a Jew.” Another famous incident is when Aisha and Muhammad’s other wife, Hafsa, taunted her to the point of tears, cursing her as the “daughter of a Jew.” Despite Muhammad rebuking his wives, their disdain and suspicion for Safiyyah was present throughout the rest of her life in Medina.

Perhaps their contempt and suspicion were justified. Safiyyah’s connection to her Jewish lineage, even after marrying the Prophet, always remained. After the Prophet’s death, during the time of Caliph Umar, a servant of hers once approached him with a scandalous accusation: Safiyyah was observing 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.” 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, despite their reverence for her, these same sources tend to whitewash her emotions, painting her eventual acceptance of Muhammad as a testament to his “good character.” The modern 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?!”

Such narratives conveniently erase the brutality of Safiyyah’s circumstances. She was 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, according to the stories, Safiyyah was indeed a devoted wife—she even wept on the Prophet’s death bed. But from a psychological standpoint, she was a young woman navigating unimaginable circumstances, 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, and 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 evidence 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. To me, 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, often faced the threat of sexual enslavement or coerced marriage during periods of war and conquest.

Safiyyah’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 Jewish resilience. Her story is so uncomfortable because of how it resists easy, simple 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 honor the painful complexities of Jewish existence under Islamic rule and the ways she preserved her dignity and identity in the face of profound loss.