By late 627 C.E., Muhammad had survived the Battle of the Trench. The combined forces of Quraysh and their allies had failed to break Medina. The besiegers withdrew in frustration and cold, leaving Muhammad physically exhausted but politically strengthened. Islamic tradition says that at this moment “the parties went away, and the battle is over, but now we will march against them.” The “them” was not Quraysh. It was a Jewish tribe already living inside Medina: Banu Qurayza.

Only a few years earlier, Medina had contained three major Jewish tribes: Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza. Banu Qaynuqa had already been besieged and expelled, their property confiscated. Banu Nadir had been forced out later under the pretext of an alleged assassination plot, their lands and date groves appropriated. Banu Qurayza were the last substantial Jewish community left, still in fortified quarters along Medina’s southern edge.

Islamic storytellers frame what happened next as an act of righteous justice. They claim that Banu Qurayza treacherously plotted with Quraysh during the Trench siege, that they deserved their fate, and that the slaughter of their men and enslavement of their families mirrored judgments Jehovah had once imposed on the Canaanites. Modern apologists lean hard on this narrative, trying to turn a day of mass beheading into a moral footnote.

The earliest Muslim sources, however, are unflinching. They describe a siege, a coerced surrender, a manipulated “choice” of judge, and a verdict that ordered every adult male killed, boys on the edge of puberty examined to see whether they counted as men, and all women and children taken as captives. A trench was dug in Medina’s marketplace. The men were brought out in batches, made to sit, and beheaded from afternoon until night. Estimates in the sources range from around 600 to 900 dead. What happened at Banu Qurayza was not a minor punitive action; it was genocide.

Measured by Jehovah’s revealed standards in the Scriptures, this massacre cannot be justified. It was not a repeat of Israel’s unique, time-bound judgment on the Canaanites under direct command in the days of Joshua. It was a seventh-century warlord eliminating a rival community and using “revelation” to sanctify it.

Siege and Betrayal Narrative

To understand the siege, we must start with the betrayal story that justified it.

During the Battle of the Trench, Medina faced the largest coalition it had yet seen. Quraysh from Mecca, Ghatafan and other tribes from the north, remnants of Banu Nadir, and others gathered outside the city. Muhammad, advised by a Persian convert, ordered a trench dug around the most vulnerable side of Medina—an innovation in Arabian warfare. The coalition forces, unfamiliar with such a defense, found themselves stalled.

In that tense standoff, attention turned toward Banu Qurayza. Under the earlier Medinan charter, they were bound to mutual defense but allowed autonomy in their own quarter. Their fortress lay on the side of the city nearest the enemy camp. If they joined the attackers or opened their gates, Medina could be caught between two fires.

Islamic histories describe emissaries from Quraysh and Banu Nadir visiting Ka‘b ibn Asad, the chief of Banu Qurayza, urging him to break with Muhammad. They allegedly appealed to shared ancestry and old alliances. At first, Ka‘b is said to have refused. Later, under pressure, he allegedly leaned toward cooperation. Different reports conflict about how far he went. Some say he simply grumbled and ceased honoring the pact. Others claim he formally renounced it. Still others claim he agreed to open his quarter at a signal but never carried it out.

What is striking is what never happened. There was no actual attack from Qurayza’s side of the city during the trench siege. No Meccan detachment marched through their gates. No combined assault from front and rear took place. The coalition remained outside the trench. Sandstorms, internal mistrust, and wasted time wore them down until they withdrew.

In other words, whatever discussions took place, they came to nothing. Banu Qurayza had the theoretical ability to betray Muhammad in his hour of danger, yet they did not physically do so. The “treachery” remained in words and attitudes, not in blood.

Yet as soon as the coalition dispersed, Muhammad turned his forces south. According to the sources, he had just returned to Medina, laid aside his armor, and begun to wash when a “revelation” came: the fighting was not yet over; he was commanded to march against Banu Qurayza. He put his armor back on, ordered the call to arms, and led his men to their strongholds.

The betrayal story thus served two functions. It portrayed Qurayza as traitors who had “almost” destroyed the Muslims, even though they had not actually struck. And it gave Muhammad a moral cover for what he intended to do anyway: remove the last sizable Jewish tribe from Medina.

Underneath the rhetoric lay political logic. With Quraysh still powerful in Mecca and other tribes watching, Muhammad could not afford a hostile, armed Jewish enclave behind his lines. He had already expelled two such tribes and taken their wealth. Qurayza sat on valuable land and possessed fortifications. The opportunity, and the temptation, were obvious.

From a biblical perspective, the standard of justice is higher than this. Jehovah requires actual evidence of deeds, not merely fears and rumors, before condemning a community. He forbids partiality in judgment. He does not permit a leader to treat “what might have been” as license to shed hundreds of lives. Muhammad, however, treated Qurayza’s alleged readiness to betray as equivalent to full treason, and then moved against them with siege and sword.

Surrender and the Choice of “Judge”

The siege of Banu Qurayza lasted around twenty-five days, according to early Muslim records. Muhammad’s men surrounded their forts, cut off supplies, and hurled threats and insults. Qurayza had water and food for a time, but no outside allies dared come to their aid. The coalition that had just retreated from the trench was in no condition to mount a fresh campaign. Medina, now united behind Muhammad, could choke them at will.

Inside the fortress, opinion split. Some urged resistance to the bitter end. Others argued for negotiated surrender. They had seen what had happened to Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir. They knew that Muhammad’s concept of mercy was limited. Yet they also knew that the Aws tribe, one of Medina’s Arab groups, had long been their ally. If they could have an Aws leader arbitrate, perhaps traditional tribal obligations would moderate Muhammad’s rage.

Eventually, with supplies dwindling and morale low, they decided to surrender on terms. The important question became: whose terms?

Muhammad insisted they come down and submit to judgment. They requested that the verdict be delivered by an Aws leader, not by Muhammad personally. In particular, they pointed to Sa’d ibn Mu‘adh, head of the Aws, a man who had fought for Muhammad at Badr and the Trench but who also had a long history with Qurayza. They believed their past alliance would incline him toward leniency, perhaps exile instead of death.

Muhammad agreed—but in a way that reveals his manipulation. He told Qurayza they could choose their own judge from Aws. They chose Sa’d. The Prophet then sent for him.

Sa’d was recovering from a serious wound. During the trench siege, he had been hit in the arm by an arrow, severing a major vein. He had prayed that Jehovah would not let him die until his heart was satisfied regarding Qurayza. Now, carried on a donkey or litter, he was brought to the siege site. Many Aws hoped he would plead for their old allies and soften Muhammad’s hand.

Instead, Muhammad orchestrated the moment to make Sa’d’s verdict his own tool.

Accounts describe Muhammad saying to the Aws, in effect, “Stand up for your leader.” They did. He turned to Sa’d and asked, “These people want you to judge between them. Will you judge?” Sa’d, sensing the gravity, extracted a promise: “Will my judgment be carried out on them?” Muhammad answered yes. Other leaders echoed agreement. With that guarantee in place, the trap closed. Qurayza had already surrendered. They had already accepted Sa’d as judge. The Aws had pledged to accept his decision. Now all eyes were on him.

In that setting, Sa’d pronounced a sentence that would stain Islamic history forever. But it did not come out of nowhere. It came from a man shaped by both tribal vengeance and Muhammad’s new ideology, determined to show that his loyalty to the Prophet outweighed any past ties to Qurayza.

The “choice of judge” was thus not a free, neutral arbitration. It was a staged ceremony. Muhammad could claim that the verdict came from an Aws chief, preserving a veneer of tribal honor. Qurayza’s earlier alliance with Aws was turned against them. By choosing Sa’d, they had, in human terms, chosen their own executioner.

Sa’d ibn Mu’adh’s Death Sentence

When the moment came, Sa’d ibn Mu‘adh did not suggest exile. He did not propose fines, hostage-taking, or oaths of renewed loyalty. He pronounced death.

His words, as reported in early Muslim sources, can be summarized this way: the men of Banu Qurayza are to be killed, their property divided, their women and children taken as captives. In other words, complete destruction of the male line and total absorption of their wealth and families into the Islamic community.

Muhammad’s response is equally revealing. He is recorded as saying, “You have judged them with the judgment of Allah from above the seven heavens,” or, in some versions, “You have judged according to the judgment of the King.” In that instant, Sa’d’s human decision was elevated to divine decree. What might have been criticized as excessive vengeance or political calculation was wrapped in the authority of heaven.

Some Muslim apologists argue that Sa’d simply applied the Torah’s own laws, particularly the instructions in Deuteronomy about how to deal with besieged towns that resist. They claim that he, as a one-time ally of Jews, merely enforced their own Scripture and that Muhammad affirmed a Mosaic standard.

This argument collapses on several grounds.

First, the Deuteronomic laws were given to Israel for a specific stage in salvation history, with clear boundaries. The extermination commands were targeted at particular nations whose iniquity had reached full measure and whom Jehovah had judged after centuries of patience. Israel did not have a blank check to slaughter any town that displeased them and then quote Moses. They were bound by covenant, temple worship, and a prophetic system that could rebuke kings, as Nathan rebuked David.

Second, even within the Old Testament itself, Israel is judged severely when it presumes on those commands or extends violence beyond what Jehovah authorized. The prophets condemn unjust bloodshed, oppression, and exploitation. The destruction of Jerusalem and the exile show that Jehovah is not a tribal deity who always endorses His people’s wars. His own covenant nation suffers when they shed innocent blood.

Third, by the time of Muhammad, the coming of Christ had changed the entire pattern. Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, brought an end to the old theocratic warfare, and established a kingdom “not of this world,” advanced by preaching, not by the sword. There is no biblical warrant for a seventh-century Arabian leader to resurrect Canaan-style annihilation against a Jewish tribe and call it the judgment of Jehovah. The cross, not the sword, is now the center of God’s dealings with humanity.

Fourth, Banu Qurayza were not Canaanites steeped in child sacrifice and generations of abominations in a land promised to Israel. They were Jews living in a mixed city, bound by a political pact that Muhammad had himself helped write. Their “crime” was at most a wavering of loyalty under enormous pressure and perhaps negotiations that never turned into action. To compare them to the doomed nations of Joshua’s conquest is a grotesque distortion.

By blessing Sa’d’s sentence as “Allah’s judgment,” Muhammad attempted to hide all these distinctions. Sa’d himself soon died, his wound reopening after the Qurayza affair, and Islamic tradition treats him as a hero of faith. In reality, his final act was to sign the death warrant for hundreds of Jews and to endorse the enslavement of their families. That is not the work of a man ruled by Jehovah’s Spirit. It is the work of someone whose conscience had been shaped to equate loyalty to Muhammad with obedience to God.

Trench Dug in Medina Marketplace

Once the verdict was declared, the machinery of killing moved quickly.

A trench was dug in Medina, typically described as being in or near the marketplace. This location is significant. The place where trade and daily life had taken place would now be the site of mass execution. The new economic and legal center of Muhammad’s community would be literally built over the blood of a Jewish tribe.

The men of Banu Qurayza were bound and brought out in groups. Early reports speak of them being led out “in batches,” made to sit by the trench, and beheaded one by one. The process had a grim efficiency. Names were checked. Known allies of Muhammad—rare exceptions—were sometimes spared at the intercession of Muslim patrons. The vast majority were not.

Before execution, boys whose status was uncertain were examined. The common criterion mentioned in the sources is the growth of pubic hair. If hair was present, the boy was classed as a man and put to death. If not, he was counted among the children and enslaved with the women. This cold bodily inspection, used to decide life or death, shows the mechanistic nature of the slaughter. It was not driven by precise legal evidence of individual guilt. It was driven by male age, tribe, and the need to eliminate a whole class of potential future fighters.

As the hours passed, the trench filled with bodies. The executioners grew tired. The sight and sound of repeated beheadings—steel, thuds, cries—must have scarred the memories of all who witnessed it. Yet Muhammad did not intervene to halt or shorten the proceedings. This was, in his eyes, the carrying out of “Allah’s judgment” as he had endorsed it. He stayed in control.

From a biblical viewpoint, this scene is as far as one can get from the ethos of Christ and His apostles. Jehovah’s Law did establish capital punishment for specific crimes, administered by judges with witnesses and evidence. But it did not authorize killing hundreds of men en masse based on tribal affiliation and alleged political wavering. The Lord Jesus stopped Peter from using the sword in Gethsemane, reminding him that those who take the sword will perish by it. He never oversaw the digging of a trench for enemies; He went willingly to the torture stake to bear sin.

The trench in Medina’s marketplace therefore becomes a symbol. It marks the moment when Muhammad’s community crossed decisively from raiding and expulsions into overt, industrialized killing of a captive population—genocide justified not as human vengeance but as divine law.

Mass Beheadings from Afternoon to Night

The sources suggest that the executions took place over the course of an afternoon and into the night. Some accounts say that the killing began after the noon prayer and continued until evening; others imply it stretched longer. Either way, the scale is staggering. To kill between 600 and 900 men by hand, group after group, required steady work, a line of executioners, and organized procedures.

Descriptions mention known individuals among the condemned: chiefs, scholars of the Torah, ordinary craftsmen. Some pleaded for mercy. A few sought protection through earlier ties with Muslims. Isolated men were reportedly spared because a Muslim counterpart stood up and claimed them as allies. These rare survivals underline how arbitrary the process was. A man lived not because of his personal innocence, but because someone inside the conquering community had a reason to vouch for him.

One poignant report concerns a woman who, during the siege, had killed a Muslim attacker by dropping a millstone on his head. When the executions were underway, she was singled out and beheaded as well. She is mentioned as the only woman killed in this episode. The rest—wives, widows, daughters, and little children—were herded aside, waiting to be divided as booty. Thus, the same day saw both mass male killings and the preparation for mass enslavement.

Muslim apologists sometimes argue about the numbers, suggesting that perhaps fewer died, that later storytellers exaggerated. Yet the early sources consistently speak of hundreds, and even the smallest credible figures still represent the wiping out of a whole adult male population. Reducing the count from, say, 800 to 500 does not change the nature of the event. It remains a slaughter designed to erase Banu Qurayza as a distinct people in Medina.

From a Christian standpoint, it is important to emphasize that Jehovah does not delight in the death of the wicked, let alone the death of men whose guilt has not been established under His Law. He takes no pleasure in genocide. His great act of judgment fell on His own Son, who willingly endured suffering so that sinners could be forgiven. The Gospel calls people out of every tribe and nation into one body, the congregation of Christ, by faith, not by exterminating those who resist.

At Banu Qurayza, the opposite happened. Men were killed in such numbers that their tribe ceased to exist as an independent unit. Their blood soaked Medina’s soil. And the man who authorized it claimed that heaven approved.

Women and Children Enslaved—Rayhana Taken as Concubine

When the killing was finished, the work of division began.

The surviving women and children of Banu Qurayza—wives now widows, daughters now orphans—were classified as war captives. They were led away under guard. Some would remain in Medina. Many would be sent to markets in Najd and elsewhere, sold as slaves to raise funds for Muhammad’s community. The Qur’an explicitly permits sexual relations with such captives. Their previous marriages and family structures were treated as null. Their consent did not matter.

Among these captives was a woman named Rayhana bint Zayd (often identified as Rayhana bint ‘Amr of Banu Qurayza). Unlike some of Muhammad’s other wives and concubines, she is not described as voluntarily marrying him. Early Muslim sources indicate that he invited her to become his wife and join the household as a “mother of the believers.” She refused, wanting to remain a Jew. According to these accounts, Muhammad accepted her refusal of formal marriage but kept her as a slave-concubine.

This distinction—no nikah contract, but continued sexual access—lays bare the reality of the system. Rayhana was a human being whose father, brothers, uncles, and male cousins had just been slaughtered. She had been taken as part of the spoils. Her religious convictions, grief, and trauma did not change her status. Because she was “possessed by the right hand,” Muhammad felt entitled to her body. Whether she was willing or not is not recorded in Islamic texts as a serious question. Her voice is largely silent.

Modern Muslim writers sometimes attempt to soften this, suggesting that she later accepted Islam, that Muhammad treated her kindly, that her slave status was honorary. Such language cannot erase the facts. Rayhana did not walk into his household as a free woman choosing a husband. She entered as part of the plunder from a genocide, with no realistic way to refuse.

The sale and distribution of the rest of Qurayza’s women and children followed the established pattern of Islamic booty. Fighters received shares; Muhammad claimed a special portion for himself and for the community’s needs; some captives were exchanged for weapons or horses. For years afterward, the descendants of Banu Qurayza would live scattered in slavery, their original tribe dissolved.

From Jehovah’s standpoint, this is an outrage. The God who brought Israel out of slavery, who forbade them to steal men or treat the vulnerable with cruelty, who sent Christ to proclaim liberty to captives, cannot be the author of a religion that turns entire populations into chattel because their men refused to accept a later prophet. Christ treated women—Samaritan, Jewish, Gentile—as bearers of God’s image, calling them to faith and offering them hope. He did not take conquered women as concubines. He gave Himself for them.

Rayhana’s story, and that of the unnamed Qurayza women and children, exposes the moral gap between Islam’s founder and the Lord Jesus. One turned the aftermath of genocide into an opportunity for sexual and economic gain. The other laid down His life so that those deserving judgment could receive mercy. One claimed that beheading hundreds and enslaving their families was the judgment of heaven. The other endured execution under human injustice in order to satisfy Jehovah’s justice and open the way to resurrection life.

In the genocide of Banu Qurayza we see the true face of Muhammad’s Medinan project. The earlier expulsions of Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir were stepping stones. Here, with no powerful patron to intervene, an entire male population was wiped out, and its families absorbed as spoils. “Revelation” was used to praise the verdict and normalize the process. Medina became not only an armed camp but a city whose very marketplace had once been a killing field.

As the story of Islam continues—with further campaigns, treaties, and conquests—the pattern revealed at Banu Qurayza will repeat: accusations of betrayal, offers of surrender, harsh verdicts, mass killing or expulsion, property seized, women and children enslaved, and new verses recited to assure the faithful that all of it represents the will of God. The Scriptures of Jehovah, centered on Christ, stand as a perpetual witness against such claims. They declare that a prophet who speaks lies in God’s name and leads people into violence and oppression is not from Him. The trench at Medina and the bodies of Banu Qurayza testify that Muhammad fails that test completely.

You May Also Enjoy

Muhammad’s Orphan Childhood and the Islamic Legends That Whitewash His Early Life (570–578)

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS