After reciting the tashahhud, ta’awwuz and Surah al-Fatihah, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih V^(aba) stated:

Details relating to the Battle of Banu Quraizah were being mentioned. Further details in relation to this are as follows:

It is mentioned that two Muslims were martyred during this battle, Khallad bin Suwaid^(ra) and Hazrat Mundhir bin Muhammad^(ra). Regarding the Jews of Banu Quraizah who were killed, there are various narrations with regards to their numbers. Ibn Ishaq has stated the number as 600, while according to another narration it is stated as 700. Suhaili mentions it being between 800 to 900. While Imam Tirmidhi and Imam Nasa‘i have recorded it as 400 combatants. Ibn Sa‘d also mentions it between 600 to 700. (Subul al-Huda Wa al-Rishad, Vol. 5, 20, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, 1993, p. 16)

Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad Sahib^(ra), based on his research through various historical sources, concludes that “More or less 400 men were executed that day as per the judgement of Sa‘d^(ra). The Holy Prophet^(sa) ordered the Companions to arrange for the burial of these people.” (Sirat Khatam-un-Nabiyyeen, p. 603)

The opponents of Islam often exaggerate these numbers to try and portray Islam as a cruel religion. However, upon assessing the facts and evidence, based on authentic historical sources, the figure is close to 400 and only limited to those who were combatants. It is for this reason that they were all buried in a single trench in one home.

An Ahmadi scholar of the time, Syed Waqas Sahib, has also carried out extensive research on this and provided valuable insights on this topic. In his book Rasool-e-Akram Aur Yahud-e-Hijaz, he discusses the debate over the number of people killed from among the Banu Quraizah, and raises certain questions regarding it, some of which carry a degree of rationality. He outlines a fundamental principle which is extremely significant: Whether a narration is taken from a hadith or a book of history, it cannot be exempt from being scrutinised in terms of how strong the narration is and potential fabrications, and to blindly accept all narrations is unwise.

Furthermore, the notion that 600 to 900 men were killed alongside their women and children, which even by a conservative estimate is said to be no less than 5,000 or 6,000 in total, and then to claim that such a large number of people were tied with ropes and brought to Medina, housed in two homes, and provided for with food and water, whilst the Muslims themselves remained without food and water [appears implausible]. Additionally, making arrangements for such a large number of people to answer the call of nature as well as to fulfil any other needs of theirs, without any attempts of them trying to escape or resist, and preparing graves for 600 individuals overnight whilst a trench had just freshly been dug, and the idea that only two or three companions, namely Hazrat Ali^(ra) and Hazrat Zubair^(ra) were tasked with executing all of them, yet neither ever mentioned the incident, and Bukhari and Muslim also do not record the number of people executed, further suggests that these narrations should be critically re-examined and assessed whether these narrations have been greatly exaggerated.

He further writes that the fact is that later on people have added details from themselves in order to portray the Holy Prophet^(sa) and the Muslims as hostile toward Jews. The word recorded in Bukhari with regards to Hazrat Sa‘d’s^(ra) decision is تُقْتَلُ الْمُقَاتِلَةُ, meaning “their combatants are to be killed.” Many historians and biographers interpreted this to mean that all men capable of fighting were to be killed. In fact, they expanded the term “combatants” to such an extent that they considered it to be every adult man and claimed, on their own accord, that people were in fact appointed to determine whether they had reached the age of maturity, thus further inflating the numbers. This is the extent to which they have exaggerated.

In contrast, those who have suggested a relatively smaller figure maintained a limited interpretation of the word “combatants”, meaning only the men who actively participated in the battle. And according to their research, this is estimated to be no more than twenty, thus even further reducing the actual number and this conclusion of theirs possesses a degree of rationality. In any case, this is his personal research; however, some aspects of this are indeed reasonable and could serve as a basis for further research. (Rasool-e-Akram Aur Yahud-e-Hijaz, Maktaba Jamia Nai Dehli Ltd., pp. 132-148)

Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad Sahib^(ra) has stated in response to the allegations raised by non-Muslim historians on the number of Jews killed from among the Banu Quraizah:

“With relation to the account of the Banu Quraizah, various non-Muslim historians have levelled allegations against the Holy Prophet^(sa) in a very unpleasant manner. Due to the death penalty, which was administered to more or less 400 Jews, they have presented the Holy Prophet^(sa), God forbid, as being a cruel and bloodthirsty ruler. However, this allegation is based purely on religious prejudice. In the least, as far as an allegation upon Islam and the Founder of Islam is concerned, even those historians who have been trained in light of Western thought have not been able to absolve themselves, (i.e. certain Muslims have also become influenced by this.)

“In response to this allegation, firstly, it should be remembered that the verdict regarding the Banu Quraizah, which is deemed to be a cruel verdict, was that of Hazrat Sa‘d^(ra), not the Holy Prophet^(sa). When it is proven that the verdict was not issued by the Holy Prophet^(sa) in the first place, no objection can be raised against him on this account. Secondly, this verdict was not faulty and barbaric at all. (The details of this incident have already been mentioned.) Thirdly, due to the covenant that Sa‘d^(ra) took prior to announcing his verdict, the Holy Prophet^(sa) was in any case, bound to act upon it. Fourthly, when this verdict was accepted by the criminals themselves and they did not object, considering this to be a divine decree, as is evident from the words uttered by Huyayy bin Akhtab just as he was about to be executed, it was not the task of the Holy Prophet^(sa) to unnecessarily interfere in such a case.

“After the verdict of Sa‘d^(ra) had been announced, the only relation of the Holy Prophet^(sa) in this respect was to put into effect this verdict in the best possible manner under the supervision of his administration. Thus, it has already been mentioned that the manner in which the Holy Prophet^(sa) instituted this decision may be deemed the highest possible example of mercy and compassion. To be specific, whilst these people remained in captivity before the verdict was put into effect, the Holy Prophet^(sa) arranged for their lodging and food in the best possible manner. When the verdict of Sa‘d^(ra) was to be implemented upon them, the Holy Prophet^(sa) instituted the verdict in a manner that would prove to be least painful for the criminals. Firstly, taking their emotions into consideration, the Holy Prophet^(sa) ordered that when one criminal was to be executed, the next should not be made to witness it. As a matter of fact, history tells us that when individuals would be brought to the place of execution, they would have no idea as to where they were being taken until they reached the actual spot. In addition to this, the Holy Prophet^(sa) immediately accepted each and every appeal for mercy, which was lodged before him with respect to an individual. Not only did the Holy Prophet^(sa) spare the lives of such people, rather, he even ordered the release of their wives and children, and for their wealth, etc., to be returned. What greater example of mercy and compassion towards a criminal can there be? Hence, not only is it true that absolutely no allegation can be levelled against the Holy Prophet^(sa) due to the account of Banu Quraizah, rather, the fact of the matter is that this incident is an immensely clear proof of the high morals, remarkable administration and innate mercy and tenderness of the Holy Prophet^(sa).

“Now remains the question of the actual verdict. In this regard, we have no hesitation in stating that there was absolutely no cruelty and barbarity in this at all. In fact, it was precisely based on justice and equity. In this respect, the first thing which must be taken into account is the actual crime of the Banu Quraizah and the circumstances in which it was committed. Thus, it is ascertained from history that when the Holy Prophet^(sa) initially arrived in Medina, three Jewish tribes resided in Medina; namely, the Banu Qainuqa‘, Banu Nadir and Banu Quraizah. The first political measure, which was undertaken by the Holy Prophet^(sa) following the migration was to call upon the chieftains of all three tribes and settle a treaty of peace and harmony. The conditions of this treaty were that the Muslims and Jews would live together in Medina with peace and harmony, would foster friendly relations with one another, would not aid or hold any relations with the enemies of one another; and if an attack was waged against Medina by a foreign tribe or tribes, everyone would stand up in collective defence; and if any person or group from among those who had agreed to the terms was guilty of a breach of treaty, the others would have a right to undertake stern measures; and all disputes would be presented before Muhammad^(sa), whose verdict would be contractually binding upon the related parties; however, it would be necessary for every individual or nation to be judged according to his own religion or shari‘ah. (This is a very significant aspect of the treaty in that the decisions will be made in accordance with their religious law despite the fact that a Muslim government had been established.)

“How did the Jews act upon this treaty? The answer to this is that firstly, the Banu Qainuqa’ committed a breach of treaty, and sparked war with the Muslims whilst severing friendly relations. They harassed Muslim women in a crude manner and arrogantly rejected the presidential position of the Holy Prophet^(sa) which he possessed by virtue of the international treaty in Medina. However, when they were defeated by the Muslims, the Holy Prophet^(sa) forgave them and sufficed on the mere precautionary measure that the Banu Qainuqa‘ should leave Medina and take up residence somewhere else, so that the peace of the city was not further disturbed, and the Muslims may be protected from a snake in the grass. Therefore, the people of Banu Qainuqa‘ left Medina along with their wealth, wives, and children with great peace and security and settled somewhere else.

“However, the remaining two Jewish tribes did not learn a lesson as a result of this event. As a matter of fact, the mercy of the Holy Prophet^(sa) fuelled them with greater audacity, and much time had not elapsed when the Banu Nadir, which was the second tribe of the Jews, also raised its head. To begin with, Ka‘b bin Ashraf, one of their chiefs, broke the treaty and began to conspire with the Quraish and other Arab tribes in opposition to the Muslims. He incited the wild beasts of Arabia to stand up against the Holy Prophet^(sa) and his Companions in a dangerous manner, and composed such provocative couplets against the Muslims, which created an immensely threatening state for them in the land. Moreover, this evil man referred to honourable Muslim women by name and mocked them in his couplets, after which he finally conspired to assassinate the Holy Prophet^(sa). When this individual reached his rightful end by the command of the Holy Prophet^(sa), his tribe stood up together in opposition to the Muslims. From that day on, the Banu Nadir completely ignored their agreement and began to conspire against the Muslims. Ultimately, the entire tribe devised a plan to assassinate the Holy Prophet^(sa) and decided that, however possible, the Holy Prophet^(sa) should not be spared. (Even though they had all entered into a treaty that if anyone was guilty of breaching the treaty, they would all punish him and they agreed upon this.) When the Holy Prophet^(sa) received news of their deadly intentions, he warned them and was then required to call them to account, in response to which they became prepared for war against the Muslims in an extremely insolent manner. In this war, the Banu Quraizah aided the Banu Nadir. However, when the Banu Nadir were defeated, (and one has to remember that even in this instance the Banu Quraizah aided the Banu Nadir and they also they broke the term of their treaty), the Holy Prophet^(sa) pardoned the Banu Quraizah altogether (even though they had joined with the Banu Nadir), and even the Banu Nadir were permitted to leave Medina in peace and security, albeit, they were not permitted to take along their arms. However, the manner in which the Banu Nadir repaid this benevolence was that their chieftains toured the whole of Arabia and brought a swarm of an army to fall upon Medina by inciting the various tribes of Arabia in a very dangerous manner. They called upon everyone to take an oath that, this time, until Islam had been wiped out completely, they would not turn back.

“At this perilous time, a brief description of which has been presented above, how did the third Jewish tribe known as the Banu Quraizah act? This was the tribe that the Holy Prophet^(sa) had forgiven and treated with immense generosity despite their treachery on the occasion of the Ghazwah of Banu Nadir. (The Holy Prophet^(sa) had in fact treated them with mercy.) Furthermore, a second favour of the Holy Prophet^(sa) upon the Banu Quraizah was that prior to the migration of the Muslims to Medina, the Banu Quraizah were considered inferior to the Banu Nadir in their status and rights. (There was a difference in status between these two tribes as well, the Banu Quraizah were considered inferior to the Banu Nadir.) If a person belonging to the Banu Nadir was killed by someone from the Banu Quraizah, such a person would be executed in retribution. On the other hand, if an individual from the Banu Quraizah was killed at the hands of the Banu Nadir, the mere payment of blood money would be considered sufficient. However, the Holy Prophet^(sa) gave the Banu Quraizah equal rights in line with other citizens. However, despite these magnificent favours, the Banu Quraizah still committed treachery, and all this was at such a sensitive time when the Muslims were not confronted with a more difficult time in their lives. The example of the Banu Qainuqa‘ was before them, yet they did not derive benefit from it. The account of the Banu Nadir had taken place right before their eyes, but they did not take a lesson from it. When the time came, what did they do? What they did was to ignore their treaty completely and forget the favours of the Holy Prophet^(sa) altogether. They emerged from their fortresses and attacked the Muslim women and children from the rear exactly at such a time when 3,000 Muslims were surrounded by a fierce and bloodthirsty army of 10,000 to 15,000 disbelievers in an immensely vulnerable and helpless state, and in the face of their incapability, their hearts were coming to their throats (i.e., during the Battle of Ahzab), and death stared them in the eye. They turned from their pact with the Muslims and partook in a deadly coalition which was solely aimed at utterly destroying Islam and the Founder of Islam. Indeed! The very same Founder of Islam, whose first task after his arrival to Medina was to make the Jews his friend and ally. (One should ponder over this fact that the Holy Prophet^(sa) first established friendly ties between them.) In response to this, the Jews also accepted him as their friend, ally and Democratic Head. In these circumstances, this action of the Banu Quraizah was not only a breach of agreement and treason, but was also a dangerous act of rebellion, and rebellion of such magnitude, that if their plan had succeeded, this definitely would have brought an end to the lives, honour, dignity, faith, and religion of the Muslims. Thus, the Banu Quraizah were not guilty of one crime alone, rather, they were guilty of disloyalty, ungratefulness, breach of agreement, treason, rebellion, and attempted murder. Furthermore, these crimes were committed in such circumstances as could have taken on the most atrocious possible form, and no unbiased court of law could find factors for which they would be inclined to deal leniently in their case. (In such circumstances, no court of law would show leniency.)

“In such circumstances, what other punishment, except for the one that was given to them, did they deserve? Obviously, there were only three possible punishments, that could have been given to them. Firstly, imprisonment or house arrest; secondly, exile, as was the case with the Banu Qainuqa‘ and Banu Nadir; thirdly, the execution of combatant men and imprisonment or house arrest for the rest. Now, one should contemplate with justice, which option was available to the Muslims in light of the circumstances of that era. According to the circumstances of that era, to keep an enemy nation imprisoned in the same city was absolutely out of the question. The reason was that in the case of imprisonment, the responsibility of providing for the food and lodging of the prisoners would fall upon the Muslims, and this was a burden they could not bear at all. Secondly, in those times, there was no formal system of jails, etc., and it was a custom that prisoners would be distributed amongst the various men belonging to the nation that was victorious. Practically, the prisoners would live and move about freely. In these circumstances, to permit an enemy and conspiring group of the highest degree to remain in Medina was not without its dangers. If this judgement had been administered to the Banu Quraizah, this would mean that they would continue to enjoy the same freedom to create unrest, disorder, mischief, and scheme secret plots, all at the expense of the Muslims. In other words, if before they would provide for themselves and slaughter the Muslims, from then on (i.e., upon being given freedom), they would be provided for by the Muslims (who at the time did not even have enough to feed themselves) and slaughter the Muslims even still. Furthermore, due to their living with the Muslims together in their homes, the other dangers which could have arisen were in addition to all this.”

Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad Sahib^(ra) further writes:

“In these circumstances, I do not believe that any sensible individual would hold the view that this punishment could be given to them. (I.e., for them to be kept there.)

“Now remains the second punishment, i.e., exile. Undoubtedly, according to that era, this punishment was indeed looked upon as a very effective method by which to protect oneself from the mischief of an enemy. However, the experience of exiling the Banu Nadir demonstrated that as far as the Jews were concerned, this option was no less dangerous than the first in any way. In other words, if the Jews had been permitted to leave Medina this would have added to the multitude of such anti-Islam proponents who were actively engaged in war. Furthermore, these people would have joined the ranks of such enemies of Islam, who were restless in leading a movement of sedition, hostile propaganda, as well as secret and cunning schemes against Islam. History proves that from among all the Jewish tribes, the Banu Quraizah were most vehement in their enmity. Invariably, therefore, the exile of the Banu Quraizah posed even greater threats than what the Banu Nadir had created for the Muslims by instigating the Ghazwah of the Confederates. If the Muslims had done this, in light of the circumstances of that era, their action would have been no less than suicide. However, is there any nation in the world that becomes prepared to commit suicide in order to keep an enemy alive? If not, then surely the Muslims cannot be considered guilty either for not deciding to commit suicide themselves so that their enemy could be kept alive.

“Therefore, both these punishments were not an option, and if either one of these routes had been taken, this definitely would have spelt ruin. Putting these two options aside, the only other course of action was the one that was actually employed. Although the verdict of Sa‘d^(ra) was a stern measure in itself, and a person’s nature apparently feels grief as a result of it, the question is: was any other option available? When a surgeon deems it necessary to amputate the hand or leg of a patient’s body, or becomes compelled to sever another part of the body, every noble individual feels a shock, that if this had not occurred, i.e., if the circumstances did not require, it would have been better. However, one is forced to submit in the face of compelling circumstances. As a matter of fact, in such circumstances, the action of the surgeon is considered to be worthy of praise, inasmuch that with the sacrifice of a smaller part of the body, a thing of greater value is saved. Similarly, although the verdict of Sa‘d was a strict one in itself, it was a necessary outcome brought about by compelling circumstances, without which there was no other option. It is for this reason that even a historian like Margoliouth, who is not at all from among the friends of Islam, is compelled to admit on this occasion that the decision of Sa‘d^(ra) was based on compelling circumstances, without which there was no other option. Hence, Mr. Margoliouth writes:

“‘The great invasion, which Mohammed [sa] declared to have been miraculously frustrated, was due or believed to be due, to the propaganda of members of the Banu Nadir, whom the Prophet had been satisfied with banishing. Should he banish the Kuraizah, he would thereby be setting free a fresh set of propagandists. On the other hand, those who had taken part openly with the invaders of Medinah could not very well be permitted to remain there. To banish them was unsafe; to permit them to remain was yet more dangerous. Hence they must die.’

“(This was the statement of Mr Margoliouth.)

“It should also be taken into consideration that the Banu Quraizah were not only allies and confederates of the Holy Prophet^(sa), but rather, by virtue of their initial treaty, had already accepted the government of the Holy Prophet^(sa) in Medina, or in the least, they had accepted his sovereignty. Hence, they were not merely a treacherous ally or ordinary enemy, rather, they were also rebellious and extremely dangerous ones at that. The penalty for rebellion, especially at a time of war, has always been execution. If a rebel is not given a strict punishment, the system of government crumbles completely; and mischievous and rebellious people develop such courage, which proves to be immensely destructive to the peace and comfort of society. Undoubtedly, showing mercy to a rebel in such circumstances is actually equivalent to committing an injustice against the country and its peace-abiding citizens. Therefore, until now, all civilised governments have always punished such rebels, be they men or women, with the death penalty, and no sensible individual has ever raised an objection against them. Hence, the verdict of Sa‘d^(ra) was absolutely fair, and was completely in accordance with principles of justice and equity. Moreover, due to the covenant of the Holy Prophet^(sa), he was not in a position to demonstrate mercy, except in the case of individuals, and as far as individuals were concerned, the Holy Prophet^(sa) made every possible attempt. (He could grant pardon to individuals who sought forgiveness but he could not forgive the entire tribe as he had already given his word to abide by the decision of Hazrat Sa’d^(ra).) However, it seems that in the embarrassment that they had refused to accept the Holy Prophet^(sa) as a judge, they were not too inclined to make an appeal for clemency to the Holy Prophet^(sa). Obviously, without an appeal, the Holy Prophet^(sa) could not show mercy, because the release of a rebel who does not even express remorse for his crime, can pose extremely dangerous ramifications.

“Another point to remember is that by virtue of the treaty which had been settled between the Holy Prophet^(sa) and the Jews, one condition stated that if any matter regarding the Jews required a verdict, a decision would be made according to their own shari‘ah. Therefore, history proves that in accordance with this treaty, the Holy Prophet^(sa) would always issue a verdict to the Jews in accordance with the Mosaic law. Now, when we cast a glance upon the Torah, the exact same punishment for a crime as the Jews were guilty of committing has been prescribed therein, as Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh issued to the Banu Quraizah.

“Hence, the following divine commandment has been stipulated in the Bible:

“‘When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.” (Deuteronomy, Ch. 20, V. 10-15)

“This commandment of the Jewish law was not only a commandment on paper, rather, the children of Israel always acted upon this teaching, and Jewish cases were always decided according to this very principle. Therefore, let us witness an example:

“‘And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor, they slew with the sword. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods […] And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.’ (Numbers, 31, V. 7-12)

“Although the Messiah of Nazareth (who was also from the children of Israel) never received the opportunity to govern, nor was he ever faced with instances of war and conflict, whereby his method of practice could be witnessed, yet there are certain statements made by him, which shed light on his views regarding the judgement of mischievous and evil enemies. As such, addressing his enemies, Jesus^(as) states:

“‘Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?’

“In other words, O people! You are worthy of being destroyed like poisonous snakes, but I do not have the power to punish you. However, fear God, and if nothing else, abstain from your immoral and mischievous deeds for fear of the punishment of hell. It is perhaps due to this very reason that when the followers of Jesus^(as) attained power in the world, in accordance with the teaching of Jesus^(as) that evil and mischievous enemies are worthy of being destroyed like snakes and scorpions, they did not feel the least hesitation in destroying anyone who they felt to be immoral, mischievous or a hindrance in their objectives. (We can see this even today.) Thus, the history of Christian nations is full of such examples.

“In summary, although the verdict of Sa‘d^(ra) may be considered strict in itself, it was not at all contrary to justice and equity. Furthermore, invariably, the nature of the crime committed by the Jews, as well as the safety of the Muslims, demanded that such a verdict be issued. Moreover, this verdict was in complete accordance with the Jewish law, rather, in light of the initial treaty, it was necessary because by virtue of that treaty, the Muslims were obliged to judge the Jews according to their own Shari‘at. However, whatever the case may be, this verdict was that of Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh^(ra), not the Holy Prophet^(sa), and the first and last responsibility of this decision falls upon Sa‘d^(ra). In his capacity as the Head of Government, the only relation which the Holy Prophet^(sa) had with this verdict was to put it into effect under his administration. It has already been mentioned that the Holy Prophet^(sa) implemented this verdict in such a manner as can be considered the best possible example for even the most civilised and merciful of governments.” (Sirat Khatam-un-Nabiyyeen, pp. 605-613)

Thus, this serves as a response to today’s critics who raise objections against Islam, and as a result, some Muslims also become influenced by these allegations, including our youth as well, who sometimes question why the Banu Quraizah were killed.

In fact, some people even cite this example of the Banu Quraizah and venture to say that whatever is happening to the Palestinians today is justified. However, the circumstances they are facing today cannot be likened in any way to previous circumstances and the manner in which they are exacting revenge, and they are even killing women and children.

In any case, it is the Muslims alone who are responsible [for these misconceptions]; they have ruined the image of Islam for the sake of their personal gains. May Allah the Almighty grant them understanding.