Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Stillman inference a paragraph in the article citing pp 14 16 of Stillman s 1979 work reads as follows According to Stillman Muhammad chose Sa d ibn Mua dh so as not to pronounce the judgment himself and avoid being accused of double standards given the precedents he had set with the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir Furthermore Stillman infers from Abu Lubaba s gesture that Muhammad had decided the fate of the Qurayza even before their surrender however the only relevant discussion i found was this p 15 When all hope was gone they i e Qurayza sought to surrender on the same terms as had the Na r This time the Prophet intended to make an example of them He still could not act with complete disregard of public opinion The degree of the Quray a s treason was by no means clear Muhammad had previously spared the Ban Qaynuq c at the request of their former allies the Khazraj Many Awsites were now pleading that their former confederates be shown mercy Always the master politician Muhammad stepped aside and appointed Sa d b Mu dh to pass judgment upon them Sa d was a devout Muslim and a chieftain of the Aws who was dying of wounds received during the siege against the Qurayza Sa d took the hint and condemned the adult males to death and the hapless women and children to slavery Muhammad then declared that this was none other than Allah s decision Actually it is clear from the Muslim sources that the Qurayza s fate had been decided even before their surrender One of Muhammad s emissaries Ab Lub ba who had advised the Quray a to give up had to perform penance for hinting to the Jews what their real fate would be Stillman doesn t state or imply that Muhammad deferred judgement to Sa d in order to avoid accusations of double standards especially when he openly endorsed the decision so i believe this is original research what seems more apparent is that because of the Awsites protesting it was Sa d Aws chieftain who was chosen to pronounce the judgement as they may have been more accepting of the decree if it came from their tribal leader again with the second sentence in the article i do not see how the solitary sentence discussing Abu Lubaba substantiates what has been written or where Stillman is making any infer ences that Banu Qurayza s fate had already been decided by Muhammad before their surrender This is clear from the last two sentences of the excerpt The first sentence states the conclusion the second contains the premise Or could you also address the first point This is clear from the following setences This time the Prophet intended to make an example of them He still could not act with complete disregard of public opinion The degree of the Quray a s treason was by no means clear Muhammad had previously spared the Ban Qaynuq at the request of their former allies the Khazraj Many Awsites were now pleading that their former confederates be shown mercy Always the master politician Muhammad stepped aside and appointed Sa d b Mu dh to pass judgment upon them Sa d was a devout Muslim and a chieftain of the Aws who was dying of wounds received during the siege against the Qurayza Sa d took the hint and condemned the adult males to death and the hapless women and children to slavery Or i have provided that extract above and commented on it Stillman doesn t state or imply that Muhammad deferred judgement to Sa d in order to avoid accusations of double standards especially when he openly endorsed the decision so i believe this is original research what seems more apparent is that because of the Awsites protesting it was Sa d Aws chieftain who was chosen to pronounce the judgement as they may have been more accepting of the decree if it came from their tribal leader User Itaqallah