Archives   Archive   Archive   Archive    Stillman inference   a paragraph in the article citing pp  of Stillmans  work reads as follows  According to Stillman Muhammad chose Sad ibn Muadh 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 Lubabas gesture that Muhammad had decided the fate of the Qurayza even before their surrender  however the only relevant discussion i found was this p  When all hope was gone they ie Qurayza sought to surrender on the same terms as had the Nar 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 Qurayas 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 Sad b Mudh to pass judgment upon them Sad was a devout Muslim and a chieftain of the Aws who was dying of wounds received during the siege against the Qurayza Sad 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 Allahs decision Actually it is clear from the Muslim sources that the Qurayzas fate had been decided even before their surrender One of Muhammads emissaries Ab Lubba who had advised the Quraya to give up had to perform penance for hinting to the Jews what their real fate would be  Stillman doesnt state or imply that Muhammad deferred judgement to Sad 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 Sad 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 leaderagain 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 inferences that Banu Qurayzas 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    could you also address the first point   This is clear from the following setencesThis 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 Qurayas 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 Sad b Mudh to pass judgment upon them Sad was a devout Muslim and a chieftain of the Aws who was dying of wounds received during the siege against the Qurayza Sad took the hint and condemned the adult males to death and the hapless women and children to slavery    i have provided that extract above and commented on it Stillman doesnt state or imply that Muhammad deferred judgement to Sad 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 Sad 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 UserItaqallah