`  =Replacement=  Because Shell falsely blocked me, I cannot save my replies on a certain article talk page. Hence I will save the entire page here.        == 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 Naḍīr. 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 Qurayẓa's treason was by no means clear. Muhammad had previously spared the Banū Qaynuqā 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`ādh 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, Abū Lubāba, who had advised the Qurayẓa 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.    ::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 Qurayẓa's treason was by no means clear. Muhammad had previously spared the Banū Qaynuqā 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`ādh 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. :::   ::::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.   :::::No, that's exactly what Stillman is talking about. Muhammad ``could not act with complete disregard of public opinion``, and since he ``had previously spared the Banū Qaynuqā at the request of their former allies the Khazraj``, the Aws were expecting the same treatment of the Qurayza. So Muhammad appointed Sa'd whose judgment on the Qurayza was predictable. Unsurprisingly, Sa'd ``took the hint``. Muhammad deferred judgment to Sa'd so as to prevent the Aws from complaining that he massacred their allies, but had only expelled the allies of the Khazraj; this is the only possible reading of the passage.    ::::::Muhammad chose Sa'd to issue the decree as it would be more widely accepted amongst the Aws, who were ``now pleading that their former confederates be shown mercy`` because the previous tribes had been spared. had Muhammad issued it himself it would not have been received as well, as he ``could not act with complete disregard of public opinion`` yet. Muhammad did not defer judgement to Sa'd to avoid accusations of double standards, for then he would not have endorsed it as he did, declaring that ``that this was none other than Allah's decision.`` what is clear from the text is that he wanted to announce their execution, but as per Sa'd's greater sway over the pleading Awsites (which Muhammad did not yet have) due to his position as a Aws chieftain, he let Sa'd do it instead.   :::::::Your contention that Muhammad wouldn't have endorsed Sa'd's decision, had he feared an accusation of double standards is purely speculative and not based on any part of Stillman's text. He delegated to Sa'd the right to decide the fate of the Qurayza, and the Aws consented to that. Thus not endorsing Sa'd's decision was not an opition, especially because it suited Muhammad perfectly. Muhammad left the decision to Sa'd because he was bound by the precedent of the Qaynuqa to which the Aws were appealing, while Sa'd was free to make any ruling he thought necessary.    ::::::::my contention is that Muhammad did not defer judgement to Sa'd for fear of being accused of double standards- this is a novel interpretation not substantiated by the text. we know why the Aws were pleading- because of the previous precedent. Muhammad, to whom the Aws would not have completely conceded, deferred the judgement to the more authoritative Awsite chieftain, whose judgement would be accepted. Sa'd, according to Stillman, took the hint: he knew the decree Muhammad wanted enforced. that's what is apparent from the text. it's got nothing to do with avoiding accusations of double-standards; it pertains to the fact that, as Stillman says, Muhammad did not yet wield complete authority over the various tribes.   :::::::::You did not comment on the Qaynuqa precedent.    ::::::::::the Qaynuqa precedent is the reason for the Awsite pleas.   :::::::::::The passage in the article is completely contained in and based on the Stillman passage above. Thanks for highlighting this, Itaqallah.    ::::::::::::Muhammad did not defer judgement to Sa'd for fear of being accused of double standards, and neither does Stillman say that.   :::::::::::::As Str1977 has pointed out, there is no basis for such reading of Stillman.    ::::::::::::::i know there is no basis for such reading of Stillman, that's why i have taken issue with the passage. you haven't demonstrated where Stillman speculates about Muhammad consciously wanting to evade accusations of double standards: this is your own interpretation, which is as unsound as it is unsubstantiated.   :::::::::::::::Itaqallah, personal comments like ``this is your own interpretation, which is as unsound as it is unsubstantiated`` will not help your argument. ``Double standards`` are a good and