Stillman claims that Muhammad chose Sa'd so as not to pronounce the judgment himself, after the precedents he had set with the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir: "Sa`d took the hint and condemned the adult males to death and the hapless women and children to slavery." Furthermore, Stillman infers from Abu Lubaba's gesture that Muhammad had decided the fate of the Qurayza even before their surrender.[30]
Ibn Ishaq describes the killing of the Banu Qurayza men as follows:
“ Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off.[49][50][62] ”
Several accounts note Muhammad's companions as executioners, Ali and Al-Zubayr in particular, and that each clan of the Aws was also charged with killing a group of Qurayza men.[28][52] Subhash Inamdar argues that this was done in order to avoid the risk of further conflicts between Muhammad and the Aws. According to Inamdar, Muhammad wanted to distance himself from the events and, had he been involved, he would have risked alienating some of the Aws.[52]
Additionally, the women and children were taken as slaves. Muslims often justify this as being "merciful" to the women, or standard practice. Muslims refuse to even acknowledge the enslavement as punishment, for example:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 8
th, 2013 at 11:35am:
freediver wrote on Jul 7
th, 2013 at 12:30pm:
It is a pretty simple topic. I say it is collective punishment because the collective was being punished for the actions of a few. You say it is not collective punishment because those scheming Jews had it coming.
The only people executed were those actively partaking in fighting against the muslims. The rest were spared. How exactly is it punishment for the actions of a few?
polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 8
th, 2013 at 10:11pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 8
th, 2013 at 7:49pm:
That's one way of putting it. Another way is to say that they were punished for someone else's crime.
By enslavement? Here's the cold hard truth FD - the entire menfolk were dead - killed because they committed treason against their muslim allies. What then for the rest of the women and children? Leave them to till their own fields, defend themselves against armed enemies? Or they could have simply done what just about everyone else did at that time - put them all to the sword. Enslavement = protective custody, and it was standard practice throughout the region. However, under Muhammad, enslavement meant humane treatment, and the very real possibility of emancipation. Your claim that enslavement to the muslims meant serial rape is baseless and hogwash.
However, the reality is that Muhammed's solution of executing every single man was harsh even by tribal Arab standards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#Analysis
Aiming at placing the events in their historical context, Watt points to the "harsh political circumstances of that era"[11] and argues that the treatment of Qurayza was regular Arab practice.[81] Similar statements are made by Stillman,[30] Paret,[78] Lewis[82] and Rodinson.[66] On the other hand, Michael Lecker and Irving Zeitlin consider the events "unprecedented in the Arab peninsula - a novelty" and state that "prior to Islam, the annihilation of an adversary was never an aim of war."[64][83] Similar statements are made by Hirschberg[84] and Baron.[85]
Muhammed himself took one of the captured women as slaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#Demise_of_the_Banu_Qurayza
Mohammad collected one-fifth of the booty, the amount which then is paid as Islamic tax to be distributed to the poor and needy.[67]
As part of his share of the spoils, Muhammad selected one of the women, Rayhana, for himself and took her as part of his booty.[66] Muhammad offered to free and marry her and according to some sources she accepted his proposal, while according to others she rejected it and remained the Prophet's slave and concubine.[68] She is said to have later become a Muslim.[4]
Forum
Pages: 1 
