freediver
Gold Member
   
Offline

www.ozpolitic.com
Posts: 49836
At my desk.
|
From the same wikipedia article
In all accounts, the appointed arbitrator was Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a leading man among the Aws. During the Battle of the Trench, he had been one of Muhammad's emissaries to the Qurayza (see above)[52] and now was dying from a wound he had received later in the battle.[47][48][49][54] When Sa'd arrived, his fellow Aws pleaded for leniency towards the Qurayza and on his request pledged that they would abide by his decision.[10] He then decreed the sentence according to the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:10-14),[10][59] declaring "the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives". Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment.[47][48][49][54] Chirāgh ʼAlī[who?] argues that this statement may have referred to "king" or "ruler" rather than God.[60]
Sa'd dismissed the pleas of the Aws, according to Watt because being close to death and concerned with his afterlife, he put what he considered "his duty to God and the Muslim community" before tribal allegiance.[8] Tariq Ramadan argues that Muhammad deviated from his earlier, more lenient treatment of prisoners as this was seen "as sign of weakness if not madness",[53] Peterson concurs that the Muslims wanted to deter future treachery by setting an example with severe punishment.[10] Lings reports that Sa'ad feared that if expelled, the Qurayza would join the Nadir in the fight against the Muslims.[14]
Does that sound like Muhammed relinguishing the Jews to the mob, Pilate-style?
|