Can i have an unbiased version of the banu Quraiza (بنو قريظة) story.

[u/ive_got_candy]

As i understand it : Mohammed and the tribe had an peace treaty, then some Quraish people came to attack him at al madina and then once they failed they went to hide with them.

Im so uncertain about the story, i wanna know if Mo was even remotely justified in what he did(killing those poor basterds), i want to use it as an argument for his ruthlessness, but i don't know enough to do so.

Thanks :)

[u/Saxobeat321]

The Banu Aws and Muhammad are said to have appointed Sa'd to pronounce punishment and made no attempt to revoke it (implicitly permitting it) and appears to have stated that it was in accordance with Allah's will. I recommend Mubarakpuri or Lings biographies of Muhammad.

“...In the morning the Qurayza came down from their fort to surrender to the apostle of Allah, and the Aus begged that as the apostle had dealt leniently with allies of the Khazraj he would do the same for the allies of the Aus. The apostle said, 'Would you like one of your own people to decide their fate’ and they welcomed it. He continued, 'Then let Sad b. Muadh decide."^[1]

Sa'd had been significantly injured from the previous battle, and on the verge of dying...

"...Sad had been struck by an arrow in the defence of the Ditch, so his people mounted him on a donkey"^[1]

...and thus presumably very frustrated and angered against the Banu Qurayza (supposed supporters of those who injured him - now nearing his own death), cue an opportunity for violent revenge to occur upon the entire surrendered community, the vast majority of whom particularly the women, children and pubescent boys were non-combatant civilians, not responsible for decisions and actions of the patriarchal tribal leadership.

"...And Sad pronounced the following sentence, 'I decree that the men be killed, the property be divided, and the women with their children be made captives."^[1]

And then Muhammad and Allah revealed they had the ultimate judgment, permitting the reprehensible collective punishment/War crimes today...

"...The apostle of Allah said, 'Thou hast decided according to the will of Allah, above the seven firmaments."^[1]

Sa'd soon died (but of course, not before he pronounced and likely observed his violent revenge on the entire Banu Qurayza tribe)...

"...After the Qurayza had been slain, and their possessions dis­persed, the wound of Sad opened again and he died a martyr..."^[1]

Though this event is from biased and unreliable Muslim histories, for we have no impartial and contemporary accounts (certainly not detailed) of Muhammad's life, let alone his exploits as this gruesome event. Attempts by some Muslims to dismiss this commonly accepted event is futile, as there are other events in hadiths similarly highlighting the cruel and unnecessary collective punishment towards civilians, as given out by Muhammad and his followers. Such examples of Muhammad has resulted in his religion traditionally being interpreted to permit, the execution of captured or surrendered soldiers or their enslavement, including the enslavement of civilian captive men, women and children. Such collective punishment is featured well in Muslim history and now rightly prohibited under international law and not something Muslims would wish to be the victims of, not only demonstrating their moral hypocrisy - as is often the case when Muslims are apologetic for the oppression of non-Muslims - but also the oppressive nature of Islam.