Talk:Banu Qaynuqa

Dispute

The discussion of the dispute surrounding this article is taking place, at Talk:Banu Nadir. Please see. Publicola 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Content discussion needs to take place here. The above message is not adequate to discuss changes such as reverts that are resulting in edit warring. Talk about it here, with all the editors before making such changes. pschemp | talk 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should we all duplicate our effort posting discussions in two articles talk pages when one article essentially includes all of the other, because you can't take the time to follow that polite request to see the discussion on the other page? Wikipedia:Edit_war says it's wrong to revert without discussion, not to duplicate the necessary discussion on all the articles that pertain to it. I started this section to head off just such a complaint of edit warring. Please WP:AGF yourself. And a plea comprised of four polite sentences does not qualify as a "rant" where I come from. Publicola 20:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You just ignored good faith again by accusing me of not looking at the other article. I have looked at it and while it may be related, there doesn't seem to be a merge request. Even so, there is no reason consensus can't be reached on the disposition of this article there, and until such time, this one will remain protected. pschemp | talk 02:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

I've looked at the repeated insertions here, and found the what Publicola is inserting has partly been taken word for word from [1]. This is in violation of US copyright law. Due to this, the legal implications of it and the constant edit warring, I have protected the page. All involved editors, please work out an acceptable, non copyvio version here, and come to consensus. After that, the protection will be lifted. pschemp | talk 18:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, you intended to provide a different link because the one above points to the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is in the public domain and matches Briangott's version. Pecher ^Talk 18:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The original may be, but why does it say, "Copyright 2002 JewishEncyclopedia.com. All rights reserved." at the bottom of the webpage then?pschemp | talk 19:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only is the text in the public domain, it was obviously not inserted by me, and I find this accusation against me by an administrator with whom I was just discussing resolution of our dispute to be suspect at best. I am asking that this version be unprotected and reverted to Itaqallah's version which was obviouly not a product of "edit waring" and which includes the Arabic script, the request for which has been outstanding above for months. Furthermore, I object to the characterization of my attempt to maintain a neutral point of view as an edit war. I have already explained the fact that the version of this article I've been working on addresses several bias problems, at Talk:Banu Nadir#Continued reintroduction of bias by reverts. Publicola 19:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Text may well be in the public domain, but that particular website is not usable due to the copyright assertion at the bottom of their page. Please show a non-copyrighted source. And it doesn't matter who orginally inserted it, fighting back and forth about it is edit warring. For legal protection, I had to revert to the last edit that didn't inculde it. If it is public domain fine, but that is a risk we can't take until its proven. Work our your issues here. pschemp | talk 19:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I checked the diff and indeed read it wrong Please WP:AGF and let me check though, before posting rants. However, you are all still edit warring, and it changes nothing. pschemp | talk 19:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. In answer to your copyright question, "This article incorporates text from the public domain 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia." As for your accusations of edit warring, again, I direct you to Talk:Banu Nadir, where the revisions you see as a revert war were being discussed, before both pages were protected. The reason it looks like an undiscussed edit war here is because Banu Nadir includes, and has for the past several weeks included, almost all of the text of this article, because the history of the Banu Qaynuqa are very integral to that of the Banu Nadir. Before you accuse me of edit warring, please have a look at what I've been trying to correct; in particular, would you please direct your attention to the discussion surrounding the opinion of the editor(s) you have supported by protecting the current version of this article, that "all authoritative Muslim historians died several centuries ago"? Again, thank you for recognizing that I didn't include the text you thought was a copyright violation, and please unprotect and revert to the version with the Arabic script included. Publicola 19:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the only text of this referrenced anywhere is the Jewishencyclopedia.com site which says "Copyright 2002 JewishEncyclopedia.com. All rights reserved." Show me a source without a copyright notice please. It doesn't matter what you do or don;'t insert, the repitions rather than talking are edit warring. I will not unprotect until a version is worked out here on the talk page first. pschemp | talk 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The very first thing that http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ says, after its menu and headings, is, "This website contains the complete contents of the 12-volume Jewish Encyclopedia, which was originally published between 1901-1906. The Jewish Encyclopedia, which recently became part of the public domain, contains over 15,000 articles and illustrations. This online version contains the unedited contents of the original encyclopedia." Publicola 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I understand that the original is in public domain. However, no article here links to the original, or uses the publication information of the original for a reference. Instead, they all link to jewishencyclopdia.com, which notes in its terms of use, "3.2 You may search, retrieve, display, download, and print content from the Service solely for your personal, internal use, and shall make no other use of the content without the express written permission of JE.com and the copyright owner (or its authorized agent) of such content." My point is that while a reference to the orginal publication information is ok, using the website as the only one is not, as they have made a claim of copyright. Its a technical legal thing and easily fixed if someone digs up the orginal publication information and refers to that instead. (HINT - I just told you how to fix this). pschemp | talk 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you are trying to tell me. The text you are complaining about has no such reference to the website. The "original publication information" is that it is "originally published between 1901-1906" and thus firmly in the public domain, as I just stated in boldface above. Please explain how I can fix it when the article is still protected. Publicola 21:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the original publication info should be used, the website has no claim of copyright over the text of the article. JE.com's "terms of use" have no legal force vis a vis the text of various articles, over which they are barred by copyright law from claiming any rights. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been researching this issue since I first posted and I understand that now, and that any claim they made on the original text would be hard to defend. However, I'm just trying to make sure we are playing it safe and not even allowing for the possibility of problems especially since this is a resource that we use so much. I can't imagine that finding the original publication info would be hard for those who know where to look. Its a simple solution. pschemp | talk 20:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia makes the copyright status of the online text completely clear. The copyright notice applies to things on the jewishencyclopedia.com web site other than the text, e.g, the menus and headings and such. It doesn't matter if you copy-and-paste the text from there or type it in from the bound 1906 volumes, it's the same text. Publicola 21:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Besides, User:Briangotts and I already worked out the solution nicely on my talk page so it doesn't matter anymore. The text is usable and the actual publication information will be added.pschemp | talk 01:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that you are satisfied with the copyright status of the Jewish Encyclopedia, which this article is now only a paragraph from, and you have seen that the changes were being discussed, would you please unprotect the article so that editors may continue adding the Islamic viewpoint, based on the three sources you reverted away, and the arabic script as requested above, provided by Itaqallah, which you also reverted away when you falsely syspected copyright infringement? You may wish to check that additional discussion of the changes has occured in the mean time, and as you know I have requested mediation. Publicola 02:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course you have. Again, I will not unprotect until you (meaning all the editors) paste a copy here, work out your differences and come to a consensus on the words. At that point I will happily unprotect. As for your complaint about the current content, the template clearly states "(Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version.)" pschemp | talk 02:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Mediation is in progress at Talk:Banu Nadir and the mediation page.

I have placed my preferred version at Banu Qaynuqa/mpov (m=multiple; see my userpage for details) in hopes that others will edit it to achieve a compromise mediation version while this article is protected. Publicola 22:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A tangental thought

This came up in discussion with another user concerning the debate around the Banu Qaynuqa's war, which was really the first time Jews and Muslims ever fought, isn't it? If you accept the story about the war escalating from the stripped naked woman in the jewlery store:

Maybe God has a seperate universe somewhere or somewhen else, where the pin broke and her clothes stayed on when she stood up, the Constitution of Medina held, and 1500 years later Jews and Muslims are still strong allies. Don't we all have an obligation to try to get back into to that world?

As an agnostic non-Muslim, non-Jew, I hope that God is the sort that would keep a nice, friendly universe around along with our drama-filled one for strictly experimental purposes, and judges us all by how well we can calm things down. I sure have a long way to go! Publicola 10:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

pov

I just read the article, and its just horribly anti-islamic pov. This version needs to get back as soon as possible. --Striver 22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect?

This was blocked weeks ago and there is no discussion here, but I understand that it may be the subject of mediation. Is there a general feeling that this article must still be protected, or should I release protection to see what happens? --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected.Voice-of-All 06:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Pecher

I think the current version is pretty well balanced. I wish I could look up those online Islam encyclopedia articles. Publicola 12:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Further Changes

I've gone through the whole thing and removed unnecessary "the"s. "Banu" is translated into "the sons/daughters of", one of the two plural forms of "bin" (the other form being "Bani"). For the sake of consistency, we'll keep them all as "Banu". My logic: adding another "the" would translate to "the the sons/daughters of". A logical change, yes? An obvious exception to having an additional "the" would be something like "the Banu Qaynuqa tribe", since 'the' in this case refers to the tribe, and reads (grammatically/syntactically) smoothly (....the...tribe...). The same change has been applied previously to Banu Nadir/mpov. Cheers. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 13:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently somebody went back in time and interviewed each of the converts as to the reasons behind their individual conversions. Without really saying much more, I'd simply like to get supporting documentation on this, that's all. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 14:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, and with all due respect...do you honestly believe that you or anyone has the authority to factually ascertain the motivations behind the conversion of some of the tribe's members, or for that matter even any motivations of Muhammad or anyone else? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim...so at the risk of starting another revert/edit-war, I still maintain that this assertion is highly dubious. Make the reversion if you must...just prove it...is that too much to ask? --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

All the academic English sources I know spell the names of tribes with the definite article. in all cases. You may want to argue that they are all wrong, but Wikipedia is not the best place to do so. The same logic applies to your doubts of the work of Weinsinck and Paret. Both are famous orientalists published by a highly respected source; opinions of individual wikipedians are, sadly, not important as far as the articles are concerned. This is part of the job of historians (and other scholars) to arrive at conclusions using their reasoning. We cannot go back in time to see whether the Big Bang actually happened; it is through their reasoning that the physicists have arrived at the conclusion that the Big Bang occurred. Pecher ^Talk 17:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I'd like to get an idea who you are (you forgot your name in your signature). Further, I thought terms like "orientalists" and such had been wiped clean by post-post-modernist academics...which actually helps explain why Wiki is not really regarded as a bonafied academic resource. My goal is to be a part of the process towards reaching that...and I honestly don't believe Wiki or its readers are served by holding on to outdated epistemes. With all due respect, it's exactly this kind of attitude that discourages real academics from continuing to be a part of this process...this constant bickering and losing track of the big picture of this project we know as Wiki: improving Wiki (specifically) and general academia for all seekers of knowledge. Just my 2.5 cents...but I'm sure life will move on for all of us. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 10:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think if it is even accepted that some Jews decided to stay in Medina just to protect their property, then we need to have a source that would also state that they were hypocrites i.e. they did not convert to Muslims with their hearts but for materialistic reasons. --SaadSaleem 02:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

The Sealed Nectar is definitely a reliable source. The biography was written by a scholar and then awarded first prize by Muslim World League, which means that the biography must have been reviwed by scholars of the organization and these scholars must have overwhelmingly agreed with the content.Bless sins 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they did. It's not history. Arrow740 16:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, please don't remove longstanding material without achieving concensus on talk page.Bless sins 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not Muhammad's quote book. Encyclopedias summarize the material; lengthy quotes are usually not appropriate. Beit Or 16:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

removing this:

Conditions of the pact, according to traditional sources, included boycotting Quraysh, abstinence from "extending any support to them", assistance of one another if attacked by a third party, as well as "defending Medina, in case of a foreign attack".

.. remains unjustified in the light of the attributive clause i inserted. ITAQALLAH 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The constitution probably dates after Muhammad got rid of all of the Jewish tribes, let alone the Banu Qaynuqa, so it is irrelevant to this article. Arrow740 16:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

according to you. plenty of academics would disagree with you on that point. ITAQALLAH 16:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem here. We describe the academic attitudes toward the Constitution fairly. We just can't say with any degree of certainty what Muhammad's arrangement with the Banu Qaynuqa was, don't you agree? Arrow740 16:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure we can. there are scholarly sources that say so.Bless sins 16:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

indeed, a lot of scholars seem to be confident in stating that Muhammad signed with the Jewish tribes. the general conditions are obvious to anyone. per your latest revert, you clearly don't seem to understand that WP:NPOV dictates that we present the Muslim/traditional view of the constitution per its obvious notability. WP:RS does not circumvent WP:NPOV. ITAQALLAH

We're going in circles here. Signed with the Jewish tribes, as in to become a member? The traditional view of the constitution is notable and can by presented as background to the discussion of scholarly opinion on the subject. Arrow740 17:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that an anon is being used for revert-warring. It's really strange the way that Muslims on wikipedia quote Ibn Hisham for good things about Muhammad, but start complaining when he's used for bad things. A little self-reflection might be in order. "An intellectual is a mind that watches itself." Arrow740 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

When did Itaqallah and I delete Ibn Hisham quotes? It's actually you who is "complaining". Infact you also deleted Montgomery quotes.Bless sins 03:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

you do indeed seem to be shift your position, sometimes demanding that only 'reliable sources' be used, in spite of your habitual removal of well sourced material or other reliable sources from various articles which conflict with your point of view. what i also find peculiar is that Beit Or maintains that "long quotes" should not be included, whereas there has been no such qualm on "Banu Qurayza" with a much larger extract (apparently) from Ibn Ishaq. ITAQALLAH 05:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not a shift. Arrow740 05:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

sure it is. ITAQALLAH 05:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I do demand that only reliable sources be used. That doesn't mean that all well-sourced wording should be allowed. There is no shift. Arrow740 05:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anons

This is the second anon that has edited without using the page. The factually accuracy is disputed because the scholarly consensus on the constitution is that there is no consensus, and so what we have is not neutral because it is presenting dubious positive information about Muhammad. Arrow740 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a strange fact that on a large number of Islam-related articles, one can count on one or more anons, sometimes using experienced edit summaries, to revert, invariably in the service of the "pro-Islam" POV. Anons, after all, don't have watchlists.Proabivouac 04:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, it is not who reverts the page that matters, but the argument presented to revert the page.Bless sins 04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Using an anon IP to avoid 3RR will get you a block. Arrow740 05:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740 one thing I don't tolerate is a false accusation. Although I sometimes I forget to log on (due to carelessness), I am not that anon.Bless sins 01:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you and I didn't think it was you. If I did I would have reported it. Arrow740 01:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

converting to retain belongings?

Wensinck says: "The Banu Kaynuka a did not, however, emigrate to the last man. A few members of the tribe embraced Islam, perhaps more from opportunism than from conviction, and these could remain at Medina. lbn Hishãm /lbn Ishaq gives a list of 30 Kaynuka adversaries of the Prophet (351 f.). This may refer to the time before the expulsion, but five or six of the names in the list reappear in Waqidi’s report on Ibn Ubayy’s funeral (in 9/631) among those hypocrites “from Banu Kaynuka and others” who pressed forward to the bier."

retaining their belongings may have been one incentive, but the oppurtunism that Wensinck points to can connote various things (some of which more apparent than retaining possessions), which is why i suggest we stick to that wording instead of original deductions. ITAQALLAH 07:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If that's all that Wensinck says, I agree.Proabivouac 07:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I added "possibly". Even in Wensick this is only speculation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, Abd-allah was called a hypocrite beause he was a Muslim (obviously). Also, don't ever use the intentionally obfuscatory passive voice in articles. Scholarship after Watt has cast serious doubt on the "negotiations" described in Ibn Hisham. The Wensick quote already indicated the doubt placed Ibn Hisham's backdated justifications for ethnic cleansing. Arrow740 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you come up with a source that says Abdullah was a "Muslim".Bless sins 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

can you explain what you mean by "scholarship after Watt"? and can you substantiate that claim? ITAQALLAH 19:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources do not mention any negotiations. These are just Watt's speculations. Beit Or 20:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

These are a scholar's statements. Anyways, are you saying that we should remove all secondary sources here??Bless sins 22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm only saying that speculations cannot be stated as fact. Beit Or 10:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. We'd solve many problems and avoid many disputes if we could agree to cite scholars only for their concrete findings rather than their opinionated pronouncements or baseless speculations.Proabivouac 11:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

a)How can you (Beit Or) say that this is a speculation on Watt's part?

b) This can be stated as "Watt states...", no need to remove this. Pls. point me to the WP policy that justifies the removal of this.Bless sins 18:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This edit was made by me. Apologies for not signing.Bless sins 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomani

What is the reason for presenting so prominently in the article the view by Shibli Nomani that the Qaynuqa's response to Muhammad was "a declaration of war"? Beit Or 20:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Shibli Nomani is a prominent scholar. Also, i thought it be appropraite to the name the shcolar instead of writing "some scholars...".Bless sins 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My point was not whether he is notable or not, but that he is just one person and that there are more influential Muslim scholars than him. Are his views representative? If so, they may be sourced to other Muslim scholars. If not, we should give more spce to the dominant view. At the moment, the reader receives no information on which view is prevalent among Muslim scholars. Beit Or 10:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look for more "influential Muslim scholars" such as Maududi etc. Feel free to add the opinions of any other "influential Muslim scholars" that you come across.Bless sins 18:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious assertion sourced to Ibn Ishaq

The article claims with reference to Ibn Ishaq that "Traditional Muslim sources view these episodes as a violation of the Constitution of Medina." However, Ibn Ishaq says something entirely different: "Asim b. Umar b. Qatada said that the B. Qaynuqa were the first of the Jews to break their agreement with the apostle and to go to war, between Badr and Uhud..." A claim made by one non-notable man (a grandson of a companion of Muhammad) is extrapolated to all traditional Muslim sources. Beit Or 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

the whole narrative of Banu Qaynuqa is related by the same individual, which is apparent when you refer to Tabari (SUNY pubs). ITAQALLAH 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance at Ibn Ishaq reveals that at least one part of the story is told by Ibn Ishaq's father. Anyway, you didn't address my argument. Beit Or 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Asim b. Umar b. Qatada provides the vast majority of information on this episode it seems. i'm not quite certain what you are arguing against. i don't see any significant discrepancy between what the narrator says and what the article says.if it's the narrator, i don't believe we are in a position to decide which narrators are notable and which aren't.. ITAQALLAH 17:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)]

Do you really want us to start relying significantly on Ibn Hisham in articles? Arrow740 19:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

? that's not Beit Or's objection. ITAQALLAH 19:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

...to which you didn't respond. Beit Or 22:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

you may wish to refer to my previous response again. i stated: "i'm not quite certain what you are arguing against." ITAQALLAH 22:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I was pretty explicit. Per Ibn Ishaq, Asim ibn Umar ibn Qatada says that the Banu Qaynuqa were the first to go to war with Muhammad. The article transforms this into "Traditional Muslim sources view these episodes as a violation of the Constitution of Medina." The gap between Asim and all traditional Muslim sources is enourmous. Whether the story originates entirely with him (it doesn't) is irrelevant, because according to the source given, this is Asim's own, personal view. I don't find it inconceivable that Muslim sources claim the Qaynuqa violated the Constitution of Medina. However, this is not supported by the cited source. Beit Or 22:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

<reset>1) the narrative of Asim mentions the breaking of the agreement (i.e. the Constitution of Medina) by Qaynuqa; 2) can we conclude that it is Asim's personal view? certainly not according to Ibn Ishaq, who merely attributes the statement to Asim. 3) Asim's statement has been represented in Ibn Ishaq and Tabari. of course, they may not endorse Asim's statement (esp. in the case of Tabari); however, as i pointed out earlier, almost all of the narrative relating to these events is seemingly based upon the words of Asim b. Umar b. Qatada, including the interecession of Ibn Ubayy and Muhammad's reported irritation (which has been cited to Guillame's translation and assumedly Stillman's translation of the same passage). assuming that you want the attribution to "traditional Muslim sources" scaled down to Asim himself (correct me if i'm wrong on that assumption), would you also agree to employ the same attribution to other aspects of the narratives resting upon the words of Asim? in the meantime, i will look through other Islamic works of sira which should be sufficient as representation of "traditional Muslim sources." ITAQALLAH 18:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Analysis

What Beit Or added[2] is basically analysis of facts (or alleged facts). actualy, we can even call this "speculation". I don't really have a problem when notable scholars add analysis. But others shouldn't either. For example if I add Maududi's analysis to an article it shoudln't be attacked and removed.Bless sins 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The additions are a good example of a situation when analysis done by modern historians is relevant and topical: it presents a counterweight to the Muslim version of the events. Beit Or 07:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not attacking your additions rather your apparent double standards. You add analysis or speuclations form non-Muslim scholars (which is all well and good), but you remove analysis and specualtions from Muslim scholars.Bless sins 15:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What you call "analysis and specualtions from Muslim scholars" are in fact a POV rehashing of the material already covered in the article in a NPOV manner. Beit Or 15:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything in the article covered on Banu Qurayza's weapons, possibly to aid Quraysh? If there is please point me to it. Also, the analysis you have added is also POV. NPOV states that we present all notable POVs fairly.Bless sins 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or also added: "Donner argues that Muhammad turned against the Qaynuqa because as artisans and traders, the latter were in close contact with Meccan merchants against whom Muhammad had already commenced hostilities". I'm pretty sure that violates the Constitution of Medina, which included the boycott of Quraysh. Let me check.Bless sins 23:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution of Medina was a later document. Ibn Hisham's version of it is not accurate. There is no consensus among historians as to when it was written. You can read all about the debate at the talk page for Muhammad as a diplomat. Arrow740 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly it would have violated it, and is an excellent illustration of why it is so extremely unlikely that they should ever have agreed to such a one-sided arrangement: they'd have been putting themselves into war and out of work.Proabivouac 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740 reverted my edits and re-added "...Meccan merchants against whom Muhammad had already commenced hostilities". If this is indeed Donner's view, then I'll find plently of scholars who outright disagree with him. It is well-established that the Quraysh began persecuting Muslims, tortured them, trying to exterminate them, attacked Medina etc. Muhammad didn't "commence hositilities" with the Quraysh as Donner would have us believe.Bless sins 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Commenced hostilities" is not the same as "was the first to commence hostilities"; it does not furthermore imply aggression, even though it was certainly Muhammad who started war against the Quraysh by raiding their caravans. Beit Or 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "commence" means to start. Actually, I am looking for scholars who suggest that the Quraysh commenced hostilities agianst Muhammad. Should I find them, it will be clear that the view you have presented is of a tiny minority.Bless sins 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

per request

"Modern historians, however, do not find credence in these narratives" - makes perfect sense. it means that they do not find the narratives to be credible, or that they don't accept them as accurate. furthermore, and it goes without saying, what it replaced was totally misleading. Beit Or, if you have no further qualms, i request you self rv. ITAQALLAH 19:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"To find credence" makes no sense in English; one should say "to give/attach credence". The more important issue, though, is that it's not what historians mean. They do not necessarily discount these stories as later inventions; they only point out that the reason for Muhammad's attack on the Qaynuqa was not a silly episode with the shopkeeper, but something more substantial. Beit Or 19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

the sources (barring Peters who seems to simply say the surrounding events are unknown) deny that this particular episode was the catalyst. the underlying theme of the report however points to Jewish opposition/disruption, which is what Wensinck (and i assume others) affirms. thus, though the specific report may not be considered credible, the general reason remains the same. the current version implies that some other reason was at hand. ITAQALLAH 19:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What if it were to be changed from "true reason" to "primary reason?"Proabivouac 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, you have completely misconstrued the cited works. It's difficult to attach a common theme to the writings of cited historians except that they reject the shopkeeper story as the true casue of the expulsion of the Qaynuqa. Jewish "disruption", as you have put it, is your own, personal view. Beit Or 19:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wensick quite clearly states that the Jews had adopted a contentious attitude towards Muhammad. the report i refer to is the one of the goldsmith. it is far more appropriate to focus on what the scholars say about the narrative (i.e. they don't accept that specific event as the cause of expulsion) than address Muhammad's "true reason" for attacking Qaynuqa. ITAQALLAH 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of the cited analyses is to present different views on what this true reason was. Just rejecting the goldsmith story is not enough: a historian must suggest something else in its stead. Beit Or

the analyses are not what is disputed, it is how they are characterised. the sentence implies the academic assignment of an alternative motivation for the attack (which is not entirely accurate), as opposed to a rejection of the specific scenario related by some of the sources. Wensinck for one finds no other motive than what is generally given by the original sources i.e. the Qaynuqans' opposition. replacing "true reasons for" with 'exact scenario surrounding' (or circumstances instead of scenario) would fix this somewhat. ITAQALLAH 20:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, your revision contains the same error of implying an alternative motivation for Muhammad. i see nothing wrong with my proposed alternative: when scholars are unsure of the cicumstances surrounding Muhammad's attack on Qaynuqa, that's exactly what we say. ITAQALLAH 13:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Stating that Muhammad may have had a motive, different from the one accepted by traditional Muslim biogrpahies is not an error, but a reasonable and cited opinion. Beit Or 15:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

it may be so, but a number of the sources provided in the article do not suggest this at all, such as Wensinck. the general motive remains the same; that is, the Qaynuqans were perceived as contentious. ITAQALLAH 18:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Muslim sources say that the Qaynuqa violated the Constitution of Medina. Academic historians beg to differ. Point me to at least one historian who says that some violation occurred or that the Qaynuqa declared war on Muhammad. Beit Or 19:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Point me to at least one historian..." Shibli Nomani and Mubarakpuri says that the violation occured and their resposne was a declaration of war. Bless sins 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For NPOV reasons, we differentiate between academic historians and Muslim scholars. Beit Or 08:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

whether Banu Qaynuqa did or didn't break the constitution is irrelevant. what is relevant is the notion that Muhammad at the very least perceived it to be broken, which i am sure is a significant opinion amongst academics. ITAQALLAH 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive comment to all users reading: please don't make the bigotted argument that just becuase Nomani and Mubarakpuri are Muslim scholars, they aren't reliable. Also don't make the argument that just because the University of Medina (where Mubarakpuri is a researcher) is a Muslim University its scholars aren't considered reliable. Bless sins 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other editors of bigotry, especially preemptively. This is a violation of both WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Beit Or 08:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I din't accuse any user of making a bigotted comment. I neither specified a name nor an edit. My edit was to all users reading this page. In fact you are accusing me of accusing others of bigotry.Bless sins 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The "bigotry" about which you complain is enshrined in WP:RS, which states that religious sources (of any religion, not just Islam) must be treated with caution. The issue isn't whether a scholar or university happens to be a Muslim, but whether the work is religious in nature.Proabivouac 08:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Caution doesn't mean not included at all. How is al-Mubarakpuri's work "religious" in nature? I admit it is "religious" because the because the book talks about the Prophet Muhammad, who is in the category of religion. Also, al "Mubarakpuri" is a scholar on religion (inparticular Islam). But how is he a "religious" source? He is neither the Pope, nor an Ayotallah.Bless sins 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

re [3], the reason for mentioning Stillman is to attribute the claim that ibn Ubayy was called a munafiq "for this interference" (emphasis mine). ITAQALLAH 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"...do not find in these events the exact circumstances surrounding Muhammad's attack " is better than saying "underlying reason". This is because the discussion is mainly about the events not about resons.

• F.E. Peters, talks about the "precise circumstances of the alleged violation of the Constitution of Medina"
• Donner also puts light on the Qaynuqa's relations with Meccan merchants and Muhammad's war with them.
• Weinsinck views the episodes surrounding the expulsion "as having no more than anecdotal value" He writes about the Jewish attitudes towards Muhammad, and places soem emphasis on Badr.
• Norman Stillman also puts his views on Battle of Badr.

Thus it is reasonable to use the words "exact circumstances surrounding Muhammad's attack", as that is truer to the arguments and more NPOV.Bless sins 04:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "exact circumstances" will lead the reader to conclude that historians find Ibn Ishaq's account of the expulsion as unhistorical, which is not the case. Where they depart from the Muslim account is in in the causes of the expulsion. For one thing, they discount the importance of the goldsmith incident and find no support in sources for the Muslim claim that the Qaynuqa violated the Constitution of Medina. Beit Or 07:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Weinsinck views the episodes cited by the Muslim historians, like the story of the Jewish goldsmith, as having no more than anecdotal value". Really, Wiensjick is giving little or no historical value to the Muslim sources that suggest the goldsmith incident happened. Also, Norman Stillman is only emphasising the fact that this happened after Badr, and commenting no more on the underlying reason. All these historians are doing is protraying Muhammad's actions in a different context.Bless sins 13:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• no, for the subject of the sentence is "these events", meaning the narratives of the goldsmith encounter that are described in the encounter preceding it. the sentence is rather clear:"Modern historians, however, do not find in these events [i.e. the preceding narrative] the exact circumstances surrounding Muhammad's attack on the Qaynuqa", and this is quite a precise reflection of the succeeding discussion. there is no implication that historians totally dismiss Ibn Ishaq's account on this matter. however, i have changed "surrounding" to "preceding" to make things clearer. ITAQALLAH 13:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "preceding" didn't make the sentence any less misleading. The arguments of historians focus on the interpretations of the events rather than the events per se. Beit Or 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

the historians reject the significance of these specific events (not necessarily the historicity) in Muhammad's attack on Medina, if i understand your argument correctly. thus, "these events", by which we mean the Jewish goldsmith events and others like it, do not contribute to the "exact circumstances surrounding Muhammad's attack on Medina." i see nothing misleading there. ITAQALLAH 16:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Historians primarily question the motive, not these events preceding the attack" - this is yet another example of an ill-informed edit summary. historians say nothing about the motive. what Peters says sums it up, that the "precise circumstances of the alleged violation of the Constitution of Medina" are simply unspecified and as such unknown. perhaps Arrow should actually read the text which he continues to revert. it is the circumstances the historians dispute, the motive remains the same. ITAQALLAH 01:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is another example of a poorly-written jibe. My edit summary was perfectly well-informed, I know just why I reverted. Your analysis that Peters "sums it up" is your opinion, nothing more. "... the motive remains the same." Obviously, the motive cannot change. What is in dispute is the opinion of historians on the historicity of the "justifications" for the expulsion and the motives for the expulsion. What is most relevant here is that they primarily dispute the motives for the expulsion found in the hagiography. Arrow740 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

try reading the passages again. they say nothing about Muhammad's motives. the motive is the same, as Wensinck correctly relates. the Qaynuqans et. al posed an active threat, and so were fought against. the exact circumstances, meaning the actual events leading up to the invasion, is what is disputed - as shown by Peters and Wensinck. ITAQALLAH 02:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Doutbless

Bless sins, your partial quote reads: "...Muhammad regarded that as casus belli, and collected a force to beseige the clan. There were doubtless some negotiations..." Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be on Google books, so I cannot check the context. It would be nice if, as on Banu Qurayza, you would share the entire passage. Judging from this excerpt alone, I do not believe it is justified to rephrase this as, "It was certain, according to Watt, that the siege must have been preceded by some sort of negotiations." While it's true that "doubtless" has the same "literal" import as "It is certain," in practice the latter is far stronger than the former, which in context suggests inference rather then verified truth.Proabivouac 22:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we can replace "it is certain" with "doubtless". this may seem to be a bad excuse, but I'm out of touch with the main library (not all libraries have Watt) I use, right now for a number of personal and physical reasons. This is why I didn't immediately provide you the "al-Halabi" quote supporting Maududi. this'll have to wait. But if you can't find it on google books how will the entire passage help? Bless sins 23:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It might throw some light upon the intended strength or basis for his inference. "There were doubtless some negotiations, as might be expected to occur before an attack," would be useless, while "There were doubtless some negotiations, as so-and-so was sent to their compound a week prior," would be quite substantial and deserving of a more specific treatment.Proabivouac 00:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. But in any case, the quote would not be useless. Watt opines there there were negotiations. His opinions are no less scholarly than those alredy presented by Beit Or and others.Bless sins 03:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are at least two problems with Watt's passage as it is currently used. First, it is not fully clear whether negotiations, according to Watt, preceded the siege. Secondly, if they did, then Watt may have referred to the dialogue between Muhammad and the Jews in the market place, which is quoted in the article verbatim from Ibn Ishaq. In this case, the reference to Watt is a redundancy. Beit Or 12:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Good points. We need the whole passage quoted here.Proabivouac 08:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The passage reads "There were doubtless some negotiations, but no record has been preserved".Bless sins 20:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hypocrite in Muslim tradition

The words "In the Muslim tradition" are absolutely necessary in the sentence about Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy being chracterized as a hypocrite. A munafiq is a Muslim term; it makes no sense outside the Muslim tradition. Watt may not say so outright, but he clearly implies that, and Stillman, for example, does add these words. Scholars do not qualify every statement by saying it's only true from the Muslim viewpoint. For example, EoI and many other works on Islam call Muhammad "the Prophet"; however, it would be totally wrong to infer that scholars indeed believe Muhammad was a prophet. Beit Or 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

reasonable point. however, it assumes that the title may have come from later historians and not when he was alive. ITAQALLAH 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Watt's quote

Beit Or, would you please explain why you removed Watt's view here [4]? Watt says Muhammad was insisting that the Qaynuqa must leave but was prepared to be linient about other conditions (not that they should be killed). --Aminz 21:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What does "lenient (yes, spell this word correctly, please) about other conditions" mean? That's a completely inane phrase. Beit Or 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I can not be sure what exactly Watt meant but it can include the details of what they can carry with themselves, when they have to leave, etc etc. Watt's main point is that Ibn Ubay tried to convince Muhammad that the presense of Qaynuna and their military power can help Medina against Mecca. But Muhammad was insisting that they must leave but he wasn't insisting on other details. --Aminz 21:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If even you're unsure what Watt meant, then please leave him alone. Parsing through elliptical quotes is a complete waste of Wikipedians' time. Beit Or 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure of what Watt says. I am not sure of what Watt doesn't say and has in his mind. --Aminz 21:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, could you please quote the relevant text from Ibn Ishaq regarding "Although Muhammad was initially irritated with ibn Ubayy and tried to put him off, but ultimately yielded to Abdullah's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa." --Aminz 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a summary of their conversation on the relevant page. Please read it yourself, it's too long to type. Beit Or 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks --Aminz 21:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I read it. The text is not clear as to what Muhammad wanted to do, only that Ibn Ubay were asking Muhammad to treat them mercifully. --Aminz 03:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am okay with summerizing Ibn Ishaq's quote as long as we keep all the main points: 1. Why Ibn Ubay defended them. 2. Why Muhammad was irritated. 3. How did the story end.

In any case, the interpretations of the text by Cook and Watt should be kept. --Aminz 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, please do not remove the original quote before we have reached a consensus for its summary. --Aminz 20:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Content doesn't match the claimed sources

It was written on this article (before I edited it) that the cause of the invasion was that a muslim woman got her clothes pinned and assaulted by the Jews. And it was stated that the sources were Guillaume 363, Stillman 122, ibn Kathir 2
But "Guillaume" which means Ibn Ishaq's work he translated, doesn't contain anything at all of the aforementioned story on its page 363. You can check it here:
https://archive.org/details/GuillaumeATheLifeOfMuhammad
Instead the page only talk about Muhammad after raiding many tribes, went back to Medina and gathered the jews in their marketplace and started inviting them to islam with threats and bad talks. Which in turn provoked the jews to retort, and a dispute arose, with a verse revealed to Muhammad from God that the jews would be defeated.
This raises my suspicion that the other 2 sources could be false as well. So if anyone insists that the sources are true, they could bring screenshots or photos of the claimed sources to prove the story.

Arief1982 (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There is multiple sources at play here you and the reasons that started the war were not given by ibn ishaq but has been mentioned in other sources and works you cant erase those and ibn ishaqs work hasnt been referenced in that paragraph but has been quoted later. Gulliaume could also mean the translated works of ibn kathir rather than ibn ishaq as it hasnt been clarified.

Even your own source says the prophet muhammed gave them a warning he didnt try to convert them through insults

O Jews, beware lest God brings upon you the vengeance that he brought upon Quraysh and become Muslims. You know that I am a prophet who has been sent - you will find that in your scriptures and God's covenant with you.

Which resulted in the jews getting angry and declaring war as they said they would deat the muskims unlike the quraysh who couldnt

Muhammad, do you think that we are like your people? Do not be deluded by the fact that you met a people with no knowledge of war and that you made good use of your opportunity. By God, if you fight us you will know that we are real men!

Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.18 (talk) 2:39, 22 Aug 2021 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq page 363 clearly talks about the invasion of Banu Qurayza but doesn't have such information.

I found it though in Ibn Kathir Al Sira Al Nabawiya vol. 3 page 3,

https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfTheProphetMuhammad-EnglishTranslationOfIbnKathirsAlSira/TheLifeOfTheProphetMuhammad-EnglishTranslationOfIbnKathirsAlSiraAlNabawiyyaVolume3/page/n13/mode/2up

but the incident happened after Muhammad gathered the jews in their marketplace and started asking them to convert to islam with a threat that they'd be afflicted with what had happened to the Quraysh (being raided by him) if they don't, which in turn provoked the jews to retort, and a dispute erupted. So the chronological order should be switched. And Guillaume 363 should be removed from the reference.::Arief1982 (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

On one hand, it is true, that Ibn Kathir is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Yet, this story of the assault on the Muslim lady is found in secondary sources (this book, page 33). Arief1982, I do not find your edits to be helpful and will revert them. Can you discuss your changes here first?VR _talk 14:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking at your edits more closely your edit is not helpful. Scholarly sources pay considerable attention to Muhammad's caucus belli, or lack thereof. Instead you seem to be inserting long quotes from the Qur'an and other WP:PRIMARY sources, which seems to be WP:UNDUE because these long quotes are not given much coverage in secondary sources.VR _talk 14:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems you're not following. Maybe because of my bad English. But this English wiki is also often read in my country so it's quite a problem.

I deleted it before because the story doesn't exist on page 363 of Ibn Ishaq {translated by Guillaume} which is used as one of the sources for the claimed Muslim woman got molested information, "Guillaume 363".

And at that time, the other source [ibn Kathir 2] is too vague to me since Ibn Kathir wrote a lot of books, with many volumes each.

But a user, Nil Einne told me that it's Ibn Kathir Al-Sira Al-Nabawiya vol.3 page.2, and I found it. But rather than being molested, the Muslim woman was more being teased, and the chronological order is different.

https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfTheProphetMuhammad-EnglishTranslationOfIbnKathirsAlSira/TheLifeOfTheProphetMuhammad-EnglishTranslationOfIbnKathirsAlSiraAlNabawiyyaVolume3

All the sources however is said to goes down to Ibn Ishaq, but some said that he was quite problematic, even the IP user that I talked to above used that reason to revert my edit before you.

However, one clear thing is, in one of the two most trusted collections of hadith, which is Sahih Muslim, Muhammad had already stated his intention, that he wanted to expel all the non-muslims out of Arabia.

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1767

So that must be the actual cause.

Arief1982 (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Verification required

I have removed these https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qaynuqa&diff=prev&oldid=1250326624 contents because the words used in them like 'slaughter' haven't appeared anywhere in the cited sources. There should be a proper verification and quotation of text before the reinstatement of these contents. I highly doubt if this content is supported by the cited source because the language used in that content is very unencyclopedic/unwikipedic Hu741f4 (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)