Talk:Banu Qurayza/Archive 3

Attempted fresh start

I will let bygones by bygones and not comment on things I found objectionable above and instead try to refocus that on the topic, restating my proposal.

As you well know I have moved the weapons reference to another place, where I think it is more neutrally informative. I know perfectly well that the weapons were counted after the end of the siege but if they had many after it they also had many before that (and my version states no more - the exact figures are given as of the time of the seizing by the Muslims). Chances of gaining weapons during a siege are few.

The advantage of my posting is that we could include a short reference to the weapons in the passages dealing with the view that the BQ were traitors. (Otherwise, we would have to deal with weapons we hadn't yet mentioned.)

This would end the endless debates about the quality of Maududi's claims as the overall accusation is clearly notable and therefore already included.

So what do other think? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that if we include weapons in the beginning of the battle, then Maududi/Mubarakpuri's view can stay? Otherwise, I don't think I understand your proposal.Bless sins 00:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stop calling it the "Maududi/Mubarakpuri" view? I've read Mubarakpuri, and it does not second Maududi's claim that the weapons were intended to aid the Quraysh. You can say it's not inconsistent with it, and that the tone is similarly condemnational, but that doesn't make it the "Maududi/Mubarakpuri" view.Proabivouac 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then please interpret "Maududi/Mubarakpuri's view" as "Maududi's view, and Mubarakpuri's view".Bless sins 00:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Seen on its own, the Maududi view is neither scholarly enough or notable enough. However, when we put it in its proper place - the widely held view about the BQ's treason - it becomes clear that Maududi just went one step further. It might unfounded speculation but at least it is not illogical (though I can hardly see it as something that the BQ could be blamed for additionally), when seen this perspective. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You are giving me a yes and no answer. I and afraid I don't understand your "proposal". You are clearly comprimising fair representation of the sources by placing the quote earlier. However, you be justified if we gain something from that. How are we going to present Maududi's view and Mubarakpuri's view? Can you be more specific.Bless sins 03:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, I am not "clearly comprimising fair representation" as Heck is not about the end of the battlesiege but about the number of weapons around at the time. For Maududi see below. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

On a seperate note: please take a look at User:Bless sins/notes under "Maududi". I have compiled a list of sources comment on Maududi's scholarship and notability throughout the Muslim world.Bless sins 00:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have taken a look and must say that it doesn't confirm what you claim. There is hardly any talk about Maududi's qualities as a historian, but the quotes address his influence on current Islamic thought and politics.

Scholarship? Here is the Maududi quote in all its splendor:

"When the Muslims entered their strongholds they found that the treacherous people had collected 1,500 swords, 300 coats of mail, 2,000 spears and 1,500 shields in order to join the war. If Allah's succour had not reached the Muslims, all this military equipment would have been used to attack Madinah from the rear right at the time when the polytheists were making preparations for a general assault on the Muslims after crossing the Trench. After this disclosure there remained no doubt that the decision of Hadrat Sad concerning those people was absolutely correct."[1]

Oh, no doubt. Perhaps my favorite line (among many) is, "...the anti Islamic Jewish mind prevailed over every moral consideration and the Bani Quraizah were persuaded to break the treaty." If Maududi's speculations are worthy of inclusion, why should this not also be included? It would constitute a very important insight upon the reasons for the conflict, were there any basis for it.

If, as you say, Muslims around the world revere his scholarship, that is their mistake which we're obliged not to repeat.Proabivouac 01:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What a joke. Arrow740 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"If, as you say, Muslims around the world revere his scholarship". Why are you saying that? I have already shown you how Maududi is revered as scholar. It is no longer my opinion but that of all the other scholars who have praised him. Also, in wikipedia, scholars don't make a "mistake". What they say is considered worthy of inclusion. Thus we are obliged to repeat what the scholars say. Please argue from a standpoint of whether something is verifiable, not whether it is the truth. Bless sins 03:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I guees sooner or later WP policies and guidelines have to be reworded to take all these silly ideas into account. First we are told that we are no allowed to think but merely have to parrot "sources", now we are told that "scholars" never make mistakes. Never ever. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I direct you once again to WP:RS, particularly the sections on Religion/Partisan and, ahem, extremist sources. I dont' mean to be difficult, but sources which state things such as "the anti Islamic Jewish mind prevailed over every moral consideration..." may not be taken seriously as academics. What research do you suppose underlies that statement? I believe the answer would be none. Everyone has their biases, but Maududi is unapologetically partisan at every turn. I reiterate that we must be willing to include historically significant Islamic beliefs on the ground of notability, as the article currently does in good measure, but Maududi alone does not suffice in this regard. I want to see a geniune tradition, not just Maududi carelessly mouthing off.Proabivouac 04:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see what Maududi has said. But what about those who say that the Quran is "laced with anti-Jewish pronouncements" and anti-Jewish declarations? Are they not "extremists"? Or is it somehow okay to accuse 20% of mankind of antiSemitism but not okay call one tribe of 700 men as "anti-Islamic"? Bless sins 04:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Being fairly familiar with the Qur'an (albeit in translation,) I believe the difference would be that one can point to specific passages in a book which support that finding, and as a matter of historical fact have been used to justify persecution, while Maududi's charges against the Jews are mere projection, and blatantly racist at that. There is no such thing as a "Jewish mind," anti-Islamic or otherwise. As for 20% of mankind, they didn't collectively write the Qur'an, did they? Muslims are people who believe in some version of Islam; they are not equivalent to the religion itself, much less its central text, which has only one author, not 1+ billon authors. I am constantly astonished that people fail to distinguish between the dignity of human beings and the validity of the ideas to which they subscribe (in most instances, quite inconsistently.) I don't believe ideas have rights, actually, except the right to be discussed, debated where they are debatable, promoted when they serve us and discarded when they're no longer of use. Even were Islam utterly false in every respect (an extreme position, but for the sake of argument,) Muslims would still have the right not to be collectively denigrated as human beings, a consideration Maududi doesn't extend to Jews, whom he clearly despises.Proabivouac 08:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Maududi's charges are against the Banu Qurayza, not all the Jews in the world. Thus they are not racist. It is common to refer to the Banu Qurayza as "the Jews". "Jewish mind" simply means the attitude of Jews. Remember what you are reading is a translation, and Maududi's Urdu metaphors will not mean the same thing when translated in English.

One of the things about mainstream Islam (medieval or modern) is that it has never produced a racist movement. It is has produced terrorists, extremists, dictators, but never racists. Any Jew who converts to Islam is as good as a Muslim. There is nothing inherently/biologically bad about Jews. Infact, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Saul, etc. are all revered in Islam. the Jews are only criticized for rejecting thier own religion.

20% of the mankind hold the Quran - to the last verse - to be true. IF the Quran is "antiSemitic", then so are these one billion people who agree 100% with the Quran. To say that these 1 billion people are antiSemitic, is clealry an extremist position.Bless sins 16:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tell me that hunting down blacks in Africa and selling them as slaves had nothing to do with racism? Or the disregard of the arly Muslim rulers for non-Arab Muslims that fuelled the Shia?

"The Jews are only criticized for rejecting thier own religion.", that religion being Islam of course, hahaha. Okay, it is not specifically antisemitism but it is anti-judaism and of course a bit rich, to steal them their prophets. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes please point me to one prominent medieval Sunni scholar (Ghazali, ibn Hanbal etc.) who says that "hunting down blacks" is legetimate while "hunting down whites" isn't. Point me to a scholar that says "non-Arab Muslims" are inferior to Arab Muslims. Go ahead.Bless sins 22:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I second that, though I wouldn't put it as utiliaristic as that. Ideas that are not of use but true should not be discarded. Truth matters. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In wikipedia, it is not the truth but verifiability that matters.Bless sins 16:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sapere aude! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid if that is what Maududi is saying (leaving aside the racist comments), my proposal falls apart, as it is clearly and merely speculation, void of any information except that the BQ were traitors (a question of fact) and deserved the massacre. (a question of opinion)

• "When the Muslims entered their strongholds they found that the treacherous people had collected 1,500 swords, 300 coats of mail, 2,000 spears and 1,500 shields in order to join the war." merely tells that they had weapons and where treacherous.
• "If Allah's succour had not reached the Muslims, all this military equipment would have been used to attack Madinah from the rear right at the time when the polytheists were making preparations for a general assault on the Muslims after crossing the Trench." is an unprovable speculation. Not illogal but void of any new information.
• "After this disclosure there remained no doubt that the decision of Hadrat Sad concerning those people was absolutely correct." is merely a justification of the massacre.

OTOH, Maududi confirms the earlier placement of "the quote" (it is actually not a quote) at the start of the siege of Jathrib, for how else would they have been able to assist the Quraish.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; the quote fits better in the earler part of the article. The quote from Maududi confirms that he, like Mubarakpuri, has engaged in counterfactual history, i.e. speculations of what would have happened if it were not for the grace of Allah, who sowed discord in the hearts of infidels. I must further point out that those editors, including BS, who insted on including Maududi consistently misconstrued his writings by claiming that Maududi speculated that those weapons were specifically intended to aid the Quraysh and for no other purpose. Maududi never wrote anything like that, though. Beit Or 13:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing about putting the quote before is: we don't know if the Qurayza had weapons at that time! All our sources suggest that the Qurayza had weapons by the edn of the battle.Bless sins 16:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Maududi clearly states "[the Banu Qurayza] had collected ... in order to join the war". If you want we can replace "aid the Quraysh" with "in order to join the war". But it's really the same thing. Bless sins 16:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re your first reply: yes, we do know that. Please clearly state when they were supposed to have acquired the weapons?

Re your second reply: "in order to join the war" tells us nothing more than that they would have used the weapons they had in their possession. The accusation of treachery is already included. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Gene Heck source clearly says that Muslims found the wepaons at the end of the Battle. Which source says that before the Quraysh, Nadir, Ghatafan etc. attacked, the Qurayza had thier weapons??

"in order to join the war" tells an English speaking person that the intention ("in order to") was to "join the war", whether directly or indirectly.Bless sins 22:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, Heck says that the Muslims captured the weapons then, not that they weren't there before. Common sense tells us that they had weapons. Answer my question. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Heck says the weapons were there at the end of the battle, hence Muslims captured them. So does Maududi. Where did they obtain the weapons? We don't know. But they got it from somewhere as there were weapons when Muslims entered thier forts. When did they get thier weapons? We don't know that as well. But again, they got their weapons sometime before the seige and their surrender.

All we know is that, by the time the Qurayza surrendered, they had weapons.Bless sins 23:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Heck says

"Local metal-working output appears to have been substantial. Upon the Muslims' subjugation of the banu Qurayzah in 5/626, for instance, the victorious troops reportedly seized 1,500 swords, 2,000 lances, 300 suits of armor, and 500 shields. Three thousand lances are also said to have been employed in the battle of Hunayn in 8/630, an encounter wherein, the chroniclers claim, Muhammad armed his troops for battle with two hundred suits of armor provided by Safwan b. Umayyah.[86]."

He talks about the weapons situation in general and gives two examples.

He does not specify (and probabyl there are no sources) when the BQ got all these weapons (that they had weapons is anyway a given, stop pretending it's otherwise: everyone had weapons in that day).

Common sense tells us that they did not aquire these weapons during the siege of Jathrib (also called Battle of the Trench) and certainly not during their own siege. That is not enough to positively state anything. But it is also not enough to reject the placement I introduced. You can prefer another placement but that is nothing more than a preference.

That the second part of my plan didn't work out is not my fault, as Maududi doesn't say what you want him to say. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, one thing is clear, like you said, your "proposal falls apart".

Secondly, Heck says, "Upon the Muslims' subjugation of the banu Qurayzah...". Thus the weapons were found after the surrender of the tribe. Please don't say "common sense tells us...", especially since your sense isn't "common". We don't whether they acquired the weapons before the battle or during it. Both are equally likely.

Thirdly, I have already said that Maududi states that the Qurayza accumulated weapons "in order to join the war". Maududi does say that they had thier weapons in order to aid the Quraysh, who were at war with Muslims.

Fourthly, about you bolding all your replies...never mind.Bless sins 15:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Re your "secondly". Stop creating straw men. Yes, the Muslims found the weapons at that point in time. I agree. It doesn't say that they collected them at that time. I have stated my common sense observation (and at least I believe my sense to be sensible and not merely common) but have not made it the basis of anything in the article. But you cannot argue from Heck that the the reference must be placed later.

Re your "Thirdly" - you have said but that but that doesn't make it true.

Re your "Fourthly" - who began with massive bolding? Eik benek, eik blavek. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

2. So if we don't knwo whether the banu qurayza had the weapons at the beginning of the battle or not, why put it there. The article should be arranged in chronological order, which means we must mention the weapons after the "Muslims' subjugation" (Heck) of the tribe. You really have no argument for mentioning them before do you? Your proposal, like you said, has fallen apart.

3. If you really insist we can change "aid the Quraysh" with "in order to join the war [against Muslims]" (which Maududi says). Then there will be no accusation of misrepresentation of sources. It is also clear (from Maududi's passage) that the Qurayza wanted to join the war from Quryash's side, against the Muslims. Thus "against Muslims" would, although not be what Maududi said, but would clealry represent his view.

4. Can you also please use common English words. I am sorry, but I don't understand what"Eik benek, eik blavek" and "Sapere aude" mean.Bless sins 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

2.I placed it there because it talks about the tools the BQ gave for the digging of the ditch. We also could place it anywhere else. But I think it fits there. And if you really argue for a chronological order (which we cannot totally adhere too, but let's assume we could) we couldn't place it at the end of the siege of the BQ as they didn't acquire but lost the weapons there.

3. Repeating what you said before will not convince anyone.

4. I am using mostly common English words. If you want to complain do so to your fellow Muslims with their tafsirs and what not. But to enlighten you: look up Sapere aude. "Eik Benek ..." is a phrase from the fictional language of Syldavian as found in Tintin. I do not blame you for not knowing this. I do blame you for acting as you do. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

2. But that's exactly what we are saying. The quote said, before you removed it, that the weapons were seized by Muslims ("...the Muslims reportedly seized large numbers..."). No one even talks about when they got them.

3. What's your argument exactly? That I'm misrepresenting Maududi ("as Maududi doesn't say what you want him to say")? And stating Maududi verbatim (word for word), which is my suggestion, will also misrepresent Maududi?

4. "fictional language of Syldavian as found in Tintin". Once again we go off topic... "I do blame you for acting as you do". No personal attacks please.Bless sins 19:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

<reset>1) can we tone down the boldface please guys? 2) the mention of the weapons is appropriate when they were discovered. when these weapons were acquired by the Qurayzans is irrelevant, and quite frankly unknown. the rationale for including them where Str proposed is rather flimsy, and certainly not sound. Maududi and Mubarakpuri (among others, according to Bless sins) should certainly be represented here. Proabivouac, i have explained previously why Mubarakpuri is opining similar to Maududi (i don't believe you have responded to it, correct me if otherwise). ITAQALLAH 20:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The detailed recounting of weapons is out of place where you suggest to put it. For no good reason, it will interrupt the narrative on the fate of the Qurayza during and after the siege. Beit Or 20:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Facts never disrupt, they only enlighten us. But perhaps we could move Maududi's opinions elsewhere. It all depends on what the final arrangement looks like.Bless sins 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As Itaqallah may surely tell you, we are talking about something else here. Beit Or 20:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

in what way is it out of place? it relates directly to the Muslim attack on Qaynuqa. ITAQALLAH 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it just tells us another fact about the Qurayza. Basic facts about them belong to other parts of the article. Beit Or 20:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maududi and Mubarakpuri are partisan, extreme sources and can only be used as sources for their own activities. Arrow740 19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

they are legitimate resources for presenting the views of Muslims and Islamic scholars. your assertion remains baseless. ITAQALLAH 20:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of other Muslim biographies of Muhammad. Many scholars who wrote them have much higher standing than the M&M, especially Mubarakpuri. Thus the case for including these two men at the expense of others must be very strong, but so far none has been presented. Beit Or 20:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We are not arguing that Maududi must be included "at the expense of others". If there are other scholars that talk about the weapons, by all means include them. Bless sins 20:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Two things: the boldening was a temporary measure.

Before we proceed, I want to ask everyone the question: are we agreed that the BQ always had had weapons - 10, 20, 200 years before Muhammad - and this any doubt can only be about the number? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely, that they had weapons is beyond any reasonable doubt. They had even fought in several wars before Muhammad arrived. Beit Or 20:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, Mubarakpuri has an exceptionally high standing in the Islamic world, and this particular work of his is one of the most popular Muslim biographies of Muhammad today. Str, that's not particularly relevant here. Muslims seized the stockpile of weapons from Banu Qurayza. that's a fact. that's not, however, an inherent implication of guilt on the part of Banu Qurayza. it is only considered so by numerous Muslim scholars, and that's what we are trying to represent here. ITAQALLAH 20:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not commenting on the supposed standing of Mubarakpuri, I want to say that I am asking the basic question because I have become anxious that not all share this basic fact. It might not be particularly relevant in the end, but still. I agree with you about the "implication of guilt". However, a) Maududi uses it that way, b) avoiding such implicit POV pushing is ONE of the reasons for my alternative placement. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

They probably had weapons before the battle, but ofcourse we need a source to show that. Also, we don't know how many weapons they had. I mean two swords shared by the entire tribe also constitutes of "weapons" albiet in trivial amounts.Bless sins 21:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless, do you really want to deny this basic fact on the basis that there is no reference (and BTW, Heck is quite close). By "had weapons" I mean that most adult males had some kind of weapon. Please restate whether you really want to deny this? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Mubarakpuri has an exceptionally high standing in the Islamic world, and this particular work of his is one of the most popular Muslim biographies of Muhammad today" similar statements hold for Bucaille and his book. Arrow740 01:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, even if I say I accept this, you still need a reference to put this in the article, else it is OR. I'll say what I think is likely, since I don't know for sure: the Qurayza probably had some sort of weapons, we neither know what or how many. "most adult males had some kind of weapon", no doubt, a dagger or hunting instrument also counts as a weapon that they probably had. Can I please know where you are going with this? Perhaps then I can give you a clearer response. Bless sins 13:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Where are you going with this?" Apparently nowhere. I hoped that we could at least agree on this one basic fact but you still say no. In this case I don't see how we can hope any positive contribution to this article (and note I never aimed at including this positively in the article). ::::::::::::Still, others have not commented yet. What do they say? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean why discuss things that have no bearing on the dispute? So far, you haven't showed me how this could possibly bring our disputes towards an end.Bless sins 16:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, why discuss things with you further. You cannot discuss higher mathematics with someone denying the law of Commutativity. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"why discuss things with you further..." because this dispute needs to be solved. Please show me how discussing the weapons of Qurayza before teh battle will bring this dispute close to an end.Bless sins 16:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion seems pretty pointless. You keep repeating the same claims over and over again, and you seem determined to do so until you have it your way. Beit Or 07:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, in case you have forgotten we still have a dispute here. Just because you are going "nowhere" with the previous question you posed, doesn't mean teh original question has been answered.Bless sins 05:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

All your questions were answered many times by several users, but you keep asking them. Beit Or 07:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless, I have not asked for a discussion of whether the BQ had weapons before the battle but only for your acceptance of that simple fact. Since you feel unable to do that I don't see how a discussion could lead to any positive results. Furthermore, Beit is right: I and other have answered your questions again and again. You still haven't replied to the presentation I made at your request. Frankly, I don't care if you do. But if you don't, don't lecture others on how there is still a dispute going on. Because, frankly you are not contributing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Say I accept that "fact". What next? Let's not get the discussion trumped over small things, that in the end won't be in the article unless there is a source for them. "You still haven't replied to the presentation I made at your request". You have made many presentations. Are you referring to the one made on 19:32, 4 February 2007? If you are do you still want me to respond? "I don't care if you do" what does that mean as regards to your position on this dispute?Bless sins 21:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless, if you accept that fact we will at least base our discussion on reality. Where will it lead? I don't know. I do not plan discussions beforehand, calculating an outcome. What I was talking about is indeed my presentation posted on 19:32, 4 February 2007. Is the question relevant here - only in so far we discuss the same questions. What is relevant is your way of handling discussions. You do what you call "requesting" (bordering on pestering other editors) but than you don't care about it at all. "I don't care if you do" - you can take it or leave and if you have nothing to say (as you seem to) don't bother. But then you shouldn't turn around and "request" something else. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have posted my response to your lengthy post on 19:32, 4 February 2007, here. By the length of it, it seems that this is basically the entire argument against Maududi (give or take a few smaller arguments). I am optimistic that my response to your post 19:32 should help solve the dispute.Bless sins 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I will move it over here and reply accordingly. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the issue of Maudidi was solved way back. There was accusations of forgery against him because Ibn Ishaq doesn't say what Muslims found. Maududi has spent much time studying early Islam and Qur'anic exegesis. The exegesis of the Qur'an requires studying the "occasions of revelations"(meaning early Islam). So, his views are notable to be presented. Even if one believes his views are "biased", "false", ... etc etc they represent "a" Muslim POV. When we write "Muslim scholar X says Y", we have already made it appropriate for addition.

Muslim scholars were traditionally the Islamic historians as well. Now, we have some non-Muslims who have started studying history of Islam with whatever "anti-bias", or "biases" they might have. They call themselves "historians" and exclude others. These are just words. As far as the policies of wikipedia are concerned, both views could be mentioned. Wikipedia is supposed to just report whatever notable and expert people say, not to choose and decide the true pieces of information and represent them. --Aminz 23:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that Maududi's offhand swipe at the Banu Qurayza is particularly notable. As before, if someone can show that there is a significant tradition to this effect in Islamic scholarship, then of course it should be included as such.Proabivouac 23:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, when we quote a university professor, do we always check if his views are notable in academia? Do we have an easy way to do so? --Aminz 23:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac: If a scholar says something we geneally accept it. Ofcourse, it is better that a scholar's views are reviewed by other scholars. Maududi's multi-volume Towards understanding the Quran, has been entirely acclaimed by many scholarly sources, as I have show Str1977. Ofcourse, it is difficult to find a second source for every single a statement in a 7 volume work.Bless sins 00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Maududi again

Str1977, please respond below this argument. Firstly who are you referring to here "main problem with you and your friends". Who are my friends? Realize that banned user Patchouli used to accuse others of "working for the Islamic republic".

1. No but if a person is a scholar in XYZ, then it follows that his work about XYZ is also scholarly. Do you agree with that much?

1.1. See the list above under "1.1".

1.2. This is covered in 2.3.

2.1. I'll repeat. This is only for unscholarly sources. BTW, "father of terrorism" is not the same as unqualified and self proclaimed scholar, which is what you need to show to discredit him.

2.2. Maududi (as far as I know) is not a scholar on near East history. But he is a scholar on Islam and Quran, and above all a writer of a scholarly tafsir. Do you agree? See 2.3 when you do.

2.3. "once he steps beyond his expertise". I agree. But I am not saying Maududi is a scholar on history in general. However, Maududi is an expert on Muahmmad's life. Like I mentioned before Asbab al-nuzul, meaning "occasions/circumstances of revelation", is a branch of tafsir. All exegetes are experts in this, and need to be expert in this in order to write a good tafsir (which Maududi has written). And this makes perfect sense, if you think about it. One can't comment on the Quran without knowing what Muhammad was going through. The Quran and Muhammad's life are very deeply weaved togethor - you can't seperate the two and still expect them to make sense.

Look, I'm not even asking you to accept Maududi's statements as facts. I'm just saying to accept Maududi's opinion (that the Qurayza intended to aid the Quraysh) as notable analysis, and put it into the article on that basis. This is not different from other scholarly analysis (or "speculations") we have in articles such as Banu Qaynuqa, Battle of Khaybar etc.Bless sins 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:Verifiability are bieng phased out as official policies. The new core policies are WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. NPOV states "all significant published points of view are to be presented". ATT states "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

Maududi and his book pass this criteria with flying colors. I think its time to end the dispute now.Bless sins 21:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite accurate to say that WP:RS is being phased out, as WP:ATT currently states very prominently, "Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources."' This element of the guideline (which may still be found at WP:Reliable sources,) at least, is now policy.

Also from WP:ATT: "Some sources pose special difficulties: A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves."Proabivouac 09:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am turning this into a new section as it as nothing to do with the "fresh start" above.

Bless focuses on the issue of RS, but he ignores one thing ... or rather misread it, when he says that all POVs are to be presented. That is true and actually that is what we are already doing. The view that the weapons were to be used against Muhammad is, though not explicitely stated, already present in the article, as the view that the BQ were planning treachery is included (so much for Bless' "that the Qurayza intended to aid the Quraysh" - we long ago included this interpretation and personally I even agree with this allegation to be factual, though I can relate to the reflections of the BQ). I have no objection, from the perspective of POV, accuracy, undue weight against the inclusion of a note about the weapons in the place that talks about the treachery. My only objection is a stylistic one, as this is really hitting home a triviality (that the BQ would have used the weapons they had for whatever they had in mind, including treachery) and hence would be redundant.

As for the numered points above, these are mostly repetitions of statements already addressed. Moving it down here makes it difficult to reply. Just this: yes, Maududi is a scholar for this and not for that. That was my point. Maududi is an exegete and yes, he is supposed to know about circumstances of suras, as the Quran doesn't provide a context for the suras as e.g. the Gospels do for sayings of Jesus. However, I don't think that this makes him a historian or that he is in the position to critically examine the veracity of the traditions. And that is fine and dandy, as such an examination is not required for his exegetical purposes. For his purposes, the guilt of the BQ is clear, as Gabriel confirmed it and drove Muhammad to laying siege to the tribe. Okay for exegesis but not for history and this article is about the BQ and their history and not about Quranic exegesis.

In any case, the view that the BQ were traitors is prominently included in a NPOV manner. Why push for more? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Str, except that I object to using the word "traitors". It's hardly a treason to seek outisde help against a usurper who violated his own Constitution of Medina multiple times. Beit Or 11:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to make this perfectly clear (I was thinking of including a disclaimer regarding this but then thought I needn't bother): when I wrote BQ as traitors/treacherous I was "in shorthand" referring to that view and interpretation of historical events. I never wanted to suggest putting such statements as facts into the article. However, I think it is technically treason to seek outside help - treason towards (and I note this as important) the city of Jathrib and not simply to M. That M. broke the agreement (the historical reality behind the later Constitution of Medina) himself - and there is a case for this - is one thing but two wrongs don't make it right. We may relate to the BQ's motivations or even justify their actions (or we don't) but that doesn't change the fact that treason is treason.

I repeatedly voiced my personal view on this (which is not really important for the article, therefore the smallprint) that the BQ cooperated with M. for a long time, despite his actions against the Qaynuqa and the Nadir but then were persuaded by the exiled Nadir chief to an agreement that indeed was treason to (and I note this as important) the city of Jathrib and not simply to M. I think they were uneasy about this but were won over in the end, but the course of events never made any action possible. I also note that M. through his moles encouraged the treachery. I do not condone treachery but I can also understand the BQ's motives. And though M. was "legally entitled" to inflict a massacre, given that they had surrendered unconditionally, I think that the massacre tells us something about him in this situation. It is understandable from a 7th century Arab (though massacres were not common at that time) but not from a man of God. I do not want to debate this (here) as it does not pertain to the article in the least. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Str1977 (11:09, 26 February 2007):

"The view that the weapons were to be used against Muhammad is, though not explicitely stated".

Yes I am including the view explicitly. When we say that the Qurayza comitted treachery, we have to provide readers with greater explanation. If wikipedia is a quality source, it will not only present a perspective but also present the reason that perspective is asserted. For example consider the islam and antisemitism article.

"I have no objection, from the perspective of POV, accuracy, undue weight...My only objection is a stylistic one,"

That is itself a trivial reason to continue debate that has taken up thousands of words. Wiki strongly enforces "POV, accuracy, undue weight", but not style.

"However, I don't think that this makes him a historian or that he is in the position to critically examine the veracity of the traditions."

A person cant claim to be a "historian" of Middle east military history, without any knowlege of Islam and jihad. Ofcourse, that doesn't make the historian a theologian, but such a historian is considered an RS on general principles of how Islam and jihad were practised by Muslims.

Similarly Maududi is not a historian, save the history related to Muhammad's life as a prophet (only about 23 years). You must understand: Islam BY DEFINITION is the teachings and actions of Muhammad. The two fields (1. Muhammad's life, and 2. Islam) are unseperable!

"In any case, the view that the BQ were traitors is prominently included in a NPOV manner. Why push for more?"

The object (of many editors) is to show that Islam is an antiSemitic religion. This object can easily be achieved in one sentence: Islam is antiSemitic. But that would be unencyclopedic, no one would come to wikipedia to just read that. Instead reasons must be provided, arguments must be presented and attributed to the schoalrs who make them.Bless sins 20:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless,

"That is itself a trivial reason ..."

But that's not our debate. I said I don't object, except for style, against a a note about the weapons in the current two paragraphs about the treachery. To be clear, this would read: "but decided to support the Meccans with their arms" Anything more I do object for the stated reasons of NPOV and undue weight. Apart from that, it is you who is continuing this debate.

I am not claiming that one can be a historian of that period without knowledge of Islam. Maududi is an expert on Islamic tradition and that's it. He is not a historian and you cannot simply turn him into one.

"The object (of many editors) is to show that Islam is an antiSemitic religion." Whose object is this? It is not mine and I don't care about those who want to show this. BTW, we already have two paragraphs entirely about the alleged BQ treachery. And no, Maududi doesn't provide any reason, neither does the inclusion of a reference to the weapons.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think that the label "Antisemitic" is the best one. Obviously there are anti-Jewish statements in the Quran, and the Jews of Arabia were treated like objects. Arrow740 21:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have misunderstood what you are advocating. Just to repeat, the problem was whether the follwoing statement shoudl exist or not.

"Upon entering the strongholds of Banu Qurayza, the Muslims reportedly seized large numbers of weaponry (1,500 swords, 2,000 lances, 300 suits of armor, and 500 shields). Maududi and al-Mubarakpuri speculate that these were intended to aid the Quraysh against the Muslims."

There was also a (smaller) problem with the location where this should be placed. Do you agree to the above statement? (If you do then that's teh end of this debate).

BTW, did you feel my comment about Islam and antiSemitism was directed towrds you? It wasn't. If you did I apologize.Bless sins 02:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Allright, Bless, apology accepted. In fact, I didn't think you were addressing me but I also didn't know how that related to our problem.

As for the statemtent, no I don't accept it in this way. The numbers of weaponry - given by Heck as general information about the BQ - I think better included in another spot. A reference about the speculation can be included (and this I stated above) in the passage dealing with the (alleged) treachery, as Maududi and Mubarakpuri are simply fleshing out the treachery allegation. I have stated my opinion on that above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 02:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So please show here excatly how you want the info to be presented.Bless sins 03:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless, I think I have already stated my views on this. I wouldn't include this at all. "but decided to support the Meccans with their arms" reads clumsy and can include M & M only in the note. In any case, maybe you can come up with a solution. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming you want the following "Upon entering the strongholds of Banu Qurayza, the Muslims reportedly seized large numbers of weaponry (1,500 swords, 2,000 lances, 300 suits of armor, and 500 shields). During the Battle of the trench the Qurayza decided to support the Meccans with their arms".

Also, I think we should attribute this to the appropriate scholar(s).Bless sins 04:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, I really wnat to get this dispute over with. it has been several days and you haven't responded. Can you please visit the page more frequently?Bless sins 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless, my watchlist is long and substantive posts on this page unfortunately not very frequent. Now, as for your next to last post: No, that is exactly not what I want. That is what you want. What I want is nothing, but what I suggest as a compromise would be a short note referring to the speculation, e.g. "Ka'b was, according to Al-Waqidi's account, initially reluctant to break the contract and argued that Muhammad never broke any contract with them or exposed them to any shame, but decided to support the Meccans with their arms < ref > Maududi, Nectar < / ref > after Huyayy had promised ..."

Now, I know this looks awkward but this is all we can do.

However, I personally would also allow another alternative (but I am pessimistic about the others). We once had a reference to Watt's speculation that the BQ were lacking the opportunity. This was removed [2] but if we could restore it, we could include your references with that sentence, e.g. "Watt however opines that they were lacking the opportunity to act< r e f n a m e = "CambrWatt" / > Maudui (...) and al-M, Nectar (..) concur and place emphasis on the weapons of the BQ < r e f />

As I said, I am pessimistic, but let's see. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I continue to reject the notion that Maududi's random speculation has any relevance here, while Mubarakpuri's quip is vacuous. Let us stick to respectable academic scholars, shall we?Proabivouac 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To Proabivouac: I have stated to you numerous times how Maududi is a respected scholar (maybe not by you, but definetly by scholars). Take a look at this to refresh your memory. A similar argumen hold for Mubarakpuri, who works at the Uniesity of Medina in a relevent field.Bless sins 13:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can play around with your alternative (the second one). I think the key here is to seperate the facts from opinions.Bless sins 13:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We need no secondary sources retelling Ibn Ishaq in their own words when the article quotes Ibn Ishaq directly. This applies to Watt, Mubarakpuri, Maududi etc. Beit Or 14:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I for my part never had a problem with that if the speculation is accurately labeled as such. I still have my doubts about Maududi and the Nectar but Watt is good enough for me to include (though I increasily stumble across errors and much-to-quick judgments by him). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I would like to seperate the facts from the opinions. This means we keep the opinions/specualtions, but state them as such.Bless sins 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I intend as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK so soon I'll create some sort of temporary page on my user space where we can fiddle around with the text in question.Bless sins 22:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt

I copied and pasted the sections in question here. I am proposing that the sections should look like this. What do you think?Bless sins 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have looked through it and see no reason to oppose it. Of course, there are minor tweaks I would make, mostly in the areas of style and wording. I would have preferred to include the number of weapons earlier but I can live with that as well. What do others think? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

e.g. "According to the Qurayza did not commit any act overtly hostile to Muhammad" is incomplete and should remain in the main text. "Muslim scholars justified the treatment of the Banu Qurayza with reference" does not belong among "scholarly views", as this is a religious issue of ethical judgement on the whole event, not one of scholarly research. - So maybe it is better to reintegrate the scholarly (and other) views back into the text, where the passage intro can classify them better. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The opinion of Muslim scholars is definetly scholarly, but it must be attributed as such. NPOV reuqires us to represent all notable scholarly views. I have added the statements disputed here as well. Tell me what you think of their placement. Also, not e th article isn't protected anymore, so we best resolve the dispute ASAP.Bless sins 13:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Blesssins, I expressed myself ambiguously: Muslims (scholars or not) might justify the massacre with reference to this and that. They might also base their justification on scholarly findings. However, the justification is not scholarly (neither is the condemnation), unless we were talking in the academic field of ethics. They are giving a moral judgment on a certain act by certain people. That's not scholarship. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please point to the specific Muslim scholar, whose work you believe is not scholarship? Or are you suggesting that all Muslim scholars can't be used?Bless sins 22:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read my statement above. Considerations whether a certain action is justified or not is a moral-ethical question. If you can provide someone from the field of ethics, a scholar in ethics, then his or her observations would be scholarly. Anything else is just a moral observation which is no better or worse than mine or yours. Don't get me wrong: that's good enough - we shouldn't make moral considerations into a scholarly enterprise, but neither should we claim a scholarly quality for these considerations. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. But the object of that sentence is not justify or unjustify something, but rather to show the Muslim perspective on something very crucial in the early history of Islam. For example many articles have sections called "legacy" or "use in popular culture" etc. Basically the object is to show how the Banu Qurayza appear in Islamic ethics/law.Bless sins 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But that does not belong under "scholarly views", regardless of whether the people quoted are scholars or not. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand. If the people quoted are scholars, then their views would belong under a section called "scholarly views", right? We can change the name to "Contemporary perspectives" if that makes you more comfortable.Bless sins 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We are going around in circles. No, just because scholars have a view don't make it scholarly. Scholarly view are the result of scholarship, which is scholarly work. The justification of the massacre is not scholarship unless we are talking about scholars specialising in ethics. (Did I type this before or am I having a deja vu? That you do not understand is no justification for repeating this over and over again.) Certainly, "Muslims have justified it by sura XY" is not a scholarly view.

Re: contemporary - are these merely contemporary views? How would such a section look like? Would it only contain these (and not also contemporary condemnations of this massacre?) or only Muslim views? How would this look like. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Scholarly view are the result of scholarship, which is scholarly work". But isn't scholarly work something that is written by a scholar? Also we quoting scholars in Islamic studies, thus the massacre may be justified from the point fo view of Islamic ethics, according to some scholars in this field.

"Contemporary perspectives" was just a suggestion I was bouncing off of you. Since you object to calling the views of Islamic scholars "Scholarly views", I thought you would feel more comfortable with a more general title. The section would, essentially, look like what "Scholarly views" look like, containing the views of scholars (not discriminating with respect to religion). We can call it "Historical and modern views" if you'd like, but getting stuck on the title of a section full of WP:RS is a bit silly, don't you think?Bless sins 16:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the first paragraph: No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No!

Something a scholar writes is not per se scholarship. A professor's shopping list is not scholarship. But more seriously: a scholar must write within his field of expertise and actually use the methodology of his field. A metereologist can write about the weather but not about Chinese grammar. So again, I am asking: are these experts in the fields of ethics? Or are they simply scholars who happen to be Muslims who happen to say "Massacring the Jews was okay because the Quran says so"?

So I brough up "contemprory views"? No, you did. I am asking why not leave it as it is right now. The view you want to include is included in the text - what's wrong with that? We need no separate section after all. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

<reset> Then how do you define "scholarship"? Also, these scholars are experts in the field of Islmaic ethics, and perhaps Judeo-Christian ethics (i'll have to look into that). Finally, their views are representative of Muslims throughout history, thus their views are atleast notable enough to be included.

I never said you brought up "contemprory views". However, you did express opposition to the title "scholarly views". Also, you have said (some time ago), that you wish to see a seperation of actual facts from sepculations/analysis of scholars. Are you suggesting that we insert Maududi's view, where it was originally before?Bless sins 17:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Look,

I have clearly stated my objections time and again why "scholarly views" is not something that can include what you like to include.

What you bring up are simply views by some guys. I have seen no credentials that these are scholars in ethics. Maududu certainly is not. (And before you want to implicate Jews and Christians as well ... this is your massacre, we might have our own but this is a Muslim thing.)

A flawed sectioning usually is flawed in itself and cannot be fixed by simply renaming it.

I think the current version, as I last saw it covers these things quite well.

Finally, I don't see how this debate moves forward. Simply repeating the same stuff all over again is not helpful. So either come up with something new or leave it at that. At least, do not post "comment on Another Attempt" on my talk page - if you must, post there what you post here (or a summary) so I can more quickly relate to it.

Thanks very much, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, this whole argument started because you and some others were opposed to including Maududi's views in the article. The last discussion we had was as follows,

I would like to seperate the facts from the opinions. This means we keep the opinions/specualtions, but state them as such.Bless sins 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I intend as well. Str1977 (smile back) 15:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus you were in favor of including the sepculations but keeping them seperate from facts. Now that I proposed something, you are opposed to it. Do you have an alternate proposal? Or should I just insert the views of scholars (e.g. Watt, Maududi etc.) in the "Siege and Execution/Massacre" section?Bless sins 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was and I still am in favour of clearly marking speculations as such if we must include them. I never said they must have a separate section, I never conceded Maududu's hate-filled words to be scholarship. And no, you should not simply insert what your call "the view of scholars", by which you probably mean something like all the BQ were low-life criminals and only had it coming and why because Muhammad only does right and the Quran says so. No way, Jose! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never insulted you or anyone else. Can you refrain from making statements as "Maududu's hate-filled words"? Thanks. Also please don't accuse me of trying to insert "all the BQ were low-life criminals". If you're unsure how to act, review WP:CIVIL.

If you don't accept a seperate section how do you intend on "clearly marking speculations". This argument has gone for far too long. It is time we had it resolved.Bless sins 14:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Arafat

I found this interview which is interesting[3](The interview is with Khalid 'Abdulhadi Yahya Blankenship is an assistant professor in Islamic Studies at Temple University's Department of Religion):

As for the question about the Jews, it relates to the story of the Jews of Banu Qurayzah, an Arabian Jewish tribe of al-Madinah, a varying number of hundreds of whom were said to have been executed, after their surrender in 627, for collaborating with the pagan besiegers of al-Madinah. This story is found only in the Muslim biographical tradition of the Prophet; the Arabian Jews are unknown to the surviving Jewish tradition. The Muslim scholar Walid Arafat wrote an article now available on the Internet that this never took place, and the Indian Muslim writer Barakat Ahmad wrote a whole book, "Muhammad and the Jews," to disprove it.

My own Jewish professor Jere Bacharach said after reading that book, "I am convinced it never happened." On the other hand, M. J. Kister, the dean of Israeli historians at the Hebrew University, wrote an article reaffirming that it must have happened. Although an Israeli, Kister's opinion is not to be taken lightly because of the detailed depth of his scholarship and his lack of bias against the Muslim sources. Indeed, in this case it is interesting to see two Muslim scholars denouncing a Muslim story and a Jewish professor upholding it. There is much more as well to say on this matter, but I will confine myself to this for now. In general, Jews have up until now rather moderately refrained from using the matter of the Banu Qurayzah as a club to beat the Muslims with. This owes to several considerations. One, they have not wished to gratuitously provoke the Muslims. Two, the matter exists entirely in the Muslim tradition which the Jews historically have not used or commented much upon. Three, there has been a claim sometimes that since the Banu Qurayzah were an Arabian tribe and seem to have had a limited consciousness of Rabbinical Judaism, they may have been only Arabian converts and not really Jews.

Although I myself am tempted by Arafat's work to deny the story, or to restrict the executions to seventeen named persons as Ahmad does, I am also leery of doing too much violence to the tradition overall. That is, if this is denied, then what else might be denied in the received tradition? Instead, I would point out that the Bible, specifically the Torah, contains much more violent episodes where whole peoples are justly slaughtered, such as the Egyptians, the Amalekites, the people of Heshbon, and the people of Bashan, yet those texts do not seem to cause a problem for modern practitioners of Judaism and Christianity to be recognized as non-violent. Nor do they seem to delegitimate the status of, for example, Moses as a true recipient of God's revelation.

This is because the Jews and Christians are accorded the right to interpret their own scriptures and other traditions themselves and not be violently confronted with opponents foisting their own hostile interpretation on the followers of those religions. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and the Muslims must be accorded the same right, to speak on their own behalf. The existence of this story does not mean, by the way, that Muslims cannot live in peace with Jews; indeed, for over thirteen centuries until the appearance of modern political problems caused by modern materialist nationalism, followers of the two religions did just that. However, there is a lot of informational work that needs to be done to achieve understanding on both sides of that divide, and with the Christians as well.

--Aminz 03:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We've already discussed Arafat's fringe views and found them not to qualify for includion under WP:NPOV as a tiny minority view. As a compromise, Arafat was put into a footnote. Since you don't respect any compromises, I'm enforcing WP:NPOV and removing Arafat altogether. Beit Or 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We talked about it but you didn't provide any strong argument. It would be a violation of NPOV by removing that because Watt mentions this in his article in EoI; not in footnotes but in the article itself. This interview also shows the notability of this work.--Aminz 20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"you didn't provide any strong argument" That's meaningless. Beit Or 19:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguments

Beit Or: There is no basis for the claim that any expert supports Arafat's reasoning. Aminz seems to argue that someone might agree with Arafat, but there is no evidence of that.

Responses:

1. The work is published in "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland(JRAS)"
2. William Montgomery Watt mentions the view of Arafat in his article in Encyclopedia of Islam, commenting that it is not entirely convincing.
3. 'Abdulhadi Yahya Blankenship is an assistant professor in Islamic Studies at Temple University's Department of Religion says: "My own Jewish professor Jere Bacharach said after reading that book, "I am convinced it never happened." On the other hand, M. J. Kister, the dean of Israeli historians at the Hebrew University, wrote an article reaffirming that it must have happened."
4. Itaqallah's arguments on 02:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Even if it was, so what? BTW, nobody checked this issue of the journal, all references were based on a posting at jews-for-allah.org. This is not an acceptable way of citing material.
2. That's a pretty good argument for not including Arafat.
3. So what?
4. Ditto.

Beit Or 19:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

# The reference can found from elsewhere (e.g. Watt's article). I don't know where you get the idea of "all references were based on a posting at jews-for-allah.org."

# According to our policy "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source"

# It shows the significance of the POV as mentioned by Watt and these scholars.

Arafat first appeared in Muhammad where te only reference for a long time has been a link to jews-for-allah.org. You never checked the journal, did you? Please do not make straw man arguments: the critical problem with Arafat is that the inclusion of a debunked fringe view violates WP:NPOV, not WP:ATT. Beit Or 19:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make straw man arguments nor assume you know what I read. The reference could be also found on Watt's article and elsewhere. --Aminz 01:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

--Aminz 00:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jamal Badawi says [4]: "A scholarly article by W. N. Arafat questions the exaggerated estimate of the number of fighting men who were punished, which is found even in some biographies about the Prophet’s life, like that of Ibn Ishaq. His argument is compelling and well researched." --Aminz 09:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

New addition

<reset> The addition that "This story is found only in the Muslim biographical tradition of the Prophet; the Arabian Jews are unknown to the surviving Jewish tradition." would be useful. This is also used by Arafat in his argument, professor Blankenship states. --Aminz 20:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see a problem mentioning Arafat's view in the article instead of relegating it to a footnote, but only with a single sentence, since the view does appear to be minority. - Merzbow 22:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As I research more, I can find more and more mentions of Arafat's view in the scholarly literature: Hugh Goddard, a Professor of Christian-Muslim Relations says: There has been a considerable amount of recent scholarly discussion concerning Muhammad's treatment of the Jews, and especially concerning the historicity or otherwise of the massacre of Banu Qurayza. See W.N. Arafat "New light on the story of Banu..." p.12 Published by Routledge 1995. --Aminz 03:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Additions

Hi,

Let's discuss the addition of a short summary of the following quote:

quote:

Some Western writers have said, "Sa'd bin Mu'adh gave such a strict verdict because he had been injured by the Bani Qurayza and he was motivated by a need for retaliation." Bt this is a mistaken judgment, for it was not the Qurayza but the Quraysh who had inflicted on Sa'd the wound from which he died. The man whose arrow had struck him was Ibn il-Arqa and he was a man of the Quraysh.

Quote from Hajjah Amina Adil, a Muslim scholar in "Muhammad: The Messenger of Islam" , p.396 --Aminz 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is noteworthy for its reliance on quality sources; let's not ruin that.Proabivouac 09:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Historicity

This article is based on Maghazis and quotes scholars who assume it to be true.

I have found the following quote on Maghazis.

Josef W. Meri says (Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia By Josef W. Meri, p.754, Published 2005, Routledge):

Modern historians such as I.Goldziher, J.Schacht, and J. Wansbrough have rejected the majority of early Islamic traditions as unreliable: They suggest that there are the prejudiced creation of a later generation of believers. More recently, Marsden Jones has exposed the numerious chronological discrepancies that exist in Sira-Maghazi, while P.Crone opines that many of these narratives are the result of a desire to explain Qur'anic verses. As obvious are the paralels to the New Testament stories of miracles performed by Jesus. Nevertheless, scholars such as Montgomery Watt, Alford T. Welch, and H. Motzky continue to insist that these material may be used to extract a basic biography of Muhammad. On the other hand, significant Muslim scholars, such as W. N. Arafat, have objected to the notorious tales concerning the expulsion and execution of the Jews of Medina that form an integral part of the Maghazi as "unislamic".

I think we should start with a section on historicity of the incident and the information we have. --Aminz 03:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just quickly chiming in, as I don't have time: this quote voices the view that the whole of early Islamic history was not as we know it but somehow different. Hence, it is dishonest to use it in this regard. Sure Wansborough thinks that the massacre is a myth but he also thinks the whole tribe and Muhammad are, more or less, myths. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. We can briefly mention all these variations. The point is that the story of Banu Qurayza is not found outside the Muslim sources. --Aminz 07:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

But you cannot use the outright (IMHO unreasonable) rejection of Muslim sources as shown by Wansborough to question this specific event (for this you would need to produce a scholar actually questioning this event in specific ... there is one and we have, if I am not mistaken, included him). Of course, a mere bit saying "Muslim histories report" (not implying a rejection but merely clarifying the attribution) would pose no problem. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

i agree with Str here... i think mentioning that certain scholars reject much of the hadith traditions in this article (i.e. to imply something about the narrative here) possesses a degree of original research. however, as Merzbow said above, it would be pertinent to mention that certain academics have rejected the historicity of particular events in this narrative, such as Arafat, Barakat, and others as mentioned above. ITAQALLAH 02:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I avoided mentioning those minority of scholars. --Aminz 02:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, you can't avoid using these minority scholars by using a supposedly more mainstream scholars that a) are not actually mainstream at all (that we cannot believe a word in Muslim sources is indeed not mainstream) b) do not say what you are trying to have them say: they do not say that the BQ massacre is a legend, they say the whole early Muslim history is legend. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually have only mentioned I.Goldziher, J.Schacht, and J. Wansbrough et all in the footnotes. --Aminz 08:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter when they don't make your case. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused. You convinced me that mentioning the views of these people is not useful because they reject the whole story altogether. So, I only mentioned them in a footnote. Anyways, I am open to suggestions. --Aminz 09:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop cherry picking sources to push you personal point of view. -- Karl Meier 09:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Karl, please quit personal attacks. Thanks --Aminz 09:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, please stop making false accusations and remain WP:Civil please. Thank you. -- Karl Meier 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have any specific concerns about my recent edits that you keep reverting, then please mention them here. -- Karl Meier 10:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is uncivil to accuse others of cherry-picking. --Aminz 10:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of Wiki-lawyering here, could you please respond to my above question? -- Karl Meier 10:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Which question? --Aminz 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Read above. I made a few edit, you reverted them: Why? -- Karl Meier 10:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

<reset> Karl, you started with "I suggest that you stop cherry picking sources to push you personal point of view." not asking explanation for your edits.

I think the article should start with a section on "sources" and their historicity because the rest of the article is written based on those sources and assumption of their reliability. If you could take a look at Muhammad article, you can see that "Sources for Muhammad's life" comes at the top of the article. --Aminz 11:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you ended cherry picking sources to push your personal point of view, that would actually be a great start, and your edits would be much less biased than it is the case now. I would say that it is a highly relevant request. Piecing together information to express just what you want to say and what is you opinion is not acceptable, even though it might be well-referenced. Its against NOR and NPOV. As for your latest section, it is actually more about revisionist and denialist views than about the sources. Perhaps a short section about the sources could be written, and it would indeed be relevant, but on the other hand as it is now, where it is filtered in with denialist opinions it is unacceptable on the top of the article. Having it at the top gives too much (undue) weight to these revisionist and denialist opinions regarding the massacre. -- Karl Meier 11:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree.Proabivouac 11:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, again and again, plz focus of the content of the dispute. I am fed up w/ hearing about mutual accusations. It is really a kindav disruption. I tell you mamma and you tell my mamma! Seriously, does this kind of attitude lead to something? Forget about assuming good faith if everyone think he doing just that BUT discuss the content. I hope it is clear. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

[From FayssalF talk page]

Fayssal, Please take a look at history of Talk:Banu Qurayza here:[5] and the way Karl is arguing. It is all nothing but incivility and throwing accusations instead of arguing. --Aminz 11:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Aminz: Could you please spend your time addressing the concerns that I have raised about giving undue weight to the denialist point of view, instead of constantly wiki-lawyering and asking FayssaIF to block me? -- Karl Meier 11:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to block anyone for a content dispute where no one has disrespected wiki policies. However, if mutual accusations persist i'd be ready to do just that. It is time consuming, bothering and disruptive. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[End]

The chance that Karl would have taken it upon himself to waste your time approaches zero. As you observe, this is a content dispute.Proabivouac 11:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That is clear Pro. Instead, i am pointing out to the mutual accusations here and in many other places. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, while accusations is certainly not a something desirable and can delve into the uncivil, they are not personal attacks, even if the accusation were false. Karl says Aminz is cherry picking sources on this article here and now (and in general and anywhere). Now, if I understand Karl correctly I must say that in this case his complaint fits Aminz' recent edits/comments. If the scholars he refers to make no mention of the BQ and of their demise then they are not relevant sources on this article period. Not in the text, not in footnotes, nowhere.

Guys, while accusations is certainly not a something desirable and can delve into the uncivil, they are not personal attacks, even if the accusation were false. Karl says Aminz is cherry picking sources on this article here and now (and in general and anywhere). Now, if I understand Karl correctly I must say that in this case his complaint fits Aminz' recent

As for Aminz' latest suggestion: a treatment of the problem of Muslim sources is valid endevaour, but it shouldn't be placed into this article, as it pertains a whole lot of other articles. The fitting place would be an article about this whole field which than can be linked from all these articles. And revisionists like Wansborough would find their place in such an article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Str. For the sources on the life of Muhammad, there is a special article on Historicity of Muhammad, as well as a section on sources in Muhammad proper. Beit Or 18:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Str, are you still objecting to a footnote? I don't insist on having that footnote. --Aminz 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to including scholars into an article they have not commented on, no matter where. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I am going to suggest a new proposal. --Aminz 00:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Since some people insist to have the source section at the end of the article, I have come up with a new proposal:

sub-section title: "Historicity of the massacre"
The story of massacre Banu Qurayza is found only in the Muslim biographical traditions and is unknown to the surviving Jewish tradition.
There has been a considerable amount of recent scholarly discussion "concerning the historicity or otherwise of the massacre of Banu Qurayza.", professor Hugh Goddard states. Significant Muslim scholars, such as Walid N. Arafat, reject the historicity of the massacre claiming that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who embellished or manufactured the details of the incident. Historian William Montgomery Watt finds Arafat's arguments "not entirely convincing." but a few historians such as Jere L. Bacharach have found it convincing.

--Aminz 00:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The main issue is not so much the placing but the content of any addition.

The text fine from "(Some) Muslim scholars, such as Walid N. Arafat, reject the historicity ..." onwards, with "Some" replacing significant, as this is certainly not the default position of Muslims scholars. What Barakat says should be in the main text, not in the footnote, as it is a different thought after Arafat's.

The first sentence ("The story of massacre Banu Qurayza is found only ...") is not acceptable, as it wants to imply that the non-historicity and therefore pushes a POV. "The interview is with Khalid ..." is not the proper form of a footnote.

Regarding the second sentence ("There has been a considerable amount of recent scholarly discussion"), I see no evidence that this is the case. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Re: "The text fine from "(Some) Muslim scholars, such as Walid N. Arafat, reject the historicity ..." onwards, with "Some" replacing significant, as this is certainly not the default position of Muslims scholars. What Barakat says should be in the main text, not in the footnote, as it is a different thought after Arafat's. "

The reason I used significant was that historian Josef W. Meri said so: "significant Muslim scholars, such as W. N. Arafat,...". But I am okay with removing that (if he was not significant we wouldn't have mentioned him here). I have not checked with Barakat; his views might be different.

2. Re: The first sentence ("The story of massacre Banu Qurayza is found only ...") is not acceptable, as it wants to imply that the non-historicity and therefore pushes a POV.

The original source says: "This story is found only in the Muslim biographical tradition of the Prophet; the Arabian Jews are unknown to the surviving Jewish tradition."

I suggest the following formulation so that it only reports the bare fact: "Muslim biographical traditions form the sources for the massacre of Banu Qurayza. The surviving Jewish tradition does not contain any historical information on this.

Regarding the footnote, I suggest the following: "Khalid 'Abdulhadi Yahya Blankenship, May 10, 2005"

3. Re:Regarding the second sentence ("There has been a considerable amount of recent scholarly discussion"), I see no evidence that this is the case.

The original source says: "There has been a considerable amount of recent scholarly discussion concerning Muhammad's treatment of the Jews, and especially concerning the historicity or otherwise of the massacre of Banu Qurayza." (quote from historian Hugh Goddard)

I don't know where these discussions have taken place but we have the following evidences for that: 1. Hugh Goddard says that in a WP:RS source 2. Several scholars have given opinion on this. 3. It seems that there is a range of views over this matter which implies existence of scholarly discussion.

Now whether these discussions has reached a "considerable amount", I can not prove but it is best to attribute this sentence to historian Hugh Goddard --Aminz 09:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, first replying to your post above:

1. So we are back again to our (your?) old problem: simply copying sources. We do not do this. The term might be okay in Meri's context (which needn't conform to NPOV). Just because a book says something doesn't mean we should include it as well.

2. The only thing valid in this regard is a disclaimer saying "Muslim sources report ..." or the like. We can also add a note to the earlier passages that Jewish sources don't give any account of the BQ (if that is true, of course). No more. And certainly no "only". I will comment further down on the Khalid footnote.

3. What makes Goddard, whom I estimate to be a voice in such a discussion, an authority to say that there been a "considerable amount of scholarly discussion"? Historians/scholars always discuss, but my problem is making a bold statement that this is somehow the subject of a large debate. We should simply cover the issue (we are doing so by refering to Arafat and Barakat etc.) and not make such grand statements.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, commenting on my recent edit:

I have restored the passage (I hope you will see this as a sign of good will and not use this to re-add the controversial material) but cut it down, removing the introductory stuff about the overall source situation (relevant to early Muslim history in general, not just to this here.)

I have fact tagged the Khalid link (brought into proper form) as this is no properly published interview (and, if simply a representation of one, it gives no proper references). Actually there is no way of knowing from this whether this is accurate. Some comments on that page (slandering Christianity as racist, while making racist comments about an Israeli scholar - yes, in order to use him anyway, but still) make the link dubious to me. Anyway, right now the link is simply: someone sends a message to a website saying that he has talked with that scholar. That's somewhat fishy. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Starting from the last: The website is the personal website of Jude Wanniski. People can comment on these websites (and others like BBC) but only the owner can post material.

I think the pargraph starting from "Later Muslim scholars justified the treatment of the Banu Qurayza with reference to the verses" together with paragraph currently starting with "Some contemporary Muslim scholars" should be placed in a new sub-section.

Similarly, I think the material on historicity should be placed in a new sub-section of the "Banu_Qurayza#Siege_and_massacre" section.

I'll continue discussion regarding point #2 after other points are all addressed. --Aminz 10:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguments (moved over from talk pages)

Hi Str,

As you can see the conclusion of Peters is that:"we must think then that his action was essentially political, that it was prompted by behavior that he read as treasonous and not some transgressions of the law of God."

The point of those Muslims basically is that it was transgressions of the law of God but not God's law in the Qur'an. To show that I added the following arguments:

1. Muhammad called the ruling of Sa'd similar to God's judgment
2. Muhammad often ruled according to the Christian and Jewish scripture when he had received no specific revelation

How do you think is the best to present these information? I agree that it might have not been clear. Thanks. --Aminz 09:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aminz,

As you can see the conclusion of Peters is that:"we must think then that his action was essentially political ...

Sure, I never opposed this point.

How do you think is the best to present these information? I agree that it might have not been clear.

How to best present them?

Point 1 is already included as the narration of Muhammad's reaction. We don't need to include it twice.

Point 2 is not to be included at all as far as it does not concern this particular case. The article is about the BQ, not about Muhammad's rulings in general. Quite apart from the questionable nature of the argument: if it's not in the Quran - fine. But that doesn't mean it is included somewhere else. Sure, we cover these scholars' POV. Present but not endorse. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the first point is already mentioned but here it is used to infer that the judgment was based on Torah. In order to give another example, the article says: "Furthermore, Stillman infers from Abu Lubaba's gesture that Muhammad had decided the fate of the Qurayza even before their surrender"; the gesture is already mentioned but this time Stillman is using it to build his case. And of course we should not endorse it but report it. Similarly, we just report the arguments of the Muslim scholar. --Aminz 10:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO such repitions constitute undue weight, especially when the repeated fact is not elemental to the argument. We needn't repeat the whole argument of these scholars (which in the end would mean reporting five arguments ... we merely report the point. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, Str. The conclusion is too obvious to need being attributed to Stillman. Beit Or 20:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Str, the arguments seem essential. Plesae note that we are explaining the position of critics of this view in detail :"The respective verses of the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:10-18) make no mention of treason, and the Jewish law as it existed at the time and as it is generally understood today applies these Torah verses only to the situation of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, and not to any other period of history."

As you said wikipedia should not take position. The second point "Muhammad often ruled according to the Christian and Jewish scripture when he had received no specific revelation" is not repeated above and we are not using the first point to inform reader about it but to rather use it to infer that the judgment was based on Torah. --Aminz 23:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I still hold to my view that giving those theories so much details constitutes undue weight. And no, we are not giving so much detail for the critics of this position. a) It is considerably less than what you formerly put in for the "Torah angle" and b) the wording is very concise with no word being despensable. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I agree that we should give as much space to the critics of Torah theory as we give to the proponents. The view of critics is the following (~ 2.5 lines): "The respective verses of the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:10-18) make no mention of treason, and the Jewish law as it existed at the time and as it is generally understood today applies these Torah verses only to the situation of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, and not to any other period of history."

I think I can summerize the view of proponents in ~2.25 lines at most or less.

And please take a look at the Proa's talk page where I have provided full quotes from notable Muslim scholars such as Yusuf Ali. There are a lot of details which I have excluded. --Aminz 09:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my new suggestion:

Some Muslim scholars , have argued that the judgement of Sa'd ibn Mua'dh was conducted according to laws of Torah for example by pointing out that Muhammad called the ruling of Sa'd similar to God's judgment and that he often ruled according to the Bible when he had received no specific revelation. The respective verses of the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:10–18) make no mention of treason, and the Jewish law as it existed at the time and as it is generally understood today applies these Torah verses only to the situation of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, and not to any other period of history.

How is that? This is approximately of the same size of the write-up we have now. Half the space is given to critics and half to the proponents.--Aminz 09:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer not to.

Are those really the main arguments for that claim? It must be a sorry sort of claim indeed. That Muhammad ruled according to the Bible is not relevant to this article (and an example of pseudo scholarship) and his comment on the ruling has nothing to do with the Torah either. M. said that God agreed with the verdict, not that it was taken from the Torah (of which Sad probably was just as ignorant). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, according to your quotations Yusuf Ali and Jamal Badawi do not use these crackpot arguments. Not that the overall view has any merit (though as it is widespread it deserves coverage) but these two arguments are even worse. I also agree with Pro's point that since it wasn't Muhammad who judged them but another man (though I think Muhammad knew perfectly well what verdict Sad would give) M's supposed practice in judgement is even more irrelevant. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hajjah Amina Adil, a famous Muslim scholar says those [6]. I agree that we should attribute these to him.

And yes, Sa'd might have not bee aware of Bible but Muhammad said that he had ruled according to God's judgment. I remember another Muslim scholar said something to the effect that: Sa'd judged according to Torah even though he did not know it. Adil is a notable Muslim scholar and I saw him arguing for this. --Aminz 10:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So we do have one voice? Still I would want to read her making these arguments first, maybe there is some merit in there that has been evaporated in the transmission.

However, your second paragraph defies comprehension: someone claims Sad judged according to the Torah without knowing it? That is logically impossible (unless Sad was some preexisting being who had a hand in revealing the Torah to Moses and who has later been incarnated). If Sad did not know the Torah the argument falls apart - any reasonable man wanting to claim a judgement according to the Torah would presume that Sad knew it. Anyway, the judgement is not according to the Torah. Then again, Sad might have had misconceptions about it and applied what he thought was the Torah. But then again, no ancient source makes such a claim - only later scholars make the claim that the verdict reflected the Torah - it is them having misconceptions, not Sad. Of course, we give coverage to their mistaken view, but let's keep it at that and not drift away into fairy land. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

<reset> Here is the full quote of him:

If, God forbid, the unbelievers had won in this conflict, they would doubtlessly have put to death all the Muslims, including women and children, with no consideration of their defenselessness. In fact, when asked to do so, the Holy Prophet often ruled in accordance with previously revealed Holy Scripture, if he recieved no specific revelation. The ruling which Sa'd in Mu'adh gave was in accordance with Torah. The unbelievers consented to this verdict; they found it to be appropriate. When Prophet heard of the verdict which Sa'd had given, he said, "This is the judgment of Allah"

And regarding "someone claims Sad judged according to the Torah without knowing it? That is logically impossible": A Muslim can says it was God's will that Sa'd judges in that way and that the matter proceeds in this way. The prophet later informed that what Sa'd did was in fact in accordance with God's judgment. I can not see any logical problem from the perspective of a Muslim. From the perspective of a non-Muslim, one may say it wasn't based on Torah and if it has been it has been by mere chance. --Aminz 09:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi says:

Since, at that time, no specific punishment had been revealed in the Qur’an about the fate of the Jews, Sa‘ad announced his verdict in accordance with the Torah. As per the Torah, all men were to be put to death; the women and children made slaves and the wealth of the whole nation be distributed among the conquerors.

--Aminz 10:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, the link you provide above says:

"Hajjah Amina Adil is a renowned author, lecturer and spiritual advisor who, for more than forty years, has devoted herself to help people of all walks of life better understand Islam. In addition, she has played a pivotal role in helping Muslim women understand and apply the many distinguishing rights God Almighty set forth for women in the Islamic faith."

So we have "herself", "she", the female name "Amina" and the title "Hajjah" (as opposed to "Hajji") - that makes her female to me. I see nothing in her quote to change my mind, except that she is a hateful, vengeful person. Anyway, the second part: you constantly talk about God's will and judgement, but the issue her is not God's judgement but concurrence with the Torah. Nothing you provided supports this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I see; i looked at the picture. Sorry anyways.

Here is another quote from another Muslim:

It was the Divine Will that the judgment should be left to Sa'd, and it was the Divine Will that moved Sa'd to pronounce the judgment that he did, which was in accordance with Deuteronomy 20.10-14. It was also the Divine Will that this terrible judgment, which the treachery and rebellion of Banu Quraidhah had earned, should not be pronounced by the Holy Prophet himself, but that he should be bound to carry it through to the full. (Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: Seal of the Prophets, p. 186).

My point is not that from the perspective of a Muslim, there can be no theological inconsistency. --Aminz 10:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's break it down into tiny bits:

• Sad gave a particular verdict.
• Either knew the Torah or he didn't. (I see no evidence that he did.)
• If he, either used it or he didn#t. (Again, I see no evidence that he used it.)
• If he used it, he either misquoted it or he didn't. (If he used it, the only possibility would be a misinterpretation, as the Torah does not suport his verdict - that's a fact, not an opinion.)
• Muhammad called the verdict in line with God's call.
• Some scholars later identified the verdict with verses in the Torah.

"... from the perspective of a Muslim, there can be no theological inconsistency."

I don't understand exactly what this means, but I guess you are saying that the Torah must agree with what Muhammad called God's judgement. If that is so, it is the problem of Islam that it claims agreement with earlier revelations that cannot be substantiated or run counter to what the Torah or the Gospels actually say. Muslim theology has "solved" this problem by claiming that these books have been corrupted. But if that were so, the Torah would have been corrupted in Sad's day as well, so Sad would have used a corrupted Torah. But again, there is no evidence in the sources that Sad knew or used the Torah. So what remains is the claim that Sad's judgement coincidentally agrees with the Torah (that's a false claim, as the two obviously do not agree). We also have Muhammad's claim that God agreed with Sad's verdict - a claim that cannot be bsubstantiated until Judgment Day. But it's no basis for supporting the (wrongheaded) notion that there is agreement between the verdict and the Torah.

I really do not understand why you spend so much time on these pseudo-scholars. Muslims or not, one should either agree with Sad and Muhammad and the verdict or disagree. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The most important thing to note about this pseudo-scholarship is that it's quite recent. Early historians, like Ibn Ishaq or al-Waqidi, never heard that Sa'd based his judgment on the Torah. Modern Muslim scholars have, however, miraculously penetrated his mind and determined what he based his judgment on. It is important to note that classical Muslim scholars saw nothing morally wrong in the massacre the Banu Qurayza. Only very recently when killing prisoners of war and dividing their wives became, well, an inconvenient fact in Muhammad's biography, were such justifications invented. Beit Or 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Str1977. Please respond back on the section "Another attempt". IT seems you approved my edits in general but had problems with some details.Bless sins 14:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why Arafat should be mentioned

The source: "Walid Arafat, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland(JRAS)(1976), pp. 100-107."

Quotes from scholars:

Hugh Goddard, a Professor of Christian-Muslim Relations says(cf. p.12 Published by Routledge 1995):

There has been a considerable amount of recent scholarly discussion concerning Muhammad's treatment of the Jews, and especially concerning the historicity or otherwise of the massacre of Banu Qurayza. See W.N. Arafat "New light on the story of Banu..."

Professor Josef W. Meri says (Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia By Josef W. Meri, p.754, Published 2005, Routledge):

"On the other hand, significant Muslim scholars, such as W. N. Arafat, have objected to the notorious tales concerning the expulsion and execution of the Jews of Medina that form an integral part of the Maghazi as "unislamic".

Muslim scholar Jamal Badawi says:

"A scholarly article by W. N. Arafat questions the exaggerated estimate of the number of fighting men who were punished, which is found even in some biographies about the Prophet’s life, like that of Ibn Ishaq. His argument is compelling and well researched."

The official website of Jude Wanniski(please see the article on Wanniski) has an interview with a professor in Islamic Studies, Prof. Blankenship; in the interview Prof. Blankenship says:

"This story is found only in the Muslim biographical tradition of the Prophet; the Arabian Jews are unknown to the surviving Jewish tradition. The Muslim scholar Walid Arafat wrote an article now available on the Internet that this never took place, and the Indian Muslim writer Barakat Ahmad wrote a whole book, "Muhammad and the Jews," to disprove it. My own Jewish professor Jere L. Bacharach said after reading that book, "I am convinced it never happened." On the other hand, M. J. Kister, the dean of Israeli historians at the Hebrew University, wrote an article reaffirming that it must have happened.

Historian William Montgomery Watt says:

"Recently, W. N. Arafat in JRAS[1976], 100-7, has maintained that by no means all the adult males were killed, but his argument is not entirely convincing

--Aminz 23:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is an extreme minority view. Arrow740 23:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's minority-held, but has apparently been widely discussed, which contributes to its notability. We are depriving the reader of important information about this element of scholarly discourse by not even deigning to mention it in the article. Can you compromise on a single sentence? - Merzbow 00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My view is that we should have a short sub-section to Banu_Qurayza#Siege_and_massacre titled Banu_Qurayza#Siege_and_massacre#historicity. And there we explain the view of Arafat in one sentence.--Aminz 00:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The title would indicate that there is a reasonable degree of doubt in the scholarly community. That is false. This is an extreme minority view not held by any important scholars. Arrow740 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So you agree with its inclusion in the first place? --Aminz 00:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it is an extreme minority view, and you don't deny that. Arrow740 04:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is a small minority view. But that doesn't mean it's not notable enough to mention; Watt has explicitly responded to it. A controversial theory held only by one person can certainly be notable enough to mention in an article if it gets attention, like this one has. - Merzbow 05:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Arafat does not have the kind of standing to make that argument. Arrow740 05:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"There has been a considerable amount of recent scholarly discussion concerning Muhammad's treatment of the Jews, and especially concerning the historicity or otherwise of the massacre of Banu Qurayza. See W.N. Arafat "New light on the story of Banu..."

Arrow and Beit Or, please do not remove this pov. --Aminz 05:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We would be doing a disservice by including it. Arrow740 05:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, my time is valuable. --Aminz 05:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why are you spending it here?

I have no objection mentioning the Arafat theory, so long as we accurately characterize it as a minority view, and place it accordingly. However, it's not appropriate to place it at the top of the article, as was attempted earlier. The most recent version pits three voices and unnamed others ("some") against Watt alone, as if Watt were some lone holdout. It goes so far as to mention Bacharach's view via hearsay without even mentioning the view of the source of this hearsay, Blankinship. The "Muslim views" which are so important when people are manufacturing things out of thin air, as in the "judged by the law of the Torah" debate, are suddenly now completely neglected, where acceptance that this occurred is far more prevalent than the stuff about the Torah: the list of prominent Islamic scholars which accept that this occurred would span several pages. So, in short, while I don't object to a brief mention of Arafat's claim along with the fact that it is rejected by almost everyone, I strongly object to the transparent POV-pushing (and edit-warring) which has accompanied its presentation - this at the very same time that we are told that it did happen, but that Sa'ad's judgment was based upon the Jews' own laws.Proabivouac 06:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"I have no objection mentioning the Arafat theory, so long as we accurately characterize it as a minority view, and place it accordingly." - We have already mentioned that this is a minority view and this is confirmed by quoting Watt, Stillman, etc etc in the section.

"The most recent version pits three voices and unnamed others ("some") against Watt alone, as if Watt were some lone holdout." - 1. You missed "While a few scholars like Jere L. Bacharach have accepted this" and I hope that makes it clear 2. We only have Watt giving opinion about Arafat. Should you find other views, you are welcome to add them. 3. We can modify this by saying "for example Montgomery Watt has called..."

"It goes so far as to mention Bacharach's view via hearsay without even mentioning the view of the source of this hearsay, Blankinship."- We can attribute it to Blankinship.

"The "Muslim views" which are so important when people are manufacturing things out of thin air, as in the "judged by the law of the Torah" debate, are suddenly now completely neglected, where acceptance that this occurred is far more prevalent than the stuff about the Torah: the list of prominent Islamic scholars which accept that this occurred would span several pages."- Thanks for sharing your views but please keep them to yourself. The reason I have personally some doubts about the matter is my doubt about Peters's statement. Otherwise, their arguments make sense to me. But as I said, please comment on the relevant discussion. It is unhelpful.

"So, in short, while I don't object to a brief mention of Arafat's claim along with the fact that it is rejected by almost everyone,"- You need a reliable source for that.

"I strongly object to the transparent POV-pushing (and edit-warring) which has accompanied its presentation - this at the very same time that we are told that it did happen, but that Sa'ad's judgment was based upon the Jews' own laws."- Some have concluded from Arafat's work that there is exaggeration in the sources but something did happen. Please avoid the unhelpful and uncivil language of POV-pushing. Thanks

--Aminz 08:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Exactly. Because it is such an extreme minority view, to give it a fair amount of weight would mean quoting extensively from the choir of more mainstream voices opposing this theory. The quotes Aminz has produced only serve to portray this theory as an outlier. Arrow740 06:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What I find most incredible is that this Blankinship fellow was used to bring in Bacharach (without attestation,) but Blankinship's own view was left out, when (if anything) Blankinship's own view should have been cited while leaving the hearsaid Bacharach out of it.Proabivouac 07:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do include his view: Although I myself am tempted by Arafat's work to deny the story, or to restrict the executions to seventeen named persons as Ahmad does, I am also leery of doing too much violence to the tradition overall. That is, if this is denied, then what else might be denied in the received tradition? Instead, I would point out that the Bible, specifically the Torah, contains much more violent episodes where whole peoples are justly slaughtered, such as the Egyptians, the Amalekites, the people of Heshbon, and the people of Bashan, yet those texts do not seem to cause a problem for modern practitioners of Judaism and Christianity to be recognized as non-violent. --Aminz 08:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Minus the off-topic discussion of Judaism, Christianity and the Torah (or is that what you wanted to include?,) it might be okay, except that even this gives Arafat too much weight - instead Blankinship might, if you insist, be footnoted along with others in a sentence observing that Arafat's hypothesis is broadly rejected.Proabivouac 08:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am with Pro's posting on this: include a concise coverage of the view, without POV pushing or quote farming. After all, this article contains this section. I am not comparing the two as they play in two different leagues, but there is a parallel setting off an event against a view that denies it.

Aminz, Blankenship's view could be included (but consider size) but his "your sheep is black too" rhetoric is off topic here (quite apart that his analogy is seriously flawed). Just as a statement that Muhammad cannot be a/the prophet because of the massacre doesn't belong here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (in edit conflict, later edited)

One more issue is attribution: that Arafat et al. take this view is clear, but is the Blankenship interview a proper source (given that it simply appears, without any source) on a private homepage, for including his views, let alone those of others (Bacharach etc.)? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

To Proa..: as long as you find sources for "Arafat's hypothesis is broadly rejected.", you can add it. Watt puts his view as "Arafat's argument is not entirely convincing".

To Str, it is the official website of Jude Wanniski. The interview has an scholarly tone. We can say qualify it with "in an interview with..". --Aminz 09:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"The interview has an scholarly tone." This is the lamest justification I've ever heard. Beit Or 16:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Aminz,

is this change from the "Watt's words are gospel" approach permamently or just peculiar to this issue?

Re the interview: Who did the interview? When? Did Blankenship authorize it? How did it end up on this homepage (and I actually do not care whether it is by Jude Wanniski or Jack Whatshisname). I grant you that I have no internal reasons for thinking it a hoax (if I did I would have removed it already), but I want us to be clear on our standards. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The interview is probably not a hoax, but it's not published in a reliable source, so it doesn't qualify for includion. Personal websites are not reliable sources except under very restricted circumstances and only for the views of their owners. If professors mentioned there, like Bachrach, indeed denied the historicity of the massacre, they had every opportunity to publish there views in scholarly journals. They didn't, probably because such nonsense usually does not get past peer reviews, even under the extremely lax standards of the modern Oriental studies. Beit Or 16:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Arafat published his work in ""Walid Arafat, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland(JRAS)(1976), pp. 100-107."" So is Prof.Hugh Goddard's statement( it is published by Routledge): "There has been a considerable amount of recent scholarly discussion concerning Muhammad's treatment of the Jews, and especially concerning the historicity or otherwise of the massacre of Banu Qurayza. See W.N. Arafat"

I will bring the reliability of the interview to the WP:RS talk page. I think it is the best place to discuss it.--Aminz 22:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Massacre is POV

mas·sa·cre /ˈmæsəkər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mas-uh-ker] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -cred, -cring. –noun 1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder. 2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war. 3. Informal. a crushing defeat, esp. in sports. –verb (used with object) 4. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons. 5. Informal. to defeat decisively, esp. in sports. [Origin: 1575–85; (n.) < MF massacre, n. deriv. of massacrer, OF maçacrer, macecler, prob. < VL *matteūcculāre, v. deriv. of *matteūca mallet (see mashie, mace1); (v.) < MF massacrer]

here

• This is clearly an attempt at POV to refer to the punishment of the Banu Qurayza as a "massacre". I use the word punishment because that's precisely what it was: a punishment for violating their treaty. But "killing" can be a compromise that I am satisfied with. Please see Punishment.--Kirby♥time 21:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is a little loaded, but I honestly am having trouble thinking of any word meaning the slaughter of a large number of defenseless people which is not as bad or worse. I suspect the trouble may lie in the prejudices of contemporary Anglophone cultures, which tend to look negatively upon such instances, for example, the mass killing of civilians at Sabra and Shatila is similarly (and uncontroversially) termed a "massacre" - this is not to say that the Falangists did not have what seemed to them good reasons for what they did.

I'm not certain whether the negativity is in the word itself or in the contrmporary normative framework against which it is evaluated.

"Killing" carries less color, but also less information. If we can find a similarly descriptive word free of perceived value judgements, that would be ideal.

"Punishment" abstracts out all of the specifics, while suggesting that they deserved it.Proabivouac 00:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

how about 'execution'? ITAQALLAH 00:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Massacre is the only term that fits "mass killing of civilians", or "slaughter of a large number of defenseless people". Thats what it is. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Excecution is better in some ways - for example, they were captives, and killed in a methodical manner, which massacre doesn't capture. It does leans somewhat towards "punishment" on the POV scale, as the word is used most often for lawfully convicted criminals - thee dictionary definitions I've had time to check include this notion. However, it's also routinely used for mass killings of captives by irregulars when the speaker does not mean to impute either legality or justification to the act. Here was at least the pretense of a judgement, and it was carried out by a political leader.Proabivouac 02:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Execution usually involves killing for an undisputed crime although we've seen incidents involving Islamic terrorists where the phrase "execution stile" was used. From Wikipedia itself "the deliberate mass killing of prisoners of war, however, is often considered a massacre." - this is what it was. To resolve this dispute, we have to decide what happened, e.g.: were these prisoners of wars? captives? civilians? To me its clear that it was a massacre, even the book used that word. I'm amazed Kirbytime used the word "punishment" and said it was NPOV. Suppose they did violate a treaty. That doesnt justify the massacre of 800 men. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Punishment is certainly POV as it suggest a guilt.

Execution doesn't make sense without saying what was executed (and thus we are back at item 1). Yes, it is used sloppily (such as by the judge in the Saddam Hussein case) but we needn't follow the lowest standards of language.

Massacre mainly denotes that a mass of people were killed. That mass killings have a bad press is another issue, but changing the words doesn't change the fact. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Re "execution," you are of course correct as a matter of history, but in contemporary (American, at least) usage the synonymy of "execute" and "put to death" in this context is well-established and uncontroversial in reasonably formal venues such as law journals, the New York Times, etc.Proabivouac 01:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Massacre is POV because it asserts that the Banu Qurayza were innocent.--Kirby♥time 02:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Massacre doesnt mean that the people have to be innocent. Its mass killing of defenseless people, is it not? Thus, massacre. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

They weren't defenseless. The women and children were defenseless. That's why they weren't punished. The men were a potential threat.--Kirby♥time 03:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So is it never a massacare if a group of men is killed? Where does it say that "massacre" does not apply to males? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're a tribal leader. You get into a dispute with another tribe. You win. Now killing, say, their top 1% or 5% of political and military leaders could be seen as justifiably eliminating a potential threat. Killing every male after taking them prisoner and rendering them helpless is a massacre. - Merzbow 03:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the sources, every single male was a potential threat. Where are your sources?--Kirby♥time 03:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What does the source say? Bring it here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia_of_Islam, as used in the article. Why do you think that the woman who attacked was put to death as well?--Kirby♥time 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to bring your source which says the men were a threat, and in what way they were a threat. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

They were a threat because they tried to kill Muslims. I understand that you don't consider killing Muslims to be a serious threat, but please take into consideration that not everyone follows the belief system of Ali Sina.--Kirby♥time 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina is not relevant here. Bring a RS that says explains why the men were a threat. Your own opinion is not of relevance here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

When did they try to kill Muslims?

In any event, there is nothing contradictory about nullifying a potential threat through a massacre.Proabivouac 04:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. And it wasn't a massacre because they deserved it under the terms of their contract with Muhammad. If they never signed the treaty, I would absolutely consider it to be a massacre. But they are being punished on their own terms.--Kirby♥time 04:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Did the contract say they would be massacred? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the article.--Kirby♥time 04:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You should read it yourself. Its plainly a massacre. I have asked you for proof that the men were a threat, and you failed to bring any. And as Prov said, even if they were a threat, mass killing them is still a masaccare. Now prove they were a threat. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The men had stockpiled a number of weapons. Read the article.Bless sins 01:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Although the Qurayza did not commit any act overtly hostile to Muhammad" - and the weapons were siezed before the massacare. After seizing the weapons, these guys were defenseless, right? Mass killing of defenseless people = Massacre. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, by the logic advanced here, the Qurayza should have been even more justified had they massacred the Muslims, as it cannot even be debated that they were a threat to the Qurayza, and they had "stockpiled" even more weapons. Again proceding from this logic, it would not be properly called a "massacre."Proabivouac 01:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument above. The Muslims had stockpiled weapons to ward of the siege laid by the pagans of Mecca and Khaybar. The Qurayza were not at war with anyone. They didn't even come to the help of the Muslims (like they were required to) and entered negotiation with the pagans on how to defeat Muslims.Bless sins 18:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

But regardless, neither "massacre" nor "punishment" is NPOV. Both "killing" and "execution" seem NPOV to me, as both words imply death, without saying who was right and who was wrong.Bless sins 18:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I do see how "execution" lean towards "punishment". But "punishment" is in response to a violation of morals, while "execution" is in response to the violation of law of the host comunity. While it is hard to say whether the Qurayza were morally wrong, it is easy to say they were wrong form the perspective of Islamic law, hence they were executed.Bless sins 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Islamic law? Since when where the non-Muslim tribe of the BQ required to live by Islamic law? And no: the Islamic Umma was not the host community for the Jewish tribes - it was Muslims that emigrated into Jathrib and gradually took over the city, fully after Muhammad's death (when the Mujahirun refused the Ansar participation in election of a leader from their ranks) *Shakes his dead in bewilderment about getting history so wrong* Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a trivially easy way to solve this guys. What word does the majority of reliable sources on this incident use to describe the killings? - Merzbow 20:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

William Montogmery Watt uses the word "punishment". Nomani uses the terms "end of" and "killing". However, at other location even Watt may use a different word.

For months I have looked into the topic, and found Watt and Nomani to be by far the most detailed and in depth modern scholars on Muhammad's life. Can you name me a secondary source that is more in-depth than either of these men?Bless sins 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I found one source that uses "execute" (Lapidus). I haven't checked what Lewis uses. I would be fine with using the word "execute"; which correctly implies that this was a premeditated killing as punishment for an alleged crime. - Merzbow 23:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then it's settled! Btw, the problem with relying on Lapidus etc. is tht their works do not focus on Muhammad and Banu Qurayza nearly as much as scholars like Watt and Nomani do.Bless sins 23:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, I thought the word in dispute was "massacre", not "beheaded."Proabivouac 23:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree,the dispute here is the usage of the word Massacre. So what word has been used then? I would expect Massacre? I'm sure critics of Islam have used the word Maccacre. These people were defenseless. It was a massacare. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The critics of Islam have also used "monster" to describe Muhammad, and "bully" to describe a Muslim. Shall we move the article "Muslim" to "Bully"? Not to mention that it would require us to move "Islam" to "World's most intolerant relgion".Bless sins 03:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk about irrelvant postings here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins' recent edit inspires me to ask - and not that we must use the same word in all cases - but isn't "beheaded" even more neutral and informative then "execution" (as well as addressing Str1977's objection)? Particularly in the section title, "Siege and execution" is completely ambiguous just as "The Banu Qurayza were excecuted" is not. Adccordingly, I shall the section title (sorry to bring this up only now, I only noticed thee ambiguity upon seeing it.)Proabivouac 04:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Beheaded might be best when necessary to describe the method of execution, but I think execution is most informative, because it implies both that they were killed and why - the how is less important. - Merzbow 04:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Beheaded" is not equivalent to "decapitated;" like "hanged" it refers to a method of excution. Actually, I'm fine with either, and with massacre, which tells us something the others don't, that it was done en masse. "Execution" doesn't work in the section title because it most naturally suggests the execution of the siege.Proabivouac 05:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think massacre to be NPOV. However, if others disagree ...

But if massacre is supposedly pushing an anti-Islamic POV, then "execution" is just as bad.

Any missing reference to the mass charracter might be solved by adding mass in front of killings or beheading. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac/those who favor "beheading" over "execution", can you find some good sources that use this word as either a heading or a general term. The problem with beheading is that it misleads the reader into thinking that what is notable is the method if killing. Yet the incident is not notable because their heads were chopped off (it would hardly make a difference if they were hanged). The incident is notable because the Qurayza were not killed randomly during fighting, but rather systematically after a verdict was prounced upon them. Thus execution conveys the event with more fidelity.Bless sins 22:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Read this section of the talk page again. Arrow740 23:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I can hear cries that "massacre is POV", but no explanations why it's POV. Is the word "massacre" always POV or is it only POV in the context of Jews being massacred by Muhammad? Beit Or 00:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Before deciding what word to use, we have to all first agree on what happened:

American Heritage Dictionary ([7]): The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly.

Dictionary.com: the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.

Dictionary.com: a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.

BlessSins is the only one here right now who is advocating not using Massacre. Kirbytime has been banned, the user who started this whole affair. I see a consensus to use Massacre, unless people prove it was not a massacre. You have to go by definition. Were a large number of people killed? Yes. Were they defenseless? Yes. As the article says: struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. What else is this other than a Massacre? A mass execution is a massacre. This was a mass execution (for those who want to use the word Execution).

If you're saying this was not a massacre, very plainly, you have to prove:

1. Mass number of persons were not killed
2. These people were not defenseless

Again, I see a consensus to maintain the usage of the word Massacare which was always there in the article.

--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside to this discussion, consider this article about an event in which four people were killed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And that article has been approrpiately named "shootings". In any case, reliable sources have used the word "execution" and even "punishment". I intend to go over Watt's works about Muhammad, and see what he has used. I think Watt is the best source, since I don't know of any other western scholar has written a more comprehensive work on Muhammad's life.Bless sins 14:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Its "shootings" because its only 4 people, plus, the article DOES use the word Massacre, even though its only 4 people. When you have 800 people beheaded, thats definitely a massacre. I cant beleive we're even debating on this. I have made an entry here on the list of Massacres. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly those people were beheaded for a crime, as percieved by the Muslim community. Massacres are not as a result of a verdict given by a judge. Yet the death of the Banu Qurayza wsa a result of the verdict given by a judge, hence it can be appropraitely called an execution. What are your reliable sources for the word "massacre"?Bless sins 17:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who said Ibn Warraq is a not a RS. I didnt see any proof from you on that side. Its hard to take any comment from you seriously after you said that. Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide By Bat Yeʼor, Page 37 is one. Here's multiple mentions of the word massacre. 800 men were beheaded on the orders of Muhammad. If Islamist terrorists in Iraq beheaded 800 men, why would you call it something else other than a massacre? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the article is called shooting and massacre for that event is way over the top. Nonetheless, it is used as well. My point was not that we must use massacre here all the time (though it definitely was a real massacre) but to give a comparison to where it is used as well.

Bless, spare your energy. Looking over Saint Watt will not make an impression. We are not bound to parrot sources. Punishment is certainly POV (unless you say that Muha ... not of course not him, only Saad punished the tribe by mas ... ehm, killing them all) as many of those killed did do nothing worthy of punishment. To make that clear again: a) not all killed conspired and fought against the Muslims (who BTW attacked them) b) just because the Muslim community percEIves something as a crime doesn't make it so. Judge? There never was a trial of the Banu Qurayza! He was not a judge but an arbitrator between Muhammad on one side and the Banu Aws on the other side - he gave a verdict on how they should be, yes, punished, but there never was anything like establishing guilt in the first place, let alone individual guilt.

And why execution should be avoided I have stated above.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please post in a straightforward manner (e.g. no "Muha"). When deciding what to put in this article, we shoudl certainly see what relaible sources have written before us. From the arguments presented so far, saying that the events should be called "massacre" is OR, as no source have been brought forth for support. I have provided sources for both "punishment" and "execution". IF you don't have source (more reliable than Watt), then we will use what Watt uses.Bless sins 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For RfC

Original quote: Norman Stillman says:

"Neither blame nor vindication are in order here. We cannot judge the treatment of the Qurayza by present-day moral standards. Their fate was a bitter one, but not unusual according to the harsh rules of war during that period. As Rudi Paret has observed, Muhammad had to be more concerned with adverse public opinion when he had some date palms cut down during the siege of the Nadīr than when on a given day he had some 600 or more Jews put to the sword....The slaughter of adult males and the enslavement of women and children were common practice throughout the ancient world. See, for example, Deut. 20:13-14, where the Israelites are enjoined to mete out such treatment to their enemies See also the famous tragedy of the Melians in Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, trans. Crawley( New York, 1951), p. 337."

--Aminz 10:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Question for RfC: Where should these material be added? Should this be added and if so, where?

I completely agree that we should not impose any value judgments on these events, or for that matter on any events in Muhammad's life.Proabivouac 10:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that without this qulification we always do. That's why Watt, Stillman and others pay attention to this --Aminz 10:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stillmann's overall point though Paret in his quote commits the fallacy of arguing from silence when he compares the massacre with the cutting down palm trees (and forgets that some indeed objected to the massacre but were outmaneuvered by Muhammad).

Nonetheless, the ancient world

a) cannot be classified based on an ancient book like Deuteronomy - Stillman has chosen a bad example (it is not only not informative for the ancient world but it is also incomprehensible why he chose this: it must stem either from enmity towards the Jews or too great an immersion in things Jewish - reading his article it is the latter).

b) does not pertain to the event here: Arabia on the fringe of the Ancient world and on the fringe of Antiquity too - massacres were not common in pre-Islamic Arabia. That was Muhammad's innovation.

The only thing includable in above passage are the first to sentences, attributed to Stillman as an opinion. (Though that's really a truism.)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

a) The passage from Deuteronomy is an example not a proof. BTW, he adds one more example which i'll add.

b) Your source? --Aminz 10:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

a) then why did you include meaningless examples in the first place, if not to push this silly "it's in the Torah" argument. Actually, the justification for the massacre is not in the Torah, it's in the Quran.

b) Source for what? That Muhammad lived in Arabia? That Arabia was on the fringe? That massacres were not fashionable in pre-Islamic Arabia? The first two should be clear, the third consists of two elements: I don't have to prove that negative to you - it is just turning around your claim that massacres were the completely normal thing ... you say in the world, but the relevant place would be Arabia. So were is your source for massacres being a common thing in Arabia before Islam?

As for my source of Muhammad being an innovator here, i don't want to reopen the old Glubb debate (that's where I read it) but since I did not propose to include it into the article I don't feel obliged to debate this further. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Stillman says: "Their fate was a bitter one, but not unusual according to the harsh rules of war during that period." - in other words, such an event was not exceptional. to demonstrate this, he cites Paret who describes how people would have been more concerned with the cutting down of the date palms than with the execution of the BQ men. ITAQALLAH 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So, thanks for telling us again what Aminz already has told us. Only, it doesn't help the discussion in anyway. It is true that Stillmann says that and that Paret says that. Only Aminz quoted a useless example given by Stillmann, and Paret is inaccurate, as there were people concerned about the massacre of the Qurayza. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Paret doesn't say people weren't concerned about Qurayza at all - please consult the extract. your argument, from which i interpret: "I think Stillman and Paret are wrong, and thus their opinion here doesn't merit inclusion", is unsound, and as you surely must know, not based upon encyclopedic policy or guidelines. ITAQALLAH 20:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither is your apparent view that any blurb ever uttered needs to be parroted. I have already stated in how far Stillmann's opinion - actually a truism with which for Christ's sake I agree - is includable. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to show us your sources supporting "massacres were not common in pre-Islamic Arabia. That was Muhammad's innovation." as this clearly goes against Stillman. --Aminz 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this material are best fit for a section on "Moral judgment". This has been addressed by many scholars. Even if we do agree with Stillman that we should not make moral judgment, we can write that in the section. --Aminz 10:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The very last thing we need on this or any other article is a section on "Moral Judgment." This is exactly why I can't stand "Criticism" sections, and "Moral judgment" is that much worse.Proabivouac 10:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The incident is obviously of importance not because of the incident but because of Muhammad's involvment. We have plenty of scholars all addressing the "Moral judgment" issue. Do you have any policy which says we can not have such a section. --Aminz 11:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there some policy somewhere which states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia?Proabivouac 11:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The moral issue is quite simple: 1) are you holding that it is wrong to kill? 2) to kill innocents? 3) and were the BQ innocent?

Questions 1 and 2 are best left to the reader, question 3 is more one of analysis and facts and is already addressed in detail - with no binding conclusion to ensure NPOV.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To Str: No. The moral question is something else; moral question is not objective; it depends on the common sense of the society which changes over time with cultural developments.

To Proab: Please quote policies. This is a matter upon which many academic sources (such as Cambridge history of Islam, etc etc) have commented and I see no reason why this can not be included here. --Aminz 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're completely confused on this. What's moral is whatever Allah's opinion is, and that presumably wouldn't change over time. Arrow740 02:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, get adjusted to reality: morals and ethics deal with the question: "What is good, what is evil" - in this case: Is it good or evil to kill? Is it good or evil to kill for this or that reason? Is it good or evil to kill a tribe? Is it good or evil to kill innocents?

If you cannot come to gribs with reality then at least respect the English language. Until you do should not lecture others about "policies" or "sources". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, AFAIK there are almost no professionals working in ethics (in Europe anyway) who think that the question: "Is it good or evil to kill innocents" can be answered without reference to culture and circumstance. If you are trying to reach some meaningful point on whether M was good or nasty you really have to accept that this question only really ever means "better or nastier than those around at that place and time". The ONLY absolutists I have met are ones who are deeply religious and fairly fundamentalist. --BozMo talk 08:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So what (and I agree neither with your observation nor with it being in any way relevant). These would be includable views if we had such a section. The purpose of such a section could not be to simply absolve M. from guilt, so that is clearly the intention of the proposal. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this has gotten pretty far afield, and I think is illustrative of exactly why we shouldn't be concerning ourselves with value judgments.

For whatever it worth, it will not be difficult for future historians to remark upon any recent event, "Bear in mind, however, that the execution of prisoners/extermination of population/bombing of totally innocent people/[insert alleged outrage here] was hardly uncommon in the twentieth century," and muster a host of obvious examples to illustrate this point, many of which (even taking into account only the past few decades) exceed what is being discussed here by several orders of magnitude.Proabivouac 08:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The main question is whether we should add the above sourced material (or for that matter similar ones in the Cambridge history of Islam) or not. I think we should add what scholars have to say about this because they have talked about this. We ourselves don't make judgments but simply reflect what scholars think. I think we are following WP:ATT on that point ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true.").

This is a controversial issue and the way to address it is simply to address it rather than remove any reference to it because it is controversial. --Aminz 08:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you propose a separate section in the first place?? What Stillmann says is a truism and I don't think we should be adding truisms. Otherwise we would have to flood thousands of articles with the note "remember to judge according to the standards of the time" (which BTW is a view in itself, even though I agree with that). If we included this we also would have to include other views and I can already imagine what would happen then. Let's leave this to the readers. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"...we would have to flood thousands of articles..." Right, exactly. If we really mean to make a section on how this material has been treated in Western biographies, I can see this as potentially encyclopedic and informative, but we need more examples than Muir (and of course long quotes aren't necessary) and the end result will probably not look much like the version which has been proposed. Though I recognize that Muir was added to address my concerns, the problem remains that the section was plainly not originally intended to be a fair review of this subject suggested by the section's title. If one is created, I might well support its inclusion.Proabivouac 22:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, in my last edit, I have made the topic of the subsections to be restricted to the incident. I can not imagine what else could be said about that particular incident. --Aminz 09:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As these debates have become common i just don't understand why both sides haven't learned yet how stuff works here and instead of thinking mainly about NPOV policy, parties engage in discussions that never end. Everybody talks about NPOV including new commers but do we have a clue about it? Moral judgments or criticism are to be avoided. We don't need them as separate sections for an encyclopedia but any article SHOULD be balanced and unbiased:

"Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed... A simple formulation -Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves... By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute..." "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone... "we convert that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates."

1. X killed Y. If the article describes the event as unhuman/common practice and then we have an attribution to a scholar/author who gives more context and cites other scholars/authors as a reference than obviously (as seen above in the policy) WE SHOULD MENTION HIS OPINION.

2. X killed Y. If the article does not describe the event as unhuman/common practice than WE SHOULD NOT CITE any scholar/author as that would be irrelevant and part of original research (WP:SYN).

In other words, you must verify weather the point in question reflects scenario 1 or 2. Please leave your opinions about if scholar/author X has an agenda or not or if s/he was wrong in your closet. That are your opinions. They don't count. That is totally irrelevant. That's original research. Deal w/ the encyclopedic scenarios. Nothing else matters. It sounds like as if you became scholars yourselves!!! In case you believe that it fits scenario 1, bear in mind that when asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions. So if there are other opinions which contradicts Stillman's or John Doe you only have to assert them as well.

Once you agree about if it fits 1 or 2, then it would be time to agree about the formulation. Good luck guys. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal is quite right. Stillman is a very important source in this context and not only but actually desirable to attribute facts to him. Of course, as a skilful historian, he puts facts in context and explains them to a modern readership. This is also valuable. Note that the above text defines an opinion as "a piece of information about which there is some dispute". At the moment there is no dispute about Stillman's characterisation of Muhammad's treatment of the Qurayza. Even if some WP editors think it doesn't make much sense that is not a dispute, a dispute would have to be another historian disagreeing. The statements of another highly reputable historian, Albert Hourani, are entirely compatible with Stillman's view. After a discussion about how and why Muhammad's relations with certain Arab tribes deteriorated, Hourani simply says "Finally, some of the Jewish clans were expelled and others killed" - no further judgement. If there are different views among other historians, then we should include all that we have. I agree with Proabivouac that that should not be in a "criticism" section. Itsmejudith 17:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am not sure if I quite understand Fayssal's point in relation with the dispute. The policy quote basically says:"Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone" - That's what was done here [8] (i.e. attribution to Stillman is done). --Aminz 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why was this diff reverted? [9]? --Aminz 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• You are repeatedly introducing changes which lack consensus and you know that.
• You are using Watt in order to belittle the criticism of the massacre (and it's not just criticism of M's approval)
• You are putting this under a wrong header "In literature", which rightfully belongs to fiction.
• In case you do not realise, your "Muslim theologians and historians" (or is it "biographies of Muhammad" - why can't you at least be consistent) paint a picture of Islam as a murderous highly intolerant movement which offers the alternative: convert or die.
• Your change to the intro has the problem that it highlights the accusation over the fact of the siege, whereas the other version contains both information separately.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. There is no consensus in removing them either.

2. Traditional western scholarship of Islam for most part has aimed either at refuting Islam or imperializing Muslim countries. Watt is commenting on Islam's denigration through this incident in western circles. It is all relevant.

3. Feel free to change the header. I'll propose one.

4. I can not see the relevance of this false statement to the discussion here.

5. Accusation happened before the siege not afterwards. I reworded it to avoid the usage of the word "justified". --Aminz 19:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. We have discussed this and no consensus was reached but there was broad opposition to your proposal. You inserted it anyway knowing about these discussions.

2. Nonsense, already replied to.

3. For your addition number 1 applies. And why should I propose a header when you simply misusing a header already existing? The proper version would simply be the one before your addition.

4. My "false statement" is the clear content of what the Muslims you quote say. You quote them as saying that the BQ refused to convert and hence were rightfully slaughtered. This would mean that the alternatives are conversion or death. This would mean that those proposing that alternative are a bunch of intolerant, murderous thugs. AFAIK, Islam in general leaves open the possibility of subjugation as dhimmis (not a very laudable alternative but better still). Also, the conflict leading to the siege, as you yourself said, was not about the BQ's refusal to convert (though that may be an undercurrent).

5. The accusation did in fact not occur before the siege. The Muslims laid siege to the BQ's quarters and accused them of treachery. "Justified" is a perfectly fitting word IMHO. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, you wrote:

Muhammad's approval of the ruling of Sa'd has provoked much negative criticism and discussion in western biographies of Muhammad. William Montgomery Watt addressing the alleged moral failures of Muhammad in western literature, points out that in this incident, the allegation is not implied by the bare fact. Watt and Stillman state that one should judge Muhammad by the standards of his own time and country. Stillman says that such harsh rules of war was common practice in that period and throughout the ancient world. Watt states that the contemporary criticisms of Muhammad were motivated by superstitious prejudice or fear of the consequences rather than moral issues (in the case of Banu Qurayza, it was at the number and danger of the blood-feuds incurred). According to Rudi Paret, the adverse public opinion was more of a matter of concern for Muhammad in another case when he had some date palms cut down during a siege.

If the viewpoints of critics aren't important enough to present - and I would agree that they are basically irrelevant to this article - how is that they can be important enough to knock down? Good sources, yes, but overtly biased editting. Once again, I see you arguing not with anything stated in the article, but with what you fear the reader might conclude on his/her own. That is already unacceptable, but even if we were to agree that we are here to argue hypothetically unsophisticated readers into a sort of moral relativism - and we certainly shouldn't, any more than we should argue against it - some of this is irrelevant even by that standard: "Watt states that the contemporary criticisms of Muhammad were motivated by superstitious prejudice or fear of the consequences rather than moral issues." Criticism of Muhammad is thataway.
"Your proposal for a "Moral Judgments" section was rightly rejected: do we imagine that entitling it "In Western Studies of Islam?" solves the problem?Proabivouac 08:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no question of "Critics" here. As I said above, traditional western scholarship of Islam for most part has aimed either at refuting Islam or imperializing Muslim countries. I am not talking about the views of "critics" here but a point in traditional western literature on Islam, not just certain critics. This shouldn't be confused with criticism sections. Had traditional western literature praised the incident, I would have added it here. --Aminz 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Esposito says that West tradition has too often villified Muhammad on two points: 1. Muhammad's treatment of Jews 2. His polygynous marriages. --Aminz 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave your cartoonish view of the Western scholarship to your blog. Beit Or 21:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil and comment on the content. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, we've got three people quoted pitted against these "western biographies" who aren't named or allowed to speak for themselves, as they certainly would be had we any real interest in them (As you say, had they praised the incident, you’d have added it here.) No, they are only straw men erected so Watt and Stillman can knock them down.

I do, however, appreciate that the wording of the former introduction had a certain POV feel. I am not certain that your wording is perfect, but we can certainly look at how to fix it.

As for the rest of it, your addition has been reverted by four different editors, and the problems with it are stated quite clearly here on talk, yet you (quite typically) continue edit-warring to restore them.Proabivouac 21:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, feel free to add those "western biographies who aren't named or allowed to speak for themselves" - I think their point is the same: The killing was too harsh and savage --> Muhammad can not be God's prophet. If you think they could have said anything beside this, please let me know and I'll try to find sources supporting it. Regarding the second part of your comment, I am trying to find an appropriate place for those material. I certainly disagree with their removal because many academic sources touch that (even Encyclopedia of Islam says touches the moral judgment about Muhammad). These are all academic sources. And I do think the place I have found for them is appropriate. --Aminz 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a quote from Muir trying to address your comment ("western biographies who aren't named or allowed to speak for themselves"). We can use other 19th century scholars as well, if you would like. --Aminz 04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I was about to reply "LOL" to Aminz but you guys beat me.

"traditional western scholarship of Islam for most part has aimed either at refuting Islam or imperializing Muslim countries." - really surreal (given the fact who has done more "imperalizing")

But back on track: It is a fact, Aminz, that you refer to a certain viewpoint (which you identify as western scholarship) - you mention them shortly and then you go to great lengths of Watt dismissing them on really really spurios grounds

And of course, the incomparable Esposito. The man really has no clue and don't have to be smart to see through this lastest ploy: he claims that "West [sic] tradition has too often villified Muhammad on ... Muhammad's treatment of Jews"

It would be funny if not for the sad-but-true fact that the West has for a long time not cared much about the plight of the Jews. So no traditional Western scholarship has taken M. much to task for slaughtering Jews. So, Esposito is fantasizing for the sake of his Saudi financers.

Aminz has a blog? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "LOL" bit, I think it is generally better to reserve your judgment and do some research about it before taking a position. You can start with Orientalism for example.

The rest of your comment is nothing more than joking around and making false statements ("So no traditional Western scholarship has taken M. much to task for slaughtering Jews.") --Aminz 03:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz,

your comment merits no reply. I acknowledge the tongue-in-cheek character of my posting but standing by the stubstance of all that I said. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"So, Esposito is fantasizing for the sake of his Saudi financers." Please don't make such uncivil comments. You wouldn't like it if I accused scholars of "fantasizing" for the sake of the "Jewish Lobby" (a stereotype just as common and false as Saudi's controlling things through money).Bless sins 17:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Esposito is head of Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which is financed by the Saudi royal family. This is a stubborn fact. I'm not sure why you have found Str's comment uncivil. Beit Or 20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nerves seem pretty frayed around here - and there may be a very good reason for this - but toning it down can't hurt.

I am not clear that Esposito's characterization is accurate. Certainly he is an acceptable source regardless of his affiliations (though it can't hurt to be aware of these), but in a section on Western biographies it would be more informative to reference these biographies directly before moving on to Esposito's commentary thereupon. If they're not notable enough to present, then a rebuttal of their viewpoints can only be less so.Proabivouac 23:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Proabivouac. All users should refrain from going off topic. We should also refrain from attacking scholars by using terms like "fantasizing" and "hateful".Bless sins 05:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I still can't see my comments as uncivil. And I never intended to include something about it into the article. It was merely commenting on Aminz' contribution. Nonetheless, I agree that we should stay on topic and apologize for hying strayed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My last edit [10], I think addresses Proabivouac's concern. The material is now put in subsections of the "siege" section which I think can contain those material. --Aminz 09:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Historicity of the incident

Arrow, re [11], what is your argument for its removal now that it is placed under the relevant section. Josef W. Meri says "significant Muslim scholars" have rejected the historicity and another professor of relious studies(Hugh Goddard) informs us of the considerable amount of recent scholarly discussion concerning the historicity or otherwise of the incident. --Aminz 08:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not oppose the inclusion of the Arafat claim, if properly included. We have had such an inclusion time and again and I am a bit frustrated to see that this inclusion is constantly disturbed by two sides:

• those who (as I do) disagree with Arafat and (unlike me) want him out of this article as non-notable, and
• those who apparently agree with Arafat and insist on giving him undue weight by adding POV passages as introduction claiming that there has been considerable debate when this is not the case. A minute group may debate this, in general there is not debate.

And quoting Goddard (chosen for what he says, not for what he is) will not help this as we mustn't simply parrot authors as if their words were fact. We don't do this for big names like Watt and we shouldn't neither do it for smaller names. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and Aminz: please refrain from false statements. Briangotts is no new user, either here or on WP in general. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Watt in Encyclopedia of Islam comments on Arafat, so I don't understand why he is irrelevant here. The quote from Hugh Goddard can be removed though I don't think he is saying anything wrong. After our conversation above, I actually found more information about the article written by the historian M. J. Kister on Ahmed Barakat's work. --Aminz 08:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Though I despise the constant misusing of the phrase, I now have to say it: "WP is not about truth" but, in in this case, relevance. If there wre absolutely no debate whatsoever, we wouldn't bother to include it at all. But including a voice (which is a POV) characterizing the deabte as considerable is POV pushing nonetheless and furthermore totally needless POV pushing. So I don't care who Goddard is, what he has to say - this soundbite is simply irrelevant. If it can be removed, then go ahead and lave it out and restrict yourself, as this article once did, to the issue of historicity. Note also that WP cannot write that these events are unhistorical because they are unislamic. If Muhammad did something Muslims no abhorr, that is his and their problem but no basis to deny the massacre. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened it significantly and avoided to use the term "Significant Muslims". --Aminz 10:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral Aminz edits

Aminz, you once again included all this "moral observations" for which you had no consensus. And all this again coming with "literature" - literature is the poem at the end. I will retain your additions in principle but cut down what I think inappropriate and also rename the section. It is also very annoying that errors that have been pointed out before reappaear - "Madudi" suddenly appears without either link or introduction or his full name. At the same Watt appears time and again with his full name and wiki-link. In any case, the references are more and confusing and I will have a look into those as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add Madudi. --Aminz 08:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Or rather you did add Maududu when you added your section. Please note that the first time someone appears in an article we give some sort of hint of who he is - but only the first time. We needn't introduce Watt ten times. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course you didn't, Aminz. Anyone who's familiar with your edits will observe that you generally resort to reasonable academic sources, and in this respect are to be admired and emulated.Proabivouac 08:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So, everyone, shall we retain him? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, none of it. Arrow740 09:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I was asking those who think we should retain the section.

Anyone, please do not blanket revert. There other issues than this back and forth.

Personally, I think we should retain the Arafat bit but not the assessment stuff.

In any case, any date palms nonsense will be reverted by me personally. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Bibliographical questions

Bibliographical information is missing for:

• Daniel W. Brown (2003), p. 81Brown, Daniel W., A New Introduction to Islam, Blackwell Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0631216049
• Hajjah Amina Adil, Muhammad: The Messenger of Islam, p.395-396
• Walid N. Arafat (1976), JRAS, p. 100-107. Arafat, Walid N. New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina, JRAS 1976, p. 100-107.
• Barakat Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews: A Re-examination. [New Delhi: Vikas, 1979]
• Crow, Moussavi et al. (2005), p. 126.Crow, Karim D.; Moussavi, Ahmed Kazemi; Facing One Qiblah Legal and Doctrinal Aspects of Sunni and Shi`ah Muslims, IBEX Publishers, Pustaka Nasional Pte Ltd, 2005. ISBN 9971775522
• Watt(1974), p. 233.Watt, William Montgomery, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, 1961. Reprinted in 1974.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix the sources soon. --Aminz 07:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. I am fed up with having to encounter nonense like "Watt(1974)". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We're waiting. Don't say you don't know at least the Watt book you so passionately want to include? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though I asked you here and expected an answer here.

Things are quite straightforward except for Watt. So we have the book under two prints. Are the two identical? Is the information you refer to by the reprint in the first print? Is it on the same page. If so, we should leave it as the earlier date. If they are different editions, we should change all to the latter date. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess the two versions should be the same. I'll remove the 1974 reprint info. --Aminz 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Aminz.

One tidbit is still missing - what's the volumbe number of the JRAS that contains the Arafat article? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I searched for it but has not been able to find it yet. Watt quotes him as "W. N. Arafat in JRAS [1976], 100-7". I will search for the volume number more. --Aminz 10:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You needn't look any further. I have dug it up in the library and found that the JRAS doesn't use volume numbers. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Aminz 18:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

References vs. further reading

What is the reasoning behind the split into "references" and "further reading"? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

References is for sourced statements. Further reading is for further reading, as the name says. By the way, "beheading" is the correct and actual term. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't help much as it only repeats the titles and hasn't been applied consistently. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore you shouldn't throw around accusations like you did in your edit summary - don't say I try to whitewash Muhammad unless you want to create amusment. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of relevant material

Re: [12]

I have found many more academic sources talking about the same issue (e.g. two reviews on Barakat Ahmad's work leaving alone the mentions of him in passing). To say these material are irrelevant is absurd. F.E.Peters, William Montgomery Watt, Stillman, Rudi Paert, Cambridge history of Islam, William Muir, Arafat and many others speak about the issue. --Aminz 04:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No more date plam nonsense. At least that is completely irrelevant.

OTOH, Arafat should be included.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I had removed the quote from Rudi Paret in the last version. --Aminz 10:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that my mistake. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please mind that Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. Beit Or 16:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see your point. --Aminz 00:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue under discussion is:

a) should Arafat and the historicity issue be included (I say yes, it is a notable view, though fringe and in the end utterly absurd).

b) should all these moral observations be included (I tend to say no)

Finally, Aminz, could you again stop starting a posting with a blank? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding point (a) and the scholarliness of Arafat& Ahmad, the following quote from "The Oxford Handbook of Jewish history" (p.198) is relevant: "In recent decades there has been considerable discussion, on both sides of the larger debate, around the issue of Muhammad's own policy toward the Jews of Medina (e.g. Gil 1974; Arafat 1976; Ahmad 1979; Rubin 1985; Kister 1986)". In bibliography, both Arafat and Barakat Ahmad are sourced (p.214). (P.S. Kister's article addresses Barakat Ahmad's work; the work professor.Blankenship was refering to in his interview)

Regarding point (b), it is scholarly (many eminent scholars have commented on it) and many prestigous works have written about it in the context of this incident. So, I think it should be included.

Str, sure; I'll try to avoid blanks (I hope I understand your point correctly).--Aminz 08:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How come you consistently begin your lines with blanks (look above in the source text, I will not correct them this time. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The only such line I can find is the one starting with "The issue under discussion is:" which does not belong to me. --Aminz 08:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you misunderstand me. I am not talking about lines but about spaces at the beginning of lines. You will find plenty of those. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I see. The space after ":"s. I do that habitually. I'll try to avoid it here. :) --Aminz 09:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

To whomever it concerns: I found a review of Ahmad's book "Muhammad and the Jews". According to the review the book is "careful and well-written". This review is published in a scholarly journal. Here are the details of the source: Leon Nemoy, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 72, No. 4. (Apr., 1982), pp. 324-326. Bless sins 22:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The review was found by Itaqallah, so no credits accrue to you. One review is no indication of the books scholarly status: the author is not a historian and the publishers is, well, not quite scholarly either. Beit Or 12:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think the issue should be covered. Not because the thesis of Arafat or of Ahmad is true - in fact it is pseudo-scholarly crap en par with this - but it is out there in the world, people may enquire about it and if they do not find reliable coverage on WP they might go for unreliable coverage elsewhere. The review doesn't say a lot about the quality of the paper (and if "careful and well-written" is all, then it must be all style and no substance) just as Arafat's scribble being published by a journal of Royal patronage doesn't increase his merit (and I have read it by now - it is a series of "what should not be, cannot be" reasoning plus a lot of speculation about Josephus) - but they are at least addressed by reviewers, by the Encyclopedia of Islam article.

I ask the opponents of the inclusion whether there is really no way of covering this? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone care to comment? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I read it, and agree with your assessment of this paper. I'm not at all clear that Arafat's is a particularly notable view - I've not yet seen a prominent biography of Muhammad, including the very most partisan religious biographies, which mentioned it. The only place I've seen this is on websites such as "Jews for Allah." That said, if you can find peace for this article by including it, it might be worth it...but that's big if.Proabivouac 07:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Since it is not accepted (for good reasons) by scholars, it will not be included in biographies (except maybe as a footnote). But it is notable in as much as it is an aberration of scholarship. Compare it to holocaust denial - not included in Hitler biographies but still notable. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I still believe it should be mentioned, if only because notable scholars have found the need to refute it. - Merzbow 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not a viable argument. It's like saying that flat Earth theory must be mentioned in Earth because notable scholars have refuted the flat Earth theory. Sorry, what you're suggesting is an outright violation of WP:NPOV. Beit Or 19:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn't hold. All respected scholars have the strongest of criticism for anyone arguing the "Flat-earth theory". Yet Watt has simply stated that these arguments are "not entirely convincing". Indeed, that EOI gives these scholars a place means we probably should do. Also, Barakat Ahmad's works has been praised by academic journals.Bless sins 02:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The review was published by the Jewish Quarterly Review. That is also a reliable source.Bless sins 02:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So, and what does the review say? That it's well written? So is Alice in Wonderland.

The Flat-earth "theory" doesn't well apply as no one seriously holds it, especially no scholar and it is against the methodology of the field and against just common sense (assuming that our senses are not mistaken). So, Arafat's thesis is within the field of historical research but is argument is so non-sequitur and stretched that nobody takes it serious. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So, if nobody takes it seriously, why should we cover it? Beit Or 18:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I said no scholar takes it seriously (except for the handful having put this forth) - there are others out there that might believe it, just as the believe other nonsense. This is why we should cover it (I don't think we have to but I think we should.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The review clearly praises the book for it is/was meant to be. Alice in Wonderland is/was meant to be a work of fiction. Pelase don't compare fiction with non-fiction. Secondly, there is scientific evidence that refutes the "Flat-earth theory". There is no scientific evidence that suggests that the Qurayza were killed and buried in Medina. On the contrary, Barakt AHmad is using scientific reasoning for his arguments.Bless sins 12:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

BS, please read more carefully and think more carefully:

I said Alice in Wonderland was well written, not that the book in question was like it.

I am unwilling to discuss a review which I haven't read. First you say it praises the book for being well written and I of course supposed that this was the main point. Don't blame me for your omissions.

It is really great you move from simply wanting this included (remember, I want that to) to an outright endorsement of the claim when you are saying "There is no scientific evidence that suggests that the Qurayza were killed and buried in Medina" - this is of course nonsense. It is right there for everyone to see: various sources report it, none disclaim it. Only recently have some Muslim scholars, rightfully embarassed about their prophet committing a massacre, taken to deny that it occured. But others disagree. Your favourite Maududu, for instance, proudly endorses Muhammad's massacring of these Jews. Now, I am sympathising with Arafat's revulsion but that is no reason to rewrite history.

Ah, and please don't mess up the indent. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, my last edits argued "logical" reasons not "scientific" ones, and the reasons were clearly attributed to Ahmad. The reason hwy I write this is ebcause Ahmad's arguments are not based on Islamic reasons (i.e. he doesn't claim that the Quran rejects thus it can't be true). Also, why is the mention of the incident in the Quran and its interpretation by other Muslim scholars being removed?Bless sins 15:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. You talked about "scientific". It is Arafat who argues that such acts would be unislamic so they can't be true.

Why is the "assessment" removed - because there never was consensus for it. You can read the argument above. Also, please desist from readding the ugly and whitewashing word "execution". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Execution" is the term used by most reliable sources (at least the ones I've read). Also, Why is Peters and Maududi being removed?Bless sins 00:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And for all anon IPs dropping by messing up things: it is Medina and Mecca in the English language. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And to you Str1977, it is Maududi, not Maududu. Please take note of that. Thanks.Bless sins 15:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As fi ouy evner imstypde a owrd, lBess isns.

The mastaping af tha place names haweva ar intentional. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I think it would be good to start a Mediation on this article. We have previously filed article RfC etc etc. So, that should be a good next step. --Aminz 23:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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. ITAQALLAH 11:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is clear from the last two sentences of the excerpt. The first sentence states the conclusion; the second contains the premise. Beit Or 12:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

could you also address the first point? ITAQALLAH 14:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

Beit Or 14:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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. ITAQALLAH 14:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Beit Or 14:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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. ITAQALLAH 15:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Beit Or 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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. ITAQALLAH 20:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not comment on the Qaynuqa precedent. Beit Or 19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

the Qaynuqa precedent is the reason for the Awsite pleas. ITAQALLAH 01:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The passage in the article is completely contained in and based on the Stillman passage above. Thanks for highlighting this, Itaqallah. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad did not defer judgement to Sa'd for fear of being accused of double standards, and neither does Stillman say that. ITAQALLAH 15:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As Str1977 has pointed out, there is no basis for such reading of Stillman. Beit Or 07:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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 13:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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 appropriate summary of the argument Stillman makes. Beit Or 20:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Stillman makes no such explicit argument: that is your own interpretation of the text. Stillman nowhere speculates on the intentions of Muhammad of wanting to avoid certain accusations, and neither should the article. ITAQALLAH 21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

<reset>It is stated implicitly. Do you deny that? He doesn't use the exact words that we do, but that is clearly part of the import of this passage. Arrow740 23:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The word "Double Standard" is incorrect since the two situations were different from the perspective of Muhammad. What is the reason to oppose Itaqallah's suggestion? [13]--Aminz 02:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

yes Arrow, i do deny that Stillman is implying anything of the sort. ITAQALLAH 12:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Both versions strike me as unduly interpretive of the excerpted text, which is less clear than we should like it to be. We see that 1) Muhammad's reasoning was political, and 2) that he was concerned with public opinion, and 3) that the Aws excpected that the Banu Qurayza would be spared, as were the Banu Qaynuqa and 4) that the choice of Sa'd was meant to solve these problems. but it does not overtly specify how the choice of Sa'd was to solve these problems. Both inferences are reasonable, and perhaps are both true, but neither is indisuptably supportable based on this passage alone.Proabivouac 03:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

is there an alternative you could try to come up with Proabivouac? ITAQALLAH 12:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it might not be right away.Proabivouac 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

After some consideration, I am leaning somewhat towards Itaqallah's interpretation, with the caveat that it doens't seem justified to guage Muhammad's degree of "influence" over the Aws. What is at clear is that Stillman asserts that the choice of Sa'd was meant to shore up the authority of the judgment among the Aws ("public opinion"), while allowing Muhammad to avoid direct responsibility. As Itaqallah wrote above, "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." The charge of double-standards, if made, would presumably be levelled by the Aws (unless there were other known advocates of the Qurayza?) and does not contradict this. The text does suggest this to be likely, however we accomplish this just as clearly when we write "....asked Muhammad to treat the Qurayza leniently as he had previously treated the Qaynuqa for the sake of Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy. "

A few other points: 1) the third paragraph of the subsection is a "views" paragraph which I believe should be merged with the chronological narrative of the previous two 2) the parenthesized observation "(Arab custom required support of an ally, independent of the ally's conduct to a third party.)" is unnecessary and argumentative, as well as poor style 3) "(the Sabbath, when by mutual understanding no fighting would take place)." as a parenthesized phrase, is poor style, and should be merged with the text. 4) "…he appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh…to decide the fate of the Jewish tribe." contradicts Stillman's (and Ibn Ishaq's, actually, this is indisputably implicit) observation that their fate had already been decided. 5) "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" can evoke only skeptical snickers as written.Proabivouac 07:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the allegation of double standards is clearly present in Stillman's text in the sense that Muhammad feared the Aws would accuse him of double standards if he pronounced a death sentence on the BQ.

Another thing, since some editors have revived this in this context: Do NOT use the term "former allies" as this is pushing a Muslim POV. We have discussed this before. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, one may also consult the primary source material Stillman provides on pages 140 and 141 from Ibn Ishaq, which appears to reinforce the notion that Muhammad deferred to Sa'd because of the authority Sa'd wielded over the Aws:

Then the Aws jumped up and pleaded, "O Apostle of Allah, these are our clients, not those of the Khazraj, and you know well how you recently treated our brethren's clients." Now the Apostle of Allah--may Allah bless him and grant him peace--prior to the campaign against the Banū Qurayẓa had besieged the Banū Qaynuqā c, who were allies of the Khazraj. 7 When they had surrendered to his judgment, c Abd Allāh b. Ubayy b. Salul asked him for them, and he gave them over to him. Therefore, when the Aws pleaded with him, he said, "Would you be satisfied, o People of Aws, if one of your own men were to pass judgment on them?"; "Certainly," they replied. The Apostle of Allah--may Allah bless him and grant him peace-said, "Then it shall be left to Sa`d b. Mu`ādh"...

...When Sa`d reached the Apostle of Allah--may Allah bless him and grant him peace--the Apostle said, "Rise to greet your leader." The Emigrants of Quraysh said to themselves that the Apostle must be referring to the Helpers. The Helpers, on the other hand, thought the Apostle was including everyone, and so they got up and said, "O Abū cAmr, the Apostle has appointed you arbiter over the fate of your clients so that you may pass judgment upon them."

"Will you accept as binding, by Allah's covenant and His Pact, the judgment upon them once I have given it?" They replied that they would. "And will it be binding upon one who is here," he said turning toward the Apostle, not mentioning him by name out of respect. The Apostle of Allah--may Allah bless him and grant him peace--answered yes. Sacd said, "My judgment is that the men be executed, their property divided, and the women and children made captives.

-- ITAQALLAH 20:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As above, I agree with that. Additionally, this excerpt:

O Apostle of Allah, these are our clients, not those of the Khazraj, and you know well how you recently treated our brethren's clients.

supports the double standards language.Proabivouac 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

that was the reason for their plea, not necessarily for the deferrence of Muhammad to Sa'd. ITAQALLAH 21:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

I think a request for medition is a better direction to proceed than nominating this article for GA. --Aminz 04:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What would we be mediating?Proabivouac 05:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Over 1. This section [14] 2. addition of category of Historical persecution by Muslims to "see also" by Karl and Arrow 3. Other disputes pointed out here and there. --Aminz 05:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the category, there's no reason for moral judgements here. However, the "assessment of the incident" section is really unnecessary. Are there other good or featured articles with similar sections?Proabivouac 05:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We have many prestigous academic sources that mention this. In fact, this forms a notable part of the academic literature. I have not seen any wikipedia policy that opposes addition of such material. And lastly, I disagree with the category not because it may come from a moral standpoint but because it is a biased conclusion. I have been recently reading about morality in general. Philosophers have treated it as seriously as many other topics. --Aminz 06:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy which opposes it: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't typically do that. I've looked through a number of articles about very controversial topics, the moral dimensions of which have been very extensively discussed in the literature, yet none that I reviewed have this kind of section.Proabivouac 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please source your statement ("and encyclopedias don't typically do that"). The Qurayza article on Encyclopedia of Islam says: "The question of an agreement affects the moral judgement on Muhammad's treatment of Qurayza." I can also provide quotes from The Cambridge History of Islam, another tertiary source. --Aminz 07:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, don't be tiresome; we are not required to source (or outsource) our editorial considerations. "Can you point to a policy which says that we need such a section?" You see how silly that sounds.Proabivouac 07:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So, let's agree to disagree at this point. That's why we need mediation. --Aminz 07:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Show me other well-regarded Wikipedia articles with analogous sections. Short of that, there is only one thing that can convince me to drop it: a clear consensus to include this material. Instead I see a consensus that it is unnecessary. I would agree to mediation if you agree to respect the results and stop subjecting this article to what has become an endless stream of objections.Proabivouac 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What we need is not meditation, but some respect for WP:CONSENSUS on part of Aminz. This discussion has led nowhere, so will any mediation. Beit Or 07:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If the main argument is WP:Consensus, I don't think such a "consensus" exists nor convincing arguments have been provided for exclusion of those material but rather they have been excluded through edit-warring. Would you like me to find other editors who agree with such addition? --Aminz 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How have they been included, through the purity of the driven snow?

If outside input is desired, let's try the military history Wikiproject or something similar, people who we can agree are not caught up in the religious dimensions which make an appropriately detached perspective so difficult.Proabivouac 08:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what that consensus was. I am reading the intro of Wikipedia:Consensus over and over again but fail to see anything like that has been achieved here. I'd rather to continue this through Mediation. --Aminz 08:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The intro

Beit Or, please source "of treachery for not aiding the Muslims during the Battle of the Trench."; also please explain this edit of yours [15]. --Aminz 07:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether you have read the article. "[A]ccused of treachery for not aiding the Muslims during the Battle of the Trench" is a summary of the section on the Battle of the Trench. Beit Or 07:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read the article. It says Muslim accused them of breaking their treaty and siding with their enemies. --Aminz 07:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please explain your other edit. --Aminz 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So? Please comment on this Beit Or. --Aminz 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Another controversy, another misrepresentation of a source by Aminz: [16]. From now on please only use verbatim quotes, Aminz. Arrow740 22:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Who is Colin Turner, by the way? Why should we use him when he contradicts more prominent scholars with more intelligent description of the events? Arrow740 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, Your ambigious sentences are incomprehensible for me. The source (Routledge press) says: "The most significant clash came during the Battle of the Ditch, when the Jewish clan of Banu Qurayza collaborated with the Quraysh in an attempt to break the siege". What's your point? --Aminz 02:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That your sentence is not supported by the text. Who is this guy? Why should we take his glib statements when we have better sources? Arrow740 02:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What statement is not supported by what text? --Aminz 02:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence we're arguing over and the text we're talking about, obviously. Don't bring Karen Armstrong-type material, it will only provoke conflict here. Arrow740 03:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that. Be specific please. The source says: ""The most significant clash came during the Battle of the Ditch, when the Jewish clan of Banu Qurayza collaborated with the Quraysh in an attempt to break the siege... This open act of treachery was a clear violation not only of the Pact of Medina ..."

What is in what I have written that is not supported by the source? --Aminz 03:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please look at what I have written again. There is additional information in my edit summaries. Arrow740 03:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The accusation clearly was that the BQ had made an agreement with the besiegers, not that they did not aid the Muslimsother Yathribis. In fact, they did aid the other Yathribis in the working of the ditch. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Or with whom"

[17] Arrow740 23:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The font is very small. Can you please read it for us? --Aminz 02:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

to base "or with whom" over details concerning with which of the Jews the agreement was made is a terrible overstatement. all sources are in agreement that the constitution was formed in general between the Jews (regardless of which specific tribes), pagans, and Muslims (see e.g Firestone p. 119): there is no need to exaggerate the scope of the dispute. ITAQALLAH 12:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, which Jewish tribes were party to the agreement is a very important issue, and here the opinions of scholars diverge. You know, it's one thing when all the three major tribes signed it; it's quite another when only some small clans did so. Beit Or 21:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

we can be specific about the nature of the dispute instead of vague. ITAQALLAH 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

if you're referring to the theory of a post-Qurayza agreement with Jewish remnants, this doesn't appear to be more than a minority view (i recalled you mentioned Gil as a proponent). there is little reason to doubt that agreements were made with the major Jewish clans, and even those who dispute its chronology (Watt, Serjeant, Peters) don't appear to doubt that. ITAQALLAH 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a debate better held on Talk:Constitution of Medina. The current language of the article is appropriate given its topic; it's unnecessary to delve into the specifics of the academic debate on the Constitution of Medina. Beit Or 21:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

unfortunately, the phrase "or with whom" is a substantial overstatement of the nature of the dispute. ITAQALLAH 21:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that issues about the Constitution should be left to the article on it, unless there is a huge disagreement over things that directly affect our article here. I also agree with Beit Or that the fact which tribes were included is important. There did not exist an entity called "the Jews" at that time and place but only several Jewish and non-Jewish tribes. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. How could one postulate the existence of such an entity? Arrow740 00:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Reasons for verdict and suggestions: The nomination has been placed on hold. On the whole, this article is written well, is well referenced and I believe that it is written from an NPOV, however, I have one major criticism that will temporarily stop this article from getting a GA tag:

• Section 5 - This article is in no way stable. I decided not to quick-fail the article as most of the edits have been discussed and there is reasoning for many of the changes. However, I cannot approve the article as a GA unless it is stable, as at the rate this article is changed, the reviewed version would be different by tomorrow. You need to settle on a version of events. Although I didn't quick-fail the article, I would not be so lenient next time.
• Section 1b - Nothing major, but a few errors are present, for example, there should be a space after the citation and the mention of William Montgomery Watt.

As with all GANs placed on hold, you have a minimum of 2 days and a maximum of 7 days to address the issues. Should they have been addressed, the article will pass, otherwise, it will fail. I will re-review in 5 to 7 days. On a separate note, I recommend you archive some of the discussion on this talk page. Good luck and happy editing! Mouse Nightshirt | talk 13:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but this article is not neutral and there are active edit dispute. This article is not netural and it can not pass GA nomination. Please see Talk:Banu_Qurayza#GA_nomination. --Aminz 19:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I must admit that I am skeptical that you would want this to be acknowledged as a good article under any conditions: the most "controversial" things here are the undisputed facts, not the various details over which we've been bickering to keep the dispute alive.Proabivouac 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that will reduce your skepticism. Why don't you first remove the POV "Historical persecutions by Muslims" from the "see also", add the section (that was removed), fixed the intro and then I would be more than happy to support GA nomination. Sounds good? --Aminz 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you say you will stop disrupting this article when you have it your way? This is blackmail. Beit Or 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a quite an inappropriate move on your behalf to nominate this for GA when you very well knew that there are active disputes. I'd rather not to comment on your uncivil language.--Aminz 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Our reviewer did not complain about the lack of a "moral judgments" section, but only that the article is unstable.Proabivouac 02:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

General agreements - tribal customs

Beit Or, this information that you've removed [18] is not about the constitution of Medina. It is about the general agreements (aside from the constitution or special pacts) that were between Muhammad and the Qurayza; the second part of the quote is about the implicit points derived from the customs regarding alliance of groups together. Again it is not related to the constitution of Medina. --Aminz 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He is talking about the constitution, but anyway we already have one sentence for his opinions on those matters and that's enough. The Arab tribes stuff is completely unrelated to Banu Qurayza. Beit Or 21:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the full quote.

It is reported that at the Hid̲j̲ra, Kaʿb b. Asad, acting on behalf of Ḳurayẓa, made an agreement ( ʿahd ) with Muḥammad, and that later during the siege of Medina (the Ḵh̲andaḳ) he was persuaded by Ḥuyayy b. Ak̲h̲ṭab of al-Naḍīr to break it, and the actual document was torn up by Ḥuyayy (Ibn His̲h̲ām, 352, 674; al-Wāḳidī, 456). This report is open to grave doubt, however. Ibn Isḥāḳ does not name his sources. Al-Wāḳidī has two: one is a grandson of Kaʿb b. Mālik of Salima, a clan hostile to the Jews; and the other is Muhammad b. Kaʿb (d. 117-20/735-8), the son of a boy of Ḳurayẓa, who was sold as a slave when they surrendered and later became a Muslim. Both these sources may be suspected of bias against Qurayza; and it is therefore probable that there was no special agreement between Muhammad and Qurayza. It is virtually certain, however, that Muhammad had a general agreement with the Jews that they were not to support an enemy against him (al-Wāḳidī, 176); and something like this was probably implicit in his alliance with the Arab clans of Medina, since the Jewish clans were allied to one or other of the Arab clans. The Constitution of Medina as given by Ibn His̲h̲ām (341-4) does not mention Ḳurayẓa or al-Naḍīr or Qaynuḳāʿ by name; but its present form almost certainly dates from after the execution of the men of Ḳurayẓa, and these Jewish groups were probably mentioned in an earlier version.

It first talks about an specific agreements, then says that it is virtually certain that there were general agreements. And then says that probably an earlier version of Constitution of Medina mentioned Qurayza by name. --Aminz 01:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image caption

I would like to add to the caption, "Muhammad and Ali are shown as flames, with Muhammad seated above, and Ali in the center wielding a sword." This is easily observed; however I don't have a source offhand, which is a problem.Proabivouac 10:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

More sources found for massacre of Banu Qurayza

Here are two sources I found for this article, but I only found the titles:

• M. Kister, 'The Massacre of the Banu Qurayza', Jerusalem Studies of Arabic and Islam, 8 (1986), pp. 61-96
• M. Lecker, “On Arabs of the Banu Kilab executed together with the jewish Banu Qurayza”, JSAI 19, 1995.

These were both published in JSAI, as you can see. I couldnt find much information on Kister but Lecker is a professor in Jerusalem. I would have added information from these sources if I had found them. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination failed

As per my previous review, issues of stability have not been solved, and therefore, this article has been failed under category five of WP:WIAGA. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The issues under dispute are very minor, particularly the hair-splitting about Stillman material. In truth, the article has been remarkably stable for quite some time - compare Islam, which got rapidly GA's and then FA'd despite substantial changes and periods of serious disruption. In any event, we should have another day, shouldn't we? I was supposed to help broker a compromise on the Stillman details, and unfortunately got caught up in other things, so I'm feeling somewhat responsible.Proabivouac 23:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It can be anywhere between 2 and 7 days - I decided that one day wasn't going to sort out the issues; there are too many people with too many hugely differing opinions who are too willing to change back things. If you do feel I've been unfair, you may take this case to Articles for review. Don't see the fail as a personal thing - this article does have promise if you can all settle and prove to any reviewer that the article isn't going to have large edits to facts over the course of a few days. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 13:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the stability criterion implies that the article must be completely frozen for days or weeks. Compare the current version with the a month-old one[19]: you're not going to see many significant changes. In fact, the bulk of the article has remained intact for months. This is my understanding of stability. There are a couple of editors here who are struggling to push their POV; their reverts and complaints have accelerated after the GA nominations. Sadly, the failure of this nominations in the absence of any significant objections to the article's content tells them that they can successfully keep this article hostage. Beit Or 21:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several disputes in this article and a few of them were the reasons for the recent unstability and some unresolved ones were the reasons for previous unstabilities. I don't think the article passes GA criteria. --Aminz 00:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, re your summary, are you going to withdraw your objections if this material is allowed to stay?Proabivouac 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as me "allowing" something or not. It is a question of whether the article passes the requirements or not. There are unresolved disputes that should be taken to a Mediation page and discussed once and forever. --Aminz 01:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To wit, I don't find this material particularly useful, and I see no purpose for its inclusion other than as a compromise which stabilizes the article.Proabivouac 02:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam template

Reccently, some have placed Template:Criticism of Islam on this article. This article is about the history of Arabian Jews and of early Islam, not criticism of anything…though of course, were we to add a huge section exploring contemporary moral judgments of the events described, as has been suggested, then the template might be appropriate.Proabivouac 23:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No, thanks. Arrow740 23:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, let's leave criticism to the criticism article. Beit Or 11:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Arafat and Ahmed

Dispute

Addition of "W. N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad have disputed the historicity of the incident.Ahmad argues that only the leaders of the tribe were killed. Arafat argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who embellished or manufactured the details of the incident."

(Arafat's article can be found at "Arafat, Walid N. New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 100-107.")

Since this discussion was archived, I'll provide a summary of arguments for inclusion of the above passage at the end of the article:

Quotes:

Hugh Goddard, a Professor of Christian-Muslim Relations says(cf. p.12 Published by Routledge 1995):

There has been a considerable amount of recent scholarly discussion concerning Muhammad's treatment of the Jews, and especially concerning the historicity or otherwise of the massacre of Banu Qurayza. See W.N. Arafat "New light on the story of Banu..."

Josef W. Meri says (Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia By Josef W. Meri, p.754, Published 2005, Routledge):

"On the other hand, significant Muslim scholars, such as W. N. Arafat, have objected to the notorious tales concerning the expulsion and execution of the Jews of Medina that form an integral part of the Maghazi as "unislamic".

William Montgomery Watt in Encyclopedia of Islam says:

"Recently, W. N. Arafat in JRAS[1976], 100-7, has maintained that by no means all the adult males were killed, but his argument is not entirely convincing

"The Oxford Handbook of Jewish history" (p.198) says:

"In recent decades there has been considerable discussion, on both sides of the larger debate, around the issue of Muhammad's own policy toward the Jews of Medina (e.g. Gil 1974; Arafat 1976; Ahmad 1979; Rubin 1985; Kister 1986)".

Jamal Badawi says:

"A scholarly article by W. N. Arafat questions the exaggerated estimate of the number of fighting men who were punished, which is found even in some biographies about the Prophet’s life, like that of Ibn Ishaq. His argument is compelling and well researched."

Previous discussions

In the previous discussion, myself, Str1977, Merzbow, Proabivouac, Bless sins, Itaqallah agreed with addition of Arafat and Ahmad's view. It was there for awhile until User:Arrow740 re-started removing that. --Aminz 07:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

None of those people endorse it. It is an extreme minority view. Do you deny it? Yes or no. Arrow740 08:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is hard for me to understand why you ask the same question you were asking way back. It's minority-held, but has been widely discussed, which contributes to its notability. --Aminz 09:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

i believe the consensus was to contain a brief word about it. ITAQALLAH 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Massacre vs. excecution

Still fighting over this, we are. I'll reiterate what I said earlier, since that's what we tend to do on this talk page: "massacre," "execution" and "beheading" are each accurate in their own way. I don't see that or why we need to use the same word each time. This is a classic example of POV-fighting for every last crumb, and a slow-edit war, which will continue until someone gets sick of Wikipedia (likely) or is run over by a bus. Perhaps the right solution is to split the difference. Besides that true but perhaps unhelpful observation, I have only one thing to add: the section title cannot be, "==Siege and execution==", because the natural reading of that phrase is, "Siege and how it was done." If someone is going to change all the words in question to "execution," please leave that iteration out of it.Proabivouac 04:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see the double meaning. In future I'll keep that in mind.Bless sins 04:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The best solution is "Siege and aftermath". This is because "Siege and massacre/killing" omits the part about their surrender and the judgment by Sa'ad. It also assumes that all of the Qurayza were killed, whereas the women and children were captured and not killed.Bless sins 05:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a summary of the last discussion:

• KirbyTime opposed massacre, but accepted "killing".

• Proabivouac didn't like "massacre", opposed the term "punishment", but conceded that "killing" was NPOV, albiet not very informative. Proabivouac was also inclined towards "beheaded", though with reservations.

• Merzbow suggested "beheaded".

• Matt57 opposed "killing", and supported "massacre".

• I rejected both "massacre" and "punishment" in favor of "killing" or "execution".

• Str1977 opposed both "execution" and "punishment".

Bless sins 04:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is best to report facts. Different authors use different terms "execution", "massacre", etc etc. "beheaded" and "killed" once accompanied with the statistical data are more neutral than either of "massacre", "execution", or "punishment". --Aminz 12:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing non-neutral about the word "massacre". See, for example, List of massacres. Beit Or 19:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see [20] --Aminz 19:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So? Beit Or 19:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't read it, it says "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly". That the execution was "cruel" is a POV.Bless sins 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As I have pointed out above, the word "massacre" is widely accepted on Wikipedia for description of wanton killings, like this one. Unless the word is included in WP:WTA, there is no good reason to avoid it. Beit Or 19:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wanton killing"? This was certainly not one. All scholars I've read agree that, even if not justified, Muhammad was eliminating a very real threat. the more you respond, the more it becomes evident that the word "massacre" is being used for a POV purpose.Bless sins 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And here is wanton [21]. --Aminz 00:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a completely pointless discussion. As explained, the word "massacre" is common on Wikipedia. This issue was discussed previously and resolved, so please stop beating this dead horse, hoping to derail the GA nomination. Beit Or 07:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how previous usage in wikipedia can be used as an argument. Because one may ask how this was justified in its first usage. If it was justified at that point, we can justify it now. If the first usage wasn't justified, then it can not serve as an justification for the next usages.

You said that it was resolved previously. Bless sins has provided a summary of previous discussion, providing a summary of various views in that discussion. I can't see an agreement? --Aminz 07:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to use the GA nomination as an excuse for not addressing this issue. I will bring up this issue until resolved, GA nomination or not.Bless sins 05:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the issue needs to be discussed whether or not there is a GA nomination. --Aminz 03:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Though I've no special attachment to the word "massacre," some of the changes here go far beyond an attempt to avoid emotive wording into the realm of conspicuous avoidance:

• "W. N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad have disputed the historicity of the incident."

• Which incident? There are many discussed in this article. On the one hand, it was very very important to include Arafat's objection; on the other, we're obscuring what he's actually saying, which disputes only one particular incident, which he rejects exactly because it seems to him "un-Islamic" and barbarous.

• "The story of the Banu Qurayza became the subject of Shaul Tchernichovsky's Hebrew poem…"

• Is the poem in fact, about the entire story of the Qurayza, or just about the massacre?

• "Siege and aftermath"

• "Aftermath" is uninformative, and falsely suggests what follows the siege to be secondary or anticlimactic, when it is arguably more salient than the siege itself - and isn't that exactly why you care?

• Meanwhile, this passage, "It is unclear whether or not the Qurayza's treaty with Muhammad required them to help him defend Medina or merely remain neutral. Qurayza, however, tried to have remained neutral," has not added any information, but only a weaselly suggestion and an argument ("however.")Proabivouac 04:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly,

Arafat and Ahmad explicitely deny the historicity of the massacre (as they think it unislamic), not of a conflict between Muhammad and the BQ.

I was hoping to find a contribution here by BS, who repeatedly called me to talk (even going so far as to post on my talk page) but I see nothing.

The problem with your "Watt" addition is that it is weasily and clearly pushing a point, even if Watt said something about this. And his (if this is his) opinion that the BQ did not help is contradicted by others who relate that they furnished weapons and also that they were involved in digging the trench. Why weasily? Well, we have "Practically all of Medina's inhabitants defended the city" - what does "practically all" mean? That there were other who didn't fight either? Of course, this would contradict the intended implication that the BQ somehow were special and had it coming.

I agree with Pro on your other addition.

Finally, could you please adopt proper English grammar. It is "the (Banu) Qurayza" not just "Qurayza". Str1977 ^(talk) 07:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, and Str1977: you know the issue here is not grammar but rather the POV intended. The word "Aftermath" is much better than "massacre"/"execution". As you very well know, more than half the tribe (i.e. women and children) were not subject "massacre"/"execution" but rather were sold as slaves. A few others converted. If you really want we can change it to "Siege and outcome". If we can't come up with a better word, then we can simple stick with "Siege".

Watt's argument does add something to the article. Firstly, it puts the Qurayza's neutrality in context of other Medinan tribe. Secondly, it talks about what their obligations (possibly) were under the their treaty with Muhammad. "Practically all" is the term Watt himself has used. That the Qurayza supplied Muslims with "implements for digging" has been taken into account by Watt.Bless sins 18:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So half of them *were* killed, and you don't think this rises to the level of a "massacre"? What *would* you consider a massacre? Let's all take a step back and try to stay focused on the meaning of the word massacre. Unless I'm mistaken, it means "killing a lot of people". And in the incident we're discussing, a lot of people were killed, right? There is nothing "POV" about using this word unless you are trying to obscure the fact that a lot of people were killed, which, Bless Sins, you are. I submit that the English word that most accurately describes the incident is massacre, not aftermath, and I further submit that anyone who doesn't agree with this characterization is grinding an axe and should recuse him- or herself from editing this article. Alexwoods 22:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re Proab's comment re Arafat: "he rejects exactly because it seems to him "un-Islamic" and barbarous." exactly because?? Maybe Proab can explain the exactly because bit based on the excerpts from the paper? --Aminz 05:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, please stop vandalizing this article. Alexwoods 19:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I can not see any vandalism. Str has not discussed his mass edit on the talk page. --Aminz 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? What about the number of times that Bless sins has removed any reference to a massacre in an edit titled "you removed a lot of reliable sources", without discussing the change on the talk page? Does he think no one is going to notice that, in addition to eviscerating the references, he is also changing the tone of the article to accord to his beliefs? He has not replied to my comment re: the definition of 'massacre' above but he keeps making the change. That is vandalism and edit warring. Alexwoods 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And what, specifically, is POV about this article? State it clearly, please, or I'll remove the tag after a couple of days. Alexwoods 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex, Str was the one who made a mass edit. On article such as this one, it is very likely that mass edits would result in content disputes. As was the case here. So, there was no vandalism on Bless sins's part.

Aside from the recent edit by Str, the choice of the words "massacre" is POV; please read from the beginning of the section. --Aminz 20:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree on both points. Str was simply reverting Bless Sins's vandalism, and, as stated above, "massacre" is an accurate description of the event. Just saying it's POV without saying why is not getting us anywhere, so why don't you tell us why it wasn't a massacre. Alexwoods 20:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "Massacre" refers to The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly. It implies a moral judgment regarding whether the killing was justified or not. Similarly, "execution" implies that the killing was justified. Killing is neutral. --Aminz 20:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Massacre" is commonly used in the English language, and in this encyclopedia, to mean the killing of a large number of unarmed civilians. It does not mean "cruelly", although I'm sure you could find someone who could argue that killing unarmed civilians is intrinsically cruel. Our little debate over the meaning of massacre, and your position in that debate, which I think is clearly wrong and very possibly calculated, does not excuse Bless Sins's repeated unilateral removal of the term from the article. Alexwoods 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex, here is a dictionary on term "Massacre" [22] re common usage. The term originally comes from the Old French macecle, macecre meaning butchery, shambles.

So, usage of the term carries a POV. But this was the second point. --Aminz 21:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. wrong, 2. irrelevant. Alexwoods 21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been explained ad nauseam here that the word "massacre" is not considered POV on Wikipedia, according to the consensus of editors. Those who think otherwise must bring up their issues at WP:WTA or suggest deleting/renaming List of massacres. Beit Or 19:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, I already replied to this. I can't see how previous usage in wikipedia can be used as an argument. Because one may ask how this was justified in its first usage. If it was justified at that point, we can justify it now. If the first usage wasn't justified, then it can not serve as an justification for the next usages.

We should relate the facts. The words killing + the number that were killed conveys it all. Nothing but POV can be added to this by using emotionally charged words. --Aminz 02:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing you're forgetting is that they didn't kill "civilians" but all men of fighting age who participated in the siege on the side of the Banu Qurayza. They were unarmed b/c they became POWs of the Muslims. Therefore something more neutral and correct would be "execution" though "killing" would work too. Jedi Master MIK 00:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Beit or, the use of the word "massacre" depends on the situation. Consider the following:

• École Polytechnique massacre - only 6 killed, but still called a massacre.
• Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 90,000 to 140,000 killed but most sources don't summarize the incident with the word "massacre".Bless sins 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, Alexwoods has accused me of "vandalism". Alexwoods can you please quote the part(s) of Wikipedia:Vandalism that you have used in order to give my edits that title? If you don't then I'll simply assume that your accusations are completely baseless.Bless sins 00:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You can assume whatever you want (thought I note en passant that I stated above why I thought your changes were vandalism, and you didn't reply), but I would be careful about drawing attention to your edit record, which taken as a whole probably does constitute vandalism or at the very least extreme POV pushing. Cheers. Alexwoods 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we use the following more specific tag (instead of the general POV tag) re dispute about "(Massacre) vs (Killing + statistical information)".

The neutrality of the wording of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

--Aminz 00:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The existence of List of massacres and the presence of this incident on that list convinces me that "massacre" is accepted usage on this encyclopedia for these types of incidents. - Merzbow 18:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, The general meaning of the term can be found in dictionaries(Beit Or translated it as "Wanton killing"). I don't think wikipedia itself can make a precedent for itself for the following reason: One may ask how this was justified in its first usage. If it was justified at that point, we can justify it now. If the first usage wasn't justified, then it can not serve as an justification for the next usages.

Merzbow, who put this incident on List of massacres? A wikipedian like you and me. Do you believe that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information for itself? --Aminz 00:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We should use the word reliable sources used. Above Matt57 posted some examples that used "massacre". - Merzbow 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the author (e.g. Watt, "Muhammad prophet and statesman" in page 171 uses "execution"). I don't think the usage of this loaded term adds any information to the article.

Merzbow, I think we should use reliable sources for facts, not for the linguistic terms. Also, various reliable sources have different biases. Though not always clear but many academic sources justify events based on economic/social motivations. Religious ones based on spirituality, emotions etc etc. Given that our information of the past is so limited, the reconstructed images will always be impure. The scholars add something from themselves and their cultural make up in their research. This reconstructed image affects the terminology that the scholars use in their writings. If one aims to model what Muhammad did in terms of economic/social motivations, he would use terms suggesting that Muhammad wrote the Qur'an implicit if not explicit. Similarly if one assumes that God revealed it, the writing style changes and Gabriel shows up for every now and then. Both are fine for the purposes they are supposed to serve. In Wikipedia however, I believe, we should come down to the basic underlying *facts* and avoid the linguistic styles associated with those models.

Lastly, please also take a look at [23]. "If there is no common name, the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "Battle of X" or "Siege of Y" (where X and Y are the locations of the operations). Non-neutral terms such as "attack", "slaughter", "massacre", or "raid" should be used with care". Please see also [24] (point number 3) --Aminz 14:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that avoiding the clear term substracts valid information from the article.

I agree that "various reliable sources have different biases", Watt in particular. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain the valid information that are avoided? Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions says that we should avoid "massacre" (part 3). --Aminz 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions says this:

If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.

If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.

and this:

My Lai massacre: This is a common name, and scholars generally agree that a massacre took place. Rule #1 applies, and rule #2 would give the same result.

This is getting old, folks. It's sophistry to say that this wasn't a massacre, and it is clearly commonly referred to as such. I would start looking for other battles to fight if I were you. Alexwoods 21:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It says: If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. There is no common name for this incident. Also, please see this: A generally accepted word on how to describe the event means there is consensus on the applicability of the word amongst scholars in the real world.[25] This is not the case here. There are also editors who hold that "Codifying the existing practice is a good idea, and so is avoiding unnecessary extra terms and loaded words. Use "battle" or "attack" rather than "massacre" and such." (User:Radiant! at 11:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC) same page). --Aminz 21:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Battle" or "attack" might accurately describe the Battle of the Trench itself, but would be highly misleading if applied to the massacre that happened afterwards, for which, I submit, the most appropriate term is "massacre". Alexwoods 21:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That was Radiant's general comment on the guildline. As I said before this If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. applies here because one can easily find examples of usage like "execution", and even "punishment". Words like these (and also massacre) are non-neutral loaded terms. And per that statement can not be used because massacre is not a "common name" for the incident. There is no common name for the incident.--Aminz 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no opinion on this particular debate - and I'm going to stay out of it, for my health - but I was involved in a recent [discussion about the use of the word 'massacre', so this caught my eye. I would love there to be centralised policy on this thing, especially at WP:WTA; the beginnings of consensus have emerged in the past. Hornplease 00:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Watt also uses the word "punishment", and so does Nomani. But Aminz and I have shown courtesy (and willingness to compromise) by not inserting a word that would carry POV applications. It is time Merzbow, you too compromised and used a more neutral word.Bless sins 13:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Massacre is a perfectly neutral word given the event described. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The definition of massacre is here.[26] As we can see the definition characterizes the act as "barbarous". Saying that something is barbarous is definitely POV.Bless sins 18:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Just to summarize here are the reasons why we should not use the word "massacre" but rather we should use killing + the number that were killed.

• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions provides a guildline for usage of terms like "massacre": "the use of strong words such as "massacre" can be a focus of heated debate". In part 3 it says: "If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications." This is further explain here: A generally accepted word on how to describe the event means there is consensus on the applicability of the word amongst scholars in the real world.[27] This is not the case here. This incident has no common name and depending on the author, the reliable sources use terms like execution, punishment and massacre. All of the terms like "execution", "punishment" and "massacre" imply legitimacy or illegitimacy. The neutral word to use is "killing"

• The common meanings of the term "massacre" and its connotations imply illegitimacy. One can find the meaning of the term here [28]: "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly" - The term originally comes from the Old French macecle, macecre meaning butchery, shambles.

• Usage of this loaded term adds no information to the article.

--Aminz 04:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So in your view it was a legitimate mass killing? Arrow740 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Aminz 04:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume that this opinion about slaughtering hundreds of Jewish POWs, including young boys, is rather extreme, and not something we should turn this article into a soapbox for. -- Karl Meier 06:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is sometimes a good thing for wikipedians that their comments are made anonymously. Arrow740 05:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Aminz or anyone thinks it legitimate or why and whether that view is extreme or not. A massacre is a massacre even when it is legitimate. Contrary to his claims, Aminz' quote above doesn't even touch upon the issue of legitimacy but only says "a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly" - and this certainly applies: the Muslims didn't discriminate among the male Qurayza, killing some (guilty ones) and letting others live. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Massacre: killing "a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly". This is exactly what Aminz and I are talking about. To pass the judgment that Muslims are/were "cruel" is to imply a POV.

Secondly, the killing was not "indiscriminate". Women and children were not killed. Even to that, there was an exception - a woman, responsible for the death of someone, was killed. Among the men, those who converted were not killed. Further, the killing was not limited to Qurayza, Akhtab, the leader of Nadir was also killed. But other Medinan Jews, not affiliated with the Qurayza, were not killed. Clearly there was lots of discrimination.

Just as the word "massacre" implies illegitimacy, punishment implies "legitimacy". But neither of us are pushing for that word. Why can't you guys come to a reasonable compromise with us.Bless sins 20:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, or anyone else, do you have anything further to say?Bless sins 18:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ma malakat aymanakum

Would you please explain on the talk page what this dispute is about? Thanks --Aminz 08:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, several users consider "right hand possess"="concubine"; however, I disagree that this is not the case. Even the wiki page regarding "right hand possess" does not say that a female "right hand possess" implies/defines as "concubine" nor does it give a definite opinion on whether such action is even allowed in Islam. On why I picked "right hand possess" aside from the above is b/c I think something like "slave" would also not fit the understanding and would imply the western concept of the idea. However, "slave" or something like "captive" would be preferable to what it keeps being changed back to and if what Arrow740 says is really a problem, that saying "right hand possess" is too complicated or takes long for the person to search up, then I'd be alright with something like what I suggested that does go better with whats the case. Jedi Master MIK 04:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

She was a slave and a concubine. Arrow740 05:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The first, so to speak. The second, not stated in any account. Jedi Master MIK 06:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Jedi Master, I see your point. I'd guess if you mention the term "slave" here, it would become more acceptable. The concern of some people here was that the meaning of the expression "right hand possess" is not directly clear. --Aminz 06:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"So to speak"! Yes, so to speak. Rodinson states on page 213: "The Prophet took a concubine for himself, the lovely Rayhana, the widow of one of those who had been executed." Arrow740 06:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah that carries such a NPOV tone to it >_>;. Jedi Master MIK 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Arrow740 01:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant that with a sarcastic note/tone. Jedi Master MIK 04:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rodinson stated facts. Don't blame him for what happened that day. Arrow740 04:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? All I see stated is his personal interpretation of what Ma malakat aymanukum translates straight into, there is nothing you've brought up from him that backs up the word concubine however. Jedi Master MIK 04:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The term Rodinson is using doesn't matter. If Jedi can provide a more accurate term with a clear meaning, we can replace it. --Aminz 08:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely clear that Rayhana was either his wife or one of his "Ma malakat aymanakum". Those are the only two categories, there is no third one. What we can do is write: she became one of Muhammad's "Ma malakat aymanakum" (a category similar to handmaidens). The reason I find "slave" not a good substitute is because the category contains males as well. But, as we should all know, Ma malakat aymanakum are females only.Bless sins 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, no it isn't just females; if you think it is then I suggest you re-read the article: Ma malakat aymanukum. Jedi Master MIK 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, please check out Rayhana. There are difference of opinion whether she was his wife or his handmaiden or did not have any relationship with him at all.Bless sins 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq's is a standard biography of Muhammad; the others are not. Also, notice that the statement on Rayhana comes from a reliable secondary source: William Montgomery Watt in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Beit Or 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think concubine is accurate enough. Disputes about this should not be waged here. This about the BQ for goodness sake. Of course, I do not reject a more accurate term as long as it is common in English. This is the English Wikipedia. (Ah, and "right hand possess" is not English either.) Str1977 ^(talk) 19:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet they are shown on the BQ page hence that is where the dispute needs to be resolved. You wouldn't solve the problem where it isn't occuring. Jedi Master MIK 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Str. Let's try not to use any terms that the average English speaker is going to have to look up. Concubine or wife is fine. Alexwoods 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The first, theirs a reason this is an encyclopedia, so if a person doesn't know what something is, he can look it up. The second, slave/captive would fit better than concubine, that I know for sure, and wife is disputed but could be added as a small side note.

Yes, "concubine" is just fine and had been there for a long time until the article was nominated for GA when all of a sudden even the most straightforward wordings proved "controversial". Beit Or 19:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Since when did change or challenging what is considered right to be possibly wrong? Jedi Master MIK 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We can always link to the Arab term but I oppose cluttering up articles with too much of that language or with pseudo-English that is ungrammatical or simply sounds awful, which happens to be the tendency of some editors (I am not speaking about you, Master Jedi, as I have had no encounter with you before.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Str1977 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What a ridiculous debate. Arrow740 21:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to stick around. Jedi Master MIK 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

True. Arrow740 01:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So don't, stop changing the wording even after I worded it to be better defined and easily understandable. Jedi Master MIK 04:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources say concubine, because that's what she became. Arrow740 04:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq gives no such indication and as far as I can tell/know, neither do any of the other sources cited besides their own POV that Ma malakat aymanukum translates into concubine. Jedi Master MIK 04:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of any particular term the 3 revert rule applies to all. This is not about dealing with vandalism, but with a content dispute, JediMaster - Could I therefore warn all concerned to stop reverting this and find a sensible formulation which encapsulates the conflict?

FWIW from superficial reading both the term concubine and the term handmaiden are wrong - former implies that there was sex, latter implies that if there was sex it was illicit. As former is not known and latter would not hav ebeen true according to relevant Islamic law as detailed in the other article a termphrase should be found which encapsulates at least the fact that the status is something worth enquiring more into - rather than blithely assuming concubine or not-sex-handmaiden. Absence of anything like in JediMaster's last reverts is not particularly useful either, is it? These are some thoughts only, I do not wish to become embroiled in an edit war, so I leave it to you to sort, but I will keep an eye on further revert warringRefdoc 10:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right and I do apologize for never suggesting something else in my edits even though people had problem with it as well for being too technical. However I did suggest in my last one or 2 posts one alternative, that instead of using the word "concubine" we use "part of his share of captives". When the Muslims took prisoners and spoils of war, they would divide them and the spoils up amongst the Muslims who fought and if we recall correctly, Muhammad received 1/5 of that and so thats why I suggested this instead. We could also use slaves instead of captives too if that is more preferrable to some here even though IMO that would also not be a fitting word regarding the differences of understanding in it between Islamic and western usage of it; nevertheless the dispute would be more easily resolved. Jedi Master MIK 15:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately we do not have to rely upon wikipedians for their opinions, but instead on reliable sources like Maxime Rodinson. Arrow740 04:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I could gather from other wiki articles about usage of his source he does not look at all like a NPOV. Even here it seems clear he freely just uses the term concubine without giving any backing to support the use of the word. And again, the wiki article which defines POWs gives no solid indication that is what the purpose of female POWs was nor that concubine would be a fitting translation of "what your right hand possess". So please consider the alternative instead, his share of captives/slaves. Jedi Master MIK 15:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; [Qur'an 33:50]

A prisoner of the right hand IS a concubine- there is no other word in english for it except perhaps "rape victim". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with that. I don't think we are going to get a less contentious translation than "concubine", and clearly we could use other terms that are arguably more accurate but that will inflame people even more. I wouldn't be opposed to a little parenthetical explaining the person's status a bit more clearly, but not using the term "concubine" is beating around the bush. Alexwoods 18:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest then that you read the whole verse:

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

It also states a number of close relatives as being lawful but it doesn't mean they would be concubines too. If you read the verse before and also analyze this verse more closely and in its entirety, the topic being discussed is that of marriage and whom was lawful for Muhammad to take in marriage and have relations with. There's a distinction between his wives and the slaves probably regards that marriage and hence freedom of the woman substitutes as a fitting dowry. So again I suggest the alternatives I gave above would be a better substitute. Jedi Master MIK 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

She was a slave Muhammad had sex with. Why are we being blamed for this? Arrow740 05:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Briangotts comment (18:07, 20 September 2007) demonstrates exactly why concubine is an incorrect term. It is clear that his/her intention behind the use of "concubine" is to portray Rayhana as a "rape victim". In any case, "Ma malakat aymanakum" comes the closest to describing Rayhana's status. I don't understand why we would use not use something that is factually more accurate. Bless sins 17:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreover Arrow, there is no evidence stated anywhere to indicate she was a sex slave implicit or explicit and I'm not blaming anyone for anything, I'm telling you to stop these baseless assertions according to personal POV's of some of what words they think in English are synonymous with describing institutions in Islam yet aren't. I'm also asking not that you replace it with anything complex but instead say what she really was, "part of his share of the captives/slaves". I've given more detail to make clear my argument above so if you want to understand/discuss what I'm saying, please bring those up instead of just constantly asserting one item as if it will of its own accord turn true. Jedi Master MIK 04:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a reliable source using the term concubine (and, Master Jedi, it is circular reasoning to call a source unreliable for its employment of the term when the term is issue in question). Furthermore, there is no serious disagreement among reliable sources as to the usage of the term. Of course, concubine and the Arab term are not identical but terms never are. But concubine is the closest we get with an English term. Whether this makes that woman a rape victim is beside the point (and I don't it makes her one). Finally, the issue is completely irrelevant to this article, so please stop it. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And we have a reliable source that calls the "massacre" of the Qurayzah "punishment" (see Watt's Muhammad in Medina). Shall we use that word? The point is to make something as NPOV as possible. "Concubine" has negative connotations. I may have approved the use of that word, if we were going to use it 20 times in the article. But we are only using it once, and I don't see the harm of using the actual word ("Ma malakat aymanakum").Bless sins 20:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But we have no reliable source that denies the status of the event as a massacre. Watt, in all his bending over backwards, doesn't do that, he simply avoids the other term.

Also, it is simply not true that "concubine" has negative connotations. It is a neutral term referring to a female sexual partner outside of marriage. And no, using the Arabic in the text is out of the question. If you want to write arabic go to this page. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that this article shoudl deny a massacre, we are simply saying the term be avoided, like it is by other reliable sources.

The term concubine does have negative connotations attached to it. Also is the use of Arabic text really "out of question". Perhaps we should delete the word "Yathrib". We should also remove Hebrew words ("kohanim" and "Ha-aharon li-Venei Kuraita").Bless sins 02:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It has the negative connotation in maybe thats not a very accurate term to define the Arabic word and actually POV of what some say it means. Even the admin comments that it can hold negative connotation and a user above who quoted a verse in one fashion also made point of the possible negative connotation. For further point I gave, refer to a few of my previous posts. Jedi Master MIK 19:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not true. It is negative to call someone a concubine who is actually a wife but that's about it. A lack of accuracy is not a negative connotation and is not a POV problem. I agree that there is probably a certain lack of accuracy but "concubine" is as accurate as it gets within the English language. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a negative connotation b/c Muhammad did not make concubines of any female captives he ever kept.

Its POV problem on the part of Rodinson b/c he states that she became a concubine though there is no evidence of it explicit or implicit.

And once again, the terms "slave" or "captive" would be far more accurate yet you insist over and over on ignoring them, even when I revised the whole sentance in question. Why? Also, please respond to my most recent post. Jedi Master MIK 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Concubine does not necessarily imply rape. Perhaps Jedi is confused about that. Arrow740 23:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And maybe your confused about her not having sex with Muhammad, most especially not outside marriage. Also, please respond to my most recent posts. Jedi Master MIK 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I didn't call it unreliable, at least not for using the word concubine; I said he gives no support, evidence, or understanding to this word being the proper word for usage and only employs it b/c of his POV on what it means. If you think I said otherwise then you either actually haven't read what I've been presenting on this issue or haven't read it closely enough. And yes its true theres probably no word that identical to "what your right hand possess" but there are words that are far more accurate than concubine as I have suggested in my most recent posts such ascaptive or even slave, neither of which has been addressed by any of the people who want to use concubine. Finally, as Bless sins explains better, this isn't an irrelevant dispute. Jedi Master MIK 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that you are right that you didn't call Rodinson unreliable because he used the word. I misunderstood your comment. However, you do call him unreliable.

Your alternative does not work as the phrase in question reads "As part of his share of the booty, Muhammad selected one of the women, Rayhana, and took her as a concubine". It already introduced Rayhana as M's spoil.

Also, "What your right hand possess" is still not English. Please educate yourself about this before trying to edit the English Wikipedia.

Finally, yes, the debate is irrelevant. This article is protected and the page cluttered up not for any issue regarding the BQ (remember, the article's topic) but because that wording squibble. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I judge his reliability from citations I've seen of him on other pages which appeared very POV, more so than even this.

Saying "captives" or "slaves" does work b/c booty is referring to the general spoils of war so there is no harm in saying specifically after that he took her as part of his share of captives/slaves. IF it still perturbs you, it can just as easily be written "Muhammad took a woman of the tribe, Rayhana, as part of his share of the booty/captives/slaves."

And once again, the term concubine is not an accurate term to use and it is less to nill akin to the original phrase so that alone should hint that we shouldn't use it.

Whats really irrelevant is this point b/c I've already stopped pushing for it a long while ago b/c I understood that indeed that exact phrase might be confusing to some, it is Bless sins who just brought it back up again.

One, an administrator had to come and respond to this particular discussion and gave no indication of it being irrelevant so again, no it isn't. Two, the article is protected b/c there's several unresolved disputes including this one that were causing revert wars and the person who protected it was hoping that in the time this article stays protected, we could reach a peaceful resolution. Three, AFAIK the choice between using the word "concubine" and "slave" or "captive" is in the category of "wording". Please educate yourself first. Jedi Master MIK 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Could we finish this? All it is doing now is being swapped back and forth. When it is changed, there is no comment on the talk, just an insufficient edit summary that if it brings points only brings back whats been stated and addressed in the discussion. If there is only this and another change made, this change isn't addressed at all in the edit summary or talk page. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)