Talk:Banu Qurayza/Archive 5

Bad faith edit summary

BS, please stop your bad faith edit summaries, you are fooling nobody. I have time and again worked for compromise, reduced the occurence of the accurate and neutral M-word. What Itaqallah posted is no comprise but rather a maximalist version in accord with your POV, removing every occurence of the M-word, replacing it with "aftermath" and similar sanitizing language. It is also factually incorrect as Arafat doesn't dispute the historicity of "the incident" but that of the massacre, i.e. that large numbers of people were killed. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah's edits were approximately half-way between the version I want, and that which you want. The fact you reverted it, shows you are not interested in compromising.Bless sins 00:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Itaq's edits removing every occurrence of the M-word. That's hardly a compromise. The rest of your comment is actually funny as you are the chief "mass reverter" on this article. I have time and again compromised with your objections (reducing the M-word to the minimum, including AL's regret in an acceptable brief and NPOV fashion etc.) to which you never even replied. It seems to me that you are not interest in a compromise ... at least non in compromise with non-Muslims. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, if some editor removes your original research, he/she can't be blamed. Reducing you original research is also not a "compromise". "non in compromise with non-Muslims" Unfortunately that's what you are good at - attacking other people's religious beliefs.Bless sins 11:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If some editor removes your POV pushing he or she can't be blamed.

Oh, you easily offended being, I did not attack anyone's religious beliefs here or anywhere.

The problem with the edit summary here is that you are acting innocent accusing me of not wanting to compromise when in fact you have been more uncompromising. Double standards again. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

in the interests of our neutrality policy, and as discussed above, POV language like massacre should be avoided. ITAQALLAH 18:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of NPOV and accuracy this article should not be whitewashed in this way. Furthermore "your" version suffers countless other setbacks (grammar, style, format). This is unacceptable. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

execution is equally as accurate as massacre, and is also more neutral. you don't appear to like being accused of 'censorship' - please reciprocate and reconsider the benefit in accusing others of whitewashing etc. also, please do specify these grammar/formatting problems so that they may be fixed. ITAQALLAH 20:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone ever stopped you from fixing grammar and format? As long as you don't censor out content, and edit against scholarly consensus, I don't think anyone here has a problem with your editing.Bless sins 12:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop this bickering, BS. Beit Or 13:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BS, I have told you that there were many other reasons to oppose your or Itaq's version. However, it appears that you think proper grammar is only my job? No, it is yours as well. If you can't do that, I will take care of it BUT I will not serve to copyedit non-neutral passages by you. BTW, many of the passage where your language is at its worst have been changed into a different wording without changing the contents (e.g. when the Nadir chief came during the siege) - still your revert it. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Verification failed

I took a look at F.E.Peters cited book for the following piece 'Arab Muslim theologians and historians have either viewed the incident as "the punishment of the Medina Jews, who were invited to convert and refused, perfectly exemplify the Quran's tales of what happened to those who rejected the prophets of old" or offered a political explanation.'

According to the article its supposed to be on page 77. But when I read that page I found no mention of the Qurayza, rather only a mention of Abd al Muttalib (the prophet's grandfather) and something about the prophet's clan (don't recall the exact details).

Assuming good faith, this is only a typo of some editor (whoever added this), and should be corrected as soon as possible.Bless sins 01:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who added this. I think as well that it either is a typo or a different edition. I agree that it should be corrected ASAP. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No other edition is specified. I'll wait about a week (in the meanwhile I'll tag this) before removing it.Bless sins 17:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that another edition "is specified". Books not appearing in our literature section have been cited under nonsensical terms like "Watt (1960)" before. Tagging is called for but removing information that has been here for months without any objection after only a week is definitely uncalled for. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. The reference was added by Aminz [1]. I will notify him. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no such sentence on the referenced page. Beit Or 20:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

the page is correct, Aminz doesn't seem to have specified the book he was using. see "Islam, a Guide for Jews and Christians" (2003) Princeton University Press, p. 77. ITAQALLAH 20:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Now the question is what the exact quote is and whether it adds anything encyclopedically valuable to the article. Beit Or 20:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

On page 78, it mentions the political explanation of Muhammad's conflict with each of the three tribes separately. Before that on page 77 however, a theological view is provided.--Aminz 08:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide the full quote, please? Beit Or 08:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have specified the two books by Peters, assuming (based on the verification that started this section) that only that one reference was based on the "Guide" book and all others on the "Muhammad" book. If that is wrong, feel free to correct this (respecting the established format). Str1977 ^(talk) 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC over neutrality and sourcing

i have started a RfC to get us moving through WP:DR. the main areas of dispute seem to be usability of Ramadan as a source as well as the neutrality (or lack thereof) in some passages in the articles. if my summary of the dispute is inaccurate or anything hasn't been mentioned please do fix as appropriate. ITAQALLAH 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is regarding the following:

• Should content regarding the Banu Qurayza sourced to the following persons be included:
  • Montgomery Watt
  • Tariq Ramadan
  • Daniel C. Peterson
  • Shibli Nomani
• Are any of the following terms POV for the purposes of describing the killing of 600 men in accordance with a judgment pronounced upon them: "execution", "massacre", "killing"?Bless sins 04:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is not about these authors in toto but about the proper way to include them.

It is also about the appropriateness of calling the killing of 600+ plus men a "massacre". Str1977 ^(talk) 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Source for "massacre"

Book is: Irving M. Zeitlin (2007-01-29). The Historical Muhammad. Polity. p. 13. 978-0745639994.

Read on Google Books here, page 13:

Amazon page: [2]

Irving M. Zeitlin is Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Toronto. - Merzbow 04:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be a reliable source, albeit he is not a scholar on Muhammad/Islamic studies nor on history. Please also take a look at the sources for execution at Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Evidence_for_execution.Bless sins 04:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, when Sa'ad decreed his judgment his words have been translated as such "we shall execute their warriors and take their children prisoner".Bless sins 05:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever did this translation, it is not a very exact one. As I explained, one executes decisions and not people - strictly speaking. An exact translation would be "put to death" or something more specific.

In any case, your reference to your list is futile. Piling up the results of your cherrypicking does not contribute anything to the debate (except evidence that scholars do use "execution" but that was never in dispute). Now, you have another counterexample that scholars also use "massacre" and, even more to the point, as a reference to the event in its entirety (and not "aftermath", nor "massacre and enslavement"). It was unsurprising that now Zeitlin's credentials and field are questioned, when in fact the title suggests it to be a work of history.

Stop your maximalist approach. I have reduced the M word as much as possible while you are only satisfied with complete annihilation. That's unacceptable. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. The Ibn Khaldun theory about the Muslims-Jewish conflict - referenced in that book - should be included. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

the translation does seem accurate. people are executed. an 'execution' primarily refers to capital punishment. ITAQALLAH 12:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Whoever did this translation, it is not a very exact one." Now Str1977 thinks he/she is better than Trevor Le Gassick (who translated this in The Life of the Prophet Muhammad: Al-Sira Al-Nabawiyya) professor of Arabic at the University of Michigan. Another instance where str1977 gives precedence to his/her own analysis as opposed to scholarly research.Bless sins 14:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I am consistent nitpicker on the word "execution" - that's the linguist in me. But we should strive for exactness. I will ignore the bad faith insults again levelled against me. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Must important question: if judgment of Sa'd ibn Mua'dh has been legal. If it is legal then we can speak of execution. If it is not legal then we are having massacre ! In my thinking this is classic massacre (in this time period this is ulmost "normal") after city conquest. Reason for that thinking is decission of Muhammad to declare judge dying man. Because I am much better in roman history I will now write one similar example: After Caesarion has fallen to Roman hands Augustus has known that he must kill him, but if he give order to kill his cousin this will create political problems. Because of that he has asked his consultants what he need to do. Answer has been there can be only one Caesar, so Cesarion has been killed by order of Augustus only on the "pressure" of his consulants (so he is not guilty). Similar thing has been Muhammad decision of declaring Sa'd ibn Mua'dh judge. Creating court has been political decission (because of need for Aws) and nothing else ! For the end I must say that this is my personal thinking ! ---Rjecina 17:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input but I don't think this relevant. As stated before, Sa'd judgement was not one of legal judgement on the BQ but a judgment in a conflict between Muhammad and some of the Aus. And no, it was not almost normal at that time in this place (7th century Arabia). Caesarion's case is not relevant either because a) this is only about an individual, b) Octavianus never acknowledged the kinship, c) was basically an act of political murder. Yes, I see the parallel with having someone else decide but a) it was Octavius who decided (while his advisers only counselled) and b) Muhammad did this only because a group actually opposed. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The question of legality arises only if there's a law in place. No such thing can be said about Arabia, where there was no written code. There was however an unwritten code understood by all that included many do's and don't's. The situation can be said to have changed under Muhammad, who did introduce a written code and ultimately brought the Islamic law. One thing about Sa'ad's judgment: the case was submitted to his judgment by Muhammad, the Aws, (and according to reliable sources) by the Banu Qurayza as well. Furthermore, the people of Arabia (who would know more about the local law, than any of us) regarded the judgment as punishment for treachery (according to Watt).Bless sins (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a matter of law but of sheer force used in the context of war. Thanks for disbanding with the illusion, still expounded above, that the massacre was in any way an act of justice. However, you are mistaken if you think that before the advent of M. the Arabs and Jews were all uncivilized barbarians. Quite the contrary. "Furthermore, the people of Arabia (who would know more about the local law, than any of us)" the people of Arabia that would be relevant are the ones living back in the day, not the ones that have been shaped by centuries of "Muhammad can do no wrong" teachings. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Arabs and Jews were all uncivilized barbarians" I never said that. I only said the Arabs had "no written code [of law]". (The Jews ofcourse did). Secondly, the Arabs "living back in the day"/"Muhammad's contemporaries" considered it as punishment of treachery (according to Watt).Bless sins (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

When we look decisions of Muhammad and Augustus they are more similar of what you think. If my memory is not creating tricks after Caesarion has fallen to roman hands Augustus has known what he must do, but he has asked consulants something like: what will we do with him. He has known the answer but he has wanted somebody else to say word.

On other hand Muhammad has known the answer but because of political problems somebody else has needed to say the word.

For me difference is only number of killed nothing more, nothing else. ---Rjecina 20:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment on Roman history, since I have little knowledge of it.Bless sins (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not our topic anyway. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blood money issue

I copy this over from Aminz' (and partly my own) talk page:

Aminz, two issues:

1. I am still awaiting clarification of the "blood money" issue.
2. Please have a look at the BQ talk page as a reference (Peters 77) is questioned by BS. Since you added that reference in the first place, could you please chime in on that.

Thanks, Str1977 ^(talk) 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Str1977,

I apologize for my delay. Due to some personal issues, I can not edit wikipedia regularly for some time. Hope everything is going well with you

Regarding the bloodmoney issue:

Rizwi S. Faizer in Muhammad and the Medinan Jews,International Journal of Middle East Studies 28 (1996), 463—489 says:

More importantly, Ibn Ishaq shows us that the Jews actually permitted Muhammad to participate in the activities of their community during the first few months after his arrival in Medina. Thus, Ibn Ishaq shows Muhammad passing sentence on an adulterous Jewish couple, raising the value of the blood price of the B. Qurayza to equal that of the B. Nadir, and becoming involved in religious arguments with the Jews.

Another source is here [3]

"Taking advantage of Muhammad's arrival in Madina, the weaker tribe challenged their stronger neighbour to submit the matter to Muhammad's adjudication..."

--Aminz 07:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Aminz for the heads up.

Of course real life should always supersede Wiki-business. And under the circumstances thanks for your rapid reply.

The Faizer bit is good, the other one however is still confusing to me as it talks about retaliation, i.e. life for life, i.e. capital punishment. However, I have also looked into the whole range of Quran verses you linked to now and think that M's decision was probably that "life for life" /capital punishment should be the norm but that the victim's relatives were also free (as a matter of grace towards the killer) to accept blood money instead. I am still awaiting the Guillaume I ordered and once I have received it, I will consider the entire matter further. I will let you know and you are always welcome to comment. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I now have Guillaume at hand and will post on him shortly. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is what the article presently states:

"During the first few months after arrival of Muhammad in Medina, the Banu Qurayza were involved in a dispute with the Banu Nadir about the compensation for killing, as the blood money paid for killing a man of Qurayza was only half of the blood-money required for killing a man of Nadir. The Qurayza called on Muhammad as arbitrator, who delivered the surah 5:42-45 and raised the assessment of the Qurayza to the full amount of blood money.[19]"

Here is what Ibn Ishaq writes, in Guillaume's translation:

"Da'ud b. al-Husayn from 'Ikrima from Ibn 'Abbas said that the verses of The Table in which God said "Then judge between them or withdraw from them and if you withdraw from them they will do thee no harm And if thou judgest, judge with fairness, for God Loveth those who deal fairly" were sent down concerning blood-money between B. al-Nadir and B. Qurayza. Those slain from B. al-Nadir were leaders and they wanted the whole bloodwit while B. Qurayza wanted half of it. They referred the matter for arbitration to the apostle, and God sent down that passage concerning them. The apostle ordered that the matter should be settled (page 267 bottom)

justly and awared the bloodwit in equal shares. But God knows which account is correct. (page 268 top)

The Quranic verse quoted above is taken from Surah 5 (The Table), verse 42. [4]

Str1977 ^(talk) 14:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So is this issue settled?Bless sins 20:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not yet. I am treading slowly as this requires thought and time. But we are getting there. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Torah issue reloaded

This article once contained coverage of the claim by some Muslims that Sad based his verdict on Deuteronomy or that the verdict coincided with this. See for instance, this version. Other versions of a treatment do exist. Farah apparently was disputed as to saying something like this (unfortunately page 52 is missing in google search.) I remember that it was removed by consensus.

My question: should we reinstate a coverage of the whole issue or remain at leaving it out?

But please read archive 2, especially items 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 18, 19 before posting anything here.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this is not what the discussion between Str1977 and Bless sins (myself) is regarding. For the issue currently in dispute see the subsection below.Bless sins (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please not that BS is speaking falsely here. Above is exactly the issue that needs to be decided before we can even consider his attempts. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We do not regurgitate factually incorrect fringe theories. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the archives. I see no consensus for the non-coverage of the topic. What I do see is that atleast two other reliable sources Farah and Esposito also say this.Bless sins (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: Str1977 has been going around and recruiting editors (some of who haven't edited the article in quite some time) to comment on this section. I think this is biased (since some users like, User:Striver who were part of the discussion before, have not been informed). To make sure vote-stacking doesn't occur, please note this is NOT A VENUE FOR VOTING but for discussion. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have been reviewing the archives and informed those involved in the discussion back then. There is nothing wrong with this. And no, this is not a vote. This a venue for a change in the consensus if this happens to be the outcome. I personally never had a strong opinion on whether to include this or not. It think the claim is nonsensical but so is the Arafat thesis and I don't have a problem with that either. Also, it doesn't matter that there are two more "sources" repeating that same nonsensical claim. Not for our issue: SHOULD WE INCLUDE THIS AT ALL. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been informing only a selected group of users. That is, Striver, a major user in the discussion hasn't been informed. Why? Likely because (given his/her past position on the issue) he/she would support the inclusion. Like Striver, Truthspreader has also not been invited, for apparently the same reasons.Bless sins (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have informed those that came to my mind, hardly all of my persuasion. But all this is moot since you anyway do not want to discuss the matter, as stated below. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And you conveniently forgot those who would disagree with you. I do want to discuss this matter, as I long as my comments on this talk page are not manipulated, removed, or separated. There can be no discussion if I'm not allowed to fairly present my views.Bless sins (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So, Aminz does agree with me? In fact, by now he does in general and disagrees with you (as he says a presentation should be balanced) but I didn't know that when I contacted him, as he was one of those arguing for an inclusing. I am against an inclusion, though not very strongly.

So, first you do want to discuss this matter, than not, now again you do. Can you make up your mind? The issue of course being whether we should include this issue. And you are allowed to present your views on this. I do not even hinder your saying "we should include Peterson", even though it fails to address the point. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Because you are allowing me express myself, I will put forth my argument: there is much evaluation of this incident. A religious approval is made when we say that Muhammad approved of this judgment. Lings, Peterson and others are simply saying that this judgment was in accordance with the Torah. If we can bring the Qur'an in this, than we can also bring in the Torah.Bless sins (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the interruption but why does it look like this issue went nowhere incredibly fast? Str1977, do you think this issue should be reinstated in the article? I did not catch whether you think so or not nor did I catch what sparked this issue up again. Either way, what reason do you have for either take? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue best be taken up during the mediation. But I don't object to discussion (I never have) on this issue. My position is that this issue is important enough to be included in the article, on two conditions. All content added must be sourced to a reliable source. And the source must also establish establish the issue's relevance to the topic of Banu Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Mik,

it went nowhere because BS could not even lower himself to accept what I consider the issue to be discussed, namely whether to include this issue (the Torah claim) at all. I never disagreed with him on using Peterson or others, IF we include the issue.

My stance is: we can include this but I prefer sticking with the status quo. But I am not strongly tied to this and will bow to a new consensus once achieved. However, I do insist on a proper, balanced treatment of the claim. I cannot see this in the way BS recently tried to reinclude it. (And it was this reinclusion that sparked the issue.)

BS,

"A religious approval is made when we say that Muhammad approved of this judgment." - well, that is clearly stated in our sources. What this means for Islam's stance on the massacre is a question that Islam has to answer but in itself it is the approval by one man.

"Lings, Peterson and others are simply saying that this judgment was in accordance with the Torah." - as in coincidence? That's exactly the problem with the claim that centuries after the event some people come along and discover this coincidence. Or rather: supposedly discover as in fact the Torah does not include such rulings.

"If we can bring the Qur'an in this, than we can also bring in the Torah." - no, the difference is: the Quran is the scripture of Islam, announced by Muhammad, one of the participants, and reflecting the event, with some verses directly referring to this event. The Torah OTOH was written centuries earlier and thus cannot address the massacre of the BQ. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Str1977

Ah, I see, thanks for the heads up. Alright then, we have sources that give support for this alternate interpretation of the events, what else do we need? Why don't we put it in as "Another interpretation by some historians as to this decision..." and then if and when we do ever get sources for opposing view points as I'm sure we will eventually, we'll stick them in like "Some however reject this theory because..." We don't always have the yin and yang for every theory and interpretation at one time. You can't just call every interpretation and theory that some people wont like unfair and unbalanced, otherwise by that standard I'd have a lot more to complain about in this article.

Whenever there was no ruling in the Quran yet pertaining to something that happened at some time in the life of Muhammad, he would usually go by what the Torah said to do. Even if you don't believe that, you should believe that Muslims do take the Torah to have been a previous law of God and while to some extent defunct now still worthy of respect, especially when the Quran was still not fully created. Therefore, the Torah is not as irrelevant as you suggest.

AFAIK, there isn't any verse in the Quran that says to massacre all the able bodied men after a conflict and take the rest as captives. There are however such verses in the Torah. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What we need is consensus about including this at all, as per undue weight. Personally, I am open to be convinced.

And no, it is definitely not "another interpretation by some historians"

"Whenever there was no ruling in the Quran yet pertaining to something that happened at some time in the life of Muhammad, he would usually go by what the Torah said to do." - Now that is speculation and even more so when we are talking about this incident, as the (primary) sources say nothing of the sort.

"AFAIK, there isn't any verse in the Quran that says to massacre all the able bodied men after a conflict and take the rest as captives. There are however such verses in the Torah." - I do not know about the Quran but Muhammad certainly approved. There are such verses in the Torah in regard to the Amalekites and the Canannites, not to some POWs. Your good faith take on this is mistaken. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So you don't think it should be included. Ok then, thats partly what I wanted to know. Now if we could also learn why.

Why not? Its sourced as one by apparently several authors.

Not speculation, common knowledge. Muhammad didn't follow the pagan religions that the Meccans or other Arabians followed and definitely not their many deities. Furthermore, in many other accounts regarding other incidences like stoning for adultery, it has direct correlation with what is written in the Torah though nothing is stated in the Quran and often times, later accounts give sometimes contradicting actions taken for the issue before resolved differently.

It can just as easily be suggested his response to Sa'd's decision was referring to the Muslim belief that the Torah was a book from God before too.

On the contrary, it is first general as to who these specific ROE (kill males, capture women/children) are to be practiced towards in war. When it does specifically mention people like the Amalekites and Cannanites afterwards, it makes clear to not leave anything alive that breathes.

Final note, when it states "your God delivers into your hand", that usually implies the city has been taken and that usually implies there are captives, especially when only thereafter does it state something should be done with the enemies. Therefore, yes indeed the captured can be considered "some POWs". Jedi Master MIK (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do I tend to not include it: because it gives undue weight to a very fringe claim (and it doesn't help that the claim is also factually nonsense - though that is not he main issue). But as I said, I am not married to the status quo and think that in whole process of mediation a solution is possible if we all try to be nice.

"Not speculation, common knowledge. Muhammad didn't follow the pagan religions ..."

That's not what you said before. You stated that he used the Torah - even more, that he used the Torah on this occasion. "Other accounts" are other accounts but here we are talking but this one acount here.

"It can just as easily be suggested his response to Sa'd's decision was referring to the Muslim belief that the Torah was a book from God before too." That's a Muslims belief but note that Muslims also believe the Torah to have been corrupted, that we do not know for sure how Muslims felt about it that the period we are talking about (source problem) and that, again, we are not debating using the Torah in general but in this specific case. Are there primary sources stating that? And don't forget: the Torah can provide stoning of adulterers but it does not provide massacring prisoners of war outside of two long-gone peoples.

"When it does specifically mention people like the Amalekites and Cannanites afterwards, it makes clear to not leave anything alive that breathes." The Canaanites are singled out for extermination at the very passage you cite, the Amalekites are mentioned elsewhere.

"that usually implies the city has been taken and that usually implies there are captives" - yes of course it talks about prisoners of war but not just any prisoners of war. Also, what city did the Muslims conquer in the case of the BQ? This was not one people going to war against another (e.g. against Mecca) but against from group within their own city. In any case, the cases are completely different from each other. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel C. Peterson

The issue here is that Str1977 is removing the following: "Daniel C. Peterson and Martin Lings state that this judgment was in accordance with the law of Moses as stated in Deut. 20:10-14." I have not stopped Str1977 from adding "coverage". The question is regarding keeping the content or removing it.Bless sins (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

BS, I had already opened a section on the issue. The issue however is not "should we include Peterson and Lings on this" but should we include this issue at all. IF we do, we may accurately report Peterson and Lings and others. IF we don't, we will not. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only interested in the inclusion of (primarily) Peterson, not in the "coverage" of the issue.Bless sins (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are not interested in the coverage of this issue, we can close the entire thing as neither of us wants it included. Note that we go issue-wise, not author-wise. Peterson has no place in this article unless he has something to say that is relevant to this article. But you have just declared the issue to be irrelevant. Str1977 ^(talk) 03:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I regret to say that I can't participate in this discussion as long as Str9177 attempts to merge my section into his/hers. I can't stress enough but, Str1977, you must stop removing sections I created. When you created a section, I respectfully disagreed, and presented my views in a separate section. Its time you respect my right to express my opinions on the issue.Bless sins (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You stated that the discussion is irrelevant anyway. Hence I already considered it closed. You never contributed anything anyway. Please don't lecture me about "respect" as I can't see where you have ever shown others just a small part of the respect you demand for yourelf. Double standards, right! Str1977 ^(talk) 11:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"as I can't see where you have ever shown others just a small part of the respect you demand for yourelf." I've never manipulated your comments. I've never removed sections on talk that you created. I've never separated your comments (or changed them in any way). I'm allowing for free expression of views. You are hindering it.Bless sins (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I never manipulated your comments either. True, I merged a double section into one already existing because they are about the same thing. Some time ago, you also artificially divided one section into two way after a lot of comments. I am in no way hindering your expression. However, you have expressed your opinion that the issue is irrelevant. Hence, case closed. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. I retain your section but not without this comment: Please note that this is not what the discussion between Str1977 (myself) and BS is regarding. For the issue currently in dispute see the subsection above. I will not discuss the issue you invented. Not until the overall issue of whether the Deuteronomy claim should be included is answered in the affirmative. And after this, I don't see any need for a discussion of Peterson in particular since IF the Dtn nonsense is included surely Peterson will have his place as well. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing me to express my comments on the talk page. Now we may discuss this matter, while respect the others right to express his/her opinion as well as, amongst other things, create sections on the talk page.Bless sins (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I never disputed your right to express your opinion. However, on the issue of whether Peterson's view on the Deuteronomy claim should be included I have no opinion and nothing to say (or rather: nothing of consequence) unless we first establish whether this whole fabricated Deuteronomy claim should be included at all. As I stated, I have no cemented view on this but I tend to stick with the status quo unless I am superseded by consensus. If consensus is that we include the claim, I will do what I can to ensure that the treatment is balanced. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have no cemented view, then why are you constantly removing him. BTW, there was no consensus to exclude Peterson from the article.Bless sins (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, could you please read what I wrote. I do not remove him in particular but the entire issue because the status quo achieved by consensus excluded this fabricated issue per undue weight. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

According to me it should be included cuz Banu Qurayza were a Jewish Tribe and they have a relevence to the Torah.And secondly that verse in Torah is not Only bout those two tribes but it was considered as a rule of war in judaism.see chapter 20 verse 10-14.It is certainly given about general warfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Actionfury199 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

wikisource deletion

I have initiated a "deletion discussion" about s:Banu Qurayza, as it is not a single source text. Please get involved and help us figure out the "right thing" to do with the content of that page. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

mediation request

considering the continued reverts and fruitless discussion, i have filed a request for mediation here. i have listed the two main parties as Bless sins and Str1977, because these have been the two main participants in the ongoing dispute. if both parties would prefer a more inclusive list of those more peripherally involved, that's your choice, but it's possible that universal agreement to formal mediation may not be reached within the 7 days from all listed (which is a requirement). you can also list the issues of dispute to a greater degree than i have done. ITAQALLAH 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind I added a point which sort of got buried in the ensuing arguments but nonetheless also kept getting changed back and forth. I also added myself as part of the disputers if you don't mind as I was also disputing on at least 2 of the arguments as well. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

my 2c

I had a look at the dispute here [5].

In the intro, In the Bless sin's version " the tribe's collaboration with the invading armies ...", the extent and type of collaboration is not specified. Str's version: "the tribe was charged with treachery" is factually correct but doesn't clarify the type of accusation and why it happened. I suggest we keep Str's version but explain in more details and more explicitly what that accusation of treachery was. i.e. Muslim accused Qurayza of treachery and said that ... constituted Qurayza's breach from their pact; or something like this.

On the historicity of the special agreement, it seems to me that Str's version is shorter and flows better but his version says that "among modern historians, R. B. Serjeant supports ...." it may imply that Serjeant is alone here. but we just don't know. In the Bless sins' version, it appears we have taken for granted the historicity of the pact and are talking about the consequences of breaching it. The issue of "the usual consequences of breaching pacts" is an all together different story and should be included in its proper place, and not in the middle of discussing the historicity of the specific pact. Note: If in that specific pact, there is any explicit mention of the consequences of breaching the pact, we can say it when we are explaining the nature of the pact.

In another place, Bless sins says that "During the siege, the Qurayza allowed Huyayy ibn Akhtab (leader of the Banu Nadir) to return, whom Muhammad had exiled, and who had instigated the Meccan confederacy besieging Medina." This seems to imply not only that the cheif came to Qurayza but also that Qurayza were not supposed to do that because Muhammad had exiled them. I don't know what the diplomatic rules of the time required. But it strikes me that Bless sins's version is saying something more than what Str's version says. So, the discussion should centered on whether Qurayza's pact with Muhammad allowed them to meet with Huyayy ibn Akhtab.

Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Re:"In 627 CE, the tribe's collaboration with the invading armies during the Battle of the Trench was considered treacherous." I suggest, we instead mention Ibn Ishaq's report: That guy X from Nadir came to Y from Qurayza. Y's reaction was Z. Muhammad sent W to Qurayza to investigate the matter. W reported back T to Muhammad. Muhammad sent J to sow discord among them do M and N. Qurayza did P (X,Y,Z,W,T,J,.. can be found from Ibn Ishaq's original text).... Here, the reader can make up his mind regarding what "the tribe's collaboration" was; and what Muhammad's POV has been. Also, per WP:Lead we have to provide a comprehensive summary in the intro that can stand on its own alone. --Aminz (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No way, we do not bloat the intro with quotes. We can explain the events in all detail from all perspectives in the main text but not in the intro. The above sentence is unacceptable because it assumes that they BQ indeed collaborated though leaves open whether this was treason. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a fair compromise. I agree with the gist of what you're saying, except let's use a reliable source instead of Ibn Ishaq. (Ibn Ishaq's reliability may be questioned, esp. since one can find passages that may be unacceptable to non-Muslims).Bless sins (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So Ibn Ishaq suddenly is no reliable source. He is the source period, these other writers are merely analyisis. But as I said, we do not want quotes in the intro. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So you actually think Ibn Ishaq is reliable source? That means Ibn Ishaq reports of prophet Muhammad's visit to Jerusalem and the heavens should be considered factually accurate? I have absolutely no problem with this.Bless sins (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. You fail to grasp what a reliable source according to WP is. It does not constitute correctness in everything but that it reliably gives information useful for the article. That you think otherwise explains why you have to remove sources not to your liking. And BTW Ibn Ishaq is the source on all this here. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nomani and Lings give a pretty good summary of what happened. Are there any sources that you can think of?Bless sins (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have also reverted to Str1977 version in the lead as a courtesy and a show of good faith.Bless sins (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Muslim and Non-Muslim analysis should be briefly mentioned in the intro BUT after Ibn Ishaq, because Ibn Ishaq is our only primary source in this world, and all Muslim (Naomi) and non-Muslim (Watt, Stillman, Ling,...) views are analysis of that (though they are important but next to Ibn Ishaq).--Aminz (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, we should simply "report" the facts instead of writing words that have judgmental implications with them.Cheers. --Aminz (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate this very much. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok the consensus seems to be that we include Ibn Ishaq in the lead. I'll look him and come up with a lead.Bless sins (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

BS stop messing around. There is no consensus of that kind, in fact I expressly opposed including any quote or longish stuff into the intro, which is good as it is now. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins "compromise"

Okay, BS, I return the favour and go through your latest version. My non-negotiatables are printed in bold. 1. I insist that the intro does not assume the guilt of the BQ. But I included some of your language. 2. "He and Serjeant, however, note ..." must go. Since Serjeant affirms the historicity of the special agreement, his view on the general agreement is quite irrelevant. 3. Lex Talionis: basically agree but reword a bit. 4. "Practically all ... except the Banu Qurayza" has to go. I will never accept this vague, implying speech. 5. I am leaning towards your way of including the "tried to remain neutral" thing but I must make some tweaks to the wording 6. Huyayy: I accept the inclusion of a "welcomed" but not "admitted back" as long as there is not basis for a claim that he sought permanent residence. 7. I will never accept the extermination of the word "massacre" in this article. I already reduced it as much as possible. 8. "The account says ... false to God and His Apostle" cannot stay in this form. Since I have now seen the way this phrase is used by scholars, it is included in a fitting form in a fitting place ("infers from Abu Lubaba's gesture"). But not here, not like this. 9. The "BQ agreed as well" I will retain for now but fact tag it. Abu-Nimer is no fitting source for this. About the others I first want to enquire. Please tell me what you know about their credentials, field and what they actually write. And of course, we need page numbers. 10. "as was practice" does not work. I guess you want to say that this was customary. 11. There is no reason for the Arab term to appear here. This is en.wikipedia. But I will retain the link "under" other words. 12. "Incident" see above for massacre. Also, quite clearly Arafat rejects the massacre, not the incident. 13. Your changes to the literature section are awkward and onesided. Thus, reverted.

Lest, I forget, you have included and re-deleted Ramadan passages. To get things clear: I am not opposing any inclusion of TR and thus you cannot use this to "appease" me. There are quite some things more important than TR (especially the points in bold):

• "The Banu Qurayza retreated into their stronghold. They endured the siege for 25 days, fearing the expected consequences of treason." - With the factual part I have no problems - I do with the claim about "treason", as this would necessarily endorse TR's view (especially the way you put it. So this stays out - since the 25 days are already included, it is best this whole thing goes.

(May I also note that this was the first time this appeared in the article, so its instant re-removal can't be "appeasing".)

And finally, the issue of "Deuteronomy". As I said, we first have to decide whether to include this issue by consensus. If we do, I will go ahead and include it in a balanced way. But currently, there is no consensus for it.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to compromise with you. I reverted all of my edits to your version, except the non-negotiables. By reverting the non-negotiables, you have rejected my proposed compromise. Now I will return to my the former version. However, I'm inclined to think that perhaps you are interested in compromise. Thus I give you a chance to self revert this edit. If you don't I'll go back to the former version, realizing that this dispute must be solved by the strictest application of wiki policies, not compromise. Regarding your above points, I'll respond to them later.Bless sins (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You really tried hard to compromise ... not. Time and again have I tried to reach for a compromise with you and to no avail. You had one shot (and I seriously AGF that you honestly sought a compromise) only to immediately return into battle-mode ... not because I reject your efforts but because I did not enthusiastically embrace anything you wrote.

As for non-negotiables, I have indentified two, whereas you apparently have a dozen.

Note also that you did not even try to respond to any of the points I raised in my posting above.

Of course, I will not self-revert and I think any such suggestion (except in the case of an accidental violation of 3RR) to be in bad faith as it basically means letting me push for your POV version. I you want to revert do it yourself, I cannot stop you. Neither can you stop me from doing the same.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"You really tried hard to compromise ... not." So apparently all these edits were not compromises. Well thank you for telling me that what I think is a compromise, is not a compromise in your view. I will now revert back. I was foolish to think that partially reverting to your version would be a "compromise" since you clearly disagree.Bless sins (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Partially reverting"? You must be joking. You even peppered up your version with Ramadan hate speech in order to then graciously take it back, while I actually addressed all your points and totally rejected only two of them (needless to say that I already had compromises on one of these). Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"You must be joking" I told you already, I write in a straightforward manner, and wished you'd do the same. "Ramadan hate speech". If you attack him one more time, I'll take this WP:BLPN again. And yes, I did revert myself to you version. Again, check out these edits. But apparently, compromises a "joke".Bless sins (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did revert on what you newly included. You did revert on some minor points. You still included the "vague speech" by Watt and the vitriol by Ramadan. Don't think you with all you said (and your violations of BLP) can scare me into complying. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Str1977:

1. The intro only lists fact (as stated by reliable sources) about Banu Qurayza's actions that led to its execution. I can also "insist" things, but ultimately the article must be in accordance with RS, not your insistence. Bless sins

1. So the intro only lists facts. Thanks for demonstrating your POV pushing. The collaboration is not fact. You and I agree that it happened in some way but that doesn't make it fact. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the early source Ibn Ishaq, the BQ did make an agreement w/ the confederates when Huayy met with the BQ chief and so far as I've seen, most sources agree with that. Again by the same means, it is well established that Sa'ad was given the right to decide the fate of BQ. With all due respect I ask what or where is the POV pushing b/c those points seem to be the only points of contention and they don't look incorrect or POV. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

How is listing facts "POV pushing"? "You and I agree" It doesn't matter what we think, but what reliable sources think.Bless sins (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How? When facts are not facts but opinions. That's how! Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Fact"="fact". "Opinion"="opinion". What you are saying (i.e "fact"="opinion") is absurd!Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is absurd but you are treating opinions that way. That's what I meant: you are masking opinions as facts and want to present them as facts! Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"you are treating opinions that way" No I'm not.

You were. Please stop now. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

2. I'm not sure whether Searjent accepts the historicity, only that you insist Searjent does. In any case, Searjents views here are relevant, esp. if Watt's are.

2. Hallo? It is totally irrelevant what S. thinks on the general agreement if he considers the special agreement to be factual (a claim that someone else included, I AGF on that) - not that it hurts much if S "irrelvant" (as opposed to his "relevant") view is included. Only it makes the sentence needlessly complicated. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"It is totally irrelevant what S. thinks on the general agreement" No it isn't. Even if he/she does consider the special agreement to be factual, this doesn't change his/her views on the a general understanding between Muslims and the Banu Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed S's views are not changed. But we are not here to include any blurp from S. but rather concisely and accurately report on an issue which is between those accepting and those denying the special agreement. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is neither inaccurate, nor repeated elsewhere in the article.Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, there is nothing wrong with mentioning Searjent with Watt b/c he is mentioned earlier in the same paragraph as well and so brining him back up briefly again with something he commented on has no wrong in it. However, the latter part should be removed b/c I doubt they knew they'd receive the sentence that they did. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

4. It's sourced to Watt. Are you saying Watt is lying? Are yous saying it is irrelevant to the topic? Cite a wiki policy for removing this.

4. I am saying the wording is vague and not useful for this encyclopedia unless someone wants to make the BQ look as bad as possible (and we know the outcome of this) - Watt and you apparently want to do this. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"the wording is vague" No it isn't. Its pretty clear. What part of the sentence do you not understand? And if you don't like Watt, keep it to yourself. Your bias against him is no reason for excluding material sourced to him.Bless sins (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course "practically everyone but" is vague. I never said I didn't "like" Watt but this slavish report of every word uttered from the lips of the master as practiced by you is plainly absurd. Especially in this case. If you worship Watt, keep it to yourself. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it vague? Again, I urge you to not bring into this discussion whom I worship and whom I don't. Those are my personal religious beliefs, and therefore none of your business.Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Practically everyone but" is vague: why only "practically" everyone and not just everyone? Is there someone that did not participate either but whose being mentioned would defeat the point of singeling the BQ out for blame? Quite apart from the fact that the BQ did not contribute to the defense effort in some way (at least I heard this here before, would have to dig it up)

If you don't worship Watt, than don't act like you do. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Practically" means "in a practical manner". Since you absolutely don't like that word, I'll remove it.Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Practically all" means "all that matter", what matters however is a POV judgment, especially if it is aimed at stressing the guilt of one group in order to justify their being massacred. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Watt is not stressing anyone's guilt. In any case, you're making baseless allegations against a very scholarly source.Bless sins (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My point stands. "Practically all" is vague language, no matter what the infallible Watt had in mind when he wrote it. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

5. They "tried to remain neutral" initially (or during the early stages) of the Battle of the Trench. This is not only from Watt, but I also found it Nomani, Lings, as well as other scholars.

5. Where is the problem?

6. Firstly you are attributing this to Ibn Ishaq. Does Ibn Ishaq say that the Qurayza "welcomed" Huyayy? I got the statement from Nomani. Secondly, we need not attribute this to Ibn Ishaq, as this is source to more reliable sources. Finally I never inserted in the article that Huyayy sought permanent residence (though I have seen sources that say this).

And on what source does Nomani base his narrative, pray tell? The wording is by Nomani but the subject is from Ibn Ishaq. If we cannot attribute this to Ibn Ishaq he has to go everywhere because we are not quoting him in Arabic and any translation is already interpretation. Also, you are not attributing it to Nomani, you are claiming it as fact by simply stating that the "BQ welcomed Huyayy". Also, what about Lings? You brought him up, now finish what you started. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no reply on Lings! Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no reply on Nomani! I've never inserted Lings as a source for this particular issue. If I inserted him into the article, then you could definitely ask me more. I've inserted Nomani, is there anything you want me to tell you about what he says?Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we settled Nomani. As for Lings you should have provided the interesting information you alluded to. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I alluded to that information. I'll provide it when I have the time. As far as I know Lings is not included in the article (in regards to that information), so this is not urgent.Bless sins (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

7. Please continue this at Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Discussion where I await your response.

7. There is nothing to discuss. You want to erradicate the word and I won't let you. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"There is nothing to discuss." So you don't want no discussion on the subject. Ok, your choice. IF you change your mind, leave a message at Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Discussion.Bless sins (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated that I see no reason to consider onfuscating the massacre. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note I'm responding to this issue here.Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

8. For now, I think Jedi Master has accepted some sort of compromise. I'll find some reliable content on this later and expand it.

8. No, it doesn't need "expanding" which probably means adding a lot of irrelevant details. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

8. Wikipedia is not paper, and we can always expand if content is sourced to reliable sources, and ofcourse is relevant to the subject.Bless sins (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It still needs to readable. If one looks for this article, one does not look for the workings within Abu Luhuhu's soul. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

One also does not look for Abu Lubaba pointing at his neck. (BTW, it is "Lubaba" not "Luhuhu". It surprises me that you can't even get his name right, yet you want to discuss him anyways).Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course one does look for this, as it was something that he told the BQ about the fate Muhammad had decreed for them. Again you show that you would rather have this piece of evidence gone or, if you can't have that, would neutralise it. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to remove the issue but give the entire story instead of only half of it. "would neutralise it" I insist we maintain neutrality in accordance with NPOV.Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no "half of the story" - we are not here to tell stories. We are here to cover what is relevant. AL's conscience is not directly relevant to the BQ. And my suggested comromise you consistently ignored until Mik removed it. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse we tell stories, or narratives. All of what we know comes from Muslim sources, orally transmitted until they were written down. Abu Lubaba's regret that he told Qurayza something that he shouldn't have is also relevant to Banu Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we tell stories or narratives then?

The narrative of this article is the history of the BQ, not the biography of Al. There it has not place in here, strictly speaking. All my attempts at compromise you ignored.

And BTW, it is spelled "of course". Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

9. Abu-Nimer is certainly a good source. The sources (including Abu-Nimer) are discussed at Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Abu-Nimer, where I await your response.

9. Abu Nimer is not qualified to speak on this. I await your information about the other sources. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm no longer responding to it here, but on Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Abu-Nimer.Bless sins (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Then don't. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

10. Are you denying that it is sourced? Are you saying it violates a wiki policy?

10. It is simply not meaningful English. I think there is a policy that requires that this encyclopedia is written in English. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So are saying that the words "as", "was" and "practice" are not English words?Bless sins (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As they are used, they are meaningless. They are also wrong without "among Muslims". It was not practice that the Ghatafan gave a fifth to a prophet. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says the Ghatafan didn't give 1/5 of their spoils to their leader? If so, I'd like to see it. If not you can't shouldn't talk about which you have little knowledge.Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so now it is my job to provide evidence for your claim? Quite brilliant! I won't do it for you. So far we have only evidence for this being a Muslim practice (which is also the only relevant thing). Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"for your claim"??? You claimed "It was not practice that the Ghatafan gave a fifth to a prophet". I never claimed that.Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop this twisting of reality: you used an improper, meaningless wording ("as was practice.") which I supplemented by adding "in Islam". I never claimed anything about the Ghatafan and couldn't care less about that tribe. You brought them up for reasons beyond my knowledge even though they are completely irrelevant. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You brought up the tribe on 07:44, 10 December 2007. Prior to that I didn't mention the tribe.Bless sins (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

11. What about the use of Hebrew words "Ha-aharon li-Venei Kuraita" and "kohanim"? Apparently you are ok with Hebrew words, but not ok with Arabic ones. Since when does wikipedia discriminate against Arabic?

12. These are used in reference to the article's topic (the BQ), hence are indispensable, and are also immediately explained. And please keep quiet just once about imagined discrimination. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

11. In other Hebrew words are ok, but Arabic words are not. And no, I will not "keep quiet". You don't own this talk page, and can't tell me to be quiet here. If Hebrew words are ok, then so are Arabic ones.

"These are used in reference to the article's topic". Yes, and Ma malakat aymanukum is used in reference to Rayhana, who was a member of the tribe of Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And Rayhana is not the topic of this article. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

She was a notable member of the Qurayzah tribe. If she isn't related to the topic, then we can remove her.Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

She is a notable member but she IS not the topic of the article. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying we shouldn't mention her?Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you read? No, I don't. I am saying we need not use incomprehensible Arab phrases in the visible text. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Can you read?" If I couldn't how would I be corresponding with you? If Arab phrases are to be removed what about Hebrew phrases?Bless sins (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It is you who suggested twice that Rayhanna should be removed. I am talking about such bad faith suggestions.

I am talking about incomprensible stuff, no matter whether it's Hebrew or Arabic. Only that the Arabic tends to get more and more on WP thanks to some editors. If you want to edit in Arabic, go to the Arabic WP. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

12. Why don't we refer to Arafat's work to see what he rejects?

Certainly not to some ambiguous, vague "incident" - if he uses the term he has made clear from the context what he means. He does not reject the historicity of the siege, not even of the enslavements. It is just the massacre he rejects because it is justifiable unpleasant to his moral sense. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think he uses the term "execution". Let me get back with the source. In any case we should use the most neutral term, not a term that implies cruelty and barbarousness.Bless sins (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "he denies that the BQ were killed on a large scale" Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll accept your version as a compromise. I hope this leads somewhere.Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

13. Front page mag (which you inserted) is not a reliable source. Nor is it appropriate to use Bat Ye'or, who has neither been used, nor whose work is about Banu Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So you can insert passage after passage from extremist Islamic writers but just one link to that mag is verboten. Also, Bat Yeor actually writes on the subject. Maybe we should include something from her. In any case, your argument presented here goes against the whole "additional reading" section, not just Bat Yeor! Why remove only here? The reason is plain to see. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"extremist Islamic writers". Who are you referring to? Please keep WP:BLP in mind when answering my question.Bless sins (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhuh, again you are trying to frighten me into bowing to your POV pushing. Well, there are actual extremists cited on this page and extremists is actually quited soft on them. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm admonishing you to observe WP:BLP. I'll repeat the question: Who are you referring to [when you say "extremist Islamic writers"]?Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you already threatened me with WP-legal reports, I will not give you material even though I don't think I have done anything wrong. The person in question is called such by sources outside of WP too. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you call me holding you accountable for your actions to be "threats" then so be it. You shall abide by wiki laws (as outlined by WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:BLP etc.) while you are here.Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And the same goes for you. You repeatedly threatened that you would report me if I didn't submit to your will. I will not accept this. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

BS' incessant use of partisan sources to forward POV's should be called to the attention of the wider community. I associate myself with Str's comments here. Arrow740 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you get tired of going around talk pages and accusing me of using "partisan" sources. You say that again and again and again. Come up with a new argument for once.Bless sins (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop saying you do it only if you stop doing it. Arrow740 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to reality, what is your opinion on a matter specific to this article. If you disagree with sources, name the sources.Bless sins (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BS, Arrow is right on this. You are adding partisan sources and you are removing sources contrary to your POV, as evidenced by Bat Yeor and the Frontpage mag. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BS' incessant use of partisan sources to forward POV's should be called to the attention of the wider community. I associate myself with Str's comments here. Arrow740 (talk)

A very odd statement coming from an editor that never adds informative content; he immediately jumps to the "controversy" or the "criticism" section. It's called POV-mining and its frowned upon. Moreover, Arrow's behavior in Islam and Islamic conquest of India reflect cute little methods that he uses to bypass 3RR (he simply adds a different POV source, rather than reverting). Certainly Arrow isn't in a position to be accusing others of partisanship. There is an overwhelming case against him, as well. However, I think you should watch your sources a bit more, Bless Sins (e.g. Cyberistan is not a valid source for NPOV material; internet sources should be used with suspicion in general). With that said, Bat Yeor, although technically a scholar, has opinionated writing that is overwhelmingly in the minority (particularly Euroabia theory). Bat Yeor's facts and sources are probably worthy of citation, but her opinions should not be treated as fact in an encyclopedia (and I wouldn't expect Arrow to be able to make that distinction). Encyclopedia's do not plug opinions, even if its the opinion of a scholar. Ideally, encyclopedias do not persuade; they inform. -Rosywounds (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rosy, I don't know what Arrow does elsewhere but if you have aproblem with him elsewhere, solve it elsewhere.

As for the points you make: internet sources are not more or less suspicious than printed workes - there is crap in both formats. Internet sources have the advantage of being easily accesible and hence the reference can be checked better. But of course, if an internet source fails WP standards it shouldn't be used.

As far as Bat Yeor is concerned, you should first read the article before commenting. She is not used at all right now but only appears in a "Further reading" section along with other books. If we used her, we would of course have to conform to NPOV. However, that hasn't been a problem with her (as we haven't used her) but with other writers of different persuasions. The BY dispute above only concerned BS's removing of her from the "Further reading" section while retaining all other books. That seemed like eliminating unpleasent authors.

Any inclusion would also not concern Eurabia - as they BQ are certainly not involved in this. Also "technically a scholar" - we have other writers that are technically scholars pushed into this article by BS, so using BY would be only fair. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Frontpage mag has been debunked as an unreliable source several times by consensus on WP:RSN. Ye'or is not relevant to this subject (I haven't seen her write extensively about the Qurayza).Bless sins (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Debunked by whom? Debunked as what? It is a valid though not perfect source to link to. Also, I think it insultingly hypocritical to say such things and then introduce extremist Ramadan. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow's addition

Arrow, you should represent your source accurately. Your author says that Qurayza were allied to Muslims but refused to fight, though Qurayza lent their tools. Next, he says that they were deeply offended by Muhammad's message. This is different from what you wrote. The author appears to say that to justify why they didn't fight. You are putting it before Qurayza lent their tools. This changes the meaning of the phrase. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How? Arrow740 (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The author says that they were allied to Muslims but refused to fight. Then he says that they were offended. This makes sense. But you write that they were offended therefore they helped which doesn't make sense. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Read it again. There is no "therefore." Arrow740 (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The "although" that you started your sentence with was not in the source. You further changed the natural order of the sentence.--Be happy!! (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in the article didn't exist until I wrote it. Arrow740 (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Therefore" is not the same as "although", Aminz.

To say that the BQ were offended and therefore furnished tools indeed sounds insane (though people sometimes act insanely).

To say although they were offended they furnished tools is perfectly sensible and at least to me there seems no misrepresentation of the source.

I have some more questions: does the source say that the BQ were asked and refused? Or were they not even asked? Did they simply provide the tools? Has he any source material that has the BQ proclaimn their being offended for their refusal (assuming this) or is that the historian's take on things? This has to be clearly separated. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To the the Qurayza were offended, so they didn't fight is probably what the author is getting at.Bless sins (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my questions. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The source says the matter in the following way: Although the Qurayza were allied to Muslims but refused to fight though they lent tools. They were offended because of the Qur'an.

Arrow rephrased this as: Although they were offended, they lent tools. This now sounds different.

The source simply says that although Qurayza were allied to Muslims but they refused to fight. My understanding here is that he thinks Qurayza alliance required them to fight but they refused to do so, otherwise "refused to fight" would not make any sense to me. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Aminz (or whoever), could you please quote the source here on the talk page. I do not want to hear what the author was probably getting at but what he says and how far this is taken from the sources or his one analysis.

Arrow's version seems identical contentwise regarding the things he says (offended - provided tools), though not in the things he omits.

Str1977 ^(talk) 11:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now edited it along these lines: that they non-participation is a fact, that their furnishing tools is a fact and that the motive for their non-participation is the author's interpretation - I certainly have not found it in any source I have seen. The active "refusal" I have replaced with non-participation until a reference for an active refusal is shown. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Siege and "aftermath"

"Massacre" in the headline here is a pretty blatant violation of WP:NPOV. BYT (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is currently subject to mediation.

"Massacre" is only accurate, not a violation of POV. "aftermath" however is a violation of sensible wording period. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Was the decision to drop a bomb on Hiroshima a massacre? Does the word belong in a headline there? If not, why not? Also, can you please provide a link to the mediation? BYT (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I've got it. The fact that it's under dispute certainly does not require us to bolt the word "massacre" into the headline here until the mediation concludes. If an admin locks down the article, of course, that's a different matter. In the meantime, please address my question above if you feel it's important to retain this wording. The talk page is active, the article is as well. BYT (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reason the word "massacre" is "bolted" into the headline is because there is no suitable alternative ... at least not one that has found universal acceptance. However, I proposed "demise" and we will see how this will go. "Massacre" BTW is the most accurate term imaginable.

For your Hiroshima question, go to the Hiroshima article. It is of no concern to this article here. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Help me out, though -- are you saying that any large-scale killing of combatants constitutes a "massacre"? BYT (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiroshima or the BQ - in neither case we are dealing with combatants.

A massacre is the large-scale killing of a mass of people by another group of people outside of a battle. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see that definition anywhere I looked, but let's leave that question alone. Help me understand why, specifically, you feel the word is "the most accurate word imaginable" for use in this headline, as opposed to any other word that you and I could discuss? I've put forward two alternate phrasings, and neither seems to appeal to you.

Are you saying we are somehow duty-bound to use "massacre" for each and every situation that conforms to your definition? Would we be duty-bound to use it, for instance, in a headline about the documented Israeli use of white phosphorus against children hiding in bomb shelters? In your view, would such a use be appropriate in a headline? BYT (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

See tu quoque, then stop using that logically fallacious argument. Arrow740 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Arrow, for the note. I am still uncertain about why Str1977 feels that "massacre" is the "most accurate word imaginable" for a headline, and is unwilling to discuss any of the alternate phrasings I've put forward. BYT (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That actually doesn't appear to be a tu quoque; he is simply providing a similar situation in which neither of you would agree to similar terminology. Str1977 has so eloquently provided a (his) definition of a massacre, and BYT is now demanding that it be applied universally. Perhaps that may be disagreeable to you, Arrow, but it's not a fallacious demand to make. Moreover, there are no objective criteria to define what a massacre is, therefore, the word represents a POV since the term is organically ambiguous. This was already discussed in a mediation on this article or a related one earlier, I believe. The most accurate word possible is not "massacre"; the most accurate wording would be "### were killed." That ought to be common sense... If certain editors have such compromising biases that they would insist "massacre" is the most "accurate" word, then perhaps an RfC would be able to settle this. Quite frankly, it's a nonsensical and childish rebuttal. The only time the term "massacre" is ever appropriate is if the event is appropriately titled as such amongst the majority of mainstream scholarship and media outlets (e.g. the My Lai Massacre). This event is not; even if a minority of scholars do note it as a "massacre," it would still be undue weight to cater to that minority by addressing the entire event as a massacre in general. Even the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which dwarfs this event in comparison, took HEAVY debate in order to use the term "massacre" in its title, despite the fact that ALL media outlets refer to it as such. The term "massacre" should be used if that is what people generally know it as; it should not be something that Wikipedians came up with (original research) or that a polemicist said (unreliable source/POV). -Rosywounds (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a hypothetical "tu quoque" because I have not and do not edit the Hiroshima article. If BYT accepts my definition, he may go ahead and apply it elsewhere. If not, why does he ask. In so far, it is fallacious as Hiroshima is of no concern to this article.

"Massacre" cannot be replaced by "### were killed" ... just look at the grammar. "### were massacred" I did already replace by other wordings but in the nominal form required of the section header there is no alternative that would express the same content. (The alternative "demise" is on another level.)

"Massacre" is not an ambiguous term but a valid word describing an event such as this. Oh, and yes, the traditional term for this event (as evidenced by the title of the picture) is "massacre of the BQ". Str1977 ^(talk) 16:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The title of the picture was given by an illustrator, not BBC, CNN, a theologian, a Middle East scholar, etc.

2. There is no objective criteria to denote what is or is not a massacre; moreover, the term has a negative connotation in the English language. The term is only applicable if this event is generally characterized as such. Since this event isn't generally known as the "Banu Qurayza massacre," one has to wonder whether or not the term is POV. As I already told you, the Sabra and Shatila massacre is called a massacre because that is how it is generally known amongst the media and amongst scholarship (and amongst every day people that want to search the event online).

3. It is not a tu quoque; he proposed a hypothetical situation, not a personal attack, and you refused to respond to his question. If you were editing an article on the Lebanon War in 2006, for example, you did not respond as to whether or not you would consider the use of cluster bombs in Beirut to have led to a "massacre" of returning Beiruti citizens. You have defined massacre; therefore, the word massacre now has limits and boundaries. The use of cluster bombs fits within those boundaries. The bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima fit within those boundaries. None of those events, however, is widely considered a massacre. Thus, the term massacre DOES NOT have objective criteria as you have claimed.

4. The Banu Qurayza tribe allied themselves with the Meccans during the battle, which violated the constitution of Medina (the constitution demanded Jewish/Muslim cooperation). The word execution would actually be more accurate, since the Jews violated a pact that they had agreed to; and, as this article says, they were "charged" with treachery. "Beheading" would be equally accurate since, after all, that is the method in which they were killed. Better yet, the term "Aftermath" would be the best title, since that is what that entire section is about (the aftermath of the battle). The word aftermath is probably the most commonly used terminology on Wikipedia for similar events; I can probably go find some examples for you if you wish. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1. So you are disputing the title of the picture? What is the real title?

2. It is quite clear what a massacre is. That massacres are not looked upon favouredly in the English-speaking world is no reason not to call a spade a spade. Ah, and yes, the event is generally known as a massacre.

3. I refused to respond to his question? He has no business asking me this question as I do not edit these articles. What goes on there is of no concern to this article.

4. It has been discussed ad nausea, that a) the nature of the agreements between the groups within Yathrib (not a stupid Jewish-Muslim dichotomy) is not so clear, b) that there has been no trial regarding the guilt of the BQ in general or as individuals. c) "Behead" is used in some places, d) "Aftermath" is actually the worst of the worst and will never be accepted. You might think the muder of 600 people no big deal and only fair - that's your thing - but other will not accept it. Their wounds were not that rosy. e) I am in no way interested in any further conversation with you. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The title of the picture comes from Charles Rieu, Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum, London: British Museum Publications for the British Library, 1977, p.211. In point of references, the two columns of golden flame (one seated on a throne in the back and the other in the foreground near the "action") are abstract representations of Muhammad and Ali, respectively, a common feature of period Islamic art. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, please see Wikipedia's policies on civility and assume good faith. Secondly, beheading is not used in the title, and that's what we are talking about. The nature of the agreements are not clear, but the only sources available do suggest that agreements of some sort did exist. This is a fact that you must accept, sorry. There had been no trial, but they were punished for allying with an enemy and were hence "charged" with treachery. The title of the picture is not disputable; using the title of a picture to determine the title of this article section is disputable. You haven't provided a sufficient amount of sources to prove that this event is widely known as a massacre; as I already suggest, articles like Sabra and Shatila massacre use a massive collection of sources to verify its name. I didn't say the killing of 600 was necessarily "fair." Don't put words in my mouth. Moreover, what *I think* or what *you think* is irrelevant to this article; perhaps someone needs to tell you that before you start editing. -Rosywounds (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And you are talking about AGF here? Str1977 ^(talk) 01:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Question for Brian Gotts

Brian -- do you believe this reversion to be a minor edit?

From Help:Minor edit: "A check to a minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."

Clarify, please. Is your reversion, above, an example of a version that "could never be the subject of a dispute"? BYT (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see [6]. The minor edit mark was automatically applied by WP, not by me. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But yes, I see calling the wholesale killing of prisoners (not combatants) a "massacre" as something not subject to reasonable dispute. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

They were combatants. As was found, they had no shortage of weapons, nor were they hesitant in the least when they were approached to attack the Muslims. The non-combatants (women and children) were not killed.Bless sins (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

They were not ... or rather they were only because Muslims made them combatants. Muslims besieged their homes so were they not entitled to defend themselves? It is perverted to think that the fact that Muslims attacked a group gave them the right to murder the group afterwards based on their resistance. Before you ask, I don't think that Muhammad and his fellow Muslims entertained that perverted idea: they rather said the BQ committed treason and therefore should be killed. But that is something different from what you claimed. Oh, and BTW, the innocent womena and children were not "not killed" but they were ENSLAVED. Are you saying that punishment innocents a little less harsh is just?

PS. Don't remove the gap between this and early postings. 17:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Brian -- that is the very point under dispute in mediation, so I hardly see why you would conclude that it could "never be the subject of a dispute." It seems to me that the exception you are citing falls under the category of reverting WP:VANDALISM. It reads: "The intended use of the rollback feature is for cases of vandalism." Frankly, I resent the implication that I vandalized the article. If that is what you believe I did, could I ask you to explain why it is that you feel that way? BYT (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say it can't be used for other things, BYT. Let's focus here. Arrow740 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BYT, Maybe Brian was not aware of the mediation going on (just speculating) ... after all you were ignorant of it as well. Or maybe he accidentally checked the "minor" box. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. By the way, I've now proposed two rephrasings of the headline in question. There seems to me to be no clear reason (or consensus) to retain your "massacre" version in the article during mediation, and no explanation from you clarifying why the options I've put forward are somehow more biased than "massacre." BYT (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Massacre" is most accurate. "Aftermath" is vague and meaningless. "Execution" has its own problems (verdicts are executed, strictly speaking, not people) and implies a judicial proceeding, as does punishment. Sorry if you haven't found any explanation but you have come quite late into a long discussion and these things might be new to you but other editors have discussed them countless times. Please, don't expect me to repeat everything again. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, I notice that you just reverted without comment here. Is there a specific reason that you don't want to discuss this? BYT (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

BYT,

Though it is not forbidden to "revert without a comment", I usually do leave a comment on talk if there is discussion going on. And I have commented here.

Or do you mean edit summary? Again, it is not forbidden ... but I usually do. However, I never leave meaningless edit summary. "As per talk" seems meaningless as you wrote a lot on talk.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. Did you mean your ""Possibly. By the way, ..." posting? As I reverted, I wasn't aware of it. Hope it settles this matter. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do have another question. We know now that "massacre" doesn't work for me and at least two other editors, and that the two versions I have proposed don't work for you. What specific wording do you suggest to get us through until mediation yields a (presumably) better outcome? Again, there is no earthly reason for us to hold on to any version of the headline now that does not have consensus, which clearly "massacre" lacks. BYT (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

None, this is subject to mediation and until medition finds a solution, I will not enter into another, informal medition with other editors on this. Especially, since totally unacceptable wordings are pushed by these. The suggestion made on mediation is there for everyone to read and for parties to the mediation to accept. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I'm still unclear as to why, as mediation plays out on this obviously disputed matter, you feel your version must be the default setting for the article. Is it just a personal aesthetic conviction, or is there some other reason? It can't be because "massacre" has consensus. BYT (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course you are free to disagree and voila we would have an edit war.

"My version" happens to be the status quo, happens to be accurate, happens to be supported by many editors of this article as well (though not all are active right now).

"death sentence" again implies a judicial nature of the whole event and actually does not cover the actual massacre, or - in other words - the execution of the "death sentences". Neither does it cover (and here BS would agree) the women and children that were enslaved. So this would become "Siege, defeat, and death and enslavement sentence".

However, thanks for taking into account that this might be disputed. I appreciate that. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. Though BS has not yet explicitely accepted "demise" as the non-temporary consensus, I will include it here according to my statement on the mediation page. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"happens to be the status quo, happens to be accurate, happens to be supported by many editors of this article as well (though not all are active right now)." False. The version deletes a lot of sourced material, misrepresents the sources included, and is not supported except by drive by a reverter who doesn't engage in discussion on talk (like Arrow740).

You should know that nothing on wikipedia is permanent. If it was we wouldn't have the "edit" links. Anyways, my acceptance of demise (which, by the way, I included in the article) is conditional upon your rejection of "massacre" as POV.Bless sins (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, come one BS, we heard your old nonsensical song before.

BTW, you did not come up with "demise", you rejected or ignored it various times, you couldn't even bring yourself to accept it explicitely in the mediation.

Still, since you reverting everything to your POV pushing mess but the section header I take it the agreement on this still stands. Don't disappoint me, BS. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what song you are talking about, I never wrote one. Please stay on topic.

Regarding "demise", am I not the first person to put it into effect?[7]Bless sins (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

BS, please stop insulting other people's intelligence and educate yourself about expressions in the English language. "Your song" is what are you are repeatedly saying here on talk even though you know that it has been discussed time and again and found wanting.

No, you explicitely rejected it here on talk page. You were very slow to acknowledge it in mediation and never brought yourself to formally accept it as the permanent solution. Stop claiming things contrary to the truth here. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop making false allegations. A song is a musical composition. I think most sane-minded individuals will agree. I never composed any music.

I repeat: I was the first person to put the term "demise" into the article. This is the truth. One can say things all he/she wants, but actually acting is a far more significant thing.Bless sins (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

BS, stop your BS. Look up metaphor.

After and while opposing it for a long time. Do not try to portray yourself as the one who brought the solution as "demise" was actually my suggestion. Just stop it, okay? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A comment from an outsider

I understand there's a dispute over two versions here. [8] I see NPOV problems with both versions, with one side attempting to put forth Islamic apologetics, the other side attempting to attack Islam. Let the facts speak for themselves. Examples:

What the Muslim armies actually thought:

The tribe's collaboration with the invading armies during the Battle of the Trench was considered treacherous...

— Bless sins's version

How can anybody know that? Str1977's sentence is more neutral:

the tribe was charged with treachery and collaboration with the invading armies...

— Str1977's version

What the Jews actually thought:

...and knew the consequences of treachery.

— Bless sins's version

Historians can't peer into the minds of the Jewish tribe at that time. They can only speculate on what happened.

With that said, the sources Bless sins used do appear to be reliable. You can't negate a person's authority on Islamic history just because they don't specifically specialize in "Islamic history." The sources provided are at least as reliable as Daniel C. Peterson, a Mormon proselytizer for a school with a reputation for poor scholarship. Also, Frontpage Magazine is an unreliable source, but that's OK, so long as it's just provided as an external link -- not as a citation. WP:RS only applies to sources cited, not external links. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The tribe's actions have been considered treacherous by not only the Muslim army but by scholars as well.

Regarding the lead: "Let the facts speak for themselves" was proposed by Aminz earlier (see Talk:Banu_Qurayza#my_2c). Str1977, however, was reluctant to discuss this. If he/she wishes I'm willing to re-open the discussion.

Also regarding "peer into the minds". We have Stillman speculating as to the reasons due to which Muhammad chose Sa'ad to pronounce judgment. Surely Stillman couldn't have looked into Muhammad's mind?Bless sins (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed any mention of "treachery" from the lead, as the article does not seem to discuss this at length.Bless sins (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, we ought to make use of the Britannica's summary of the events which gives the most notable facts, neutrally.

When it was discovered that members of the Jewish tribe Qurayzah had been complicit with the enemy during the Battle of the Ditch, Muhammad turned against them. The Qurayzah men were separated from the tribe's women and children and ordered by the Muslim general Sa'd ibn Mu'adh to be put to death; the women and children were to be enslaved.

— Encyclopedia Britannica

Bless sins (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There may be some scholars that believe that, but that's an opinion, not an assertion of fact. "Treachery" is a loaded term. Nobody knows for certain if Islam is true or false, and there's disagreements over whether early Islam was peaceful or spread through conquest. Whether or not betraying Muhammad is "treachery," is a subject of opinion. The claim that they even definitely did knowingly betray him is itself in dispute, with sources provided. Making the jump to, "AND THEY KNEW IT WAS TREACHERY!" is blatant POV-pushing. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knows for certain if Islam is true or false - Thats not the issue of dispute here though (I hope).

The claim that they even definitely did knowingly betray him is itself in dispute, with sources provided. - From just looking at "Arrow740's version", its only 2 sources and those at best keep it very vague as to what was going on. There are plenty of sources however to the contrary that say otherwise. The original source itself, ibn ishaq, who is given even in "Arrow740's version" says that they did realize that they'd be breaking their agreement w/ someone who was always fair in agreements to them and when the Muslims came to see whether they were still with them, the BQ responded negatively towards them.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"there's disagreements over whether early Islam was peaceful or spread through conquest." That's completely false. The Islamic state spread through massive conquests starting with Muhammad. Conversion was the result of oppressive social policies, see dhimmi. Arrow740 (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Islamic state spread through massive conquests starting with Muhammad. - If you didn't notice, he mentioned the spread of Islam, not the Muslim state. Islam was spread through various emissaries and teachers sent around the world to various kings and tribal leaders. Even regarding conquest, any outside Arabia territory gained during the time of Muhammad (saw) was not taken forcefully including Yemen, Oman, and Bahrain.

Conversion was the result of oppressive social policies, see dhimmi. - maybe you should read the other article regarding dhimmi treatment , Pact of Umar, which states that many western scholars consider the agreement to be a creation of much latter caliph dynasties, not something authentic from Caliph Umar himself or something implemented in early caliphates. The article dhimmi itself is not always very specific what time period or place certain rules were applied.. If you want to use something confirmed and specific regarding the early conquest though, look up The Umariyya Covenant and tell us how oppressive that sounds.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat you are misunderstand the issue. The statement "and knew the consequences of treachery" is about general treachery/betrayal. The authors do not refer to the later events when making the statement. Also we have attributed this statement to scholars, and we are not stating it fact.

Bless sins (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"With that said, the sources Bless sins used do appear to be reliable." The main problem was the way there were employed.

"You can't negate a person's authority on Islamic history just because they don't specifically specialize in "Islamic history.""

I don't think anybody ever did this.

"Also, Frontpage Magazine is an unreliable source, but that's OK, so long as it's just provided as an external link -- not as a citation."

And we haven't used it for a citation but as a link. However unreliable it might be, some Islamist writers employed here probably should be seen as mirroring this.

"The tribe's actions have been considered treacherous by not only the Muslim army but by scholars as well."

But we have to attribute it to those actually raising the charge.

"Regarding the lead: "Let the facts speak for themselves" was proposed by Aminz earlier (see Talk:Banu_Qurayza#my_2c). Str1977, however, was reluctant to discuss this. If he/she wishes I'm willing to re-open the discussion."

Stop your obfuscation. We are mostly restricting us to facts but what we do not want is a onesided presentation of facts. Anyway, such a discussion in general is pointless - must be done regarding specific passages and so it has been handled.

"Also regarding "peer into the minds". We have Stillman speculating as to the reasons due to which Muhammad chose Sa'ad to pronounce judgment."

That's a scholarly observation and clearly marked as conjecture. The problem with the "Jews knews the result of treachery" is a) that we do not know (Ramadan for instance would advise us differently) b) that this endorses the charge of treachery.

"I have removed any mention of "treachery" from the lead, as the article does not seem to discuss this at length."

That's untrue. We discuss at lenght the obligations derived from the various pacts and the breaking of it. That justifies the inclusion of the charge of treachery.

"Also, we ought to make use of the Britannica's summary of the events which gives the most notable facts, neutrally."

No, we need not necessarily need to employ text from the most overrated encyclopedia in the world. BTW, is this the 1911 or the modern version? However, you may well argue why we should include some detail. AFAI can see everything in EB is already in here as well, save the wrong title of Sad.

""Treachery" is a loaded term."

No at all. Treachery is an accusation and is no less "loaded" than murder. The important thing is that WE do not call the BQ treacherous but only report the opinion of others.

"Nobody knows for certain if Islam is true or false"

That has no bearing on the question of treachery. This is about political allegiance. Whether they did commit treachery that is the matter of dispute.

"and there's disagreements over whether early Islam was peaceful or spread through conquest."

That's irrelevant to our article as we need not make such general observations. BTW, Islam clearly spread through conquest but Arrow has already stated that. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again I call for the lead to be based upon facts, just as Aminz proposed. Does Str1977 agree?

"That's a scholarly observation". Serjeant's observation is also scholarly.

"I don't think anybody ever did this." You did. You said Abu-Nimer wasn't a reliable source, because he wasn't specifically a specialist in "history".

"However unreliable it might be, some Islamist writers employed here probably should be seen as mirroring this." I don't see any Islamist writers, and won't unless you name them.

"But we have to attribute it to those actually raising the charge." There are many scholars who are saying this charge.

"We discuss at lenght the obligations derived from the various pacts and the breaking of it." Then perhaps we should discuss the pact. As far as I can see we are not discussing treachery at any significant length.

"most overrated encyclopedia in the world" this is your opinion. It is, in fact, rated high, but it deserves that rating. Britannica presents mainstream knowledge that is reliable and notable. Academic scholars also present mainstream knowledge that is reliable, but often the details aren't necessarily notable (atleast not notable enough for the lead).Bless sins (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is you who is twisting the intro to fit your POV pushing. And no I didn't do what you claim - I deny Abunimer's suitability because he is no expert in "history". The Islamist is your Muslim brotherhood friend Tariq Ramadan and you know that. The treachery (or lack thereof) is the result of our treatment of the pacts. EB doesn't deserve nothing. They are not even able to give the correct plural of the word "tribus", despite being told about their mistake. WP, with all its faults, is still better because here mistakes can be corrected in an instant. Regardless of that, I will not give my hand to rewriting what has come a long way towards a good article just to include a Britannica wording. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote

We have quite a long quote in this article from Ibn Ishaq, and it starts as follows: "Ibn Ishaq describes the killing of the Banu Qurayza men..."

What is the reason for including this? I know that Str1977 expresses very much distaste for such quotes (as he expressed on Battle of the Trench, where we quoted the most reliable source).Bless sins (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we included it in order to avoid any quarrell about how to describe the massacre.

BS, I do not dislike just any quote. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That is what I suspect. It appears you leave this quote since it presents a POV different from Watt is presenting. Is this correct? IF not, you have not provided a reasonable explanation to include this quote.Bless sins (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A possible difference (which I do not see) between the source and Watt is not my problem. Stop making bad faith assumptions. And stop claiming compromise when there is none. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be avoiding the question: why do we need an Ibn Ishaq quote, and what is the quote's notability. Ibn Ishaq, along with other medieval scholars, have quite a bit to say about the Qurayza, why this quote in particular (that happens to show a different POV)?Bless sins (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So what exactly is YOUR objection against the quote?

To me, it nicely relates the events. The quote also avoids any suggestion that a summary would be POV. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This quote gives unnecessary emphasis to some of the events which can be construed according to a particular POV. In a time when we refuse to mention Abu Lubaba's gestures, I find it strange to talk about such trivial details. A summary would be much better. After all, have we not written the entire article without quote-farming?Bless sins (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is quite a central event in the BQ's history not a trivial detail. Using a quote avoids introducing anachronisms or POV leanings (be the pro- or anti-massacre). As you raise AL, I think you are probably only complaining to get back to me. Therefore I will no longer take your complaint seriously. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure its a significant event. But what about the quote, is it significant as well? Come up with some sources to show that. And Abu Lubaba is a major issue here, one that is being discussed at the mediation. That you will not take the views of others seriously is getting to be a problem. Apparently you've stopped taking wiki policies seriously as well.Bless sins (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not the view of others (let alone wikipolicies), not even your views in general but this particular issue. After months of dealing with this article you suddenly come up with this but cannot even clearly state your problems with the quote. What is wrong with the quote? Str1977 ^(talk) 01:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, reading the quote I remembered that another source, Ibn Kathir, states that around 400 were killed, not 600-900. Should we add his passage in too? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We should definitely add the information. Also, I am not clinging to the quote - I only questioned BS's reasons for removing it. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Demise" misleading

The term "demise" implies that the Banu Qurayza died by themselves rather than being slain after having surrendered.

Siege, surrender, slaying and slavery would probably be the most appropriate title. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, demise does not necessitate whatever you just said, its a broad term for end of something which is what happened to the Banu Qurayza.

And we've already been through those setup of titles on this talk and in mediation and none were agreeable to everyone, changing it over and over is not going to do anything either.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to skip "surrender" and to call the slaying "demise". You and they had argued over the original title that read "massacre". 80.179.192.75 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to skip "surrender" and to call the slaying "demise". - Demise includes their surrender and dissolve; like I said, demise does not necessarily and/or literally implied death.

You and they had argued over the original title that read "massacre". - yes and we came up with this compromise which we agreed was not POV but it give a general understanding of what happened, that after this the BQ tribe was dissolved in more ways than one.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Demise" in no way indicates slaying after surrender. It is therefore necessary to correct it. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 80.179.192.75 (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Never said it did. We've all made our points and all sides have agreed to "demise", stop repeating the same thing over and over again and most importantly, stop disrupting the article. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Demise indicates that the tribe in substance came to an end at the time (not every single member of course).

It was a compromis solution avoiding words unacceptable to some editors, me included - words like "punishment" (implying guilt), "execution" (implying a real verdict and also bad as a word) - as well as the word unacceptable to others: Massacre.

"Slaying after surrender" is not fit for a header anyway for stylistic reasons - we need to be short.

The SSSS solution proposed above really sucks already because of the alliteration and includes to too many things at once. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest two titles: Siege and surrender for the first paragraph and Slaying and slavery for the rest of the story. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear 80..., you are welcome to register here and to bring up the issue on the ongoing meditiation which resulted in the wording "demise". Str1977 ^(talk) 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The "demise" solution came after a long debate. Unless anyone (specifically 80.179.192.75) have reaaaally good reasons to change it (like tens of academic scholarly sources, for example) we'll stick with what we have now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bless sins (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The existing title Siege and demise is inadequate and misleading while the recommended titles Siege and surrender for the first paragraph and Slaying and slavery for the rest of the story are accurate and appropriate. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just repeating over and over something doesn't mean it will happen; address the points responded to you or stop this. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no alternative but to correct the misleading title "Siege and demise". 80.179.192.75 (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading about that title. ITAQALLAH 20:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an insult to the intelligence of the Wikipedia readers. To call the slaying "demise" is to coverup the mass slaughter that took place. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets try compromise again, starting with the Introduction

I am disappointed not only that our mediation ended so abruptly and prematurely and we learned nothing from it, that we're still at a revert war posting the same accusations whenever we revert. However, the mediation is in the past and its not like we didn't accomplish anything. Therefore I suggest we start another mediation but this time here and we do it yard by yard starting from the continuous reverts in the introduction and only moving on to the next paragraph after this one is settled. Please, I'm only trying to find us a middle ground.

But first, please let me ask some questions regarding both edits to each users. I'm not asking for any arguments or presentation of points yet or any remarks on what wording I use with my questions, I just want to know point by point where you stand and I wont respond till both of you respond to my questions:

To Str1977: One, do you believe that BQ committed any sort of actions during the battle of the trench that could on any level be considered treacherous? Two, do you believe that there were any conditions to the surrender of Banu Qurayza?

To Bless sins: One, do you believe that the BQ was sieged on charges of treachery and collaboration with the Confederates? Two, do you believe that Muhammad led the Muslims to the BQ or do you have a source that says he put someone else in charge?

I hope you both find it in your best interests to go along with this possible one last attempt at a truce. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any "charges" were formally laid as everyone included the Banu Qurayza knew what was going on. But the reason for their execution was their treachery (more specifically their collaboration with the invading army).

The sources say he (prophet Muhammad) called for the Muslims to besiege the Qurayza and about how and when to pray 'Asr. But there are also sources that say that Muslims (either on the way, or after reaching the Banu Qurayza stronghold) disputed about what directives the prophet had given about 'Asr salat. This means that the prophet Muhammad may not physically have been present.Bless sins (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How much longer should we wait Jedi Master. I think you should try and get Str1977's attention.Bless sins (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert the article back to the changes you prefer but instead of the usual message, write in to check the talk page. If that doesn't work then he's probably busy and he'll come when he's ready; I'll give him till Monday and then I'll put something on his talk page if he still hasn't responded. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mik.

Yes, it is unfortunate that the mediation ended as it did. I was surprised to learn of that just today. I can in no way subsribe to Shell's closing comments. But let's leave that aside.

You asked: "One, do you believe that BQ committed any sort of actions during the battle of the trench that could on any level be considered treacherous?"

Yes, I do. But on another point: "charged" is not necessarily a judicial term. My preference in the intro is based on the consideration that we are basically here dealing with an (informal, not judicial) accusation of treachery. The "considered" (as opposed to the "charged") runs the risk of creating the false impression that the BQ's actions are clearly established facts and only the Muslim interpretation of it is opinion. Surely there are some clearly established facts (e.g. that the BQ welcomed Huyayy) but there is still a long way from these facts to the charge of treachery. And it is the charge of treachery that is the thing that led to the further events.

You also asked: "Two, do you believe that there were any conditions to the surrender of Banu Qurayza?"

Basing myself on the extant sources on the matter as judged by modern scholars, I believe that the BQ surrendered unconditionally into the hands of Muhammad. Sure, some scholars seem to contradict this but I think this is due to a misinterpretation of the account relating the "BQ agreeing to Sad as mediator".

BS,

as for the physical presence ot Muhammad at the stronghold, please consider that the siege lasted for days and of course he was not present all the time. My impression from the sources (the "angel Gabriel sequence") was that he led the forces to the stronghold in the first place. Also, "leading" is not merely a physical action. Even if M. stayed behind (which I don't believe is accurate), he still led the Muslims by sending them.

Finally, a very serious remark:

I am trying to AGF despite all that happened. But BS, you shouldn't take Mik's remark as a licence to revert by pointing to the talk page. You again blanket reverted and there is nothing on this talk page that would justify this. And yes, you did blanket revert - the best indicator is the phrase "the ninth-century collection of Arabic poetry Kitab al-Aghani", consider the lifespan of the author and tell me whether he was such a prodigy that he composed this at the age of three?

Str1977 ^(talk) 10:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, both of you, for agreeing to this. Also, I told Bless to revert to catch your attention Str b/c you hadn't responded for more than a week, sorry if you think that was the wrong course of action but just so you know, thats what he meant from his explanation. Anyhow:

To Str1977: What do you consider unconditional? Do the accounts which say that the BQ accepted Sa'd say they take place after they surrendered?

To Bless sins: Is there any source(s) which in any clear way state(s) there was anyone else leading OR giving orders besides Muhammad?

To both: Maybe the problem is absolute assertion like if I was to assert what I think, I'd say IMO. Therefore, tell me what you think of these 2 possibilities. 1) ...the tribe is said to have taken various actions during the Battle of the Trench that the Muslims regarded as treacherous (OR contrary to agreements held between them and the Muslims)... 2) ...the tribe was accused of treachery and collaboration with the Arab confederates by the Muslims...

I await your replies. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Mik,

• All right. If that was your intention, it worked (but only because I looked at this page). Still, given the past history of reverting, my reaction is only understandable.
• "Unconditional surrenders" means that the party surrendering puts up no conditions but simply surrenders, leaving the other party free to decide anything. ANY choice by the BQ on the matter of the arbitrator contradicts this. There is no case for arbitration as the BQ by surrendering unconditionally have no basis for any claim. The sources also say that the arbitration was between Muhammad and the Banu Aus.
• IMHO, the accusation is a fact and was the basis for the subsequent events. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, Mik: I am not trying to dissuade you from the course taken, Master Jedi, but maybe the intro is not the best issue to start with. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any sources that say that someone else besides Muhammad was giving orders. During the battle, there were some forces acting independent of Muhammad.

Of the two possibilities I'd agree more with the first one, since the tribe did take some actions that have been regarded as contrary to their agreement. (Note that medieval Muslims aren't the only ones that consider the Qurayza's actions as contrary to their agreement). Also I'd rather use "contrary to their agreement" as opposed to "treacherous" since the former is more specific and less sensational. (I'll change my mind if good sources can be found for the opinion of treachery).Bless sins (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Now then: Str,

• Yeah but you've never seen him post a message like this one before, no matter (do not respond to this).
• Please tell me which of the possible compromises is most fitting or why none of them are or what could be done to improve one or some.
• Do you agree that there are sources suggesting that Muhammad asked BQ if they would like to choose him or Sa'd? We discussed this before and I brought up Ibn Kathir but I just want to make sure you're considering that. Would you then call it a "conditional surrender" if this is a possibility?
• Its the first thing people will see being flip flopped in this edit war when they enter the article so I'm going to start here.

Bless,

• So if the only suggested leader of the forces is Muhammad, what's wrong w/ saying he led them?
• Give some examples of "independent forces" for me if you will.
• Thanks for your input on that.
• Tell me, what were the conditions of the agreement w/ the Muslims and Jews that you think the Jews the broke?

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mik,

• "Please tell me which of the possible compromises is most fitting or why none of them are or what could be done to improve one or some."

Sorry for being dense but what again where the suggested compromises?

• "Do you agree that there are sources suggesting that Muhammad asked BQ if they would like to choose him or Sa'd?"

That would be quite a bad choice either way. But no, I haven't seen any sources that make such a suggestion. No, I don't think IK makes it either. Muhammad was party to the dispute, not a possible arbiter (regardless of whether the BA or the BQ were the other party).

• "Would you then call it a "conditional surrender" if this is a possibility?" If the BQ had the possibility to issue conditions it would be a conditional surrender. Problem is that is contradicted by our sources.
• "Its the first thing people will see being flip flopped in this edit war when they enter the article so I'm going to start here."

Okay, your choice. I was merely giving advice.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Jedi:

• Probably nothing wrong with saying that Muhammad led the Muslims to besiege the Banu Qurayza.
• At this point I don't know the names. But again, I gave you the 'Asr example showing how Muslims disputed amongst each other. This indicates that one party was independent of another. During the entire battle of the Trench, there were independents: from the new convert who sowed discord amongst the confederates, to the the Hypocrites.
• First and foremost, the Jews would not help the enemy against Muslims (either actively by fighting or passively by allowing them into Medina).
• There may also have been an agreement to common defense, but Watt suggests this is unclear.

I think at this point we (Str1977 and I) should start proposing compromises to each other.Bless sins (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Bless, go ahead.

As for your other point: let's remember that neither Mecca nor Jathrib were modern states. Neither had a governoment or some unified chain of cammand. They were basically places where individual tribes and clans lived and aside from tribal relations none could be forced to do anything. Muhammad of course introduced the Mulism Umma as a sort of super tribe transcending (or even doing away with) the old tribal allegiances. This resulted in the centralistation of power in the hands of Muhammad and the Caliphs - but that was a process with various stages. Muhammad as still a charistiamatic, prophetic figure and not a monarchical ruler. Still, his position made him the highest - and for Muslims undeniable - authority. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Still, his position made him the highest - and for Muslims undeniable - authority." Only to the true believers (to whom he was the most beloved). There is evidence that he was challenged as a leader by Abdullah Ibn Ubayy and the Hypocrites (who were ostensibly Muslims) sought to undermine him. That this happened during the Battle of the trench is chronicled in the Qur'an. Anyways, I think the discussion is going off topic? I'm waiting for Jedi Master to tie this up into some sort of compromise.Bless sins (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sure this goes off topic. Just one more thing: no - M's authority could not be openly challenged by any Muslim. The Munafiqun, regardless of how one views them, were at least nominal Muslims and as such could not reject Muhammad when speaking as a prophet.

But back to the topic: I though you wanted to suggest a compromise. Please go ahead. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that by not responding after every post, the mediation has been hijacked; sorry but that wasn't my intent and sorry that I couldn't respond all the time b/c one, I wait first for both parties to respond and two, I was busy for the past few days organizing some event. Anyways, I'll continue this:

Str:

• :Sorry for being dense but what again where the suggested compromises? - Just b/c it doesn't have you're name on it doesn't mean I didn't address something to you too. They are not hard to find, read 2 posts back to where I address you both beginning w/ to both and there are some phrases/sentences in ITALICS.
• I haven't seen any sources that make such a suggestion. No, I don't think IK makes it either. - So you don't remember in a previous topic that whole piece of section of Ibn Kathir I rewrote here from the internet where it suggested in plain wording that BQ agreed to have Sa'd decide their fate? I'm not saying do you think that Ibn Kathir suggests that BQ chose Sa'd themselves, I know you think thats too vague to suggest that, I'm saying do you think BQ agreed to it?
• Okay, your choice. I was merely giving advice. - no offense but the last time you gave advice to the mediator, you pissed him off and he prematurely ended the mediation.
• I don't know why I didn't ask this; if I did you probably didn't see it for probably the same reason you didn't see the suggested compromises: What do you think is wrong with mentioning Sa'd in the introduction?

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mik,

what happened? Are you suddenly bent on destroying the chance that we might come to a solution anytime soon? Why showering me with "niceties"? Please consider whether this is in any way helpful

No, though I read what you direct at BS too but not with the same care as I do the postings directed towards me. I though there was a reason for your directing things to him and to me. There is no harm in me asking an honest question. I don't know why you react like this. I will try to find the answers myself. Sucess not guaranteed.

Also, I was giving you honest advice that I personally think other matters more pressing and, since there the conflict is more substantial, even easy to deal with. As I said, you need not take my advice and am not going to stall your attempt because of it. But please refrain from unqualified comments about the mediation. The mediator did not react to either party equally, did demand to make a second step before the first - and all that after staying away for quite a while - only then to be insulted and close the case with personal attacks against me. Please, I want to leave that sad case behind and so should you.

PS. These are general remarks. I will address specific points in a later posting further down. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have generally kept out of the conversation between Jedi Master and Str1977, but will say one thing: the above is a mis characterization of the mediator's honest attempts to broker compromise and resolution on the article. Blaming the mediator (who volunteered to help) is the least appropriate thing of all.Bless sins (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bs, I'd appreciate it if you kept out of this. I did not make this an issue and have not intention of pursuing this further (BTW, I never question that mediator's honesty or his volunteering. But I will not be made the scapegoat for the mediation's failure.) Please, let's get back to the actual issues. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

BS:

• But again, I gave you the 'Asr example showing how Muslims disputed amongst each other. - And who do you think mediated and gave a final decision on those disputes? Soldiers of unit can quarrel over things like living space or what not but their unit commander will often times be the one to come in and settle the fuss.
• During the entire battle of the Trench - We're not talking about the battle of the trench nor does the introduction go into any great detail over who led what in it.
• from the new convert who sowed discord amongst the confederates, to the the Hypocrites. - According to the article, Muhammad sent the convert on that mission; as for the Hypocrites, aside from what I said above, being a faction w/ alterior motives than the main group or leader doesn't make it a leader too b/c if it did, they'd be their own separate entity leading their own group.
• I think at this point we (Str1977 and I) should start proposing compromises to each other. - If that is all that was needed, this talk page would not have been this long and I wouldn't have made this topic to try and solve something, please stick to what I've set up here b/c I didn't say anything about just quitting and going wherever you want half way through.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• The soldiers did what they wanted. Those that wanted to pray 'Asr before prayed it before, and those that wanted to pray later did so. Does it help if I agree that the soldiers besieged the Banu Qurayza at the prophet's command?
• Ok sure.
• The convert offered his service to the prophet, who accepted them. The rest of the tie the convert acted independently. The Hypocrites had thier own leader, Abdullah ibn Ubayy. If you remember, the Hypocrites left the battlefield under the leadership of ibn Ubayy at the Battle of Uhud, acting as a separate entity.
• Sure I'll stick to what you've set up. Can you explain where you are going with this?
• I definitely think Sa'd should be mentioned in the introduction since he is the one that decreed the most important event the Qurayza's life.Bless sins (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

BS, the "Hypocrites" are not a group of their own. They do not have a leader. Tribes and clans had leaders and the Umma had a leader in Muhammad. Do you think the Hypocrites stood there, declaring "We are the Hypocrites, our leader is Abdallah"? Str1977 ^(talk) 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mik, here is the posting promised above:

• with the suggested compromise, are you referring to this passage above?

Maybe the problem is absolute assertion like if I was to assert what I think, I'd say IMO. 
Therefore, tell me what you think of these 2 possibilities. 1) ...the tribe is said to have taken 
various actions during the Battle of the Trench that the Muslims regarded as treacherous (OR 
contrary to agreements held between them and the Muslims)... 2) ...the tribe was accused of 
treachery and collaboration with the Arab confederates by the Muslims...

• Well, I looked up Ibn Kathir on the mediation page (not easy to find because the relevant discussion was "hidden"). Here is it again, copied from one of your postings, Mik:
  Ahmad stated that Muhammad b. Jafar related to him, quoting Shuba from Sa'd b. Ibrahim, quoting Abu Umama b. Sahl, who said, "I heard Abu Sa'id al-Khudri say, 'Banu Qurayza agreed to sumit to the authority of Sa'd b. Mu'adh. So the Messenger of God (SAAS) sent for Sa'd who came to him on a donkey. When he drew near the mosque, the Messenger of God (SAAS) said, "Stand up for your master" (or "your better"). He then said, "These people have submitted to your authority." He (Sa'd) stated, "We shall execute their warriors and take their children prisoner." The Messenger of God (SAAS) commented, "you have given judgement with God's decree." He may have said, "You have given judgement with the malik's ('the ruler's') decree." According to another account, the word used was malak, "angel".'"
  It seems my recollection was correct - Ibn Kathir does not make any statement regarding the BQ chosing Sad. You might recall that we discussed this same misreading of yours before. This source here says merely that the BQ agreed to submit to Sad. That's totally different from your statement above.
• Sad definitely doesn't belong into the intro because his role his tangential. He was called (by Muhammad) to decide a dispute between Muhammad and the BA. Also, remember that this is not written for those well versed in Islamic history but for the average reader. And those have never heard about Sad. The intro should give a very brief overview, not introduce minor characters.

Str1977 ^(talk) 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bless:

• Those that wanted to pray 'Asr before prayed it before, and those that wanted to pray later did so. - Before/After what?
• Does it help if I agree that the soldiers besieged the Banu Qurayza at the prophet's command? - Yes, yes it would; in fact, thats all the introduction is asking for.
• The rest of the tie the convert acted independently. - The methods he took don't negate the fact that he was under the command of Muhammad.
• The Hypocrites had thier own leader, Abdullah ibn Ubayy. - Yes but like Str said, they weren't like a self-declared opposition with Abdullah elected as their ringleader and outwardly they did "follow" Muhammad when they didn't have any other choice or reason to not.
• the Hypocrites left the battlefield under the leadership of ibn Ubayy at the Battle of Uhud - We're not talking about the battle of Uhud, AFAIK all the Muslims stayed for the siege of BQ and even if some didn't, thats what we call desertion today.
• Sure I'll stick to what you've set up. Can you explain where you are going with this? - A compromise hopefully >_>.

Str:

• with the suggested compromise, are you referring to this passage above? - Thats the one, what do you think? Any rub off well w/ you?
• This source here says merely that the BQ agreed to submit to Sad. That's totally different from your statement above. - I'm not sure how you've been reading my posts but thats exactly what I've been saying -_-;.
• Sad definitely doesn't belong into the intro because his role his tangential. - This isn't like AL though, his word is what made the difference between life and death for a tribe.
• Consider this compromise: The Banu Qurayza surrendered and after deliberation with allied tribes, a mediator decided that all the men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were beheaded, while all the women and children were enslaved.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mik,

• I read your posting to say that the BQ chose Sad. But I am content that we now agree that IK says that the BQ agreed to submit to Sad.
• Sure, Sad is a bit more important than AL but he is nonetheless a minor figure. Consider that not a single leader of the BQ is mentioned in the intro, so why should we mention a subaltern of Muhammad? I know, you'd say he decreed the BQ's fate but that is just as much Muhammad's decision as Sad's. Sad only appears at this late date. And no, mentioning him without giving his name doesn't change this.
• As for your above suggestions, the second one certainly is acceptable (though I would not use the term "Arab confederates"). The first one seems a bit too complicated in structure but not wrong contentwise.

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Jedi Master:

• I'm not sure of the exact details of the event. But the question was should 'Asr be prayed on the way to Qurayza stronghold, or upon reaching there.
• Note that the besieging happened at the prophet's command not the beheading.
• That is why they were called "Hypocrites". Ostensibly they were faith followers of the prophet. Inside, and when no one was watching them, they connived against him, spread rumors etc.
• Also, you might want to consider the amount of details we are providing in the intro. Particular details that we may want to mention or not are:

• The Qurayza collaborated with the invading army
• The Qurayza were accused of conspiracy
• The arbitrator (not mediator)'s name was Sa'd
• The arbitrator was mutually agreed upon
• The arbitrator was from a tribe allied to the Qurayza
• According to some historians, the arbitrator was chosen by both parties
• Those who converted to Islam weren't killed
• A woman who had killed a Muslim was killed

We have to hammer out the details that will be mentioned and those that shouldn't be.Bless sins (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for sure why you are discussing these points? What is the relevance of Asr?

There is no basis to exclude Muhammad from the beheading. He endorsed Sad's call and had similar things in mind anyway.

The Hypocrites are not a group - it is a label put on various people by Muhammad and Muslims.

As for the suggested details:

• "The Qurayza collaborated with the invading army" - Yes, but only in a neutral fashion. Worded like this it is just wrong.
• "The Qurayza were accused of conspiracy" - Yes.
• "The arbitrator (not mediator)'s name was Sa'd" - No.
• "The arbitrator was mutually agreed upon" - No.
• "The arbitrator was from a tribe allied to the Qurayza" - No.
• "According to some historians, the arbitrator was chosen by both parties" - No.

The arbitrator has no place in the intro at all. Also, "both parties" is ambiguous when it is not clearly stated that the two parties were Muhammad and the Banu Aus. But that IMHO is too complicated for the intro.

• "Those who converted to Islam weren't killed" - Yes, because that was a general thing.
• "A woman who had killed a Muslim was killed" - No, because that was a lone exception.

Str1977 ^(talk) 16:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'Asr prayer demonstrates that when Muslim were marching to the Qurayza stronghold, the prophet was not accompanying (let alone leading) them. Or this was the case with atleast some of them, if not all.

He endorsed S'ad's call, but then again so do the books of Torah.

If we don't mention the name, a the very least we must give a wikilink. Also, I find you wanting to include some details, while excluding others to be POV. Also the arbitrator was chosen by the Qurayza as three reliable sources indicate.Bless sins (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is not about whether Muhammad was physically present everywhere all the time but that he was leader of the entire event. The prayer seems irrelevant to me.
• You forget AL's sign. Also, you are doubles-apeaking about the Torah - a book written centuries earlier cannot endorse actions committed later.
• Sad has no place in the intro. He is rightfully mentioned in the article text.

Please do not claim "as per talk" when there is nothing to justify your actions, especiall if these are a blanket revert. I cannot conclude good faith on this.

Also, quotes are quotes. Zeitlin says "massacre" and so we accurately quote him. Please do not violate the one result the mediation had again. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• If the prophet wasn't even there, how could he lead? There were no means of telecommunications (e.g. phones, walkie talkies etc.).
• Yet the Torah's laws are applicable today to the point that Orthodox Jews still observe them.

In the section titled "justification" I explained all my edits one by one in a clear fashion.

The result of the mediation was to avoid both "massacre" and "execution". Please don't introduce the former word, and I won't introduce the latter word. Quotes? I can provide 19 quotes that use the word "execution" but that doesn't give me the right to include them in the article. You are endorsing the usage of "massacre" by using the word "note" (as if the analysis is true and Zeitling et al. simply observe it).Bless sins (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Now, don't act hard to get. Someone like Muhammad was able lead even without being present ALL THE TIME.
• Are you not getting it? Muhammad was alive and could comment on Sad's decision. The Torah is a book written centuries earlier with its author having no knowledge of the specific situation of 7th century Jathrib. Furthermore, the Torah does not condone the actions of Muhammad, and actually doesn't apply to him. Can you cite any massacres done by Jewish conquerers of a city in the 7th century? If you want to do exegesis, stick to the Quran.
• The mediation concerned the parts of the text written by us. We cannot change quotes (or an author's name).

07:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Back, now then: Str:

• Consider that not a single leader of the BQ is mentioned in the intro - None of them did anything overtly significant like those of other tribes.
• that is just as much Muhammad's decision as Sad's. - Its irrelevant or not whether there was some secret plot to take blame off Muhammad or some inference suggests it b/c in the end whats most solidly agreed upon is that all parties agreed they'd take Sa'd as the decider of BQ's fate.
• The first one seems a bit too complicated in structure but not wrong contentwise. - Alright, good, you agree there's nothing wrong w/ the content but you say its complicated so could you give a "non-complicated" version w/o changing the meaning?
• "The arbitrator was mutually agreed upon" - No. - BA said to be leniant, Muhammad said what if one of them did it, they said they'd be cool w/ it, he picked their chief Sa'd. Muhammad went to the BQ and asked whether they'd agree to Sa'd, they said yes. Whats wrong w/ this picture?
• "The arbitrator was from a tribe allied to the Qurayza" - No. - previously allied.
• a book written centuries earlier cannot endorse actions committed later. - please, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it (someday >_>;).

Bless:

• Note that the besieging happened at the prophet's command not the beheading. - Don't worry, as it looks, the sentence in itself does not say or infer that.
• That is why they were called "Hypocrites"...... - But again they tried outwardly being on the side of Muhammad and as far as the BQ incident goes, they didn't make any ruckus during it.
• The 'Asr prayer demonstrates that when Muslim were marching to the Qurayza stronghold, the prophet was not accompanying (let alone leading) them. - Physically not being there doesn't mean you didn't order some action to take place and be organized and what not. There might have been sub-commanders or whatever but unless we know who they were, the sentence is only inferring the head of the entire operation was Muhammad. It doesn't matter that little decisions like when to pray were decided not by Muhammad b/c little things like that happen in sub-units of armies, it doesn't mean the head-general isn't in-charge anymore.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, back now, Mik,

• I clearly distinguish two things: are names notable enough for the article and are they notable enough for the intro. The BQ chiefs are certainly notable, no less than other participants. But placing their names in the intro doesn't add informative value. The same goes for Sad.
• I was not suggesting a secret plot. The information is plain for everyone to see. I am not suggesting putting "Muhammad had them killed" in the intro. But I am opposing the inclusion of such a detail as Sad.
• I can give it a try (though that will necessarily move closer to the second option). How about "...the tribe was accused of various actions during the Battle of the Trench that the Muslims regarded as treacherous." However, I do prefer the second option (sans the expression "Arab confederates")
• "Whats wrong w/ this picture?" Your picture is correct but that is not "mutually agreed upon" - M. made a suggestion which the BA accepted. Then M. chose Sad and the BA were bound to it. Some sources have the BQ formally submit to him too (though they hardly had a choice, having surrendered unconditionally). That is not mutual agreement of equal partners.
• You mistake my "No" - it refers to "shall we include it" as this was your question. The information given in this is correct. No, they were not previously allied - that's Muslim POV. The other BA leaders certainly did not agree.
• "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it." Okay, I did not start this.

Str1977 ^(talk) 07:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Jedi Master.

I think all our major issues are in order. I agree that the siege was called on for by the prophet (at the instruction of Gabriel). I also agree that the Hypocrites have no particular part in the siege of Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mik and BS, could we continue this? Thanks, Str1977 ^(talk) 08:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Str:

• Ok ok, we'll try it your way but let me address it further a little later.
• If thats not the case (and it doesn't matter), stop bringing up the assertion that Muhammad's decision was definitely gonna be the same as Sa'd's as part of your arguments.
• Some sources have the BQ formally submit to him too (though they hardly had a choice, having surrendered unconditionally). That is not mutual agreement of equal partners. - Nobody said they were partners, its true the loser will have lesser say in the decision making process. However, the fact that they were asked at all by Muhammad if they would agree to Sa'd says that he let them have at least that, suggesting anything more than that becomes speculation and also what I said above.
• No, they were not previously allied - that's Muslim POV. The other BA leaders certainly did not agree. - Where did the other BA leaders not agree they were former allies? Also, the BQ wiki article says the following and AFAIK didn't mention anything about it being disputed as POV: The Banu Nadir and the Banu Qurayza were allied with the Aws, while the Banu Qaynuqa sided with the Khazraj.

Bless:

• What do you think of the option that Str suggested above: ...the tribe was accused of various actions during the Battle of the Trench that the Muslims regarded as treacherous.

To both:

• What do you think of this suggestion: After some deliberation, the tribes agreed to execute the men of BQ and take the women and children as slaves (captives, prisoners, whatever) Of course the parenthese'd and acronym'd stuff is temporary but what about the whole thing? There was a short deliberation btwn the BA and Muhammad where Muhammad decided a BA leader would make the decision and then they all agreed that they would follow anything he decided so in essence they did agree to it...seriously.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• "the tribe was accused of various actions" Strongly disagree. The Qurayza's actions are well-documented, no need for the word "accusation". I think it may be best to implement a suggestion by Aminz, in which we specify what exactly the Qurayza did. Length is no problem since the lead is too short anyways.
• "that the Muslims regarded as treacherous" Well even modern scholars say that the Qurayza did not respect their pact (or atleast it is very likely they didn't).

We could say something like "the tribe did ______________, actions that were contrary to their previous agreement with Muhammad, and were thus accused of treachery."

Or, "The Banu Qurayza had agreed with the Muslims to ________. However during the battle of the Trench the Qurayza did ________________. This action was considered treacherous and the Muslims besieged the Qurayza soon after..."

Regarding your second suggestion. I think that works. However, we should make clear the the Qurayza was involved in those "deliberation". I'd rephrase it to "After some deliberation between the tribes (which included the Banu Qurayza), it was agreed that the men be killed and the women and children be taken captive".Bless sins (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Mik,

• "If thats not the case (and it doesn't matter), stop bringing up the assertion that Muhammad's decision was definitely gonna be the same as Sa'd's as part of your arguments."

Well, it would have been the same. At least, that's what some scholars are saying based on the sources. I will bring this up only where this is relevant.

• ""Nobody said they were partners, its true the loser will have lesser say in the decision making process."

You make it sound like they were partners. And no, sources do not say that the BQ had a part in the decision making. They only had the (formal) choice to accept Sad or reject him. We do not know what would have happened had they rejected him and I will not speculate about it now.

• "Where did the other BA leaders not agree they were former allies?"

One does not come to the help of former allies - they were allies plain and simple, not former. Hence the articles you cite are correct. Sorry, if I was not clear enough.

• "What do you think of this suggestion: After some deliberation, the tribes agreed to execute the men of BQ and take the women and children as slaves (captives, prisoners, whatever)"

No way. The tribes did not "agree to execute" - they agreed to have Sad decide. You know my view about "execute". As for the final bit, there is no alternative to the word "slaves"/"enslave". However, I am willing to include the phrase "After an arbitration, the BQ were ..." (Deliberation IMHO does not work as this word doesn't add anything.)

BS,

• "Strongly disagree. The Qurayza's actions are well-documented, no need for the word "accusation"..."

So you are basically saying you will not have anything but your preferred version. You could have told us so before, saving us the trouble of actually trying to work something out.

• "I think it may be best to implement a suggestion by Aminz, in which we specify what exactly the Qurayza did. Length is no problem since the lead is too short anyways."

Nope, that is not the job of the lead which is in no way too short. What exactly they did or were charged with is well covered in the article.

• "Well even modern scholars say that the Qurayza did not respect their pact (or atleast it is very likely they didn't)."

That's not true and you know it.

• "Regarding your second suggestion. I think that works. However, we should make clear the the Qurayza was involved in those "deliberation"."

So we should make clear to insert false information into the lead? Give me a break. And again, there never was an (open) agreement between the tribes to kill the BQ. Basically your version is saying the BQ agreed to be killed and have their women and children enslaved. Ridiculous, Str1977 ^(talk) 15:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• "you are basically saying you will not have anything but your preferred version" This can't go on. I never said anything of the sort. If you claim I said things I didn't say then I don't think the discussion can progress.
• "which is in no way too short" Per Wikipedia:LEAD#Length, an article of this sized length should have a lead of 2-3 paragraphs. "What exactly they did or were charged with is well covered in the article." I know it is covered in my version, unfortunately you keep on removing it.
• "That's not true and you know it." Ramadan, Peterson, Nomani, Searjent, Watt etc. say it in one form or another.
• "So we should make clear to insert false information into the lead?" If the information is sourced, that's all that matters. Wikipedia is concerned only with verifiability, not truth.Bless sins (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, please stop twisting this phrase. You have done so 218 times and it doesn't make it any truer ... or verifiablier. Above, "true" did not only mean true but also verifable. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thought: I could live with the following:

"After contacts with the besiegers during the Battle of the Trench, they were accused/charged ...."

This includes both BS' wish for stating that the BQ actually did something as well as the fact that they were accused and it also states what they did - though of course the lead must be more general in its treatment. What do you think? Str1977 ^(talk) 15:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"contacts"? They allowed Huyayy to come in, though he had been banished. They never helped in defending Medina (discounting the shovels they provided). They openly told the prophet's representatives that "there was no pact" between them and the Muslims. They agreed to attack the Muslims on the condition that the Meccans send some hostages.

Sure we can mention the "contacts", alongside the mention of the above facts as well.Bless sins (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you moved to quick with your edits. Note the message on your talk page. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the substance of your reverts: I see no relation to my suggested compromise. You simply posted your cherished version (constituting a 4th revert in the process) - do you actually understand the meaning of the word compromise? Str1977 ^(talk) 17:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

POV concerns

Im surprised this article isn't being called anti-semetic, because it's has a *few* traces of Islamic perspectives in it. You know, as opposed to being a piece of Zionist propaganda being passed off as fair and balanced.

This entire article is full of baseless jewish propaganda. It is well documented the Banu Qurayza were executed for treason. That is what merited them the death penalty, that they commited treason. The Quarash and other tribes the Muslims fought against were outright enemies who were persecuting them from the start. But the Qurayza signed a peace treaty, then broke it by aiding the enemy. This article contains soo much jewish propaganda that you'd think they were executed for no reason (which no doubt is their aim). Here is a great example. Look at this citation

"According to Stillman, Muhammad chose Sa'd ibn Mua'dh so as not to pronounce the judgment himself after the precedents he had set with the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir: "Sa`d took the hint and condemned the adult males to death and the hapless women and children to slavery." Furthermore, Stillman infers from Abu Lubaba's gesture that Muhammad had decided the fate of the Qurayza even before their surrender."

This author is Norman A Stillman, a Zionist Jew who is very biased. Why is he being used as a quote in an Islamic article? And further more, why is his baseless conjecture allowed to be used, as if it's a fact?

There are articles for "Criticisms of Islam" where the Jews and others can write whatever they want. But they should have no hand in editing Islamic articles. Because I looked up the Jewish articles and I noticed they dont allow dissent there. You cant put a Muslim perspective on evil acts commited by Jews, without it disappearing instantly. So the same standard MUST be applied to Islamic articles. Islamic articles must be written from the Islamic point of view, and the jews can write their responses in appropriate "criticisms of Islam" articles. If not, I will personally edit the Jewish articles and fill them with my conjectures about their history. And I will find a non-Jewish admin to arbitrate over the Islamic articles.

Good day.

HolyMuslimWarrior (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read this talk page, specifically all of the places where "treason" or "traitor" is mentioned, and if you still believe that we need to mention treason, provide some reliable sources and we can discuss it. It is easy for our article to be neutral and mention all POVs, but it does require that people like yourself participate. We work from academic sources, not personal conjecture. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes by Devotus and issues with them

Dear Devotus, I have still issues with your changes:

• Bat Yeor and Ramadan - while I appreciate that you don't try you shift the balance - removing a book from "each side" - I do not agree with your removal. Bat Yeor is an academic scholar and though her books are controversial, she is not beyond the pale - currently she doesn't serve as a reference in the article but if she did, the controversy would be noted. As for Ramadan I have issues with him as well but if we remove him from the literature section, we would have to remove him from the article too, in which he serves as a reference. This is due to the insistence of User:Bless sins. He will certainly not like such a removal. We cannot remove him from the literature section while retaining him in the article.
• While your first version was needlessly verbose ("it is to be noted that"), the new one endorses that view by Paret/Watt. The article now says that the BQ were not killed for religious reasons - that is not a fact, since there is a good case that the whole conflict was caused by religious differences.
• Also we do not want to repeat things that have already been said in the coverage of the "siege and demise", e.g. the claim about attacking M. in the rear.
• Also, please abide by the one resolved conflict. We fought hard and long about words like "massacre" and "execution" and neither should appear unless unavoidable.
• The common practice thing is unacceptable as it is simply not true. Especially the Deuteronomy issue (the inclusion of which is still controversial) cannot serve as an example since the Deuteronomy refers at best to the time frame 1400 BC to 500 BC.
• "Also, the proceedings of Muhammad towards the Qurayza cannot be taken as model for the treatment of Jews under Islamic rule." also cannot stand like this. Why can't this be taken as a model? And who made such a proposal? This article is about the BQ, not about the condition of Jews under Islamic rule throughout the centuries. Since no one made such a claim, we need not debunk it.
• On a stylistic level, please do not mess up the footnotes, we do not want to have several footnotes pointing to identical pages. (and notes saying "..." are useless anyway.)
• One more point: No, I have not read Kister's article. If we mention it we should clearly point out the specific arguments. "Refute" is POV IMHO (even if I don't agree with Arafat's claims).

Str1977 ^(talk) 10:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Str1977,

• The issue with "Bat Ye'or" and Ramadan is not that important, we can maybe discuss it another time. For now, it can stay the way it is. By the way, it doesn't matter to me which "side" such a source belongs to. It's not the question wheter someone is "proislamic" or "antiislamic", it's simply a matter of reliability.
• If you have any recognized academic sources (Paret and Watt have written basic works in this area!) for that claim, then please refer to them. Otherwise we cannot say something unless it is said by scholars in this area (see Wikipedia:No_original_research). As far is I know, today no recognized scholar in this area is of the opinion that the BQ have actually been executed because they were Jews.
• Maybe I have overseen sth., but there is no mention of the BQ nearly attacking Muhammad in his rear. Actually, the story of Kaab b. Asad mentioning three possibilities for the BQ to act is not seen as authentic (see Kister's already mentioned article, p.90). We should refer to academic sources, rather then citing primary sources.
• Well, what shall I call it then? Killing several hundred men is an execution. They actually didn't kiss them to death...Every single book I have ever read about this has called it an execution, it is even mentioned in the title of the article of Kister. But if you have an alternative, then it's no problem.
• Watt, Paret and several other scholars refer to the historical circumstances. I am refering to Stillman, Paret and Watt concerning this claim. Stillman himself is mentioning Deut. 20 as an example for this. You won't certainly doubt the fact, that the Bible is from ancient times (which I refered to in general, in accordance with Stillman). If you have a similar source doubting the claims of Watt, Stillman and Paret, pls show me. Otherwise, please let it be as it is, for you are not refering to any source.
• I have mentioned a source for that claim: E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936, vol.1, p.184 (article "ahl al-kitab" by Ignaz Goldziher). I hope you are aware of the fact, that the Encyclopaedia of Islam is an authority in this matter. In general it is a widely know fact that the Muslim conquerers normally did not execute all the male, adult inhabitants of conquered territory, no matter Jews, Christians or of any other religion. But, as already mentioned above, if you refer to any reliable source for your claims, then please do.
• Sorry about the footnotes, I'm new here.
• Well, Kisters article is pretty important in this matter and should be read. Of course, it takes time and especially place to describe how he refuted Arafats and Ahmads arguments. Since according to you I should be brief and concise, I will probably not be able to summarize an article of more than 30 pages. Read the article, then you'll know what I am talking about - the article is clear enough. That he has refuted their arguments is generally accepted, since no one makes similar claims ever since.

--Devotus (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Devotus is correct in saying that reliability is a factor in removal not "pro-Islam" or "anti-Islam". Ramadan's book has been published by the Oxford University Press, and I have justified its reliability. Bat Ye'or's may (or may not) have been published by a reliable source I have yet to see a justification for that.
• Again I agree with Devotus. We have sources endorsing a fact (or at least what they assume to be fact), and no sources contradicting that fact.
• Banu Qurayza's actions during the siege of Medina should be mentioned there (I agree with Str1977 on this one). However, any actions that are relevant to their demise or Sa'd's judgment deserve a mention in the "Siege and demise" section as well.
• Please see Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Evidence_for_execution for 19 scholarly works that call it an execution. Nevertheless, for the sake of maintaining stability and adhering to the recent mediation, let's use the word "demise" whenever possible. That word has consensus.
• Laws from the Torah have been used throughout history. Besides we have very reliable and academic sources saying this, thus we use it. Devotus' and my request that we follow what sources say (per WP:V), instead of our own opinions is a reasonable one.
• I'm confused about this. Devotus has provided a source. The claim has been proposed, presumably by the author of the source (which has also been provided).
• Given that there are issues with POV and factual accuracy the footnotes are the least of our troubles. Nevertheless the editors should try to maintain them, and I admit I've been quite sloppy.
• "Refute" would be an appropriate claim if we had the academic community saying this. In general I have witnessed professors dismiss the arguments made. Nevertheless "refute" would be a POV word unless we could get multiple sources. Kister is one. Watt, I believe says the arguments are "not entirely convincing".Bless sins (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Str1977 and BS,

• Bat Yeor/Ramadan: I completely agree that the side doesn't matter IF a book is found to be unsuitable. I just wanted to express just quite apart from the good faith I am assuming in Devotus, his removal of these two shows that this was not about changing the balance. But, as I said, the removal nonetheless has its problems. Better to dicuss this later.

• Paret/Watt and other sources: I do not dispute what Paret and Watt say on this. I did not introduce anything else (so no OR as there is no R at all). What my edit did was avoid a sweeping, seemingly factual statement based on Paret and Watt. And no, "killed for their faith" (in some way) is not the same as "killed because they were Jews".
• Please read the relevant discussion on the "execution" issue. How to call it? Well, in this case you can just avoid the whole explanation. The article describes the killing so we do not have to repeat that fact in every other sentence.
• That the event should be considered in the light of its time is a truism. However, Deuteronomy is not a good example - yes, it's from antiquity but it stems from somewhere between 1450 BC (Moses) and 600 BC (King Josiah). There is debate whether the here cited passages were ever implemented. They certainly were not implemented in Josiah's day or beyond, let alone in another land and Muhammad's day. It's practical usage that counts, not whether something is included in holy writ (not even approaching the applicability here).
• As for Goldziher's article - that encyclopedia seems quite old, and again: why should we contradict a claim that is never made. If you want to include this as an opinion go to Jews and Islam or whatever the relevant article is called.
• Yes, Kisters article should be read but I don't have the time. (As my talk page indicates, I should be on wiki-break anyway) and there is definitely no need to hurry this. For the moment, the clarifyme tag serves the purpose of reminding us that there is work to be done. Ah, and BS, yes, if an authoritative work talked about "refutation" I'd be okay. I only meant, we should be careful about using it too loosely, even though I probably would agree with Kisters. That no one repeated the claims, Devotus, is not a good basis because there is no need to repeat a case made.
• Re the footnotes: Devotus, you will get accustomed in time.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. Wordings like "As Watt points out "the reason, of course, was that ..." is endorsing the thought presented and thus violates NPOV, in this case even more so since there is a "of course". Str1977 ^(talk) 19:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Str1977,

• The sources refered to in my version are basic works in this area and state the present state of knowledge in scholarship (you can read the same in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, in “Qurayza” written by Watt, which again indicates how important his research in this matter has been). See also Hamidullah, Battlefields of the Prophet Muhammad: “They [the BQ] had turned traitors during the Siege of the Ditch against Islam…” (p.41) That’s why it should not simply say that it’s their opinion since it is the present state of knowledge. There’s no recognized academic contradicting this theory.
• The issue with the word “execution” has already been solved :)
• Firstly, our opinion in this matter is irrelevant, since it’s Stillman, a recognized scholar citing it as an example. Similar is to be found in the already mentioned work of Hamidullah: “The arbitrator nominated by the Quraizites decreed that they should be treated in the same way as the Bible provided for the enemy defeated by the Jews (Deut., 20:13-14)” Further: Deut. 20:13-14 is not from the 7th century, that’s correct. But: It was still binding for the Jewish community. By the way, when referring to ancient times, we don’t have to refer to a period close to Muhammad’s time.
• William Muir is quite old, Ernest Renan is quite old, but the First EI definitely isn’t, especially since the statement in question is still present state of knowledge. As I said before, it is a known fact that Muslim conquerers did not act towards the subjected people as Muhammad did towards the Qurayza (how they did is to be read in the common basic works). That’s why there is no recognized academic today stating anything in contradiction to that. But, as I already mentioned before, if you have any reputable source contradicting the statement in question, please refer to it.
• The issue with Kister’s article has also been solved :)
• Let’s hope so ;) --Devotus (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Devote,

• No, it is Watt's and Paret's opinion and we should present it as such, not as fact. This way we definitely do not say "this is wrong" or "the Jews were killed for their faith" - we do NOT say this. But neither are we endorsing the opinion of these scholars. The statement "not for their faith" is quite sweeping in the light of the fact that hardly anything these days was unaffected by faith. Consider that the whole conflict was based on religious differences and that those converting to Islam were spared. I don't think my request is too much to ask for.
• Hey, no matter how you put it: the Deuteronomy issue is a quite modern deduction, mostly boiling down to a "conincides with" point. There have been discussions before about including this point and if it is the consensus of editors to include a treatment of the Dtn issue, I will not stand in the way. We once included this but it was removed by consensus. But a) such a treatment should be balanced. b) the issue should not serve as an example for the supposed normal nature of massacres in Muhammad's day.
  • "It was still binding for the Jewish community." But was it binding for the Muslim community? Who is to say it was binding for the Jews? Certainly not some Yathribi chieftain. Jewish law is more than just the Bible, Talmud etc. would have to be considered. And the actual content of the passage would have to be considered. Jews were not known for massacring conquered cities for centuries prior to Muhammad, even when they had the power to do it (e.g. Maccabees).
  • "By the way, when referring to ancient times, we don’t have to refer to a period close to Muhammad’s time." - That is correct but irrelevant. "Ancient times" encompasses many years but "ancient times" is not what is required here.
• Re the EoI thing you are missing my actual point: no one here makes the claim that the BQ massacre is exemplary of how Muslims treated Jews. That would be off topic. We need not include defences against charges not made. As I said, this would be relevant in "Jews and Islams" or "Criticisms of Islam/Muhammad". Not here. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Str1977,

• Basic facts, as already mentioned before: Paret's and Watt's studies are the basic ones in this area. Their statements do net simply represent their opinion, but current state of scholarship. The same is mentioned in the EI and also in the not unimportant work of Haamidullah. The conflict between Muhammad and the BQ had it's religious aspect, but was mainly political (from our point of view since they did not differe between religious and political aspects). The execution had no religious cause whatsoever - Muhammad might have wanted to get rid of them because they rejected islam in such a way, that it was dangerous for his claim of prophethood, but that was not the reason they were executed. the reason was their political activity during al-khandaq. The EI is the highest authority in this area - since the same is to be read there this is to been considered as fact, not opinion, especialy because there is no scholar contradicting to that. If you can provid sources contradicting this, feel free to do so. Converting to Islam ment regretting the actions and surrendering. Most conversion were rather political then by heart. See e.g. Noth's research of this (Früher Islam in Geschichte der arabischen Welt). Conclusion: To put Paret's and Watt's (as well as others) results of research (which is the same result mentioned in the EI, since it was Watt writing that article) merely as an opinion of two scholars is simply understatement, since it represents the current state of research in this area.
• To make the issue with Deut. simple: Stillman is citing it, as well as Hamidullah. Thus our opinion doesn't count since it's academics stating this. Furthermore Hamidullah (as already cited above) states, that the decision was based on what the Jews regarded as their own principle, which indicates that it was binding to them. But most importantly: The text says sth. about ancient times in general, so it doesn't matter wheter it was binding to the BQ or not, since it's meant in general. Let's do this quick: Stillman sais it, nobody contradicts this, our opinion doesn't count (opinion, since you don't refer to any sources) :)
• There's simply no harm in stating a simple fact that is easily to be overseen and is mentioned in the authority in this area (though it has lost it's monopoly since the second and the upcoming third edition of the EI). --Devotus (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Watt's and Paret's opinion is their opinion. Yes, scholarly opinion. Yes, well founded but still opinion.
• Sorry, I cannot accept any turning us into robots or parrots for any writer, especially if the content is nonsense. You may state that Stillman et al. argue that massacres were common. If consensus decides so you may refer to the Dtn issue but we should not combine the two.
• The harm done is to topicality and to the nature of an encyclopedia (and not a collection of Muslim apologetics).

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Str1977,

• Not simply opinion, it's current state of knowledge, which we are here to present. I've written enough about this above. I don't understand your problem with this. Scholarship accepts the fact that the BQ's demise was due to treason and not their faith; there's no single reputable work contradicting this.
• You still haven't provided sources stating that it's incorrect. Hamidullah and Stillman are recognized scholars. As already mentioned several times: Our opinion is irrelevant
• I'm not here to excuse anyones actions on behalf of any religious community what so ever. That the demise of the execution was no role model is often not being considered and has been stressed not only by Goldziher (as already mentioned, Paret's and Watt's research is the basic one in this area - they also have stressed that the demise was not premeditated and that it was nothing more than an occasion). The fact that it is mentioned in the EI legitimates its mentioning completely, since this is the authorative encyclopaedia in scholarship. --Devotus (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Devotus,

• But we do present this here. We just don't state it as a undisputable fact but as the scholarly finding/opinion of noted scholars. It was with care that I chose the wording "pointed out" (and not "argue" or "think" or "believe" or whatever).
• Hey, if Dtn is the only basis for this claim, the claim is nonsense. Out of curiosity, are there any other examples for massacres in Muhammad's day? Or is the reference merely to "ancient times" - I am afraid that is not good enough (BTW, 627 would be considered Middle Ages in common standards).
• Sure you are not here for that. But why then include such a passage? It is the defense against a charge no one here makes. I wouldn't propose including the charge as the whole discussion would detract from the article's topic. And no, the "fact that it is mentioned in the EI" does not legitimates its mentioning in any way. The EoI is a many-volumed work and we do not include all its volumes in this article. And please, do not overstate that book's importance - there is no "the authorative encyclopaedia in scholarship". Str1977 ^(talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Str1977, Let's just forget about the first and third issue, it realy doesn't matter that much and I don't really want to discuss that issue for weeks. But: Stillman is a reputable academic. If you can provide any source contradicting his statement, then pls do. Ifyou don't, then pls let it be - Stillman knows what he's talking about. After all,we do not do what is known as OR. --Devotus (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The above is all OR (I'm afraid anything Str1977, Devotus, or I say without sources is OR). I provided some sources, and Devotus has provided others for the Deuteronomy issue. We'll have to include it.Bless sins (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. We first have to look at what Stillman actually wrote. If he argues on a Dtn basis, this makes him one more source for the Dtn issue - if we so choose to include it. Remember, it was removed before by consensus - there is nothing forcing us into including it, nor are we Robots or Parrots.

It does not make a basis for "massacres were common in Muhammad's day" as it does not concern Muhammad's day (or Arabia).

If he has other examples of massacres, I'd be interested.

(BTW, the last version of Stillman did not contain any useful bibliographical information at all. Simply Stillman ist not enough.)Str1977 ^(talk) 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Important question: Do you have the mentioned works of Stillman, Paret and Watt at hand? In reference to Muhammad's times Watt, Paret and Stillman are writing the same. The Deut.-issue is another statement in reference to ancient times in general. Deut. 20:13-14 is an example, not the basis of that statement - as repeatedly mentioned. As Aminz points out correctly: Anything we say here without having sources to provide for that is OR; as are your arguments, since you don't provide any sources. --Devotus (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out three things:

• I do not object to a statement about the historical context (though I myself consider that a truism) and about including the views of scholars about that. NOTE: these are views, not facts.
• I do not in principle object to the coverage of the Dtn issue, if there is consensus to include it and if it is done in a balanced manner.
• I do object to linking the two. Some people might be interested whether massacres ever happened in antiquity but that is irrelevant for our article. We are (if we chose to include such statements) only interested in event in some proximity to the times and places covered.

PS. I see no comment by Aminz.

Str1977 ^(talk) 18:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

PPS. Ah, and please, within your edits you are again messing up the bibligraphy. Please, no "pp", no "sqq." or other crypting acronyms. Take "p." for page, and give the exact page numbers (you can type "123f." if it is just this and the following page. Any footnote should end in a full stop and blanks are needed between every word or number, e.g. "p. 133" instead of "p.133". Thanks. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope you read the latest changes of mine before reverting them. As to the rest: You haven't given any clear explanation why you have deleted e.g. "Watt further mentions the harsh political circumstances of that era" and others. By the way, the pagenumbers in your version are wrong - you'd know that if you'd have the books in question at hand. Greetings, --Devotus (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Devotus,

I have always read your edits before editing the article further. However, I am not mad at your implication and I hope you are not mad either when I ask you to read my comments here before proceeding. Again you are messing up the bibliographical information. You also do not properly name Watt (whose surname is simply Watt).

But back to content:

• You are still using Deuteronomy as an example - something I will not accept (unless consensus decided that the whole Dtn issue should be covered in a balanced way. Then - and only then - I would not object to a footnote saying that Stillman uses this as an example, pointing the reader to the comprehensive treatment).
• The coverage is also a bit onesided but I think I can work with it. I do have a source to balance the issue. Let the reader decide without us prejudicing anything.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PS:

What is Paret saying on the "harsh circumstances"? Is this actually a Watt quote as I assumed?

Please do use existing reference notes. If there is already one which has the same page as you want to include, use the existing one. Please do not provide subtitles and first names in a footnote if the book is included in the bibliography section.

"Scholars like..." Who are these apart from the two guys mentioned? Let's stick with what we can source. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ok the way it is now. I've added Paret and Rodinson for the hist. circumstances. no hard feelings ;-) --Devotus (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. Just a last cosmetic tweak. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed"

Why? For what reason? --Devotus (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't noticed the mass revert war going on btwn 2 users? Even the neutrality sign is being changed repeatedly from just "neutrality" to "neutrality and factual accuracy". I'm trying to find some resolution btwn the 2 right now though. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't noticed it - I'm new here :) --Devotus (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Expulsion of all Jews from Medina

The statement that "Muhammad did not clear out all Jews out of Medina" is false. He actually did. Accredited (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he didn't. See the sources given in my version (as well as the primary sources) and the disussion above. --Devotus (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 362:

Narrated Ibn Umar:

Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet again) . He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam. He exiled all the Jews from Medina. They were the Jews of Bani Qainuqa', the tribe of 'Abdullah ibn Salam and the Jews of Bani Haritha and all the other Jews of Medina. Accredited (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See: WP:NOR Scholarship is indebted to Ignaz Goldziher for showing that lots of Hadiths have simply been invented (according to him most of them), though Fuat Sezgin has shown that lots of them, if not most have not been invented. --Devotus (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no indication that any Jews were allowed to remain in Medina. Even the Banu Mustaliq outside Medina were invaded. Accredited (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please refer to any reliable source? I realy don't have time for a discussion about primary sources, especially since we don't use them here (see the already mentioned WP:NOR). If you have any reputable source contradicting the basic works in this area by Watt and Paret (and also several other academic sources, including the authorative Encyclopaedia of Islam) please cite them. I only said to see also the primary sources since reading them is a fundamental. --Devotus (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You may read Ibn Ishaq and other Muslim sources on the Banu Mustaliq invasion. Accredited (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough said. Ibn Ishaq is a primary source. --Devotus (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provided any source to contradict him on the matter. Accredited (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats not the point, IIRC you can't make a case on wiki by just a primary source alone. To the rest of what you said, just b/c the main tribes were cleared out didn't mean that individuals and individual families were not left alone; a person or persons didn't have to be part of any tribe to live there but those tribes but being part of a tribe gave standing, support, and influence. Also, even if a person or persons were part of one of the tribes exiled, if it was clear they did not participate in any aggression it wasn't impossible for them to be given amnesty. I was reading some while ago in a secondary source historian (either Watt or Lings) that some of the Jewish prisoners from BQ were given to still remaining Jewish citizens in Medina. BTW, Banu Mustaliq wasn't Jewish, at least theres nothing of the sort stated about them. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please mention the sources and indicate their accounts on the Banu Qurayza and Banu Mustaliq. 62.90.5.220 (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Though some primary sources (see above) claim that Muhammad cleared out all the Jews from Yathrib, others attribute this to Umar. Scholars generally agree with the latter view. Sure, most Jews were removed by Muhammad but some remained. Hence, I agree with Mik and Devotus on this. However, please don't speculate about "persons didn't have to be part of any tribe to live there" because that is nonsense. Being without a tribe was unthinkable in those days. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily if you were a bedouin or a trader/merchant/traveler. But I was just saying, I don't mean to put that in the article. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Caliph Umar evicted the Jews from Khaybar while all the Jews of Medina (Yathrib) were expelled by Muhammad. Al-Samhudi lists a dozen other Jewish tribes in the town such as those mentioned in the above Hadith.

Here is another Hadith Bukhari.

Narrated Abu Huraira:

While we were in the mosque, Allah's Apostle came out to us and said, "Let us proceed to the Jews." So we went along with him till we reached Bait-al-Midras (a place where the Torah used to be recited and all the Jews of the town used to gather). The Prophet stood up and addressed them, "O Assembly of Jews! Embrace Islam and you will be safe!" The Jews replied, "O Aba-l-Qasim! You have conveyed Allah's message to us." The Prophet said, "That is what I want (from you)." He repeated his first statement for the second time, and they said, "You have conveyed Allah's message, O Aba-l-Qasim." Then he said it for the third time and added, "You should Know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to exile you fro,,, this land, so whoever among you owns some property, can sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." (See Hadith No. 392, Vol. 4) 62.90.5.220 (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, we should stick with what scholars are saying, noting notable disagreements. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Justification

The edits between Str1977 and I have been discussed before. But now there are some new users, and I'd like to briefly justify my edits (Str1977 can justify his). I have placed the campaign box in the siege section which is when all the military action took place.Bless sins (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead

• Removed "the tribe was charged with treachery and collaboration with the invading armies" because I see little evidence in the body for this. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, not mention facts not stated in the article.
• Stated "tribe's actions were considered contrary to their agreement with Muhammad" this is sourced to a scholarly source. There is discussion below over the Qurayza's agreement, and whether they violated it. Admittedly my version is not a lot better, and I'm open to new suggestions.
• Added "in accordance with a judgment pronounced by Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh" very crucial detail.

Arrival of Muhammad

• Added "According to Serjeant, the Qurayza were aware of the two parts of a pact made between Muhammad and the Jewish tribes in the confederation according to which "Jews having their religion and the Muslims having their religion excepting anyone who acts wrongfully and commits crime/acts treacherously/ breaks an agreement, for he but slays himself and the people of his house." The details are from Searjent, a reliable source. They are also attributed.
• To Muhammad, verses (ayat) were revealed, not the Surah.
• The other minor dispute is whether the Ahnakian ref should be placed. I think it should be placed at the end of the sentence.Bless sins (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Trench

• Linked to "Confederates," as it gives details of the army.
• Added "Practically all of Medina's inhabitants opposed the 10,000 strong Confederate army besieging the city, except the Banu Qurayza;" This is from Watt, and thus reliable sourced.
• The number of weaponry the Qurayza possessed is stated later. this is because until the Qurayza's surrender we have no sources stating what they had add didn't have. Nevertheless, as compromise, I have made a reference that the Qurayza possessed weaponry, without going into the details.
• Removed "Ibn Ishaq writes that" This is sourced to Ibn Ishaq, and other scholars as well. Thus we don't need to attribute. Also, Huyayy did return, that is why he was killed after the Qurayza's siege. If he had stayed at Khaybar (opr even outside of Medina) then he wouldn't have been captured by Muslims in the Qurayza stronghold.Bless sins (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Siege and demise

• "according to Ramadan, they feared consequences of treason." is sourced to Ramadan's book published by the Oxford University Press. I have attributed this, even though we should just be stating it as fact. Please don't remove this.
• "as 1,500 swords, 2,000 lances, 300 suits of armor, and 500 shields were later seized by the Muslims upon Qurayza's surrender." This is when the weapons were seized. Since this article follows a chronological order, this is where we should state it.
• The reliable sources say that the Qurayza agreed with the appointment of Sa'd and chose him as well. I have seen no sources contradicting this.
• The word "massacre" should be avoided like the word "execution".
• Stated the sources that say the "this judgment was in accordance with the Jewish law as stated in Deut. 20:10-14". (I thought we agreed to this above?)
• Restored "On previous occasions (including the Battle of the trench), when Muhammad had spared the lives prisoners, he found them fighting against him and killing Muslims soon after" sourced to Peterson, a reliable source.
• Stated "Tariq Ramadan argues that Muhammad's clemency, repeatedly betrayed, was seen as a sign of weakness and madness." This is attributed to Tariq Ramadan, and his book published by the Oxford University Press.
• "due to the role of their chieftain in the events" is a vague understatement of the facts and misrepresents what Peterson said. Everyone played a "role" in the "events", but not everyone was equally responsible. "the Nadir felt responsible for the fate of the Qurayza, since it was their chieftain, Huyayy ibn Akhtab, who persuaded the Qurayza to go against their covenant with Muhammad" is what Peterson says, and I have not seen any source contradict him.
• Again the incident is mentioned in some ayat (or verses), not the Surah.Bless sins (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Whats with this? The reason I started the mediation above was to iron these arguments out. While I'm on that, I also want to remind you that you haven't replied back yet to that topic and I'd appreciate it if you would do so when you can. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I take exception to this posting by BS. It seems this serves as a justification to revert to his version. I will not restate all the arguments I made just because BS chooses to do this in his case. Anyone, even newcomers, can read archives or - if clarification is needed - ask.

Also, I want to second Mik's request. Please reply above so that we may make real progress.

Ah, and just one more thing Sad doesn't belong in the intro. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me restate it because it is apparently necessary:

Bless Sins used this section to repost all the arguments he made. Fine. I don't see the point of it but he is free to do that. I could do the same and we would have the same altercation we already had 28 times before, cluttering up the talk page. I won't go there as he knows my points, I know his points and everyone else either knows, can read them up or can ask.

Hence, taking this section as the basis for blanket reverting is a bad faith action, especially when done a month after this section was first and last touched upon. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The only reason this section has not been touched upon is your lack of response. Fine. But then don't complain that my edits are not justified.Bless sins (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Master Jedi kindly tried to work out things bit by bit. Though I disagreed with him that starting at the top would be the best idea, I hoped and still hope that his effort would produce something. Maybe you should go down that road too instead of posting your whole range of views here and using that as an excuse to blanket revert. 15:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Trench stuff

I moved this over from the Battle of the Trench as it seems more relevant here, thought its validity is still an open matter (and I haven't checked whether this is already covered here).

In dealing with Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina, aside from political explanations, Arab historians and biographers have explained it as "the punishment of the Medina Jews, who were invited to convert and refused, perfectly exemplify the Quran's tales of what happened to those who rejected the prophets of old." F.E. Peters, a western scholar of Islam, states that Muhammad's treatment of Jews of Medina was essentially political being prompted by what Muhammad read as treasonous and not some transgression of the law of God. Peters adds that Muhammad was possibly emboldened by his military successes and also wanted to push his advantage. Economical motivations according to Peters also existed since the poorness of the Meccan migrants was a source of concern for Muhammad. Peters argues that Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina was "quite extraordinary", "matched by nothing in the Qur'an", and is "quite at odds with Muhammad's treatment of the Jews he encountered outside Medina." According to Welch, Muhammad's treatment of the three major Jewish tribes brought Muhammad closer to his goal of organizing a community strictly on a religious basis. He adds that some Jews from other families were, however, allowed to remain in Medina.

Str1977 ^(talk) 22:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)