Talk:Banu Nadir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Banu Nadir article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Did You Know An entry from Banu Nadir appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 16 June 2006.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] Disputed

This article is currently claimed by some to violate the Neutral Point of View policy.

There is currently a dispute over the accuracy of some statements in the article.

Discussion follows.

[edit] don't believe it! where are your sources?

Need to see the sources of this story...first time hearing this! At least google it! can't believe this was featured on the main page. Do you have sources for this?

  • See all the references under the References section... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 16:06

why cant we believe it..we dont need any sources to believe in the glorific(read horrific) exploits of mohammed.just a look at any islamic country of the intolerance of muslims in general might say what their revealed prophet might have been like....

  • I'm trusting that wikipedians will not take the bait on this inflammatory and anonymous comment. We'll continue to focus on the article and what can be done to make it as good as possible. Anon Y. Mouse 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't forget that everything has a source isn't true. There are good and valid sources but also we face hundreds of bad and false sources. In my opinion, the section about Muhammed is a total dust. Muhammed wage many wars against the local tribes(and of course many people died in these wars) but he didn't go and loot anywhere. With respect, Deliogul 20:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This article has been poorly written and is not objective at all. The use of emotive language is unjustified and i cannot believe that this is featured on the main page. I am not muslim and i already find this offensive. The writer(s) should be ashamed if their intention is to attack another religion with the ulterior motive to build on the hatred and prejudice against the Islamic faith. Clemondo 06:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone really needs to look at this article...

I'm no expert but this doesn't seem to be very subjective.

  • Isn't that a good thing? Or did you mean objective? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 16:09

people seem to get too confused with these two words.....no offence at non english speaking people or anyone else...

[edit] External links

Looks like you've got two bad links there - might want to investigate them. Interesting article, though. Tony Fox (speak) 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • They were just improperly formatted. Should be fixed now. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 16:34

[edit] Jewess

"Jewess" isn't an anti-Semitic term. At most it might be considered sexist, as explained at dictionary.com, but then why isn't "Latina" considered offensive? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 17:16

Uh... what are you talking about... it says in the link you provided that it is "now a highly offensive term." It's anti-Semitic and most often used by Russians. Latina is a hispanic word. Jewess, like Negress, is an outsider's pejorative epithet. Tchadienne 17:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you even read the Usage note? It is not anti-Semitic; it is at most sexist, for the reasons explained in the Usage note on the link that you claimed to have read:
"Like many other English nouns in which the suffix -ess is added to a gender-neutral word to indicate femaleness, the terms Jewess and Negress are now widely regarded as offensive. It is interesting to note that the objection to words formed with the -ess suffix does not apply to words such as Latina and Chicana, whose contrasting forms Latino and Chicano are not gender-neutral but rather refer even in English primarily to males."
Also read the Usage note at -ess, which clarifies that the source of the offensiveness is the added gender to a term that normally referred to both genders. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 17:26
I cant figure out what you're point is... it is anti-Semitic. Whether or not, it's still "highly offensive" so dont use it. Theres nothing to discuss here. Tchadienne 17:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not it's offensive is not the point; it's that it is not anti-Semitic. It is sexist. You can claim it is anti-Semitic if you want, but you have simply been misled. If you read the Usage note at -ess, you'll understand why:
"Many critics have argued that there are sexist connotations in the use of the suffix -ess to indicate a female in words like sculptress, waitress, stewardess, and actress. The heart of the problem lies in the nonparallel use of terms to designate men and women. For example, the -or ending on sculptor seems neutral or unmarked. By comparison, sculptress seems to be marked for gender, implying that the task of sculpting differs as performed by women and men or even that the task should typically be performed by a man."
Read the above, and you'll understand why it may be sexist, but it is not anti-Semitic: "Jew" implies either male or female Jewish person; "Jewess" appends a gender to the word, for no particular reason, which is seen by people as offensive because there was nothing wrong with referring to a female Jewish person as a "Jew" in the first place. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 17:47
To make Brian's job easier I will simplify the basic statement: "Jewess" is generally considered an offensive term. Form your own conclusions why based on some of the citations. I think it does not belong in a wikipedia article. Anon Y. Mouse 18:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 18:54
Why can't we just use the term "Jewish woman"? It conveys the same information without offending anyone (women or Jewish people). No need to discuss it ad nauseum. If there is a less-offensive way to say something, why not use it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.88.199.98 (talk • contribs) .
Thank you...I'm glad someone else said it. Cheers. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 09:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Expulsion of the Banu Nadir from Medina" Section Rewrite

There's a couple of sentances in brackets that need to be expanded on, and moved into the main body of the section, or removed. Mr Minchin 17:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Where? I think you're referring to previous vandalism that was removed. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 17:58

[edit] Clearly biased perspective.

Brian, are you by any chance a Jew? Maybe not. Doesn't really matter, as falsehood is false even if spoken by an honest man, and truth is truth, even if it is spoken by a liar. Which are you? I believe the former. This article, I'm afraid, mixes fact with opinion, blurring the line between truth and falsehood. I like the fact that you quote alot of Arabic sources, translated by one Mr Stillman. Have you read the original Arabic sources, or relied purely on the translation of one man who seems to have an agenda. The article, I'm afraid is flawed. It is not written in an objective manner at all. It's an article that should not be read seriously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redahmeid (talk • contribs).

  • I had no part in writing the article. Why are you going after me? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 18:19
  • You need to be specific. What is flawed about the article? What is wrong with the translations of Professor Norman Stillman? Why do you think he has an agenda? Which sections or sentences are false? Why shouldn't the article be read seriously? What is not objective about it? Right now, your post looks like nothing more than FUD. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 18:23
    • Brian, are you serious? This is the most blatantly non WP:NPV I've seen in a long time. Even if the facts were completely NPV, which seems extremely unlikely, the article itself is obviously not. Even if "the Jews of Medina, guilty only of hard earned wealth, innocent of any wrong doing throughout, were repeatedly set upon by the dastardly Mohamed and his supporters, murderous and scandalous, motivated always and only by treachery and avarice" were accurate history, which seems inherently implausible, a NPV article would at least have to put such vile criminals in a cultural context. As it is, having this article on the front page is an embarrassment. Some administrator really screwed up here. Oh, it looks like it was you. Might I respectfully suggest that you ask an administrator colleague whose judgement you trust to double check your call that this article is NPV. - Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.119.55 (talk • contribs) .
  • And this is the part where I start heating up my popcorn. Anon Y. Mouse 18:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, the drama! :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 18:48

[edit] Negative Light

This article - and the first paragraph in particular - appears to have been written in order to deliberately display the Prophet of Islam in a negative light.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SafetyFirst (talk • contribs) .

  • You need to be more specific. Which parts are biased, and what changes can be made to fix this bias? Please assume good faith by not claiming anything was deliberately done for whatever reasons. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 18:46

If we could find a middle ground between this article and the first part of [1], I'd be satisfied. BhaiSaab talk 18:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable sources do not provide grounds for compromise. What can be the purpose of directing our attention to such nonsense?Timothy Usher 05:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
"These intrigues of the Jews", "Jewish conspiracies"...oh my.Timothy Usher 05:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to some more suggestions here on the Discussion page for how this article can be improved. This is a great opportunity for Wikipedians to show how controversial topics can be handled. Anon Y. Mouse 19:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you find a neutral, reliable source, such as a book on Google Books, or better yet, a paper on Google Scholar, or a page on a .edu site that you agree with? I'm not sure about trusting a website, especially one called "The Way to Truth", to depict events objectively. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 19:09


  • ok brian i have a question here which might be silly/naive but i still have.why are references from .edu sites or professors from univs considered unbiased or most reliable.they can have an agenda too..after all professors do have religious affiliations.- an atheist
    • It's not going to be easy to respond to an anonymous statement that has an inflammatory comment embedded in it like this one. If you genuinely want more info I'd refer you to the Wikipedia NPOV policy for details on how Wikipedia defines bias, and how to avoid it. Anon Y. Mouse 19:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • how was that inflammatory.it was an honest acceptance of reality.anyway if mentioned the inflammatory part wud be eliminated and you can answer the question abt veracity of .edu sites.
    • I didn't say they would be unbiased. It's just easier to find the unbiased entries when you're not searching all the intarwebs. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 21:14

changes have been made to the question now.

Ok, here's ny neutral view, if any would care to hear it: the article, as a whole, seems put into a negative fashion. Ill start adding them slowly to the talk page. BUT, the article can easily be simply toned down a bit and you can take only the info thats included in the POV sources and the NPOV sources.--AeomMai 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, it is possible that Norman Stillman has a biased POV. Most of the negative parts came from his worls. It might be good to use info that eceryone agrees is fact, since no one can go back to 622 and say that he saw the looting. The killings during war are obvious. Is it true that ALL the men were killed?Even the old men? Bit of a surprise, seems a bit harsh. You guys vcan discuss the rest.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AeomMai (talk • contribs).

I understand your surprise, but most of the Western research of the early history of Islam is based on Muslim sources and the scholarly sources used in this article are no exception. Pecher Talk 21:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought I may contribute some opinions -

  • The article portrays that the Banu Nadir were innocent of any wrongdoings in their dealings with the Prophet and his followers. However ibn-Hashim stated that the tribe's behaviour had become increasingly insulting/provocative after a particular incident. The incident in question, which occured after the Battle of Badr, happened when a Muslim lady went into the shop of a Jew to make some purchases. The shopkeeper behaved insultingly towards her, whereupon she called for help. Her call was answered by a Muslim man, who arrived on the scene. A scuffle broke out and the shopkeeper was killed, whereupon the Muslim man in question was set upon by some Jewish men and was murdered. Upon investigation, none of those accused of the killing of the Muslim man was ready to admit his guilt. This incident, ibn-Hashim tells us, was not isolated.
  • The article states that Ka'b bin Ashraf wrote 'erotic poems' about Muslim women. It is my understanding (and I'm sorry I can't reference this) that he wrote scurrilous poetry, degrading and insulting about ladies in the Prophet's family.
  • Ka'b bin Ashraf also went to Mecca, after the Battle of Badr, and visited the Quraish (who were defeated in the Battle), and roused them into taking an oath, with the skirts of the Ka'bah in their hands, that they would know no rest until they had destroyed Islam and it's Founder. This has been taken from "The English Commentary" of the Qur'aan, a heavily researched, well referenced essay, by Maulawi Sher Ali, Mirza Bashir Ahmad amd Malik Ghulam Farid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SafetyFirst (talk • contribs)

Replies:

  • (I presume that "ibn-Hashim" is ibn Hisham) A Jew being murdered by a Muslim doen't sound like much of an evidence of provocative behavior on part of the Jews. Anyway, this incident was not used as a pretext for the attack on Banu Nadir.
  • The perception of any verses is POV by definition; the article says that Muslims found them offensive.
  • Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf talks about him calling for the Quraysh to fight against Muslims. The call was quite understandable, I must say. Pecher Talk 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons

here are some reasons why i feel that this article is not of NPOV status

... a qualification which provided Muhammad with a convenient pretext for nullifying his obligations toward Jews at a later time.
  • POV - i don't think i have to explain why. implication that he would implement this pretext when he wanted to nullify obligations towards the jews, which is inherently false. the jews violated the conditions of the pact that they signed, which resulted in further steps being taken.
... Infuriated at Muhammad's execution of a number of Meccan notables who had been captured after the Battle of Badr, Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf wrote a poetic eulogy commemorating the slain Quraysh prisoners of war; later, he also wrote erotic poetry about Muslim women, which Muhammad and his followers found offensive.[4] Because the norms of the Arab society of that period demanded retaliation for a slight to a group's honor,[3] Muhammad called upon his followers to kill Ka'b, and Muhammad ibn Maslama offered his services, collecting four others.
  • POV - factually incorrect - this is more of stillman's speculative POV. Ka'b went to Quraysh to incite them to fight against the Prophet references provided here
"He went to the Quraish weeping over their killed (at Badr) and inciting them to fight with the Prophet."1
(The Prophet said): "He (Ka'b) has openly assumed enmity to us and speaks evil of us and he has gone over to the polytheists (who were at war with Muslims) and has made them gather against us for fighting"2
"And according to Kalbi, he united in a league with the Quraish before the curtains of the Ka'bah, to fight against the Muslims."3
"And he prepared a feast, and conspired with some Jews that he would invite the Prophet and when he came they should fall on him all of a sudden."4

therefore, he himself violated the pact (conditions of which are highlighted in ar-raheeq al-makhtoom), to which he was also required to adhere to, and thus his killing was due to his incitement of war, as well as his insulting. stillman opines that it was merely a matter of honour.

... Muhammad felt himself strong enough to finally move against the Jews of Medina.
  • POV. as said above, the jews violated their pact. there is no citation for this suggestion and is merely speculation of someone's intention.
"As his first target, Muhammad chose Banu Qaynuqa, the weakest of the Jewish tribes, who were the clients of the Khazraj, and forced them to surrender unconditionally after a short siege.


  • POV. he went to the marketplace calling upon banu qaynuqa, calling them to accept islam lest they ended up like the quraysh who were just defeated. the implication is that he chose this tribe for the greater aim of expelling all of the jews, so he would start with the weakest first. throughout the article this unfounded notion goes unreferenced to any early or primary source. this was not a threat of expulsion, and neither was it a threat of war, as it can be interpreted in a number of ways due to the indirect and rather ambiguous language. qaynuqa responded with hostility and an open challenge, and due to their hostility they were expelled. from bismikaallahuma:

"Addressing them, he said: "O Jews! Become Muslims before what befell the Quraysh befalls you." They said: "O Muhammad, you seem to think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you vanquished a contingent of Quraysh having no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for, by God, if we fight you, you will find that we are real men, and that you have not met the like of us". Their answer clearly contained a challenge and a threat, despite the fact that they had accepted his leadership according to the terms of the treaty. This report comes through Ibn Ishaq[2]. Ibn Hajar said that it was hasan.[3] But the isnad includes Muhammad ibn Muhammad, the freedman of Zayd ibn Thabit, whom Ibn Hajar himself said was majhul (unknown).[4]

Even if we accept Ibn Hajar?s suggestion that the report is hasan, that does not mean that the reason for the expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa was their refusal to accept Islam, because at that stage Islam still allowed the Muslims to live in peace with them, and the Prophet did not make entering Islam a condition for any one of the Jews to stay in Madinah. Rather, the Document[5] ensured the religious freedom of the Jews. The reason for their expulsion was the aggression which they showed. This resulted in a breach of the internal security of Madinah." end quote.

"The Banu Nadir remained passive during the whole Banu Qaynuqa episode, apparently because they failed to grasp Muhammad's intentions at that time and viewed the conflict as a usual tribal struggle."
  • POV, a continual plug of the notion that the ends was justifying the means in that the aim was to kick all the jews out, as opposed to jews attempting to debase the muslims and convey hostility resulting in their expulsion.
"... Muhammad needed a victory to regain his prestige. The Banu Nadir were a suitable target ..."
  • POV, stillman's speculation, not factual in the least.
"... when Muhammad ordered the felling of their palm-trees"
  • - citation needed.
"Muhammad easily found a casus belli. Claiming to have received a divine revelation, he accused the Banu Nadir of plotting to assassinate him"
  • implies that he was looking for a casus belli in the first place. this is compounded by the above allegations that expelling of the jews was an ulterior motive when such is POV and speculation.
"Muhammad reserved a share of the seized land for himself, which also made him financially independent.[8]"
  • from a factual perspective the statement of stillman, a relatively recent orientalist, is by no means sufficient. please provide some references from primary sources or early historians.

these are a few of the concerns i have highlighted with this article. unfortunately many of the articles concerning early islamic history seem to be a bit misrepresented (i.e. marriage to safiyya, expulsion of qurayza) also, perhaps muslims can spend more time dispelling speculation, POV and factually incorrect material? i propose the language used in this article is reviewed and expressed with neutrality, highlighting stillman's perspective as opinion and not fact. Itaqallah 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Can you suggest alternate wordings for each of the statements you highlight, with proper sourcing, to be implemented into the article? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 22:15
    • much of the statements require factual proof for them not to be considered POV, so the burden of proof is upon the claimant. else, that which has not been properly referenced to early historians or primary sources should be removed as it is not proven to be correct, or factual, as of yet. as for rewording of certain parts then i do hope that i would be able to contribute and provide a viable alternative where i am able, although much in this article overlaps into other ones. will do so soon if possible insha allah Itaqallah 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not claiming the current article is accurate, but we need something to put in place of the current content before we can make a change... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 22:33
        • absolutely. and to that end i will attempt to propose rewordings where possible, although myself and some others believe that the whole tone underpinning this article (especially re: style of language used) requires review, so it may take some time. Itaqallah 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
          • We can only there is a dispute over an article when at least two editors quote reliable sources saying contradictory things and cannot arrive at a consensus. bismikaallahuma.org doesn't qualify as a reliable source, and I don't see anything else being cited. The argument boils down to an editor's disliking the article and proceeding to say "give me time to find sources". I understand that an editor may disagree with Stillman, but as long as there are no other high-quality academic sources disagreeing with him, there is no basis for a dispute. Pecher Talk 23:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
            • bismikaallahuma does not qualify as a reliable source in and of itself, that is correct. however i have provided the links so that one may take a look at the references they have given where i have quoted from their articles. as stated earlier, the burden of proof is upon the claimant, not on the one trying to refute the claimant. the POV of stillman is of no relevance (and most certainly should not be stated as fact), the correct resources must be referenced, else the POV statements should be removed. secondly, i have not requested time to find sources, i have requested time to re-express much of the article while adding the relevant citations where possible, and i assume that those who have done such understand that it does not occur immediately. similarly, i am not requesting immediate change of the article until a viable alternative is apparent- the point of this discussion is ascertaining whether or not POV is present, and if so to what degree. regardless, a person's argument regarding POV cannot be disregarded on the basis of his asking for some time. Itaqallah 23:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I didn't look at the link and the references it uses, nor do I intend to. If these sources are reliable, you should use them directly, not through the filter of an unreliable website, which may have twisted them, omitted pertinent information, or done all the kinds of things we may expect from such a website. Pecher Talk 08:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
                • i would not use the sources directly as this would be implying the research is my own which it is not. yes evidences can always be twisted, as we have seen from mr. watt, muir, self proclaimed pseudo-scholars like mr. winn and mr. sina as well a whole range of orientalist critics of islam, including mr. stillman. not to mention the respective websites which may propagate misinformation of their own (as well as the aforementioned personalities' works), just as strongly as you feel opposing websites guilty of doing similar. Itaqallah 14:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is Wikipedia coming to?

Muhammad took a share of the booty -first paragraph! This article is heavily bias and definitely uncited and lacks credibility. How it is featured on the main page is suspect. Wow..this is the biggest dent Wikipedia has put in its credibility in my eyes, outrageous. - Sohailstyle 2006-06-16 21:43 (UTC)

I agee 100%, this article is a joke. It leaves out most important facts which caused friction between the Banu Nadir and early Muslims. I am really surprised it made the front page. Fkh82 21:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You have to be more specific. What is left out? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 22:06
It's really important when taking issue with facts that you think are misrepresented or missing that you provide what you believe to be the accurate information. It's not enough to just say "most important facts" are missing. Wikipedia needs your help to fill in the blanks and correct inaccuracies, not just express an opinion on whether or not you approve of the article. Anon Y. Mouse 22:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Uncited? What about the 13 sources under the References section. Are you denying that Muhammad took Safiyya bint Huyayy as a wife? You have to be more specific. Which parts are uncited? Which parts lack credibility? Without these details, your post looks like nothing more than FUD. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 22:06

[edit] Regarding the external resources listed...

Okay so let us see. It is an article written about the history of Islam and Mohammad (PBUH) and the resources quoted include Bearman (who is Jewish) and Stillman (who is also Jewish). Arabic sources that are "translated" by Stillman (Jewish). Very nice! History of Islam written by Jews.

Oh and one more thing, the external resources cited, in fact, seem to give us another POV. This is quoted from http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml which is listed as an external resource.

"At Muhammad's insistence, Medina's pagan, Muslim and Jewish clans signed a pact to protect each other, but achieving this new social order was difficult. Certain individual pagans and recent Medinan converts to Islam tried to thwart the new arrangement in various ways, and some of the Jewish clans were uneasy with the threatened demise of the old alliances. At least three times in five years, Jewish leaders, uncomfortable with the changing political situation in Medina, went against Muhammad, hoping to restore the tense, sometimes bloody-but predictable-balance of power among the tribes.

According to most sources, individuals from among these clans plotted to take his life at least twice, and once they came within a bite of poisoning him. Two of the tribes--the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qaynuqa--were eventually exiled for falling short on their agreed upon commitments and for the consequent danger they posed to the nascent Muslim community."

The other site quoted, managed by Ali Sina who has made it his life's mission to "help muslims leave Islam". http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/b_nadir.htm

The third site http://www.shodalap.com/Jews_in_Madina.htm#_ftnref4 quoted says, "The Jews were NOT innocent at all. The punishment they got was an inevitable outcome of their horrendous and heinous crime. The crime was not ‘rejecting Islam’, but something more fatal, homicidal, and severely atrocious. It’s very absurd to claim that the prophet (peace be upon him) maltreated them; rather, the prophet (peace be upon him) was maltreated by the Jews in every step of his life in Medina."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, now it should make any intelligent human think that first of all the article is written using the words of Jews. One of the external links is managed by a guy who has made it his life's goal to "help muslims leave Islam." The other two sites CLEARLY tell us another point of view. Mohammad(PBUH) was the one whose life was endanger and Jews were the ones who tried to kill him several times even after he gave them a fair chance.

And just because he took a wife, doesn't say ANYTHING about him exterminating Jews. What kind of logic is that? I take a wife who is "not my kind" and all of a sudden everybody thinks I am trying to exterminate her entire clan. I'll tell you what kind of logic is that. It is called twisted logic, biased logic, more like propaganda. If anything, by taking a Jewish wife, Mohammad (PBUH) was trying to patch things up. He was trying for peace.

Its pretty funny how from literally thousands of books, journals, articles, and various publications (may they be online or on paper), the author of THIS article chose to cite things written by Jews and a guy who has made it his goal to "help muslims leave Islam". The other two don't even belong here as external resources.

Oh and I almost forgot. You don't need to "brag" about those 13 references that are listed. If it is only the number of references that matters, I will provide you with hundreds, if not thousands, references from published works that say otherwise. I know, as impossible as it may sound, there just might be a Jew or two who might agree with me. So tell me, will you be willing to edit this page then???????? 137.78.140.190 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Ali —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.78.140.190 (talk • contribs)

The attack on scholars as being Jewish is too disgusting to merit an answer. Pecher Talk 23:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
But, sadly, pretty typical.Timothy Usher 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed...and its breathtaking hypocrisy is also unsurprising ... It is an article written about the history of Islam and Mohammad (PBUH) and the resources quoted include Bearman (who is Jewish) and Stillman (who is also Jewish). Arabic sources that are "translated" by Stillman (Jewish). Very nice! History of Islam written by Jews. All I can say is... "Qur'an...Very nice! History of Judaism written by a Muslim!"  :-\ Tomertalk 23:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, excellent... this isn't all too constructive. Often on Wikipedia we have people attacking scholars because of their religion instead of their merits. It's also attacking instead of discussing. That's obviously bad and I have warned the anon on his talk page. Now, let's get back to discussing the article... I hope the anon has gotten the point that he should not do that but... and Tomer... does that really help any...? So, Banu Nadir discussion... go! gren グレン 23:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhhhhhhhhh, have you read the Quran? Quran is not a history book and it is most certainly not a book about Jews. How very typical of an arrogant Jew to assume that Quran is about Jews. Notice how both of these reponses seem to focus on my attacking the merit of Jewish scholars. No one bothered discussing the issue of the resources and external links provided. How ridiculuous is that! The links provided as resources, themselves tell another story than what is mentioned here. And you know what, if anybody attacks Mohammad(PBUH) claiming to do so for the sake of academics, I am going to attack HIS academic integrity. 137.78.140.190 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Ali

Stop, this talk page is about the Banu Nadir... if you must argue then use his talk page. Not here. And if you make any more attacks against Jews like that I will block you for two days. If you wish to discuss the article then feel free to. gren グレン 23:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear anon,

  1. Please sign your posts. Typing 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post will do this for you quite easily, and make it possible for the rest of us to keep some kind of perspective on who's saying what here.
  2. Nobody was focusing on your attacking the merit of Jewish scholars, we were focusing on the fact that you attacked scholars for the simple reason that they are Jewish.

Cheers, Tomertalk 23:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Gren, you are right. Scholars are often attacked for their religion rather than for their merit and for a good reason. Usually works are biased even if scholars don't intend do, religion is just so deep and such a sensitive issue within us that it is extremely difficult to stay objective. There is a saying which we have that it takes two hands to clap. I will never believe a Jewish scholar and a Jew will never believe a Muslim Scholar. Jewish scholars give a distorted view of history (in their favor of course) and Muslim scholars do the same. There are very few exceptions. I am a man of science and I try to keep religion and science seperate because they do often conflict BUT I am also a Muslim (alhamudulillah) and I WILL react if there is a pathetic attempt to defame Muslims all over because I am one of them and everything I hold dear is at stake here. But you know what, this battle is an old one. It is at least as old as Islam itself. If anything, history (depends which one) bears witness that Muslims actually treated Jews better than the Europeans/Christians did. We don't even need to go far back. One can just look at World War II. Hitler tried to wipe out the scum of Germany and England tried to throw them into a wasteland of Africa by relocating them there and "finding them a home" which ended up being Israel. Two-for-one...let's take care of Jews and Muslims in one strike and let's get rid of both our problems by making them kill each other and hence the infernal struggle of Palestine vs. Israel was born. 137.78.140.190 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Ali

It's not surprising that there is alot of vitriol in this dicussion. Everyone please do your best to focus on the central issue of this specific topic. We are not going to be settling any eternal struggles on this discussion page so do not make that your goal. Anon Y. Mouse 00:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A reminder of standards

A perfect Wikipedia article... is completely neutral and unbiased; has a totally neutral point of view; presents competing views on any controversies logically and fairly, pointing out all sides without favoring any particular ideal or viewpoint. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views given a somewhat lesser priority, while at the same time giving enough information and references for the reader to find out more about any particular view.

One aspect of a Neutral point of view is Fairness and sympathetic tone.

If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.119.55 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Is the Fairness and sympathetic tone standard currently met?

The previously mentioned [2] says Muhammad arrived in Medina in 622 believing the Jewish tribes would welcome him. Contrary to expectation, his relations with several of the Jewish tribes in Medina were uneasy almost from the start. This was probably largely a matter of local politics. Medina was not so much a city as a fractious agricultural settlement dotted by fortresses and strongholds, and all relations in the oasis were uneasy. In fact, Muhammad had been invited there to arbitrate a bloody civil war between the Khazraj and the Aws Allah, in which the Jewish clans, being their clients, were embroiled.

Does anyone believe the article sympathetically presents this complex clan-based characterization of the situation in Medina?

Does anyone believe that the pbs page doesn't have a dramatically more NPV than the current article?

Does anyone believe the article currently meets the sympathetic tone standard? And thus the NPV standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.119.55 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Possible todo - Flag the article as having NPV issues

This was recently done. And then someone else removed it. In light of the current discussion, can we agree on some flag to inform readers there is a large divergence of opinion on the quality of the article? Some believing the article is just fine, and others believing it a disaster?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.119.55 (talk • contribs) .

  • i believe that there is a POV issue with the article as well as factual errors, some of which have been highlighted. therefore i added to totallydisputed tag. Pecher suggests that as there is nothing opposing the "high-quality" scholarship of stillman as of yet, there is thus no dispute re: POV. i disagree as a POV is a POV (as has been demonstrated here) and not fact until clear references to the relevant sources (primary, or early) have been given. thus making statements and referencing it to stillman's view carries no weight and no guarantee of NPOV. Itaqallah 01:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • From NPOV dispute, How can one disagree about NPOV?
      • The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral. Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.
      • later... To mark a dispute on a page, type {{POV}}...The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasing that are problematic.
    • Does anyone disagree that the test for having a POV flag present has been met?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.119.55 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Possible todo - Remove the article from the front page

The front page is wikipedia's showcase. Where we show the best we have to offer. The Did you know guidelines explicitly emphasize NPOV. Beyond that normally expected of just any article. It is the second test mentioned, after only new-ness.

Does anyone argue that the article currently meets this stringent test?

If not, should it not be removed from the front page as being currently inappropriate for DYN?

  • The question is not whether the article can be improved. It is whether it currently meets front page standards. If not, its presence there is a mistake which should be promptly rectified.
  • Well, it has been 6+ hours since the current DYK was put up... they can be removed anyways. gren グレン 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • When we're talking about single facts like this, judging neutrality becomes much more difficult. So, the test is not as stringent as you make it sound. In practice, the only cases that are obviously biased are those that use a specifically-biased word, like "harshly" or "wonderful", etc. If there is something non-neutral about the fact, the fact can be changed; there's no reason to eliminate the entry altogether. Suggest an alternate wording, and see what others think. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 03:37
    • Is it a wordsmithing problem? Change a few words and it's all better? Or a pervasive failure of intent? Consider [3]. There are only a couple of possibilities. (1) It represents a tiny minority view which may be ignored. (2) The current article fairly and sympathetically represents the views therein. (3) It doesn't, but that doesn't matter. (4) It doesn't, needs to, and thus is currently a NPOV failure. That's it. (1) is wacko, (2) unsupportable, (3) a misunderstanding or willful disregard of wikipedia policy, and (4) tells you both what needs to be done, and why the article didn't belong on the front page.
    • Similarly, do you believe the article was written in a spirit of fairness and sympathy for Mohamed and Islam? Fairness can be argued with facts. But sympathy is there as a standard to emphasize that the intent must be righteous. Perhaps the reason this article has drawn such visceral objection, is that the spirit in which it was written is not at all subtle. And had little to do with sympathy.

[edit] Possible todo - Flag the article as having Accuracy issues

As mentioned elsewhere, a totallydisputed tag was added, and then removed by someone else.

Accuracy dispute says

  • if only a few statements seem inaccurate:
    • insert {{dubious}} after the relevant sentence or paragraph.
    • insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem.
    • ...
  • if there are more than five dubious statements, or if a dispute arises:
    • insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others.
    • paste {{disputed}} in the beginning of the article to add a general warning. Check dispute resolution for ways to resolve it.

Does anyone believe a dispute has not arisen?

Does anyone believe a disputed tag is not thus now appropriate?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.119.55 (talk • contribs) .

I don't understand how an article that clearly doesn't meet Wiki standards was not only placed on the DYK page, but also as positioned as the first article.

I think there are some accuracy issues here with not only the sources, but with the verbiage in the article. Someone who unfortunately sounded somewhat anti-semitic made the point that most of the sources stem from Jewish writers, and while he went off on a belligerent tangent, this is a point that should be taken into consideration.

The Jewish scholars may not have an agenda or be any less than fine academic scholars, but consider a juxtaposition of a similar religious tension: Would Wiki allow a series of Irish Catholic scholars to make up the bulk of citations in an article written about Irish Protestants? The fact that PBS, a relatively reputable source, had a completely different take on the same series of events should have resulted in an immediate removal of this article from the DYK page.

Pretty alarming, if you ask me. ----—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benplln (talk • contribs) .

  • It was placed at the top of DYK because its picture was used. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 03:39

Ok, but there still weren't several thousand other articles that had comparable pictures of which content wasn't being disputed? I don't think it should be left up, especially in the midst of all of this debate. I think it's been shown that the article is less than objective in some areas, and there are immediate contradictions within it. ---- Ben

  • Several thousand? Do you know how DYK works? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 06:35

What a sad time in history, and the beginning of all the problems we have today regarding jihad. Monty2 06:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tempted to revert to revision as of 17:47, May 27, 2006

This was the last version which didn't have absurd bias from loaded phrases. "Booty," my ass. All the academic references in the world aren't going to make up for writing in a style which ascribes all bad acts to only one side in an ongoing tit-for-tat conflict. All you apologists of this article's current state should be ashamed of yourselves. Publicola 06:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The change of "booty" to "spoils" is an improvement.Timothy Usher 06:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
"Booty" doesn't mean what you think it means, I think. Can you please specify your problems with the article? What sections or sentences contain problems, and how can those problems be fixed? Your rant is unproductive. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 06:36
I'm sorry, you're right, that was uncalled-for. Publicola 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules of civility and NPOV permit groups which normally only spit hate at each other to slowly create consensus articles. And permit... things like this, to slowly become useful articles. But that takes time. Something this article didn't get. (I just now found the wikipedia articles on intellectual honesty, jingoism, religious bigotry, and hate, to be of interest).

[edit] Specific problems with this article

Yes, I can specify the problems with this article, from this source:

The tribes at Medina were more welcoming, many even converting to Islam. After a military episode, the Battle of Badr, Muhammed and his followers consolidated their power as the ruling party, although much of the population that had remained Jewish was left unaffected. Three of the Jewish tribes - the Banu Qurayza, Banu Qaynuqa, and Banu Nadir - signed a non-aggression pact and military alliance with Mohammed, the Constitution of Medina.
Jews and other non-Muslim people living under the protection of the Muslim authorities were considered dhimmi - in exchange for paying a tax, jizya, Muslims would provide military protection. Such dhimmi had similar rights, and could continue their culture and worship, even being exempted from military action when a military jihad was called by the Muslim group. Female dhimmi were also allowed to marry Muslim males, although the converse was not true without male dhimmi converting to Islam....
After a while, a member of the Banu Qaynuqa was alleged to have murdered a Muslim woman, and was killed in retaliation by a Muslim, leading to a chain of revenge killings. Arbitration failed, and full scale war broke out, until Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul, an old ally of Qaynuqa, interceded on their behalf and persuaded Mohammed to send the entire Banu Qaynuqa into exile, consequently confiscating their land and property. The intersession of ibn Salul saved the Jewish tribe but gained him the enmity of Muhammad. The conflict led to a ruling that such future action by any of the other parties to the Constitution of Medina would constitute a voiding of their benefits under the system, and subsequent punishment.

The fact that that entire prelude (which I remember similarly from a different authoritative source which is currently inaccessible to me) was omitted from this otherwise very detailed and apparently carefully sourced article makes me suspicious.

I need to check the edit history -- back in May, this article, although much shorter, made it perfectly clear that the source of the dispute was controversial, with the truth of the matter essentially lost to history. The fact is that the conflict stemmed from a single disputed murder accusation.

This current article, in the "Arrival of Muhammad" section, completely omits these details, making it seem like the Muslims acted unilaterally, without provocation. I don't think it was a good idea to link this from the Main Page in this state at all. Publicola 06:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your source is itself unsourced. And who's "Jersay"?Timothy Usher 07:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
At least my source (which is just a cached copy of an earlier title of Historical persecution by Muslims) doesn't assume that Constitution of Medina was signed before the Battle of Badr, which the editors citing Stillman's book have been falsly implying in their edits to the present version. Use Google and you can find plenty of corroboration of the fact that the Battle of Badr occured before the signing of the Constitution of Medina. The current version of the article doesn't even hint that the Jewish tribes signed on to the Constitution -- in not so many words it implies it was imposed without consent -- what a crock! Publicola 07:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. There are sources claiming 622, c. 623, and 624 for the constitution, and I'm inclined to believe now that the Battle of Badr did not come first. Publicola 08:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
More of the same. Do you have any reliable sources contradicting the article? As far as I have seen, you don't. It is unacceptable to add riginal research into the article, even with a fact tag; it is even more unacceptable to add a fact tag to a sourced statement, just because you have no access to the source. Pecher Talk 08:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Publicola is relying on foul language and incivility against other editors. He hasn't offered even one source conforming WP:RS and bases his filibustering on ludicrous assessments (There are sources..., Use Google and you can find... ), articles by anonymous writers he boldly labels "source" and his WP:OR. This doesn't warrant any reaction at all. --tickle me 12:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If your comments are not constructive, please keep them to yourself. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 12:45
But Tickle me appears to be right.Timothy Usher 12:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
How so? Before I started in on it, this article implied that the Constitution of Medina was imposed without the consent of the Jews, when it is clearly a mutual non-agression and mutal-defense pact, as well as an agreement allowing the Jews to continue in their religion. Morover, the of the several alleged insults of the Jews, only one (the erotic poems) were mentioned. The intro didn't explain that the Banu Nadir were evicted AFTER a Muslim war with the other Jewis tribe, and it didn't explain that the Nadir had joined forces with the attacking Meccans and Bedouin before they were slaughtered. I find it hard to believe that those flaws escaped the attention of earlier editros, but I will assume good faith. Publicola 21:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • in the "arrival of muhammad" section of the current reversion, it implies that the constitution was signed after badr. this is factually incorrect, as the pact with the jewish tribes was made before badr occured when power had already been consolidated in Medinah. this is why ka'b ibn al-ashraf's incitement of the quraysh (after badr) to fight is especially significant as he acted in violation of the pact, especially as he enjoyed a high status. please refer to ar-raheeq al-makhtoom ITAQALLAH 00:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
That was my fault. I had a class on the History of Islam several years ago, and I just remembered this part wrong. I tried to fix it once, but left some mistakes in the chronology, so I tried to fix it again. Publicola 01:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted Changes

When everybody agreed with the changes, especially made by "Publicola", then why things are changed back. I think prejudice should not be entertained on this encyclopedia. If someone is not ready to understand the fact that how the spoils were treated, how they were managed in the society in the times when human slaves were used to be considered worse than animals, then it is their problem and it is not history's problem. I would recommend that article be restored back to [4] ( 19:49, 17 June 2006 Publicola) SS

  • Who is "everybody"? I don't see anywhere above that anyone agreed with Publicola's changes. As for your recommendation: simply voicing your opinion doesn't count for anything here. You have to give rationale for why you believe a version is superior, backed up with evidence from reliable sources. Publicola's source was an old copy of a Wikipedia article, which is not a reliable source. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 12:48


[edit] Suggested Alternatives

i thought that those who believe that changes are required in the article could contribute here so we can come to an agreement of what would be acceptable in terms of fact as well as NPOV (in the light of the above extract from POV dispute.

[edit] Arrival of Muhammad in Medinah

as opposed to the current paragraph on the arrival of Muhammad (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) in Medinah, i propose something like the following (which i have compiled):

"In September 622, Muhammad arrived at Medinah with a group of his followers, who were given shelter by members of the indigenous community known as the Ansar. Amongst his first actions was the construction of the first Mosque in Medinah, as well as obtaining residence with Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, Vol II, p.279). He then set about the establishment of a pact between the Muslims and the various Jewish tribes of Medinah(Ibn Hisham, Vol. I, p.501), which was to regulate the matters of governance of the city, as well as the extent and nature of inter-community relations. Conditions of the pact included boycotting Quraysh "commercially" as well as abstinence from "extending any support to them", assistance of one another if attacked by a third party, as well as "defending Madinah, in case of a foreign attack".(Al-Raheeq Al-Makhtoom, Saif-ur-Rahman Mubarakfuri; Ibn Hisham Vol. II, pp. 147-150; Ibn Ishaq pp. 231-235). It was later that certain tribes would be claimed to have violated this pact due to supporting enemy forces, such as the Quraysh, against the Muslims."

please discuss the viability (or not) of these alterations. if it lacks NPOV or factuality, please state where and how. i felt it necessary to mention more conditions of the pact relevant to the latter events. Itaqallah 14:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

anyone disagree with the above? ITAQALLAH 00:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The article is about Banu Nadir, not Muhammad; therefore, information about the first mosque etc. is not relevant. The section as it stands provides sufficient background to understand subsequent events; readers can find the rest in other articles. Pecher Talk 10:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
regarding your first point, somewhat agreed. i do concede that perhaps the mentioning of the construction of the first mosque as well as residence with aby ayyub al-ansari may not be relevant. i added these parts to clarify that the formation of the pact does not seem to have been one of his first actions. i also felt the need to expound upon the difference between ansar and muhajir which has been confused in the section, thereby mentioning both but keeping it relatively short. the second point i disagree upon, as i do not think the section is sufficient especially when highlighting the significance of the pact in this affair. it is neccessary to mention other specific clauses instead of citing a general clause (open to interpretation) and then opining that such was offered with the intention of gaining opputunity for deliberate manipulation. the clauses mentioned in my proposal, i believe, are directly related to the latter controversies between the parties involved, and integral to understanding the context of other events within the article. ITAQALLAH 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, what clauses would you like to see mentioned? Pecher Talk 20:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
they have been mentioned (in quotation marks) in my proposal. ITAQALLAH 23:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I cannot find the clause on boycotting the Quraysh commercially in the text. Regarding the obligation to assist each other in case of an enemy attack, this one is mentioned in the article. Pecher Talk 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[[Constitution of Medina|"The signatories to this treaty shall boycott Quraish commercially; they shall also abstain from extending any support to them."], probably from clauses 25 and 48. Publicola 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
it is present in the summary[5] of the constitution. taking a look at that summary in fact it seems to have been taken directly from ar-raheeq al-makhtoom but has omitted certain parts including one extra point (as there should be twelve). ITAQALLAH 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extra section re: increasing tensions?

i would also suggest that another section is added after the above which expounds upon the increasing tensions between certain tribes of the jews (not all, i.e. banu 'awf). this is important as opposed to jumping straight from the arrival of Muhammad to the expulsion of banu qaynuqa as the latter does not sufficiently contextualise the event and take into consideration the increasing hostility and emnity between the two parties. Itaqallah 14:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What factual information do you suggest to put there? Pecher Talk 10:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
i suggest mention well-known incident of the killing of the jewish shopkeeper and muslim; perhaps also the incidence re: the muslim woman. although the isnaad of this is weak, it is said to be cited by historians as a possible reason for the spiralling tensions although i will try to verify that claim; the statement attributed to ibn ishaq in ar-raheeq al-makhtoom where safiyyah states that her father (huyayi bin akhtab) saw muhammad on his (i.e. muhammad's) entry in madinah and walked home, saying "my heart is burning with enmity towards him" - also in ibn hisham vol. I, pp 518,519; the resent of certain tribes on hearing the muslims' victory in badr; the story of shas bin qays (an elderly jewish man) where he attempted to spread discord amongst the muslims by attempting to reignite tribal differences (narrated in raheeq al-makhtoom, as well as risaalat al-islam p144 vol 8. ch. 30, written by al-ustad ash-shaykh muhammad 'arafah). there may also be others that i have either overlooked or am not aware of. perhaps these can also be divided to pre-badr and post-badr controversies?
it does not matter who was or wasn't the culprit in these affairs. the intended point is that there was a breakdown in community relations due to increase in enmity as well as incidents which increased hostilities between the two parties. ITAQALLAH 19:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This point is addressed below. Academic sources view this incident as an ex-post facto attempt by Muslim historians to justify the expulsion. No one seriously believes it was indeed Muhammad's motive. Pecher Talk 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
i have provided four examples, which ones are cited as ex-post facto justifications (as you used "incident" in the singular) and by which reliable academic sources?
what has been suggested by myself is not regarding justification of the expulsion, else it would have been proposed to be in the banu qaynuqa section of this article. this is to outline and highlight the presence of a degree of hostility between the communities, which i feel is necessary for readers in understanding the general relationship between the muslims and jewish (i.e. qaynuqa, nadir, qurayzah) tribes at this time. the actual reason/justification for expulsion has been cited above (negative light/reasons section) in fath al-baari and by al-zurqaani which details the exchange between muhammad and people of banu qaynuqa, and this is also something that needs to be added to the banu qaynuqa section in place of the POV material currently present regarding their expulsion. ITAQALLAH 23:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa

as opposed to the current paragraph regarding banu qaynuqa, of which i have already previously highlighted certain problematic statements, i propose something similar to this:

"It was after the Battle of Badr that Muhammad decided to approach Banu Qaynuqa (the allies of the Khazraj tribe), in the light of previous hostilities, gathering them in the market place and addressing them as follows:

"O assembly of Jews, beware that something from Allah befalls you similar to the curse that descended upon Quraysh, and enter into Islam, for you have known that I am a Prophet that has been sent, due to what you find in your Book and the covenant of Allah to you"

They replied: "O Muhammad, you seem to think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you vanquished a contingent of Quraysh having no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for, by God, if we fight you, you will find that we are real men, and that you have not met the like of us" (declared by Ibn Hajar to be Hasan - Fath al-Baari 7/332; also in sunan abi da'wood 3/402).

It was this exchange which resulted in what is known as the seige of Banu Qaynuqa (al-maghazee lil-waaqidee, vol.1, chapter of ghazwat qaynuqa, al-waaqidee; as-seerat an-nabaweeyat, vol. 2, under chapter of "'amr banu qaynuqa" - arabic version, ibn hisham; ar-raheeq al-makhtoom, saif-ur-rahman mubarakfuri), which lasted for fourteen to fifteen days, after which the tribe surrendered unconditionally. Muhammad consented to the Banu Qaynuqa being expelled when Abdallah ibn Ubayy, the chief of the Khazraj, pleaded before Muhammad on their behalf. The Banu Nadir remained passive during the whole Banu Qaynuqa episode."

please excuse the current messy presentation of references. one may argue that mentioning the narration is original research. to this i disagree and say that i have provided the references in the books of historians who not only document this incident but relate it directly concerning the justification of the expulsion of banu qaynuqa. this is why i have provided the majority of references after the comment following the quote because the references used this narration in explaining the expulsion of banu qaynuqa. i ommitted the last part of the final sentence (of the original article) due to the previous discussion where i opined that it is neither NPOV nor a verifiable claim.

please also note that the first part of the exchange has been taken from ibn hisham. the version present in al-waaqidee is:

"O assembly of Jews! Enter into Islam, for by Allah you know that I am the Messenger of Allah, before there comes to you from Allah the like of what came to Quraysh"

please discuss the viability (or not) of this proposal. if it lacks NPOV or factuality, please state where and how, and propose the relevant amendments. ITAQALLAH 17:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts complain about sourcing but re-insert POV language

At least two people have reverted back huge amounts of very biased language while claiming to revert because of sources. This is unacceptable.

However, it matters not because I have found the following sources which agree on the genesis of the tit-for-tat dispute:

A Muslim woman went (to the market of Banu Qaynuqa) and sat at a jeweler’s shop with her ornaments. A Jewish man approached her from behind and nailed the back of her dress with a thorn. When she arose her garment came off and the Jews all laughed at her insultingly. She called for help and a nearby Muslim leapt at the jeweler and killed him, then the Jews assembled together and killed the Muslim. The family of the Muslim martyr called on the Muslims to punish the Jews, they did so and a fight thus ensued between them. -- "The Expulsion Of Banu Qaynuqa," The Islamic State, published by Hizb ut Tahrir [6]

and:

A desert woman came one day to the Jews' market in the quarter of Banu Qaynuqa` seeking to remodel some jewelry at one of their shops. They persistently asked her to remove her veil, but the woman refused. Passing behind her without her knowledge, one of them tacked her robe with a pin to the wall. When the woman got up to leave, the robe was pulled down and her nakedness exposed. The Jews laughed and the woman cried. Seeing what happened, a Muslim passerby jumped upon the shopkeeper and killed him on the spot. The Jews gathered around the Muslim and likewise killed him. The Muslims' relatives called for help against the Jews and a general fight between them and the Banu Qaynuqa` erupted. -- "Between Badr and Uhud," Life of Muhammad, by Muhammad Husayn Haykal, translated by Isma'il Razi A. al-Faruqi (1933) [7]

and:

There is a report which says that one of the Banu Qaynuqa tied the hem of the garment of a Muslim woman who was in their market-place, in such a way that when she stood up, she was uncovered and she screamed. One of the Muslims came and killed the Jew who had done it. Then the Jews attacked the Muslim and killed him. The Muslim's family called on the rest of the Muslims to help them against the Jews. The Muslims became angry, and bad feelings arose between them and the Banu Qaynuqa -- "The Expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa," Madinan Society At the Time of the Prophet, by Akram Diya al Umari (1991) [8]

Therfore, I will be citing the contested statement with those three sources. In the future, if you feel you must revert unsourced statements, please do not also replace biased language such as I worked so hard to eliminate from the intro and the middle sections. Publicola 20:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

None of the websites cited (hizb-ut-tahrir.org, witness-pioneer.org, bismikaallahuma.org) qualifies as secondary source. Also, refrain from personal attacks, opining on my motives. "...why did you claim that I "refused" to provide sources requested, after less than an hour of their being demanded?" You are requested to do so before you edit, without being demanded. --tickle me 21:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The al Umari and Haykal books are both textbooks "produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses" and therefore are within Wikipedia's definition of reliable secondary sources on historial topics. Why are you claiming they are not? The websites simply provide (some of) the content of the books.
Anyone viewing the edit history can see that you claimed a "refused" to provide requested sources when I had already marked the murder story with {{fact}} tags and while I was finding the authoratative sources above. Publicola 21:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

I vandalised the article unintentionally, see my explanation here. --tickle me 22:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Some references to Muhammad's action were put on the front page by me with special reference to Constitution of Medina, but then all changes were reverted back. Opinion of Muslims should be there on the page, not as a fact but as an opinion. I don't have any problem with accepting the fact regarding execution of jews, the problem is that when statements are made like Muhammad needed a victory to regain his prestige. How do they know that this was his intention? My explanations are with the Medina accord, that is more authentic piece of document. Secondly, http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=rarticle&raid=263&sscatid=147 is a page with good sources and explanations for execution of Ka'ab bin Al-Ashraf. Even this link was removed from the front page. If someone can look into this reverting back of document again and again, it will be appreciated.SS
understanding-islam.com qualifies as a primary source, not a secondary source per WP:RS. WP doesn't counter scholarly assertions with arbitrary POV. --tickle me 13:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Well! understanding-islam.com was in the external links, and not as a source itself.SS

[edit] Continued reintroduction of bias by reverts

Of those of you who have been reverting, would you please stop? I am certain that you do not believe that you object to the whole set of changes, because you are also reverting ovbious mistakes, text supported by reliable secondary sources, and re-introducing language claiming, for example, "[Muhammad's] first actions [included] the promulgation of a document known as the Constitution of Medina." -- which clearly implies that the Constitution was imposed without consent, when it was in fact a negotiated mutual-defense treaty. This is inexcusable.

If there is a reason that such reversions are intended to correct some error, instead of maintain an anti-Muslim bias, I can not see it. Please enlighten me. Publicola 19:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea for you to sart with using reliable sources. In addition, you've violated the three-revert rule. You may be blocked unless you do a self-revert. Pecher Talk 19:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Which sources are you complaining about? The sources I have added are website versions of scholarly textbooks from academic Islamic publishers. Are you simply trying to say that you would prefer that the article contain reference to works of Jewish scholarship and not any works of Muslim scholarship? We need both to be neutral.
As for 3RR, you had better take another look -- Tickle me has admitted to "accidentally" vandalizing the article (by deleting half of it), and reverting vandalism doesn't count. If you aren't following this talk page close enough to understand this, what business do you have making such accusations? Publicola 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You did not simply restore the blanked portions of the article, but also reintroduced your POV into other parts, so those were still reverts. Pecher Talk 19:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please! The 3RR rules allow any number of reverts of simple vandalism, without regard to whether the last good version is yours or someone else's. What an absurd attempt to wikilawyer the rules! You just made that up, didn't you? For someone who uses the 3RR complaint process as much as you seem to, you ought to know that your assertion is not based in any policy. Pathetic! Publicola 20:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an incomplete list of mistakes replaced by reverts:

  • Intro:
    • Implication that Muhammad expelled Banu Nadir "Shortly" after his arrival; in fact it took several years and a military campaign which took him away from Medina in between the events.
    • Implication that the eviction was unilateral, and not in reaction to a war with another jewish tribe.
    • Implication that the slaughter was unilateral, and not in retalliation for the Jews' assistance of the attacking Meccans.
    • Unsourced "widow of the tribe's slain treasurer" as opposed to "captured Jewish woman"
  • Background:
    • "Academic historians" claim for unsourced statment(!)
    • deletion of {{fact}} tag without replacing source
  • Arrival of Muhammad:
    • Implication that the Constitution was imposed without consent
    • Very biased claim that "status was conditional upon their not "acting wrongfully", a qualification which provided Muhammad with a convenient pretext for nullifying his obligations toward Jews at a later time."
      • (a) That status was not changed until after provocation by the Banu Nadir's chief (e.g. erotic poetry about Muslim women)
      • (b) "convienient pretext" -- unsupported subjective conjecture, not encuclopedic objectivity
    • No mention of the equal rights provided by the constitution before it fell apart.
  • Expulsion of the Banu Qaynuqa from Medina:
    • Could anything be more biased than this passage? "Muhammad felt himself strong enough to finally move against the Jews of Medina." It's subjective, unknowable, and loaded, pretending to document the motivations, all while completely ignoring the well-documented source of the conflict.
    • The source being the escallation from the stripped muslim woman in the jewish jewler's shop, which I carefully documented on request, from reliable secondary sources which were falsely claimed to be unreliable -- and reverted away without explanation
    • Very viased claim: "The Banu Nadir ... failed to grasp Muhammad's intentions at that time" -- this ascribes "intentions" in a subjective, non-encyclopedic way. Just the facts, please.
  • Assassination of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf:
    • Reversion of sourced detail concerning the legality of the killing.
  • Expulsion of the Banu Nadir from Medina:
    • Unsourced "Shortly after" when years passed
    • Huge amounts of biased language -- you can look at the diff yourself; it's obvious. Publicola 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, you've never cited a single reliable scholarly source to support your POV, including for issues you're trying to raise above. That's just a list of differences, not a support for your edits. Pecher Talk 19:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, you have clearly not even been following this discussion. My edits are supported by:
  • Akram Diya al Umari (1991) "The Expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa," in Madinan Society At the Time of the Prophet [9]
  • Muhammad Husayn Haykal (1991) "Between Badr and Uhud," in Life of Muhammad, translated by Isma'il Razi A. al-Faruqi [10]
  • "The Expulsion Of Banu Qaynuqa," in The Islamic State, published by Hizb ut Tahrir [11]
...which are all scholarly academic texts -- and therefore reliable secondary sources according to WP:RS -- which just happen to be available in part on the web.
Moreover, much of the list above doesn't need sources as the bias is obvious on its face. "Muhammad felt himself strong enough to finally move against the Jews of Medina," is biased, POV crap no matter how many reliable sources state it. There is no way to know how or what Muhammad felt. Why are you so opposed to simply reporting the facts instead of this biased nonsense from Jewish reference sources? Publicola 20:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
These are just retellings of an anecdote from ibn Hisham; there is no reason to cite these websites, as we can cite ibn Hisham directly. Give me a single academic source accepting this incident as an actual cause of the expulsion rather than an irrelvant story, possibly invented centuries after the events. Pecher Talk 20:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have given you three. What source suggests that the story was "possibly invented"? Why do you insist on using only Jewish sources in the disputed portion of this article? Do you not agree that we should be drawing on both Jewish and Muslim sources for balance? Publicola 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
"..biased, POV crap no matter how many reliable sources state it" That's too ridiculous to answer. Will you finally stop pushing your original research here? Pecher Talk 20:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You can not be serious. You are claiming that the deletion of a passage from a Jewish source, claiming to know the motivations of Muhammad, is original research? How, exactly? Under what definition is deletion of a statement research at all, let alone original?
Why do you keep reverting to the version that so clearly stated the constitution was "promulgated" instead of mutually consented to, without bothering to correct that horrendous and obvious mistake? Publicola 23:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Your repeated labeling an academic source as "Jewish" is too disgusting to merit a response. Pecher Talk 09:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Disgusting? Disgusting is acting all put-upon when guilty of supporting blatantly obvious bias. The source in question is published by the Jewish Publication Society of America -- are you purporting that it is balanced all by itself, and we don't need any Muslim sources in the disputed sections for a neutral point of view? Absurd! But not unexpected from someone who continually reverted to statements such as the constitution was "promulgated" as opposed to signed by mutual consent, and more than a dozen other obvious bias problems. Publicola 09:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The source in question is Norman Stillman. Inferring that his writings are biased by themselves because he is Jewish or partly being published by the "Jewish Publication Society of America" is openly racist. On Islamic issues, as with any issue, what WP needs and demands is sources complying with WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V. NPOV demands that all notable sides are represented: with historic topics that's exclusively scholarly, preferably contemporary, secondary sources - whether Muslim, Jewish or Martian is not relevant.
Primary sources wikiwise serve exclusively for illustration of what secondary ones say ...if the ultimate goal of explaining issues is thus served. I will concede that anyone pushing an Islamic POV is in a bad position, as all authoritative Muslim historians died several centuries ago. You might want to address this shortcoming by studying history yourself. Once you become a respected authority in the field, your POV will be cited here, else you're a mere wikipedian who is not allowed to interpret sources, delete authoritative ones, write history on his own or cite just any source, as long as it supports his view. --tickle me 16:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I am astonished at these claims. Do you also concede that anyone pushing a Jewish POV "is a bad position," or not? On what grounds do you claim that "all authoritative Muslim historians died several centuries ago"? Are modern-day Islamic scholars not authoritative Muslim historians? My POV, frankly, is that both sides of this issue have been acting like bloody three-year-olds for thousands of years, since the moment their respective scriptures, which devote so much space to demands for killing those people who don't believe in them, were written. That is not a POV I have been adding to the article, I'm sure you've noticed. My goal here, has been an experiment, to merely add the opposing point of view to this article from which it had so obviously been scrubbed. I've learned a lot, and in fact, this is the first time in my life I have ever been accused of racism. To be so accused by someone making the claims you are is comical, or would be if it wasn't so sad. There is no question that this article will not have a neutral point of view while it includes only one of the opposing points of view, and not the other. There is no way to take them both out, so they must both be included. My version doesn't remove the Jewish point of view, it adds the Muslim point of view and corrects glaring objective inaccuracies such as the "promulgated" constitution which was without question reached through mutual consent. Publicola 16:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You continue to stck to your blatantly racist claims that everything written by a famous scholar is "Jewish POV" because the scholar is Jewish. I don't see any reason to continue the discussion with an editor who not only never bothered to read Wikipedia policies, but also uses Wikipedia to advance racist views. Pecher Talk 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You continue your false personal attacks. I have only said that Stillman is biased in the (unlikely) event that his writing actually supports the obvious bias I have identified above, of which you have only responded to one by making the date correction ("shortly" -> three years) in the intro. I have certainly never referred to "everything written" by Stillman. There are plenty of unbiased Jewish scholars, but statements supported by their work are not well-represented in this article. Your accusations are absurd. Publicola 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continued reintroduction of bias by reverts II

"My version doesn't remove the Jewish point of view...": A historian's assessment who happens to be of Jewish descent or a even practicising Jew isn't the Jewish POV, at least not by academic or WP standards. "...it adds the Muslim point of view": We're to add notable POVs, a POV being regarded "Muslim" by some wikipedian is not notable by itself. "My goal here, has been an experiment": Please stop it. "Are modern-day Islamic scholars not authoritative Muslim historians?": Find those regarded authoritative by their peers in academia and use them to back up your edits. --tickle me 17:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have included three sources, two of them from reputable Islamic scholars published by academic presses. Why do you think they are inferror to the statement in the protected version of the article, which claim to use Stillman to support how Muhammad "felt" about attacking the Jews, and to support that the constitution was "promugated" instead of signed on to? Publicola 19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Your hizb-ut-tahrir link points to an anonymous text, no relevance per se
  2. Muhammad Husayn Haykal is a lawyer by training, no oriental scholar or historian - Beware_false_authority applies: no relevance
  3. Akram Diya Al Umari's scholarship is unknown, you're to prove it. He publishes at nondescript "International Institute of Islamic Thought", no rep in academia, lest you prove it. The link provided points to an suspended account, the google cache give's no clue to Umari's qualification or academic standing, much less an authoritative assessment.
That's sheer obstruction. I'll ignore your posts lest they'll contain germane content: eod. --tickle me 03:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. I have no information about the reliability of The Islamic State published by the trans-Arab political party Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is why I said only two out of three of the sources I provided were works of academic scholarship.
  2. Muhammad Husayn Haykal may have three degrees in law, but he is recognized as "an Egyptian writer, journalist, politician and a former Minister of Education in Egypt," and is the author of dozens of books, including several biographies. In 1929, he issued his book "Biographies of Egyptian and Western Personalities", in which Egyptian Personalities accounted for more than one third. In 1933, he first published The Life of Muhammad, which was later reprinted in three editions. This work is regarded as the best of Heikal's writings, and (by the Egyptian government at least) "almost the best ever-written on the life of Prophet Muhammad." There is no question that this book has always been widely regarded as a scholarly publication, and in fact it was the first biography of Muhammad written by an Islamic scholar translated into English. Heikal also translated books on Beethoven, Shakespeare and Shelly. Without a doubt, Heikal is a pre-eminent Islamic scholar, and a great Muslim historian of the past century.
  3. Madinan Society At the Time of the Prophet, by Akram Diya al Umari, was co-published by International Islamic Publishing House and the International Institute of Islamic Thought, "a private, non-profit, academic and cultural institution" located in Virginia, in June, 1991. The chapter excerpted in the Google cache to which you have linked cites seven scholarly sources in its references. Dr. al Umari is clearly regarded as a "scholar" in the Islamic world.
These are certainly scholarly sources, and in any case, the story of the war escalating from revenge killings surrounding the stripped naked woman in the jewish jewler's shop would be superior from the weakest of sources to the apparently unsupported, and unknowable mental state claim that "Muhammad felt himself strong enough to finally move against the Jews of Medina," which you have been replacing it with. Your claims of obstruction are entirely unconvincing. Publicola 06:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Paragraph

"Muhammad took a share of the spoils, and took a captive Jewish woman as his wife."

This sets out to portray The Prophet as a warmonger. Reading this first paragraph, one could draw similarities between him and Genghis Khan.

The paragraph also sets out none of the intrigues and machinations of the Jewish tribe, making them out to be an innocent party —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.218.39 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Other explanation for killing

It would be interesting to know that how these other sources knew exactly what Muhammad wanted, and are the bible on feelings of Muhammad!!!! From a Muslim perspective, nothing happened against the Constitution of Medina. The killings that followed this incident, were not normal killings. These were the same killings as what Moses asked his followers to kill all those who worshiped Golden Calf, when he was away for forty days. As the bible says, kill your brother, friend, and neighbor (Exodus Chapter 32 verse 27) or with the principle by which Solomon conquered so much land. Muslims believe that this responsibility of spreading the religion was now unto Ishmaelites, rather than Israelites. Once people, deny Messengers, there is no otherway to deal with them unless they are killed. Examples from Quran and Bible are numerous, like Nation of Noah, Nation of Lot and finally Jewish miseries after denial of Jesus. The most official document for Muslims is Quran itself, which says, recall that Abraham was put to the test by his Lord, through certain commands, and he fulfilled them. (God) said, "I am appointing you a leader for the people." He said, "and also my descendants?" He said, "my covenant does not include the transgressors" (2:124), you shall strive for the cause of GOD as you should strive for His cause. He has chosen you and has placed no hardship on you in practicing your religion - the religion of your father Abraham (22:78), We thus made you an impartial community, that you may serve as witnesses among the people, and the messenger serves as a witness among you (2:143), and numerous others. When people challenge the Messenger (by not obeying) and hence challenge the authority of God, they are punished by a natural disaster or by the followers of the Messenger. But the general principle in Islam still follows, as written in Quran, ... that whoever took a life, unless it be for murder or for spreading disorder on earth, it would be as if he killed all mankind; and whoever saved a life, it would be as if he saved all mankind (5:32) and And he who kills a believer intentionally, his reward is Hell; he shall remain therein forever... (4:93). The punishment for taking an innocent life is eternal hell, this can be read at numerous places in Quran. So the killing of Jews and others was a special case and is no more applicable. A very good article to understand this point of view is http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mar_d2y2.html and http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mapred97.html . Here I would suggest again, what Muslims believe, may not be fact to others, but should be present on the page as their opinion. A novice reader has the right to know the story from both sides. SS

There is no reason to respond to a comment that calls academic sources "Jewish" based on the ethnicity of the author. Disgusting. Pecher Talk 08:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have realized that and I am really sorry, if that hurt your feelings. SS
Again, the source in question is published by the Jewish Publication Society of America and is clearly biased. I think we need to call a spade a spade here, folks. The likes of Pecher have no basis to complain after the bias they have been continiously reverting to, here. Publicola 09:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You're demonstrating utter disdain for WP:NPOV and WP:RS. You cannot disqualify a reliable academic source just because you think that Jews are biased against Muhammad. Pecher Talk 09:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Hogwash. I make no such general claim, but the cited source -- which is published by an organization that calls itself "Jewish," no matter how much others' use of the term to describe the book disgusts you -- is clearly biased against the early Muslims if it indeed supports any of the 14+ problematic claims I identified above. Publicola 10:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Take this example: "Muhammad felt himself strong enough to finally move against the Jews of Medina." That is opposed to the statement about the escallating conflict after the stripped Muslim woman in the murdered Jewish jewler's store. If there were any actual historical documentation for how Muhammad "felt," then that would be what the source said, and it would read somthing like, "Muhammad's friend Joe wrote that Muhammad felt strong enough to finally move against the Jews;" and not the naked ascribed emotion which appeared in the version you've been reverting to. The story about the stripped woman, on the other hand, appears in several academic sources. Even if a Muslim historian wrote peer-reviewed articles claiming that Muhammad "felt" one way or another instead of stating the historical facts from which he drew such a conclusion, it would be inferrior to the stripped woman story. History just doesn't work that way -- saying someone "felt" some way without saying why is not historical scholarship, it is biased conjecture. Publicola 10:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with Publicaola that the Jewish Publication Society of America is not exactly the best publisher... not because it's Jewish but because they don't have any claim to publishing Academic sources about Islam. It isn't a scholarly press, it is a press created to preserve Jewish heritage in the "New World". That's not to say that they can't publish something worthwhile... but their process doesn't mandate that the book is a credible sources as say a peer reviewed journal should. Kazi Publications is not a credible press for representing Judaism without some outside verification of the work (not that it is necessarily sound for representing Islam in an academic manner, either). That isn't to say the source shouldn't be used... but, this does go beyond the author's ethnicity and to the quality standards of the press. The question is... is it a reprint edition of something previously published by a scholarly press? gren グレン 10:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not a relevant question, as there is no requirement that any source must be published by a university press to be reliable. The book is a very carefully referenced scholarly work by Norman Stillman and bears his authority, which is unassailable on matters of history of the Jews in Arab lands in which he specializes. Pecher Talk 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but are we talking about God or are we talking about humans for which we say, To err is human. SS 12:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand this comment, sorry. Pecher Talk 12:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have always believed that every man's work is challengeable, because he is a human. So what makes authors of some sources unchallengeable. When you say that XYZ is very expert in his field, would that falsify all other claims by other people or sources? SS 12:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, no one certainly has a claim to "truth"; that's the basis of Wikipedia. Thus, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines as to what sources are reliable, what point of views are notable, and how to deal with conflicting points of view. Pecher Talk 12:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need for an external observer

I believe that once opinions of both sides are included, the article should be protected from editing until disputes have been resolved in talk page. And I believe that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Nadir&oldid=59433750 is the proper version of article that contains balanced opinions. Only giving one party to explain an event is not a very good practice in Encyclopedic articles.SS 14:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that your version has some natural appeal for you, but unfortunately, it contains a lot of original research. Pecher Talk 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Which parts do you believe comprise original research? Publicola 16:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The paragraph which I wrote under Muslims explanation for prosecution was written after reading Tadabbur-i-Quran written by Amin Ahsan Islahi, which is an accredited Sunni Tafsir[12]. This point is explained in detail at different places in that Tafsir. This point of view can also be read in writings of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, who is a renowned Islamic scholar and a desciple of Amin Ahsan Islahi. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi has also been a student of Abu al-A‘la Mawdudi, who is a very well known Islamic Scholar. Unfortunately, their writings are in Urdu. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi's disciples are running a few websites, from which I gave the external link [13]. SaadSaleem 11:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that the article should be protected, but it will be protected forever. These two sides will never agree.--AeomMai 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I have requested mediation for this disputed article and Banu Qaynuqa. Publicola 16:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the section these came from is getting way too long, and because it might help with mediation, I am listing these points as questions:

  • Intro:
    • Should the intro say Muhammad expelled Banu Nadir "Shortly" after his arrival when in fact it took three years? -- this was resolved.
    • (A - ExLibrisCupertino's (ELC) points numbered 4, 7, 8 below) Should the intro suggest that the eviction was unilateral, without mentioning the war with the Banu Qaynuqa?
    • (B - ELC points 11 and 12) Should the intro suggest that slaughter was unilateral, without mentioning the Jews' assistance to the attacking Meccans?
    • (C - WP:CITE) Should the intro refer to "widow of the tribe's slain treasurer" -- without a source or being a summary of anything in the following article -- as opposed to "captured Jewish woman"?
  • Background:
    • (D - WP:CITE) Should the article refer to the beliefs of "academic historians" without any source for the claim contradicting the previous sourced statement?
    • (E - needs source) Should that contradiction of the previous sourced statement include a {{citation needed}} tag?
  • Arrival of Muhammad:
    • (F - ELC points 2 and 3) Should the article claim that the Constitution was "promulgated," implying by definition that it was imposed without consent?
    • (G - ELC points 4 and 5) Should the article state that the Jews' "status was conditional upon their not 'acting wrongfully', a qualification which provided Muhammad with a convenient pretext for nullifying his obligations toward Jews at a later time." (emphasis added)?
      • (H - ELC point 4) Should the article omit the basis for the 'acting wrongfully' claim made by the Muslims, i.e., provocation by the Banu Nadir's chief in the form of heroic songs about the agreed-upon mutual enemy Meccans and erotic poetry about Muslim women?
      • (I - ELC points 4 and 5) Should the article state anything about what was or was not a "convenient pretext" -- which amounts to subjective conjecture, both unsupported and unencyclopedic?
    • (J - ELC point 3) Should the article mention the equal rights provided by the constitution before it fell apart?
  • Expulsion of the Banu Qaynuqa from Medina:
    • (K - ELC points 4 and 5) Should the article state the subjective and unknowable mental state claim that "Muhammad felt himself strong enough to finally move against the Jews of Medina," while ignoring the well-documented source of the conflict from Islamic scholars, that the issues started with a fight over a naked woman?
    • (L - ELC points 6 and 7) Are the sources of that story, about escalation from the stripped Muslim woman in the jewish jewler's shop, reliable secondary sources in accordance with WP:RS?
    • (M - ELC point 7) Should the subjective mental state claim that "The Banu Nadir ... failed to grasp Muhammad's intentions at that time" be included in the article?
  • Assassination of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf:
    • (N - ELC point 8) Should the statements supported by Islamic academic scholars representing the Islamic viewpoint of the legality of the killing be included?
  • Expulsion of the Banu Nadir from Medina:
    • (O - already addressed for intro) Should the phrase "Shortly after" to refer to three years be corrected as it was in the intro?
    • there are several other problems with the text of this section, which I will complete once mediation is underway. Publicola 22:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As it appears there are now no pending requests for mediation prior to this one, I have requested unprotection. Publicola 02:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Good news, everyone! Mediation has been accepted by mediator User:Geo.plrd. Publicola 07:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute location identification answer grid

In order to help identify which problems exist and which are non-problems, I am offering this table so that those who have been reverting the disputed sections can answer the above questions, which I have lettered (A) through (O) and answered to start out. I hope I listed all the anti-Islamists who have been reverting, and I assume that the pro-Islamists agree with me, but if I missed anyone, then please add your own column.

Furthermore, I have indicated the correspondence between almost all of my fifteen questions (note there are still more questions about the remainder of the article) and ExLibrisCupertino's review of the cited Stillman source book below.

Please indicate which issues you dispute by answering the above questions in the table below. Thank you.
Question Publicola Pecher Tickle me Timothy Usher Briangotts
(A) No ___ ___ ___ ___
(B) No ___ ___ ___ ___
(C) No ___ ___ ___ ___
(D) No ___ ___ ___ ___
(E) Yes ___ ___ ___ ___
(F) No ___ ___ ___ ___
(G) No ___ ___ ___ ___
(H) No ___ ___ ___ ___
(I) No ___ ___ ___ ___
(J) Yes ___ ___ ___ ___
(K) No ___ ___ ___ ___
(L) Yes ___ ___ ___ ___
(M) No ___ ___ ___ ___
(N) Yes ___ ___ ___ ___
(O) Yes ___ ___ ___ ___

Publicola 08:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • as much of the current article is problematic and seemingly filled with POV errors as well as factuality errors, i feel that a review of the very skeleton of the article is required and a lot of the changes proposed in the table/list do not include the changes that i have suggested and may suggest in the future. my current proposals can be found here (which i will add to) which offer the foundation on which an article can be further developed (opinions of all are welcome) and more key information added (perhaps the "pro-islamists" could also somewhat proceed to integrate/merge the proposals they have produced) ITAQALLAH 17:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator's Notes

Geo. 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC) - I reviewed the reason for protection. IMO it is legitimately protected, please reword your opinion and post it here. To the side using Jewish sources please do the same. Then we can work them together and get a mutually acceptable version at which time I will ask Pschemp to unprotect the article. This is my proposed solution. Please go to the mediation page and approve it.Geo. 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed version from Publicola, Saadsaleem, and Itaqualla

Posted here on the talk page at the request of the mediator per above and Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-19 Banu Nadir#Proposed solution:

Actually posting the article here on the talk page in full is completely unworkable. Please see the proposed alternative (which has been further refined since the first proposed alternative was posted here in full) at Banu Nadir/mpov. Publicola 01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editable version for attempt at compromise

Since the request for unprotection was denied, I have placed my preferred version at Banu Nadir/mpov and encourage those on both sides of this debate to edit that to achieve a compromise consensus version. Publicola 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"mpov" apparently stands for "my point of view"? There are places other than Wikipedia for pushing it. Pecher Talk 21:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
M=multiple. See my userpage for details. A lot of people who have been revertig this article need to think about the issues raised there. Are you going to participate in mediation? Publicola 22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The grid merely attempts to detract reliable sources based on your POV and OR, as your smearing them of being "Jewish" doesn't caught on with admins - so far. --tickle me 22:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that calling someone "Jewish" is a smear? How about referring to a source as "Muslim" or "Islamic" as I have done just as much? Is that a smear? Of course not. However, in the interest of successful mediation I will refer henceforth to "Muslim" and "non-Muslim" as that seems to be the only way to make you happy. The questions are legitimate, and I don't think there's any mystery why everyone else is avoiding them. There is no evidence that Stillman actually supports the several biased descriptions of unknowable mindset of the historical actors. Furthermore, as has been pointed out above, his publisher, the Jewish Publication Society of America makes no claim to be a scholarly press, describing itself as "created to preserve Jewish heritage in the New World" -- which clearly indicates a pro-Jewish (or, excuse me, non-Muslim) bias.
You have utterly failed to impeach the Islamic sources I have presented, but you continue accusing me of racism, based only on my use of the word "Jewish" as an adjective. Calling Stillman a "Jewish source" is not a racial smear in any way, shape, or form. I would like to remind you to please refrain from making personal attacks. Publicola 23:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Stillman's academic reputation is established. If Walt Disney Co. would choose to publish one of his works it wouldn't get dented, much less by your OR. "personal attacks": this talk page is drenched with ant-Semitism, including yours, that you wisely prefer to display as SP only. I trust it to put off admins and mediators as much as the endless filibustering. --tickle me 00:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, there is no evidence that Stillman's text actually supports the clear bias which was introduced in this article. And again, his publisher makes no secret of their clear bias in their mission statement and several other places on their web site. I don't know what you mean by "SP." Would you please stop accusing me of racism? If I have to ask again, it will be on the Personal Attack Incident Noticeboard. On what grounds do you claim I am "fillibustering"? You and your supporters have as yet refused to respond to any but the first of the bias questions I have raised. Publicola 04:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Geo asked me for review. Frankly, I don't know what else to do other than to repeat myself ...by answering repeated attempts to detract Stillman as WP:RS because of his Jewishness and those of his publisher. This merits no answer. As for the "Islamic sources" whose "impeachment failed", I say again that none of the websites cited (hizb-ut-tahrir.org, witness-pioneer.org, bismikaallahuma.org) qualify as secondary sources, much less are they fit to counter scholarly works. And again, I state that the detraction of Stillman for being inherently biased due to his forefathers doesn't warrant reaction, much less countering by "Muslim" sources, whose only merit is their religious affiliation. --tickle me 19:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I can only add here that being a product of "multiple points of view" policy, this version is a blatant attempt to circumvent the existing WP:NPOV policy. Pecher Talk 20:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stillman's source has been badly misrepresented

I just found a copy of Stillman's The Jews of Arab Lands, and I can see why there are complaints about it being used as a source in this article. For example:

  1. In June 622, seventy-five Medinese converted to Islam (p. 9)
    [possibly satisfies a "citation needed" in Banu Nadir/mpov. Would someone with access to Stillman's book check to see if the Medinese converts included Jews? -- that could be an error, based on some websites I've been reading. Publicola 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)]
  2. Before any conflict even occurred, "it was clear to all that eventually the Jews would have to go" (p. 10)
    [relates to proposed mediation questions (A) and (F)]
  3. Concerning the Constitution of Medina, the word "promulgation" does appear, but there is no indication that the Jews did not agree to it as the mutual-defense pact was beneficial to them, and "The document confirmed the Jews as members of the Medinese community with certain rights and responsibilities." (p. 11)
    [relates to questions (F) and (J)]
  4. The description of what would happen if the Jews acted "wrongfully" under the agreement is, "The vagueness of this qualification was to provide Muhammad with a legal avenue for changing [the Jews] status at a later date," saying nothing about intent or what anyone thought or felt. (p. 11)
    [relates to questions (G), (H), (I) and (K)]
  5. The description of Muhammad's motivation after the Battle of Badr is "[Muhammad] now had the power and the prestige to begin moving against his enemies in Medina," again saying nothing about what he "felt," and the enemies in question were "pagan poets" who had "written satirical verses about him." (p. 13)
    [relates to questions (G), (I) and (K)]
  6. Stillman makes no mention of all of what started the conflict between the Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, and nothing he writes about it is inconsistent with the story presented by the Muslim sources. (p. 11-21)
    [relates to question (L)]
  7. "No historian has failed to notice the fact that the other two Jewish tribes did not come to the aid of their brethren. Clearly, the Jews did not grasp the nature of the conflict. It probably seemed to them to be a tribal of political affair of the traditional Arabian kind with which they were familiar" -- this is completely consistent with the explanation from the Muslim sources. (p. 13)
    [relates to questions (A), (L), and (M)]
  8. "[Kab b. al-Asraf] had written verses satirizing Islam and insulting Muslim womanhood. Retaliation for such a slight was perfectly consistent with the heroic norms of Arab society in that period." (p. 13)
    [relates to questions (A) and (N)]
  9. There is no mention that the Jews "feared for their life" after al-Asraf's killing.
    [Not Applicable -- that claim is sourced to p. 127 of Stillman's translation of Ibn Hisham]
  10. Stillman does say that Muhammad attacked the Nadir because "he needed a victory to regain his lost prestige," citing Ibn Hisham, Sira, vol. 1, p. 559, Eng trans., p. 263. (p. 13-14)
    [Supports the protected version -- this point was therfore incorrectly omitted and has been replaced in Banu Nadir/mpov.]
  11. Stillman states that the exiled Nadir recruited the remaining Medinian Qurayza Jews during the battle of the trench (p. 15) which has been omitted by the people citing Stillman in this article.
    [relates to question (B)]
  12. "The Jews of Khaybar joined in a defense alliance [against Muhammad]" (p. 17)
    [relates to question (B)]
  13. The terms of the settlement after the Battle of Khaybar "were burdensome, but not unusually harsh." (p. 18)
    [This relates to an issue which has been addressed in Banu Nadir/mpov but not in my proposed mediation questions above. Publicola 00:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)]

No further mention is made in the chapter of any of the tribes referred to in this article. ExLibrisCupertino 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added correspondences of these points to the proposed mediation questions in square brackets inline. Publicola 00:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. Do you think the way the book is used in the article can be attributed to good faith error, or intentional misrepresentation? His Excellency... 21:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what this long list of pages is supposed to disprove. Are there any specific passages in the article that you are complaining about? Pecher Talk 21:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the ones I thought I pretty clearly referred to. I can't believe that you don't see a connection between my quotes from the Stillman book and the controversies you yourself have been discussing right here on this talk page. ExLibrisCupertino 21:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Not really. You have given only several quotes from the book, but what specific statements from the article are you disputing? Pecher Talk 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If you can't figure them out, then please ask someone else to explain them to you. There's a time limit on the library terminal I'm using, and I really don't believe it's not perfectly obvious. ExLibrisCupertino 22:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I would say it's too much to be a good-faith error. It looks like selective quotation, and in a few cases, outright misrepresentation, to me. ExLibrisCupertino 22:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I just can't take that seriously. I'm not supposed to figure out what you are disputing. Pecher Talk 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Which ones don't you see the connection to? Publicola 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have numbered the points, and edited in the correspondences between the questions I raised and ExLibrisCupertino's review. Publicola 00:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
there are certainly a number of clear inconsistencies between what has been presented here and what has been alluded to in the article. it is suprising that some claim to have not even spotted how they are inconsistent. it seems that some of what we were disputing may have in fact been raw POV inserted by the author and not even attributable to stillman. regardless, this only strengthens the notion that the current article is deeply problematic and needs to be reviewed in its entirety. ITAQALLAH 23:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not enough to strenghten a notion. If an editor is misrepresenting text here, that's a serious matter, and should be dealt with. His Excellency... 23:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU -- I was going to do that. Publicola 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"If you can't figure them out", "there are certainly a number of clear inconsistencies": this doesn't warrant reaction, you're not to have other editors guessing. --tickle me 23:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have converted ExLibrisCupertino's bullet points to numbered items to respond to Pecher's request for identification of the issues addressed by ExLib's review of Stillman, showing the relationship inline in both. Publicola 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In light of this new information, I would like to retract what I have said about Non-Muslim sources in general and Stillman in particular (reminding everyone that I made it repeatedly clear that I was only complaining about Stillman if his work actually supported the statements attributed to him.) Since it now seems very clear that Stillman's book does not support any but a few of the potential bias problems which I identified, I would like to re-direct my criticism to whoever introduced the identified and confirmed bias in this article in Stillman's name. I have not yet studied the edit history to see who that is, but I intend to do so. Publicola 00:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Pecher included the text giving rise to my questions (A), (B), (D & E), maybe (F), (G, H and I), and (M). Subsequent edits are responsible for some of the other problems, and some are omissions for which nobody is responsible. It does appear that Pecher may have selectivly omitted on these issues, or worse. Publicola 00:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't care it less how you have tied the quotes above to your questions. The only thing I care about is how the quotes above cast doubt over certain material in the article. On this issue, the lack of any coherent response apart from general cries of "misrepresentation" is clearly telling. Pecher Talk 08:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You want me to spell it out? Fine; let's take them one at a time.
  • Stillman wrote, "No historian has failed to notice the fact that the other two Jewish tribes did not come to the aid of their brethren. Clearly, the Jews did not grasp the nature of the conflict. It probably seemed to them to be a tribal of political affair of the traditional Arabian kind with which they were familiar.... Retaliation for such a slight was perfectly consistent with the heroic norms of Arab society in that period."
  • You wrote, citing the same page, "The Banu Nadir ... failed to grasp Muhammad's intentions at that time"
Where did the part about Muhammad's intentions come from? Publicola 08:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Where do you see a significant difference here? Muhammad's intentions were to establish complete political and religious domination; this is what Stillman means when he talks about the nature of the conflict. He makes the same point on page 9, see quote above. Pecher Talk 08:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The only quote from page 9 I can find here or on either of the articles is the one about seventy-five conversions upon arrival, and nothing about motivations. Do you have a copy of Stillman's book handy? (By the way, were those conversion Jews, Arabs, or both?) Which quote are you talking about?
How do you know that Stillman means Muhammad's intentions when he talks about the nature of the conflict? How do you know that he doesn't mean that, before the Constitution, "it was clear to all that eventually the Jews would have to go," but the two sides did reach an agreement, signing a mutual defense pact that gave them both the right to practice their different religions, which was stable for years. And, after a war which arose from escalating retalliations, how do you know that the remaining Jewish tribes were complacent because they failed to grasp the intentions when the problem was that the Nadir's leader was writing all sorts of offensive poetry? Can't we just as reasonably say that Muhammad failed to grasp the intentions of the Nadir Chief in wrecking the constitutional stability with erotic poetry about Muslim women and tributary odes to Muhammad's slain Meccan enemies? Unless there is extant historical documentation, we have no way to know what the mental states of these actors were. The words "failed to grasp" appear in Stillman's page 13, and your statements citing his page 13. The difference is that the remainder of Stillman's predicate encompasses the mental state of all the actors in the conflict by refering to its very general "nature," while the remainder of your predicate refers to the mental state of just one actor, Muhammad. That is a stark difference, and it casts Muhammed in a bad light while ignoring the source-supported problems with the naked woman in the jewelry shop, so it is biased, and it needs to be fixed in the article. Publicola 09:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to which piece of original research and flawed logic I should respond first; let's deal with them in the order of appearance. Yes, it was clear from the start that the Jews would have to go, and Stillman praises the Constitution of Medina as an evidence of Muhammad's political skills, a great piece of claire-obsucre, which gave Muhammad pretexts to nullify his obligations under it whenever he saw fit. This is why the pact was stable for some time until Muhammad found it expedient to violate it, finding a suitable pretext, of course. Thus, this was not war arising from escalating retaliations — I have no idea where you got this nonsense from &mdash but an attack by Muhammad launched at a suitable moment. The problem was not Nadir's leader and his poetry; if it had been so, things would have stopped after his assasination. Muhammad didn't fail to grasp anyone's intentions; Ka'b wrote peotry against Muhammad, who killed Ka'b for that, so where's a failure to grasp something? This is part of the job of historians to seek causes and consequences and make inferences from the documents. It is silly to try to infer that Jews failed to grasp their own mental state: the events described did not occur in a funny house. Finally, when you want to make a point, keep it succinct; I have better uses of time than responding to page-long filibusters. Pecher Talk 11:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • it was clear from the start that the Jews would have to go - stillman allegedly says that it was clear to all, not just clear to muhammad and his followers. this can be interpreted in a number of ways and perhaps a sign of the incompatibility between the two groups. it cannot be used as evidence to speculate on muhammad's intentions.
  • which gave Muhammad pretexts to nullify his obligations under it whenever he saw fit ­- this is different to stillman's statement that a certain clause would be cited by muhammad later on in opposition to the jews- he does not state whether it was always muhammad's intention (to at some point cite this) or his genuine reaction to latter events. you are inferring that it was always his intention to cite this clause to nullify the pact, when convenient, which is not found in the text of stillman unless you can unequivocally display otherwise. much of what you are saying above is your interpretation of events. the least that can be said is that the statement attributed to stillman on this talk page is far more objective than what has been attributed to him in the article.
  • this was not war arising from escalating retaliations ­- i have already stated above what many of the historians (and indeed the great authorities on seerah) cite with relation to banu qaynuqa and the specific incident. you are again employing your own interpretation of events in contradiction to established authorities (re: convenient pretext. intentions etc.), and seemingly not in conformity with what stillman has opined.
  • stillman claims that banu nadir did not grasp the nature of the conflict - there is no speculation on muhammad's intention, which is alluded to time and again in the article so that there is no doubt with the reader as to what exactly this "intention" is. however, such an intention has not been alluded to by stillman himself and again this statement of stillman is far more objective than what has been attributed to him in the article
  • This is part of the job of historians to seek causes and consequences and make inferences from the documents. - i am sure that you will therefore have no disagreement with accepting the the suitability of the relevant evidences cited by historians as i have detailed above in my proposal(s), to which you dismissed as ex-post facto justifications, according to certain academic sources which you have not yet named nor cited (please do so). ITAQALLAH 12:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this ad nauseam repeition of the Jewish goldsmith/Muslim woman episode, see Stillman and the article on the Banu Qaynuqa in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Academic historians do not accept this and other similar episodes as valid justifications for the attack on the Banu Qaynuqa, period. Regarding other points, I've already responded to them, and I have no intention to repeat my arguments any further. In the title of the section people have proposed an exposition of a gross misrepresentation of Stillman; what we have instead is sophistical hairsplitting, and even this hairsplitting is entirely without merit. Pecher Talk 14:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
apologies for the delayed response. i do not currently have access to the encyclopaedia of islam or the book of stillman, so please provide the quote/references and how they arrive at such a broad sweeping conclusion if possible. do they explicitly mention and analyse all the incidents i have included or have they commented on just one and then made a blanket statement?
what i feel you are omitting is the fact that stillman and encyclopaedia of islam are not the final authority on the matter. i have already cited ibn hisham and others who make mention of the goldsmith episode, and you know well that i have already stated that such episodes should be mentioned but not in direct justification of the attack, because i have already cited the exact episode used by the notable historians (re: marketplace exchange-ibn hisham, waqidee and others - and your critique for that is welcome) to justify the attack on qaynuqa. the incidents opinion merits mention and even moreso as it is a widely accepted claim. to claim that "academic historians do not accept this and others like it" -which in itself is a sweeping statement- is not relevant (let alone accurate if you are speaking definitively), as the substantial positions and opinions held by the authorities on this matter should be mentioned especially as they are common- and i do not see why anyone is even contesting that. EoI stating something does not make it fact, especially when the secondary sources it refers to are in conflict with them on that.
the point is, all substantial and sourced viewpoints held by a significant number of people (let alone historians) must be accommodated (WP:NPOV). there is no refusal to include stillman's take on the affair but what we do want to include is other relevant material from the very works stillman and EoI refer to, as well as other notable and famous contemporary works like raheeq al-makhtoom, in order to bring a little neutrality to the article and its tone.
you stated that you have responded to the other points, but i do not feel that any of them have been answered in a satisfactory manner. you have merely recounted your interpretation of the matter and used it to justify what has been written in the article. such is not a reasonable response by any means. ITAQALLAH 01:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Moving on, from (M) to (A) -- I will try to go in order from now on:
  • Stillman writes several passages about the war between the Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, and the taunting poetry of the Nadir's leader, and how it led to the expulsion of the Banu Nadir.
  • Your intro text says that Muhammad evicted the Banu Nadir without explaining that there had been a war and that the Nadir's chief had been inciting the Muslims.
Why did you omit those events from the summary? Publicola 09:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is about the Banu Nadir, not the Banu Qaynuqa; the breif section about the expulsion of the latter serves only to give some historical context and to draw attention to the Nadir's failure to act. The expulsion of the Banu Nadir had nothing to do with Ka'b's poetry, not a single source that I'm aware of say that the latter caused the former. Pecher Talk 11:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't asking about the expulsion of the Banu Qaynuqa, I was referring to the immediately prior war with them. Publicola 21:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Prior war with whom? Pecher Talk 07:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The war with the Qaunuqa, which just took place less than a year ago. Publicola 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Next question, (B):
  • Stillman writes that the exiled Nadir recruited the remaining Medinian Qurayza Jews during the battle of the trench, and "The Jews of Khaybar joined in a defense alliance [against Muhammad]"
  • Your intro text says, "When Muhammad defeated the Jews of Khaybar, an oasis near Medina, where most members of Banu Nadir had found refuge, his followers killed all male Banu Nadir and divided their wives and property among themselves...."
Why did you omit mention of the fact that the Nadir had recruited the remaining Medinian Jews and were part of the forces fighting the Muslims? Publicola 21:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Please provide the exact quote confirming that Stillman writes that "the exiled Nadir recruited the remaining Medinian Qurayza Jews during the battle of the trench". Pecher Talk 07:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Just checked with the book: all Stillman says is that Huyayy ibn Akhtab served as a emissary between those who besieged Medina and Banu Qurayza. So, it was User:ExLibrisCupertino who badly misrepresented Stillman. The article mentions that Huyayy with his son participated in the Battle of the Trench on the Meccan side, so no problem here with the article. This is not Huyayy ibn Akhtab's biography, and there is no need to dwell at lengths about all the details. If someone feels that adding more details with Huyayy's cooperation with Muhammad's adversaries is a damning piece of evidence that was concealed, then wrong this person is. Warfare is warfare and cooperating with the enemies of a person who expelled you from your home is in no way "damning", so there is nothing to "conceal". Pecher Talk 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I found a copy of the book, too, and although I can't remember wether the word "emissary" was used, the passage was clear that the Nadir's Huyayy ibn Akhtab was trying to win the remaining jews in Medina over the the Meccan side during the battle of the trench. It might not be "damning" but keeping it from readers makes it appear that the slaughter of the Nadir was done without provocation, which is terribly biased. Publicola 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. The article says that Huyayy ibn Akhtab joined the Meccans during the Battle of the Trench; extraneous details do not belong here. What is clear from your comments is that you are here to construct a criminal case against the Banu Nadir without even pretending that you want to build a neutral encyclopedia. Pecher Talk 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
How is the fact that the Nadir joined in the fight against Muhammad and sent an "emissary" in to recruit the remaining Medinian Jews against him extraneous? I'm not here to prepare a case, I'm here to add balance, and the fact that the intro describes the Nadir as exiled and slaughtered by Muhammad without any mention that another jewish tribe had just been warring with him, and that the Nadir had been fighting against him and trying to recruit the remaining Medinan jews is simply not balanced. Publicola 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Question (C): What is the source of the phrase, "widow of the tribe's slain treasurer"? Publicola 17:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you find this to be an incorrect description of Safiyya bint Huyayy? Pecher Talk 17:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether it is correct. It is not supported by any cited sources. It appears in the intro, but not the text, and it seems like loaded language to me. Do you have a source for the claim, or not? Publicola 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What? Did you miss that she was "widow of Kinana ibn al-Rabi, the treasurer of Banu Nadir"? Have you ever read the article? Pecher Talk 21:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Which article? Was that in Stillman? Publicola 21:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This article. Pecher Talk 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions (D) and (E): Who are the "academic historians" who believe the Banu Nadir "to be an ethnically Jewish tribe connected with the Khaybar Jews"? Publicola 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This comes from the Encyclopedia of Islam; feel free to ask the article's author if you have additional questions. I understand what you're getting at: you want the article to name names and create the impression that only these people believe so. Won't work: per WP:NPOV, we don't attribute the majority view to specific scholars. Pecher Talk 21:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of Islam is a tertiary source and thus not allowed in controversies under WP:RS. Why do you think this is the view of scholars; surely if this is a majority view there is another source? Publicola 21:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no policy basis for your claim that it's not allowed. Pecher Talk 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Question (F): Is it reasonable to claim that the constitution was "promulgated" after it was reached through an agreement of the signing tribes, after had been "clear to all that eventually the Jews would have to go?" Publicola 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement that the constitution was promulgated is sourced. Pecher Talk 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged massacre of Banu Nadir

Bernard Lewis in his book "The Jews of Islam" (1984) page 10 writes that only Banu Qurayza were given the choice between conversion and death. Lewis talks about the Jews of Khaybar but only states they were capitulated to Muhammad. No mention of any massacre. --Aminz 19:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If everybody here can agree that Bernard Lewis is an authoritative historical writer (which I think should be easily agreeable), then it follows that any mention (or implication) of the Banu Nadir being massacred must be removed (or at least disputed), because (A) it is simply not hitorical fact & (B) even if there was any massacre at all, it did not involve Banu Nadir and should therefore be removed from this article. Oh yeah...one more thing: whether it's Pecher or anyone else, please do not try to distract the reader/editors with your customary "asides"...just stick to the facts, because I will simply ignore such futile attempts at floating the issues at hand. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 11:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Share of Muhammad

I think writing in the article that Muhammad got share from spoils without telling the fact that his property was actually state's property and was never divided amongst his heirs. If such details are missed out, then the article under discussion will not present the actual picture. See for yourself in Bukhari5:59:368. Some serious overhauling of this article is needed. SaadSaleem 10:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, when you're an absolute ruler of a state, you can call your property "state property". Pecher Talk 13:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
this is a very lose comment. SaadSaleem 15:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What comment? Pecher Talk 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing Bukhari and inferring on it is OR. The link is fit to illustrate a scholar's assessment, should he adhere to a literal understanding and a uncritical interpretation of sources. --tickle me 01:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually that's not necessarily true. WP:RS : In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections.

The volumes of Hadith are published. Nothing in WP:RS characterizes the use of such primary sources as being "Original Research", so you're misinforming people with this statement. Additionally the original traditions themselves, reported by the many many sources cited in Sahih Al Bukhari would have been primary sources UNTIL they were compiled by Imam Bukhari and made into volumes. Thus, Sahih Al Bukhari is a secondary source which hosts the many hadiths, each which were primary sources before Bukhari collected and sorted them. His Excellency... 02:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The hadith are primary sources based on which scholars make their own conclusions. Drawing your own conclusions from a primary source is OR. Pecher Talk 20:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Scholars make conclusions as to policy and traditions based on the Hadith, not what the Hadith stated to have happened. For example, whether or not it's haraam to engage in a certain practice or deal with a person a certain way. Since we're not formulating policy based on the Hadith, but merely documenting events, for our purposes "Sahih al Bukhari" and "Sahih Al Muslim" are secondary sources. This is beyond the point that WP:RS does in fact allow the use of primary sources if they have been published. You still haven't addressed the issue of how quoting a primary source constitutes OR. His Excellency... 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You've misrepresented my comment. I didn't say quoting is OR; quoting is alright if you're illustrating something from a secondary source. The hadith are primary sources because they are historical documents based on which historians make their conclusions. These conclusions are then published in books or articles, which are secondary sources citable on Wikipedia. Pecher Talk 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"Scholars make conclusions as to policy and traditions based on the Hadith, not what the Hadith stated to have happened": this implies that academe accepts hadith as unquestioned truth. I don't know of Western historians that do, and afiak hadith factuality and interpretation have been and are subject of debattes by Muslim scholarship. So hadith, as primary sources (you err in this regard), are to be scholarly evaluated - and that's not up to wikipedians. --tickle me 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
See Succession to Muhammad, Abu Bakr cited a hadith in which the Prophet (Muhammad) said that the prophets do not leave inheritance. SaadSaleem 03:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plain error in the article

Who wrote this biased original research?

Article:

n March 624, Muslims defeated the Meccans of the Quraysh tribe in the Battle of Badr, and Muhammad felt himself strong enough to finally move against the Jews of Medina. As his first target, Muhammad chose Banu Qaynuqa, the weakest of the Jewish tribes, who were the clients of the Khazraj, and forced them to surrender unconditionally after a short siege.


jewishencyclopedia.com [14]:

[the Banu Qaynuqa where] the most powerful of all the Jewish tribes of the peninsula before Islam

C'mon, the style, the tone, the accuracy, its all a total dissgrace! --Striver 00:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Article:

The Banu Nadir remained passive during the whole Banu Qaynuqa episode, apparently because they failed to grasp Muhammad's intentions at that time and viewed the conflict as a usual tribal struggle

Omg, is this for real? --Striver 00:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct Question for Pecher

Pecher, I'm somewhat confused by your intransigence with regards to edits on this article. Do you honestly believe that this article as it stands is unbiased and neutral? Or do you believe there may be some bias, but you're unwilling to change it without reference to reliable sources?

From a personal standpoint, speaking as a Muslim, I don't care whether source material comes from a Christian, a Hindu, a Jewish, an atheist, or a Muslim source, my only interest is in accuracy. I belive the article currently underplays the importance of the Banu Nadir's alliance with the Quraish at the Battle of the Trench as a precursor to the massacre and seems to ascribe devious motives to Muhammad (notably the "convenient pretext" line).

What are your thoughts? Stile4aly 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

This has been protected for a while and there seems to be little substantive discussion. Unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A resumption of edit warring makes it clear that there is still an unresolved dispute over this article. Apologies. I have reprotected. I ask all parties involved to discuss the matter with a view to resolving the dispute. --Tony Sidaway 04:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the latest burst of editing, the article says now: "Arabic language is capable of exercising over the minds of its users such irresistible influence". Unbelievable. Pecher Talk 16:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty biased. How about we delete this from the protected copy? Any supporters? Objections? --Tony Sidaway 17:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This is part of the larger problem: the entire current version was written in accordance with "mpov", i.e. "multiple points of view", a policy devised by Publicola and others in defiance of NPOV. Pecher Talk 17:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If there is consensus that the current version is in MPOV rather than NPOV, then the dispute is over. We should unprotect and revert to the other version unless it, too, is seriously incompatible with Wikipedia policies. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually "multiple points of view" is a clever phrase which does not deviate at all from NPOV, but rather explains it. Pecher would have you believe one is not the other; that they are competing 'policies'. Nothing could be further from the truth. Voicing different viewpoints without having the article endorse a single view is the very essence of what NPOV is. From the text of WP:NPOV: "Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing." Indeed, a text that fails to represent multiple points of views, when multiple views exist, is not "N" at all. His Excellency... 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay,there's a genuine dispute over whether or not the article is neutral. Would anyone object if I inserted a "NPOV" tag? --Tony Sidaway 17:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Not me. Sounds appropriate. His Excellency... 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Publicola wrote on their userpage: "I have drafted several versions of my "MPOV" (M=multiple) proposal for bias controversies..." It's difficult to say what these policy proposals are all about, but the point is that MPOV is not NPOV, but an alternative to it. It appears to be just another attempt to amend NPOV so as to give equal validity to science and pseudoscience; such attempts are made regularly, usually once in several weeks. This is why the "MPOV" version has blatant bias as the one above or is littered with original research (notice the multitute of claims that are wither unsourced or usourced to murky sources). In a nutshell, that's truly "mpov": all views, including original research, are presented, even if not necessarily fairly. Add here some poor writing (the words "Jews" and "Muslims" are usually spelt from the lowercase letter in freshly added passages) and you get what we have now. Pecher Talk 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Tony, yes: you protected the wrong version indeed. Arguably, WP should be grateful for the proposition of new policies, like MPOV™ Publicola, and it is laudable that the present version isn't "pushing a Jewish POV", as Publicola claims to happen, when academics of Jewish descend are referred to for want of better contemporary sources. And yes, his version adds the "Muslim point of view" he claims to be needed wherever non-Muslim, or worse, Jewish historians speak. But let's agree that new WP policies need to be introduced by a suitable WP panel, before articles molded in that form are written by wholesale revert without consenus. --tickle me 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Tony protected the right one- the version that was present was condemned by most of the users here and reflected a POV-driven version full of Pecher's now-famous misrepresentation of sources. If Publicola sees a difference between having multiple point of views and a neutral one, he's mistaken. WP:NPOV makes it quite clear that in order to be neutral, different perspectives need to be reflected. The article isn't so much dominated by a "Jewish POV" as it is by a right wing neoconservative-inspired pro-zionist POV. Publicola makes some legitimate observations regarding sources, it is certainly unfair (and a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA) to make charges against him because of his observations. His Excellency... 21:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Where there are legitimate disputes, showing multiple points of view is the only way to attain neutrality. I'm not the only one who says so:

Wikipedia's NPOV policy often means multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but different groups in the past.... Adherents of a religion may object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith according to their tradition and understanding, which often differs substantially from the view commonly held by critical historians. Non adherents of a religion may feel the exact opposite, and prefer that the views of critical historians be given primacy; many articles on Wikipedia currently reflect the latter point of view. NPOV policy demands both points of view be presented without prejudice. --WikiProject Judaism

I note that those who are complaining about the version copied from Banu Nadir/mpov didn't lift a finger to edit it for the whole month it's existed, most of which we have been in mediation. It's not too late. Publicola 12:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the problems mentioned above in this section (POV tag, "Arabic language is capable of exercising over the minds of its users such irresistible influence", the capitalization of "Jewish" and "Muslim") as well as colonized categories, are now fixed in Banu Nadir/mpov, so I suggest copying again from there into the protected version, and encouraging further edits there per mediator instructions. Publicola 12:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing a version written in open defiance of a cornerstone Wikipedia policy effectively means endorsing this mockery of NPOV. Pecher Talk 19:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, but honestly Pecher, did you even read Wiki's NPOV policy? In the spirit of refraining from ad hominim attacks (and btw, you certainly make it difficult to hold back), I will ask you to please pay attention to what fellow Wikipedians are saying...please don't just argue for the sake of arguing when we're all better served by listening to each other. Cheers. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 11:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting that a totallydisputed tag is added to this article. The current version is blatantly POV and inaccurate (see some examples above), and it's obvious that there is a dispute here. Pecher Talk 20:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Unless "MPOV" is adopted as WP policy I request admins who tolerate it to state the obvious at least. "I note that those who are complaining about the version copied from Banu Nadir/mpov didn't lift a finger to edit it for the whole month it's existed": mocking WP on a subpage is frivolous, demanding others to participate is worse. --tickle me 00:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Ruud 00:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

i would agree that certain statements may seem problematic unless sourced. i would appeal to the opposing party to amiably participate in mediation instead of edit wars (as also seen on Banu Qaynuqa) as this seems to be the only way to achieve a consensus article and consequently lay the issue down to rest. in this way we can work with eachother instead of against.

regarding "MPOV", then part of it is already catered for by WP:NPOV in that all significant views merit mention without giving undue weight as long as they qualify under WP:RS, and when we state analysis that may be disputed then we say that "X says/claims/documents/opines.." instead of expressing X's words as fact. i have not yet properly studied what "MPOV" entails, but any participation in mediation would naturally not include involvement of such a policy. the article under the "mpov" dir is not being edited with MPOV policy in mind (well at least not in my case) in that wikipedians do not have to follow a non-wiki policy in order to edit, and so nothing stops editors from making edits in accordance with the existing wiki policies. furthermore, anything within the article conforming to what is perceived as "MPOV" but in contradiction with current wiki policy (although MPOV on the face of it seems to just be a re-expression of WP:NPOV in order to achieve the same goal of attaining neutrality without contravention of currently existing WP policy) would not be able to defend itself against removal, were we to engage in the mediation process. ITAQALLAH 01:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Taken from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view . SaadSaleem 07:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pecher, Tickle me, Timothy Usher, and Briangotts, please participate in mediation

I note it has been more than a month now since the mediator asked the opposing sides to participate in mediation. All of those with whom I agree in this dispute have accepted mediation and followed the mediator's instructions. None of those on the other side have. I would like to take another opportunity to urge participation in mediation. Thank you. Publicola 09:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You and "those with whom you agree" must first agree to abide by the applicable Wikipedia policies; otherwise, any mediation makes no sense. Judging by phrases like "Arabic language is capable of exercising over the minds of its users such irresistible influence", you don't find WP:NPOV in any way binding. Pecher Talk 21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to bring up which wikipedia policies you feel are being violated, and how so, and how you feel said violations can be rectified within the context of the mediation. Publicola does bring up a good point that at no point did any proponent of the original article participate in any mediation. Do you believe the original article was truly free from bias? Stile4aly 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that I have already removed the phrase from Banu Nadir/mpov. Publicola 07:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I take it, then, that no proponent of the original article consents to mediation? Publicola 07:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for sources

What is the reason for writing the following sentence: "Huyayy ibn Akhtab attempted to recruit Banu Qurayza within Medina to fight against the Muslims" Also what is the source for the reason Muhammad married the wife of the man he tortured. Arrow740 06:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Upon discovering these events, Muhammad married Safiyya bint Huyayy to encourage other people to behave more humanely"

The above quote has to be edited since it dose not describe muhamed correctly even according to his own followers:

Asma said: “You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men, is there no honor among you?”Upon hearing those lines Mohammad said, “Will no one rid me of this woman?” Umayr, a zealous muslim, decided to execute the prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Mohammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, “You have helped Allah and his apostle” . Umayr said, “She had five sons, should I feel guilty?” “No, “ the prophet answered, “killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.”

Ishaq 676

The prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fireon Kinanah’s chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinahah was near death. Then the messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him.

Tabari VIII:122


MDG Nov. 19 2006

[edit] This article has issues

Originally this article was biased against Muhammad. Now it is biased towards the Muslim POV that Muhammad was a great man who was provoked, not a man who committed genocide. This needs to be fixed. Titanium Dragon 22:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Muhammad wiped them out should probably be included in the intro paragraph. Titanium Dragon 22:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Use secondary sources. And don't use The Sealed Nonsense. Arrow740 05:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

why not? it's a usable resource. or have you forgotten the previous discussions we've had which establish its usability? ITAQALLAH 05:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not a work of history, and it's not the work of a historian. It's a glorification of Muhammad by a product of a university which appears to be a glorified seminary. Ibn Hashim is not used as a primary source because it is the consensus of modern historians that Ibn Hashim's work contains fabrications and post-facto rationalizations. Considering that he is the primary source for the constitution, we should well consider the voices of the historians who write that the date and development of the constitution are not known, and are probably different from Ibn Hashim's account. It is for these reasons that I'm changing the tag. Arrow740 21:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing

There are several things that keep being changed back and forth which should be resolved. For starters, saying they were not allied with the Muslims under the Constitution of Medina after being expelled from Medina (because they were before) I think is better than saying they were afraid of being attacked so they encouraged others to raise arms against the Muslims, that was one POV of Stillman on why they did what they did. Next, I read Stillman and even he doesn't explicitly state that the men of Banu Nadir were executed, just not given quarter. On Kinana, the agreement they made did say that they had to hand over their properties and treasures otherwise there would be no quarter and according to the page on Kinana, they did find a good amount of treasure. I'm saying prisoners because slavery isn't exactly the same concept in Islam as it is considered in modern times and so it might imply something different. Finally, When he is said to have been eating the poisoned meat, he was eating with many companions and not just one and only one died so I was correcting that sentence for that reason. Jedi Master MIK 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your post just repeats the POV you keep adding in. Arrow740 20:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty silly to say that any of the Jewish tribes were "allied with the Muslims." The time period of the COM is debated, whether the Jews agreed to it is debated, and even were it so, subsequent events speak for themselves.
Ibn Ishaq does not present Kinana's torture as a punishment, but as a practical method for compelling him to reveal the location of more treasure (and does not state whether this was successful).
Prisoner sounds like a temporary measure, which this was not.Proabivouac 21:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
How about you actually answer my points instead of just labeling it across the board on one charge and making exaggerated accusations? My thoughts on the issue of slavery or Kinana maybe but the rest has basis, some of which has been discussed above as well. On Kinana though, the punishment of death however is mentioned in Ibn Hisham regarding the treasure even if the torture is not related with it in it; read it at Kinana ibn al-Rabi. And the traditions of the prophet and Quran regarding POW's and slavery do give example and blessing to freeing slaves and also releasing them on ransom, after a certain time, or end of hostilities. BTW, if you think the Jews weren't ever allied under the Constitution of Medina, then I suggest you reread it:
  1. The Jews will profess their religion, and the Muslims theirs.
  2. The Jews shall be responsible for their expenditure, and the Muslims for theirs.
  3. If attacked by a third party, each shall come to the assistance of the other.
  4. Each party shall hold counsel with the other. Mutual relation shall be founded on righteousness; sin is totally excluded.
  5. Neither shall commit sins to the prejudice of the other.
  6. The wronged party shall be aided.
  7. The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers.
  8. Medina shall remain sacred and inviolable for all that join this treaty. Should any disagreement arise between the signatories to this treaty, then Muhammad shall settle the dispute.
  9. The signatories to this treaty shall boycott Quraish commercially; they shall also abstain from extending any support to them.
 10. Each shall contribute to defending Medina, in case of a foreign attack, in its respective area.
 11. This treaty shall not hinder either party from seeking their lawful retaliation.
Jedi Master MIK 03:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have read this many times before. Why on earth would the Jews have agreed to such a one-sided arrangement, except under duress? What benefit would they have gained in boycotting Mecca, or agreeing to join the war that Muhammad had instigated by raiding their caravans? Why would they suddenly have agreed to the leadership of an outsider? And if they had agreed to all these things, why would they immediately have turned around and broken it? If those are allies, who needs enemies? And of course, if they were allies, why would Muhammad have driven them off to begin with?
Lewis calls it not a treaty, but Muhammad's unilateral proclamation.
As for Kinana, you are correct, Muhammad ordered his beheading as a punishment for having lied about the treasure; this had already been ordained upon the excavation of the ruin.03:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
How does a lone fugitive with a small number of followers unilaterally takeover a town??? Why did they accept a persecuted and hunted fugitive and his followers into their community at all? How is being left to one's own religion, finances, and mutual defense of your neighbors one sided? People from Medina had visited Mecca several times before and had learned and accepted the message Muhammad (saw) was preaching and they extended invitation to him to come to their city. The city before he and followers came was several disunited bickering tribes, his constitution offered unity and stability and his message was gaining much support from the people.
Why did they break it? Well for starters they didn't all unilaterally get up and break it either but one tribe started the fuss and after various events, others joined. As I said before, Muhammad (saw) was gaining followers under him and his faith and before him, the Jews had the greater influence in Yathrib (later Medina of course).
Why did they agree to antagonism against Meccans and did Muhammad (saw) really start the antagonism? Well here technically all of Medina was in it as the Meccans said that people of Medina had accepted their greatest enemy so unless they were going to kick him out of the city or move to Mecca which they didn't even try from the looks of it, they had to be in opposing the Meccans if they were to agree with keeping safe Muhammad (saw) and his followers. On top of that, IIRC the Meccans also kept Muslims from doing Hajj which no one was ever unallowed from and IIRC they instigated their allies and other Arab tribes against the people of Medina as well through their trade caravans and what not. Jedi Master MIK 04:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
He only started to gain power when he started assassinating his political opponents. You know that. Arrow740 06:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The first person AFAIK he had assassinated was more than 2 years after coming to Medina and after winning his first battle and that was of a poet who was aside from writing junk about Muslims and their women also wrote to the Meccans to compel them to continue fighting against the Muslims and Medina when he was himself a citizen and Jew of a Jewish tribe living in Medina. Again, I ask that you actually answer my points instead of changing the subject. Jedi Master MIK 22:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion about the dispute of the article, and not about what happened in 7th century Medina. Jedi Master, I basically agree with your edits, except for "no longer were allied with the Muslims under the Constitution of Medina." We need a relaible source to say this.Bless sins 19:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Or you re-look at my reasoning at showing they were indeed allied with the Muslims at first and not push for something as absurd as one lone fugitive with a small group of followers hijacked a whole town while instigating his own rules and then went on a killing spree of "high ranking" officials for no reason. I also please ask of you to answer my points as well, I already know you disagree on that point. BTW, if you do agree with the other edits at least, I kindly request then that they be reinstated. Jedi Master MIK 22:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Muhammad had supporters, known as the Ansar, but the Jews were not among them.Proabivouac 23:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
One, so why didn't they openly oppose his being accepted into Medina from the start or start any hostilities then, especially after Mecca's ultimatum? Why does the article even say that the Banu Nadir accepted him as leader of Medina before Uhud? Why does the article on Banu Qurayza talk about the tribe thinking of its alliance with the Muslims while thinking of treason? Two, they were his Muslim followers of Medina and still the citizens of Medina who were part of those tribes still living there, including Jews. Three, again please respond to my points. Four, look, what Stillman says about them fearing further attack so they promoted attack from the inside is IMO even more POV than simply saying they weren't with the Muslims anymore so thats why I think that shouldn't be said. However, if you for some reason still have doubts to them accepting it, why don't you put in what I said but make note in the article that some historians disagree on mutual agreement of all parties? The constitution page gives doubt only from certain historians, not a universal acceptance. Jedi Master MIK 00:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Re "married" vs. "took for his wife", the latter is a more accurate reflection of Ibn Ishaq's narrative:

"The apostle occupied the Jewish forts one after the other, taking prisoners as he went. Among these were Safiya, the wife of Kinana, the Khaybar chief, and two female cousins; the apostle chose Safiya for himself. The other prisoners were distributed among the Muslims. Bilal brought Safiya to the apostle, and they passed the bodies of several Jews on the way. Safiya's female companions lamented and strewed dust on their heads. When the apostle of Allah observed this scene, he said, 'Remove these she‑devils from me� But he ordered Safiya to remain, and threw his reda [cloak] over her. So the Muslims knew he had reserved her for his own."

[15]
Proabivouac 19:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're looking for a source to support what I said on Medina besides putting down doubt, I found this (Ibn Hisham, as-Seerat an-Nabawiyyah, Vol. I p. 501) but I can't confirm it AFAIK so I would ask that someone who can do so please. Jedi Master MIK 00:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Here as well IIRC there is something in Ibn Kathir supporting these assertions though I still haven't gotten any word about the source I provided in the response above which I'll bold. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresentation

Bless sins, you have once again substantially misrepresented Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham's narrative.[16] You wrote:

"According to Ibn Ishaq al-Rabi, was tortured and killed for holding back the tribe's treasure in conflict with the treaty."

You are well aware that Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham says nothing at all about al-Rabi's being killed for breaking any treaty, but merely states that he was killed for having concealed its location. You are also well-aware that the torture is presented not as a punishment, but to extract information. I know you are aware of this because we've discussed it before at some length. Do not misrepresent sources, Bless sins. I cannot emphasize that enough.Proabivouac 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A little good faith would lead you to an alternate conclusion. I was never trying to "misrepresent" sources. True, the statement I made is in accurate. However, I merely forgot to mention the sources that suggest that al-Rabi was killed for violating the treaty. In that case the sentence will look like
"According to XYZ al-Rabi, was tortured and killed for holding back the tribe's treasure in conflict with the treaty."Bless sins 01:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If you guys want a source that mentions in particular his execution b/c of the treaty, I suggest you look at Ibn Kathir. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expulsion of Banu Nadir from Medina

Wikipedia cannot be more Muslim than the Islamic websites by presenting theories as facts to justify the expulsion of Banu-Nadir from their Medina mansions. How can one reconcile this story of a Jewish invitation to discuss religion with the widely known account of Muhammads's request for a contribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.192.75 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an alternative account. The other account is mentioned.Bless sins (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't deal with speculation. We would have heard about it if there was any substance to the contradictory story. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"We would have heard about it " Who is "we", because I certainly have heard about it. Secondly, no one is born with knowlege and you learn every day. Just because you haven't heard about something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.Bless sins (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You have failed to substantiate the story that contradicts all the Muslim websites. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And you have failed to answer his post; all you did was make another very general, vague, and faulty assertion while continuing to ignore everything we tell you. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For over 1,300 years, the world has not heard such a story. You and your colleagues have had ample time but failed to substantiate it. Not a single Muslim website makes any mention of it. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

For over 1,300 years, the world has not heard such a story. - So you're saying you're 1300 years old? Uh huh.
You and your colleagues have had ample time but failed to substantiate it. - The only thing that hasn't been substantiated is your ramblings; the account is tagged just fine with a citation.
Not a single Muslim website makes any mention of it. - So why don't you cite some reliable Muslim cites that support what you're saying?
Jedi Master MIK (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your response defies logic just as the unreliable account that you keep reposting which is unfounded in the whole history of Islam. All the Muslim websites speak of Muhammad's requested contribution but make no mention of the alleged invitation to discuss religion. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your response defies logic - Again failing to address how and why.
just as the unreliable account that you keep reposting which is unfounded in the whole history of Islam. - according to who, you? Thats called original research and isn't gonna work here no matter how much you think it can, you think it can.
All the Muslim websites speak of Muhammad's requested contribution but make no mention of the alleged invitation to discuss religion. - Kind of like how all your posts speak of this accounts speak of these alleged websites yet never cite any to substantiate your claims.
Jedi Master MIK (talk) 19:19, 27

February 2008 (UTC)

It is you who needs to substantiate an account you keep reposting that the Muslim historians such as Muhammad Ibn Ishaq make no mention of it. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't say Ibn Ishaq mentions it, it says al-Halabi, Nur al-Din. Sirat-i-Halbiyyah. Uttar Pradesh: Idarah Qasmiyyah Deoband, 34. Translated by Muhammad Aslam Qasmi. mentions it.
If you think this historical source is unreliable, you need another source who comments such a view.
Its like saying we can't use the historical source Waqidi b/c he's considered unreliable by all Muslims but I can't just say that, I need to find another source like Imam Shafi who can suggest that view.
Its not a difficult request, please follow up with it if you want this to go anywhere.
Jedi Master MIK (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You and your colleagues have failed to produce or quote al-Halabi's exact words or to reconcile his alleged account with the historical account.

Ibn Ishaq and the other Muslim historians undoubtedly would not have refrained from mentioning it if the story is real. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And you've produced nothing but hot air. Look, its not a difficult request, bring some sources. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just popping my head in to state that Mik is correct on this. The account about the attempted assassination is a standard one and should definitely be included. Str1977 (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You may quote the exact words of the book on the alleged Jewish invitation to discuss religion. It sounds a lot like the Muslim invitation to Banu Nadir's Usayr ibn Zarim who was slaughtered on the way to the debate along with his delegation of thirty men except one who fled.

I wonder why no Islamic website makes any mention of this story. Perhaps because it contradicts the widely known account of Muhammad's request for a contribution. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The conflicting accounts indicate that they are based on mere speculation, which raises serious doubts on the authenticity of the alleged assassination attempt as a whole. Accredited (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of conflict w/o source = original research. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How can one reconciliate the requested contribution with the debate invitation? Why did Muhammad's biographer Ibn Ishaq, make no mention of the latter account? Accredited (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq being oldest biographer =/= Ibn Ishaq being only biographer. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the oldest biographer makes no mention of it, indicates that it is based on mere speculation. Accredited (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Page protected

I have put a 31 hour protection on this page from edits. It was a close decision versus blocking Accredited and Devotus for edit warring. Accredited seems to have gone over 3RR too.

Please use this period of page protection to discuss changes here properly. It looks to me like the current locked version matches the version which was discussed by a number of editors in the past. Accredited, you have come in and kept trying to change it. Please explain here clearly and briefly what the problem you have with this version is and then consider people's replies to your comment before trying to edit the article. --BozMo talk 12:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We've discussed it for a long time now (see my talk-page), but he wouldn't understand. --Devotus (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The previous text is one of long standing on Wikipedia and on Muslim Websites. It is therefore unwarranted to erase the whole account and replace it with an unfounded allegation. Accredited (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please state clearly which text you are referring to, and which Muslim sites you mean. Thanks --BozMo talk 17:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Nadir&diff=200321436&oldid=200294428 http://islam.pakistanway.com/showtopic.aspx?topicid=258&typeid=25 http://islam.pakistanway.com/showtopic.aspx?topicid=267&typeid=25

I think the situation would become more clear if Accredited mentions those Muslim Websites. Just to list the sources Devotus has provided from his talk page:
V. Vacca in Encyclopedia of Islam Nadir article:"From Khaybar, the exiles planned with the Quraysh the siege of Medina".
William Montgomery Watt (Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, p.166): "The Jewish clan of an-Nadir, now in exile in Khaybar and eager to regain their lands at Medina, vigorously supported the Meccans in the building up of the confederacy; they even promised half the date harvest of Khaybar to nomadic tribes if they would join the attack."
Watt (Prophet and Statesman", p.189): "The Jews of Khaybar, especially the leaders of the clan of an-Nadir exiled from Medina, were still incensed at Muhammad. They made lavish, though no doubt judicious, use of their wealth to induce the neighboring Arabs to take up arms against the Muslims."
--Be happy!! (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The above does not say that Banu Nadir "had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench."

I have no objection to quote the actual words without adding a false interpretation. Accredited (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[17] and [18] is no academic source and does not state the current state of knowledge. We don't quote everything 1:1, we state the meaning with our own words. and since you do not have the references shown above I doubt you can check the correctness of the statements in the text independently. there are also other problems with your version which ahve already been discussed. --Devotus (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the record of our last discussion on the matter.

Islamic sources mention that only Akhtab and his son rather than the whole Banu Nadir tribe, joined the siege of Medina. It should also be mentioned that they bribed Ghatafan and tried to recruit Banu Qurayza. Accredited (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Watt's theory is generally accepted in scholarship. That the Nadir joined the siege is also a fact that any recognized scholar accepts as such. "From Khaybar, the exiles planned with the Quraysh the siege of Medina..." EI2, s.v. Nadir. "Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in Khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood... The sources give support to the view of Montgomery Watt, showing that the Jews, already responsible for the coalition which had laid siege to Medina in 5 A.H. and worried by the growing power of the Prophet, continued to stir up the Arabs against him..." s.v. Khaybar. Primary sources are not to be used in Wikipedia. End of Discussion. --Devotus (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is Watt's theory it should read according to Watt. No scholar has said that the Nadir joined the siege. You may quote Watt or any other scholar on the matter. Accredited (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

see above. it doesn't say hat they joined the siege, it sais they had participated in attacking the Muslims; there's a difference. --Devotus (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither Watt nor any other scholar has said that the Banu Nadir participated in attacking the Muslims. Accredited (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

See quotes above. You don't seem to have any academic work, neither Watt nor anyone else, so I doubt you could know that. --Devotus (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How would the Banu Nadir participate in attacking the Muslims if they did not join the siege? Accredited (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to give you private lessons. End of discussion. --Devotus (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It will be consistent with Watt's words and the Encyclopedia of Islam. Accredited (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is consistent with those works which you don't have. --Devotus (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your version is referenced to the above two but goes far beyond. This is unacceptable. Accredited (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to provide reference to those works you claim that your version is based on. Accredited (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

After long and useless discussions as above and elsewhere, and the fact that Accredited does not seem to try to state a neutral and referenced fact but rather to push through is own POV I end this discussion. To state the facts for the last time:

  1. the suggestion that the Nadir participated in attacking medina because they understood Muhammad might attack them needs to be sourced
  2. the Qurayza-Incident is irrelevant for the Battle at Khaybar. By insisting to mention this it is clear for me that Accredited has some ideological motivation for participating in Wikipedia - I do not tolerate such conduct
  3. Accredited further does not have neither the encyclopaedia of islam, nor Watt nor probably any other reference I am referring to, but has the texts (only in parts) from Aminz or me. To think that in this state he could actually check wheter such statements with reference to those sources are correct is false
  4. The facts shown in the text are stated in the sources referred to, so see for youselves. Accredited only uses primary sources, which are not to be used here. --Devotus (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to Accredited: The websites you mentioned seem to be a mirror image of old versions of the wikipedia articles; they are not Muslim websites. Lastly, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for itself.--Be happy!! (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Devotus does not seem to try to state a neutral and referenced fact but rather to push through his own POV.

1. It is high time that you substantiate or retract the statement that Banu Nadir "had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench."

2. It reads that Akhtab and his son were killed alongside the men of Banu Qurayza they tried to recruit to join the battle. By insisting to delete this it is clear to me that Devotus has some ideological motivation for participating in Wikipedia - I do not tolerate such conduct.

3. Neither the Encyclopaedia of Islam nor Watt had said that they had "participated in attacking the Muslim community."

4. Devotus claims that his version is consistent with those works which I don't have but he failed to provide any reference.

Note to Aminz: The websites I mentioned are indeed Muslim websites. The name "Islam Pakistanway" speaks for itself. The Wikipedia text was comprehensive, balanced and of long standing until your colleague embarked on rewriting history. Accredited (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

They are mirror images of past revisions of the corresponding wikipedia articles; some of them biased revisions. I can say that because of the structure of those articles and being around here for sometime.--Be happy!! (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing biased by "Islam Pakistanway" to state the fact that only Akhtab and his son rather than the whole Banu Nadir tribe, joined the siege of Medina.

Here is what Devotus had to say:

see above. it doesn't say hat they joined the siege, it sais they had participated in attacking the Muslims; there's a difference. --Devotus (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How would the Banu Nadir participate in attacking the Muslims if they did not join the siege? Accredited (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to give you private lessons. End of discussion. --Devotus (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The question remains unanswered. Accredited (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Accredited, please do not continue this. Here is yet another quote for you (The New Encyclopedia of Islam, p.81):

In 5/627 the Meccan Quraysh prepared to attack the Muslims in a massed battle with an army, called afterwards the "Confederates". The Quraysh had made an alliance with certain desert tribes, the Banu Ghaftan, and Jews of the Banu Nadir who had emigrated from Medina to Khaybar.
The Meccan army was made up of 4000 from Mecca and 5000 or more from the allies, with a total of 1000 cavalry. The Medinans numbered 3000.

According to Ḥizb article from Encyclopedia of Islam

Sūra al-Aḥzāb, deals with the siege of Medina by the Jewish tribes allied with those of Mecca , Nad̲j̲d and Tihāma

--Be happy!! (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Another quote: "In 5/627, the Meccans, accompanied by tribal allies among whom were the exiled Jews of the B. al-Naḍīr, again appeared with an army before Medina." F. Donner: Muhammad's Political Consolidation in Arabia up to the Conquest of Mecca in The Muslim World 69 (1979), p.233. As far as I know, any academic who writes about this topic confirms this fact. --Devotus (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an affront to human decency. You may quote the actual words and provide the reference. The only Banu Nadir members who joined the siege were Akhtab and his son. An authoritative breakdown of the 10,000 who participated in the attack makes no mention of the Banu Nadir tribe. Accredited (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Source for this latest comment please? The counter claim seems well sourced. Please don't get into reverting before discussing again. --BozMo talk 18:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Accredited: what books (academic literatur that is) have you read to be able to state this, contrary to all references given by Aminz and me? --Devotus (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The detailed composition of the armies is explicitly stated in the Battle of the Trench along with the appropriate references. Accredited (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So none. Then it's settled: the statements are sourced and in accordance to the references given. --Devotus (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Banu Nadir tribe did not participate in the siege of Medina as evidenced by the references including Ibn Hisham. Accredited (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

At least now we're not only sure that you're using your IP as a sockpuppet, but can also prove it.[19] References have been provided in amounts, primary sources are not to be used here. To participate in attacking someone does not necessarily include sending an army, there are also other ways, as in the case of Nadir, who among other things send their chieftain to persuade quraiza to fight against the Muslims. --Devotus (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Devotus please assume good faith. Editing when you have forgotten to log on is not necessarily deliberate sock puppetry and immediately rectifying it by signing the comment properly is the right thing to do. There was no rule broken here. --BozMo talk 11:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. --Devotus (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to add that "they had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench" lest it be interpreted that they had sent an army.

However, it should be mentioned that their chieftain not only tried to induce the neighboring Arabs but he also joined the siege and attempted to recruit Banu Qurayza to join the battle. Accredited (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To participate in attacking does not necessarily mean that they sent troops, there are many ways to do that. --Devotus (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is quite misleading. People can't read your mind. One has to be more precise.

After their expulsion from Medina, the chieftains of Banu Nadir, along with the chieftains of other Jews living in Khaybar tried to induce the neighbouring Arabs and especially the strong tribe of Ghatafan to participate in attacking the Muslim community. [1] [2] The Nadir chief Huyayy ibn Akhtab together with his son had furthermore joined the Meccans and Bedouins besieging Medina during the Battle of the Trench. According to Watt, "this was a straightforward reason for attacking Khaybar."[3] However, modern scholars agree that one reason for attacking Khaybar was to raise Muhammad's prestige among his followers by making booty.[4] Huyayy ibn Akhtab unsuccessfully attempted to recruit the Banu Qurayza within Medina to join the fight against the Muslims. After the battle, the Muslims besieged the Banu Qurayza until they surrendered, and both Huyayy and his son were killed by order of Muhammad alongside all the men of the Banu Qurayza whose women and children were enslaved.[5] Accredited (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

After weeks now, I for myself have certainly said enough. Stating that they participated has a wide range of possible meanings, so there's nothing misleading here. the "However" is POV. The Qurayza-incident has no relation to the conquest of Khaybar. --Devotus (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it preferable to say it in precise words with clear meaning? To say that "they participated in attacking" is certainly misleading. You may delete the "However" and the Banu Qurayza if that would make you feel better. Accredited (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't have anything to do with feelings. If we would be precise we would exactly state how they participated, because senidng ibn Akhtab was only a part of it. Besides: who sais they didn't send troops (no OR)? The correct way is to state it they way it's stated in academic circles. --Devotus (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To Accredited

Accredited, please find an academic source that supports your claim that only ibn Akhtab was present; clearly and not ambiguously just as Devotus and I did in substantiating our claim. Your personal view is not sufficient. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement that Banu Nadir "had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench" indicates that they sent their own troops. Who said that? Quite the contrary, the Islamic sources including Ibn Hisham and Halabi on the detailed composition of the armies at the Battle of the Trench are unequivocal. Accredited (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Accredited, I am not going to go back and forth with you. You do need to find a reliable source for your claims at this moment. Quotes like "'In 5/627, the Meccans, accompanied by tribal allies among whom were the exiled Jews of the B. al-Naḍīr, again appeared with an army before Medina." or "In 5/627 the Meccan Quraysh prepared to attack the Muslims in a massed battle with an army, called afterwards the "Confederates". The Quraysh had made an alliance with certain desert tribes, the Banu Ghaftan, and Jews of the Banu Nadir who had emigrated from Medina to Khaybar. The Meccan army was made up of 4000 from Mecca and 5000 or more from the allies, with a total of 1000 cavalry. The Medinans numbered 3000." are clear on the matter.
--Be happy!! (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The above in no way indicates that there were any Banu Nadir troops in the army.

Here is the detailed composition of the armies of the confederates at the Battle of Trench.

The bulk of the Confederate armies were gathered by the pagan Quraysh of Mecca, led by Abu Sufyan, who fielded 4,000 foot soldiers, 300 horsemen, and 1,000-1,500 men on camels.[6]

Banu Nadir began rousing up the nomads of Najd. They bribed the Banu Ghatafan with half their harvest.[7][8] This contingent, the second largest, added a strength of about 2,000 men 300 horsemen led by Unaina bin Hasan Fazari. Bani Asad also agreed to join them led by Tuleha Asadi.[6] From the Banu Sulaym, the Nadir secured 700 men, though it would have been much larger had some of its leaders not been sympathetic towards Islam. The Bani Amir, who had a pact with Muhammad, refused to join.[9]

Other tribes included the Banu Murra with 400 men led by Hars bin Auf Murri; Banu Shuja with 700 men led by Sufyanbin Abdu-Shams. In total, the strength of the Confederate armies, though not agreed upon by scholars, is estimated around 10,000.[6] Accredited (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ W. Montgomery Watt: Muhammad at Medina, p.217-18
  2. ^ The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. Vol.4, p.1137 et sqq.
  3. ^ W. Montgomery Watt: Muhammad. Prophet and Statesman, p.189
  4. ^ see e.g. Irving M. Zeitlin: The Historical Muhammad, p.133
  5. ^ Stillman (1979), p. 17.
  6. ^ a b c al-Halabi, Sirat-i-Halbiyyah (Vol. II, part 12), p. 19.
  7. ^ Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 34-37.
  8. ^ Nomani, Sirat al-Nabi, p. 368-370.
  9. ^ Lings, Muhammad: his life based on the earliest sources, p. 215-6.

I have been blocked for days from responding to you on the references on the article talk page.

Here are the pertinent references on the armies composition in the Battle of the Trench.

7. ^ a b c d Lings, Muhammad: his life based on the earliest sources, p. 215-6.

8. ^ a b c al-Halabi, Sirat-i-Halbiyyah (Vol. II, part 12), p. 19.

Furthermore, the long standing text since June 14, 2006, that you deleted is sourced and referenced to Stillman (1979), p. 17 in which he states: "The Jews of this rich oasis must have clearly understood the danger they were in. Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the battle of the Trench." Apparently, they were the exiled Banu Nadir Jews who again appeared with an army before Medina since no source makes mention of any Banu Nadir troops in the army. Your statement that indicates that Watt had said and modern scholars also agree that Muhammad attacked Khaybar because the Jews had furthermore "participated in attacking the Muslims" is false. Accredited (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1. You seem to refer to reference number 7 and 8 of the wikipedia article on the battle of trench. Can you please quote from Ling in support of your statment just as we quoted from many other sources?
2. Stillman is talking about Jews of Khaybar (Jews of this rich oasis); not Banu Nadir. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The Wikipedia article on the Battle of the Trench quoted above explicitly states which part is derived from Lings and which part of the composition of the armies is derived from al-Halabi. Neither makes mention of any Banu Nadir troops.

2. Stillman is clearly speaking about all the Jews in Khaybar including the exiled Banu Nadir when he mentions that "Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina." This is precisely the same as your quote "the exiled Jews of the B. al-Naḍīr, again appeared with an army before Medina." Accredited (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.5.214 (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Although your attention was repeatedly drawn that there were no Jewish troops in the army you keep charging that "they had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community". According to all sources, the army was actually composed of Meccan and Bedouin forces.

Watt never said such a thing much less claim that this is the reason for attacking Khaybar.

Who said that modern scholars agree not only with Watt's view that it had to do with the intrigue with Arab neighbors but also with Devotus's version on participation in the attack? Accredited (talk) 62.90.5.215 (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is most appropriate to restore the long standing text since June 14, 2006 which is sourced and adopted by Islam Pakistanway. There was no justification for deleting it in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Nadir&diff=200321436&oldid=200294428 http://islam.pakistanway.com/showtopic.aspx?topicid=258&typeid=25 Accredited (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. Your repetitious deletion of the long standing sourced text in order to force your erroneous version is in flagrant violation of the rules and not suitable. Accredited (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can show me scholars who maintain that...

  • ...the Nadir joined the siege because they were afraid of being attacked by Muhammad.
  • ...that their participation in the siege consisted only of sending ibn Akhtab and his son.
  • ...that they unsuccesfully attempted to persuade the Banu Qurayza to fight the Muslims.

The fate of the Qurayza has no connection to the battle of Khaybar; there is no need to mention it here, except you want to establish your own theory.--Devotus (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The long standing text since June 14, 2006, that you keep deleting is sourced and referenced to Stillman (1979), p. 17 in which he states: "The Jews of this rich oasis must have clearly understood the danger they were in. Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the battle of the Trench." Apparently, they were the exiled Banu Nadir Jews among the Meccans, accompanied by tribal allies who again appeared with an army before Medina since no source makes mention of any Banu Nadir troops in the army. Your statement that indicates that Watt had said and modern scholars also agree that Muhammad attacked Khaybar because the Jews had furthermore "participated in attacking the Muslims" is false.

I had repeatedly deleted the obvious that the Jews were afraid of being attacked by Muhammad and that Akhtab was killed alongside the men of Banu Qurayza he unsuccessfully attempted to recruit to join the fight but you still were not satisfied. If you insist on inserting your unfounded assertion "they had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community" in the middle of Watt's words "to induce the neighbouring Arabs to take up arms against the Muslims. This was a straightforward reason for attacking Khaybar." we'll have to submit it for moderation to make an appropriate decision. Accredited (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just answer the questions: provide refs for those suggestions. Stillman isn't enough when Watt in his standard work, the EI (outlining the current state of research) and other refs, as Aminz and me have already provided are opposing him.--Devotus (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You may quote Watt all you want. Just don't put words in his mouth. Accredited (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)