Talk:Banu Qurayza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Banu Qurayza was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Archives


[edit] POV concerns

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

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

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

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

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

Good day.

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

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

[edit] Changes by Devotus and issues with them

Dear Devotus, I have still issues with your changes:

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

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

Dear Str1977,
  • The issue with "Bat Ye'or" and Ramadan is not that important, we can maybe discuss it another time. For now, it can stay the way it is. By the way, it doesn't matter to me which "side" such a source belongs to. It's not the question wheter someone is "proislamic" or "antiislamic", it's simply a matter of reliability.
  • If you have any recognized academic sources (Paret and Watt have written basic works in this area!) for that claim, then please refer to them. Otherwise we cannot say something unless it is said by scholars in this area (see Wikipedia:No_original_research). As far is I know, today no recognized scholar in this area is of the opinion that the BQ have actually been executed because they were Jews.
  • Maybe I have overseen sth., but there is no mention of the BQ nearly attacking Muhammad in his rear. Actually, the story of Kaab b. Asad mentioning three possibilities for the BQ to act is not seen as authentic (see Kister's already mentioned article, p.90). We should refer to academic sources, rather then citing primary sources.
  • Well, what shall I call it then? Killing several hundred men is an execution. They actually didn't kiss them to death...Every single book I have ever read about this has called it an execution, it is even mentioned in the title of the article of Kister. But if you have an alternative, then it's no problem.
  • Watt, Paret and several other scholars refer to the historical circumstances. I am refering to Stillman, Paret and Watt concerning this claim. Stillman himself is mentioning Deut. 20 as an example for this. You won't certainly doubt the fact, that the Bible is from ancient times (which I refered to in general, in accordance with Stillman). If you have a similar source doubting the claims of Watt, Stillman and Paret, pls show me. Otherwise, please let it be as it is, for you are not refering to any source.
  • I have mentioned a source for that claim: E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936, vol.1, p.184 (article "ahl al-kitab" by Ignaz Goldziher). I hope you are aware of the fact, that the Encyclopaedia of Islam is an authority in this matter. In general it is a widely know fact that the Muslim conquerers normally did not execute all the male, adult inhabitants of conquered territory, no matter Jews, Christians or of any other religion. But, as already mentioned above, if you refer to any reliable source for your claims, then please do.
  • Sorry about the footnotes, I'm new here.
  • Well, Kisters article is pretty important in this matter and should be read. Of course, it takes time and especially place to describe how he refuted Arafats and Ahmads arguments. Since according to you I should be brief and concise, I will probably not be able to summarize an article of more than 30 pages. Read the article, then you'll know what I am talking about - the article is clear enough. That he has refuted their arguments is generally accepted, since no one makes similar claims ever since.

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

  • Devotus is correct in saying that reliability is a factor in removal not "pro-Islam" or "anti-Islam". Ramadan's book has been published by the Oxford University Press, and I have justified its reliability. Bat Ye'or's may (or may not) have been published by a reliable source I have yet to see a justification for that.
  • Again I agree with Devotus. We have sources endorsing a fact (or at least what they assume to be fact), and no sources contradicting that fact.
  • Banu Qurayza's actions during the siege of Medina should be mentioned there (I agree with Str1977 on this one). However, any actions that are relevant to their demise or Sa'd's judgment deserve a mention in the "Siege and demise" section as well.
  • Please see Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Evidence_for_execution for 19 scholarly works that call it an execution. Nevertheless, for the sake of maintaining stability and adhering to the recent mediation, let's use the word "demise" whenever possible. That word has consensus.
  • Laws from the Torah have been used throughout history. Besides we have very reliable and academic sources saying this, thus we use it. Devotus' and my request that we follow what sources say (per WP:V), instead of our own opinions is a reasonable one.
  • I'm confused about this. Devotus has provided a source. The claim has been proposed, presumably by the author of the source (which has also been provided).
  • Given that there are issues with POV and factual accuracy the footnotes are the least of our troubles. Nevertheless the editors should try to maintain them, and I admit I've been quite sloppy.
  • "Refute" would be an appropriate claim if we had the academic community saying this. In general I have witnessed professors dismiss the arguments made. Nevertheless "refute" would be a POV word unless we could get multiple sources. Kister is one. Watt, I believe says the arguments are "not entirely convincing".Bless sins (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Str1977 and BS,
  • Bat Yeor/Ramadan: I completely agree that the side doesn't matter IF a book is found to be unsuitable. I just wanted to express just quite apart from the good faith I am assuming in Devotus, his removal of these two shows that this was not about changing the balance. But, as I said, the removal nonetheless has its problems. Better to dicuss this later.
  • Paret/Watt and other sources: I do not dispute what Paret and Watt say on this. I did not introduce anything else (so no OR as there is no R at all). What my edit did was avoid a sweeping, seemingly factual statement based on Paret and Watt. And no, "killed for their faith" (in some way) is not the same as "killed because they were Jews".
  • Please read the relevant discussion on the "execution" issue. How to call it? Well, in this case you can just avoid the whole explanation. The article describes the killing so we do not have to repeat that fact in every other sentence.
  • That the event should be considered in the light of its time is a truism. However, Deuteronomy is not a good example - yes, it's from antiquity but it stems from somewhere between 1450 BC (Moses) and 600 BC (King Josiah). There is debate whether the here cited passages were ever implemented. They certainly were not implemented in Josiah's day or beyond, let alone in another land and Muhammad's day. It's practical usage that counts, not whether something is included in holy writ (not even approaching the applicability here).
  • As for Goldziher's article - that encyclopedia seems quite old, and again: why should we contradict a claim that is never made. If you want to include this as an opinion go to Jews and Islam or whatever the relevant article is called.
  • Yes, Kisters article should be read but I don't have the time. (As my talk page indicates, I should be on wiki-break anyway) and there is definitely no need to hurry this. For the moment, the clarifyme tag serves the purpose of reminding us that there is work to be done. Ah, and BS, yes, if an authoritative work talked about "refutation" I'd be okay. I only meant, we should be careful about using it too loosely, even though I probably would agree with Kisters. That no one repeated the claims, Devotus, is not a good basis because there is no need to repeat a case made.
  • Re the footnotes: Devotus, you will get accustomed in time.

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

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

Dear Str1977,

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

Devote,

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

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

Hi Str1977,

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

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

Hi Str1977,

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

Hi Devotus,

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

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

I agree. The above is all OR (I'm afraid anything Str1977, Devotus, or I say without sources is OR). I provided some sources, and Devotus has provided others for the Deuteronomy issue. We'll have to include it.Bless sins (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope. We first have to look at what Stillman actually wrote. If he argues on a Dtn basis, this makes him one more source for the Dtn issue - if we so choose to include it. Remember, it was removed before by consensus - there is nothing forcing us into including it, nor are we Robots or Parrots.
It does not make a basis for "massacres were common in Muhammad's day" as it does not concern Muhammad's day (or Arabia).
If he has other examples of massacres, I'd be interested.
(BTW, the last version of Stillman did not contain any useful bibliographical information at all. Simply Stillman ist not enough.)Str1977 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

I want to point out three things:
  • I do not object to a statement about the historical context (though I myself consider that a truism) and about including the views of scholars about that. NOTE: these are views, not facts.
  • I do not in principle object to the coverage of the Dtn issue, if there is consensus to include it and if it is done in a balanced manner.
  • I do object to linking the two. Some people might be interested whether massacres ever happened in antiquity but that is irrelevant for our article. We are (if we chose to include such statements) only interested in event in some proximity to the times and places covered.
PS. I see no comment by Aminz.
Str1977 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
PPS. Ah, and please, within your edits you are again messing up the bibligraphy. Please, no "pp", no "sqq." or other crypting acronyms. Take "p." for page, and give the exact page numbers (you can type "123f." if it is just this and the following page. Any footnote should end in a full stop and blanks are needed between every word or number, e.g. "p. 133" instead of "p.133". Thanks. Str1977 (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Devotus,
I have always read your edits before editing the article further. However, I am not mad at your implication and I hope you are not mad either when I ask you to read my comments here before proceeding. Again you are messing up the bibliographical information. You also do not properly name Watt (whose surname is simply Watt).
But back to content:
  • You are still using Deuteronomy as an example - something I will not accept (unless consensus decided that the whole Dtn issue should be covered in a balanced way. Then - and only then - I would not object to a footnote saying that Stillman uses this as an example, pointing the reader to the comprehensive treatment).
  • The coverage is also a bit onesided but I think I can work with it. I do have a source to balance the issue. Let the reader decide without us prejudicing anything.
Str1977 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
PS:
What is Paret saying on the "harsh circumstances"? Is this actually a Watt quote as I assumed?
Please do use existing reference notes. If there is already one which has the same page as you want to include, use the existing one. Please do not provide subtitles and first names in a footnote if the book is included in the bibliography section.
"Scholars like..." Who are these apart from the two guys mentioned? Let's stick with what we can source. Str1977 (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed"

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

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

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

[edit] Expulsion of all Jews from Medina

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

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

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 362:

Narrated Ibn Umar:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is another Hadith Bukhari.

Narrated Abu Huraira:

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

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

[edit] Justification

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

Lead
  • Removed "the tribe was charged with treachery and collaboration with the invading armies" because I see little evidence in the body for this. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, not mention facts not stated in the article.
  • Stated "tribe's actions were considered contrary to their agreement with Muhammad" this is sourced to a scholarly source. There is discussion below over the Qurayza's agreement, and whether they violated it. Admittedly my version is not a lot better, and I'm open to new suggestions.
  • Added "in accordance with a judgment pronounced by Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh" very crucial detail.
Arrival of Muhammad
  • Added "According to Serjeant, the Qurayza were aware of the two parts of a pact made between Muhammad and the Jewish tribes in the confederation according to which "Jews having their religion and the Muslims having their religion excepting anyone who acts wrongfully and commits crime/acts treacherously/ breaks an agreement, for he but slays himself and the people of his house." The details are from Searjent, a reliable source. They are also attributed.
  • To Muhammad, verses (ayat) were revealed, not the Surah.
  • The other minor dispute is whether the Ahnakian ref should be placed. I think it should be placed at the end of the sentence.Bless sins (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Battle of the Trench
  • Linked to "Confederates," as it gives details of the army.
  • Added "Practically all of Medina's inhabitants opposed the 10,000 strong Confederate army besieging the city, except the Banu Qurayza;" This is from Watt, and thus reliable sourced.
  • The number of weaponry the Qurayza possessed is stated later. this is because until the Qurayza's surrender we have no sources stating what they had add didn't have. Nevertheless, as compromise, I have made a reference that the Qurayza possessed weaponry, without going into the details.
  • Removed "Ibn Ishaq writes that" This is sourced to Ibn Ishaq, and other scholars as well. Thus we don't need to attribute. Also, Huyayy did return, that is why he was killed after the Qurayza's siege. If he had stayed at Khaybar (opr even outside of Medina) then he wouldn't have been captured by Muslims in the Qurayza stronghold.Bless sins (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Siege and demise
  • "according to Ramadan, they feared consequences of treason." is sourced to Ramadan's book published by the Oxford University Press. I have attributed this, even though we should just be stating it as fact. Please don't remove this.
  • "as 1,500 swords, 2,000 lances, 300 suits of armor, and 500 shields were later seized by the Muslims upon Qurayza's surrender." This is when the weapons were seized. Since this article follows a chronological order, this is where we should state it.
  • The reliable sources say that the Qurayza agreed with the appointment of Sa'd and chose him as well. I have seen no sources contradicting this.
  • The word "massacre" should be avoided like the word "execution".
  • Stated the sources that say the "this judgment was in accordance with the Jewish law as stated in Deut. 20:10-14". (I thought we agreed to this above?)
  • Restored "On previous occasions (including the Battle of the trench), when Muhammad had spared the lives prisoners, he found them fighting against him and killing Muslims soon after" sourced to Peterson, a reliable source.
  • Stated "Tariq Ramadan argues that Muhammad's clemency, repeatedly betrayed, was seen as a sign of weakness and madness." This is attributed to Tariq Ramadan, and his book published by the Oxford University Press.
  • "due to the role of their chieftain in the events" is a vague understatement of the facts and misrepresents what Peterson said. Everyone played a "role" in the "events", but not everyone was equally responsible. "the Nadir felt responsible for the fate of the Qurayza, since it was their chieftain, Huyayy ibn Akhtab, who persuaded the Qurayza to go against their covenant with Muhammad" is what Peterson says, and I have not seen any source contradict him.
  • Again the incident is mentioned in some ayat (or verses), not the Surah.Bless sins (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

I take exception to this posting by BS. It seems this serves as a justification to revert to his version. I will not restate all the arguments I made just because BS chooses to do this in his case. Anyone, even newcomers, can read archives or - if clarification is needed - ask.
Also, I want to second Mik's request. Please reply above so that we may make real progress.
Ah, and just one more thing Sad doesn't belong in the intro. Str1977 (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me restate it because it is apparently necessary:
Bless Sins used this section to repost all the arguments he made. Fine. I don't see the point of it but he is free to do that. I could do the same and we would have the same altercation we already had 28 times before, cluttering up the talk page. I won't go there as he knows my points, I know his points and everyone else either knows, can read them up or can ask.
Hence, taking this section as the basis for blanket reverting is a bad faith action, especially when done a month after this section was first and last touched upon. Str1977 (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The only reason this section has not been touched upon is your lack of response. Fine. But then don't complain that my edits are not justified.Bless sins (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Trench stuff

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

In dealing with Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina, aside from political explanations, Arab historians and biographers have explained it as "the punishment of the Medina Jews, who were invited to convert and refused, perfectly exemplify the Quran's tales of what happened to those who rejected the prophets of old."[1] F.E. Peters, a western scholar of Islam, states that Muhammad's treatment of Jews of Medina was essentially political being prompted by what Muhammad read as treasonous and not some transgression of the law of God.[2] Peters adds that Muhammad was possibly emboldened by his military successes and also wanted to push his advantage. Economical motivations according to Peters also existed since the poorness of the Meccan migrants was a source of concern for Muhammad.[3] Peters argues that Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina was "quite extraordinary", "matched by nothing in the Qur'an", and is "quite at odds with Muhammad's treatment of the Jews he encountered outside Medina."[2] According to Welch, Muhammad's treatment of the three major Jewish tribes brought Muhammad closer to his goal of organizing a community strictly on a religious basis. He adds that some Jews from other families were, however, allowed to remain in Medina.[4]

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

[edit] Siege and demise

The Siege and demise section has overgrown in my opinion. It may be a good idea to split it into smaller sections.

Also pls. note that my edit summary in this edit is actually referring to this edit.Bless sins (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite the bad faith nature of your other actions, I agree with these two points:
  • Zeitlin was already included before the new issue was included, thereby creating the double coverage.
  • Yes, the section should be split into two or three section or sub-sections. My suggestion:
    • 1st section "siege" up until the unconditional surrender (what is now the 1st sentence of the second paragraph)
    • 2nd section "demise of the BQ", beginning with the intervention of the BA.
    • 3rd section "legacy", possibly as a sub-section of "demise" including all the references by the Quran, scholars, etc.
Str1977 (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have implemented this in a preliminary fashion. Of course, we could also make another split between Sad's arbitration and the actual killings. I moved the Arafat issue up as it relates to the actual events of the massacre and their historicity and not to judgement on it (at least not directly). Str1977 (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There were no "bad faith" edits. The only "bad faith" is you re-introducing the word "massacre" in contravention to the mediation.
The split seems ok, and I have no major objections against it. However, separating "demise" from the "legacy" (I prefer to call it analysis) will be tricky, and let's leave that for now.Bless sins (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Calling the section "legacy" was part of the preliminary nature of the split. I am not bound to it and "analysis" seems okay. Separating is tricky and therefore I have made the legacy section a subsection and not a new section on its own. Note, separating siege and demise is tricky too.
As for the other thing, I did not violate the mediation. Zeitlin uses that word. Quotes were never subject to the mediation as we have to relate them accurately. Your edits certainly had no basis in talk as the whole "justification" section is bogus. You know that because you were informed of it. Str1977 (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly you state "Irving Zeitlin note "that the massacre was unprecedented in the Arab peninsula." That is a statement of fact. To "note" something, means something has definitely occurred.
Secondly, don't use quotes to bring in the term, because I can use quotes to bring in "execution". I can do so 19 times, and each time my source will be very, very reliable.
Regarding separating, I'd appreciate if you didn't create an Analysis section, while we decide what is to go in it, and what's not to. As I said, I'm OK with splitting siege from demise. If you have problems with that, state them.Bless sins (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
If "note" is your problem, we can change the verb to "state" or something like this.
I did not use the quote to bring in the m-word but to bring in an opposing voice to those (IMHO illf-founded and strange) views voiced e.g. by Watt that massacring was simply the normal thing to do back in the day.
I certainly will not wait and do nothing regarding the split. What's the harm in my going ahead. I have no problem with splitting "siege" from "demise" but since the "siege" is only one paragraph, such a split would hardly be worth the trouble. The major work is splitting the rest into two (sub-)section. I don't see there is anything to discuss except maybe the name (but "analysis" was your suggestion) - there certainly is no question "what is to go in it" (based on the current contents). Str1977 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me make this clear. If you try and bring in the 'm-word', in violation of the mediation, then I'll bring in the 'e-word', and I'll bring it in 19 times.
The reason for me not wanting the split is that we still don't have core content issues in order. It doesn't help the fact that you are constantly deleting sourced information from the "Siege and demise" section. It just makes this dillma even more confusing.Bless sins (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
And this would be a violation of WP:POINT. It wasn't me that insisted on having a "how normal was this back in the day" section but if we have one we need to cover all sides. I am not violating the mediation's result.
Hey, it was you who raised the issue about needing a split in the first place, so I went ahead. What's this about content issues? In what way do they affect the split issue? What's the "sourced information" I am deleting from this section. I don't see it. And what's a dillma? Str1977 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No it wouldn't be, since I wanted to use "execution" all along (and thus went to the trouble of finding 19 sources). You will not violate the mediation result and sneak the word "massacre" back in. We agree we will replace "massacre" with demise (and the same goes for execution).
Yes a split between the seige and demise has been made. Thanks.
Lots. See "Justification" section for examples.
dillma is "dilemma" misspelled.Bless sins (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, the mediation said that in the M-word should not be used in the section header, practically the only occurence of it before the mediation. That you wanted to use execution all along is just as irrelevant as that I didn't want it. I did not sneak in "massacre", I just used a quote and quotes never were part of the mediation. Your turning around and doing what you (falsely) accuse me of would indeed by disruptive and therefore violating WP:POINT. As long as you keep on screaming about this, I will not even consider whether your has any merit at all.
The section justification is not a justification for anything. You know well that this is all controversial and just because you repost your view doesn't make it a basis for repeated blanket reverting. Str1977 (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue was: 'Neutrality issues concerning wording like "massacre" or "execution" in describing the fate of Banu Qurayza.' You're violating the result of the mediation. This shows that you disinterested in keeping your word and discussing with you is pointless since you can turn around tomorrow and undo the progress made (yet still I discuss for the sake of dispute resolution).Bless sins (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How would you know about discusing. You haven't engaged in it. All you do on this is shouting "foul!" on me. Please calm down and bring this up again once you have done so. I'll be here waiting for you. Str1977 (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No response to my comment?Bless sins (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I will respond once you desist from accusing me of bad faith, i.e. of trying to undermine or circumvent the medition. I was only using a quote. Unless you take back your accusations I cannot help you on this - though I did already changed the verb of the sentence, something you probably haven't even noticed in all your blanket reverts. Str1977 (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I 'll take back my accusations once you remove the word from the article. I promise.Bless sins (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Please, BS. Assure me that you assume good faith on my actions (even though they may have seem differently to you) and I will propose a different wording. Str1977 (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Give me something to assume good faith on. Either remove the contentious statement, or stop reverting me. It's hard to assume good faith when the other person is accusing you "blanket revert".Bless sins (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I can only give you WP:AGF. Remember, we are in this situation because you didn't do so in the first place. Please give me your assurance so that I can act. Str1977 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's my asusrance: Str1977, you have my full confidence of good faith whenever you stop reverting me or whenever you remove the content in question. This is what I can give you. Now can you please get back to the discussion?Bless sins (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I see you cannot bring yourself to take back your remarks first. I for my part will certainly not stop reverting whenever you blanket revert. However, since I have reason to be in a good mood and also because I know Someone expects me to make the first step, I will implemented a wording that avoids the dreaded M-word. I hope you will show yourself worthy of this afterwards. Str1977 (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your last edits prevent my from doing what I said. See your talk page. Str1977 (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
In the meanwhile, can you please post your revised wording here. We can discuss it. I'd self-revert, but appear Merzbow has already done so.Bless sins (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, considering your constant blanket reverting (I hadn't seen that your penultimate edit did not only concern the intro) you haven't actually deserved it. Nevertheless, it would be (changes in bold):
"Michael Lecker and Irving Zeitlin consider the events "unprecedented in the Arab peninsula - a novelty" and state that "prior to Islam, the annihilation of an adversary was never an aim of war."
I will implement this at the nearest possible date. However, to give you some incentive, I make this change on the condition that you behave in good faith, as per our exhange above. That doesnÄt mena that you have to agree with me or that our discussions cease. But it means that you stop your constant blanket reverting (and I know it is blanket by the little mistakes included). Should you blanket revert again, I will restore the status quo prior to this move. Good night, Str1977 (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Umm....don't you blanket revert me? In that case your disapproval of my behavior is quite hypocritical. Don't say that you blanket revert my blanket revert, because that is the case of "he/she started it", and quite silly for this encyclopedia.Bless sins (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The difference is clear: I have made numerous edits aimed finding middle ground, compromise etc. I have also cleaned up the form while you are constantly reverting back to formal errors and inconsistencies. I also have not used misleading edit summaries. Your version also is a POV mess. I could go on but the main thing is: my major reverts only react to yours. Str1977 (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I have made many edits to find some sort of compromise. I have even tried this with other editors (like Aminz),[1] and yet you reverted both of us soon after.[2] Small errors are the least of this articles concerns. A far greater concern is stability. Your version is actually quite censored one. You have removed references that you don't like, even though they are to publishers like Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. I could also go on, but the main thing is: you are doing the exact same thing as you accuse me of. Outsiders have made the same conclusion.
And I was talking about your recent edits.
Calling other people's edits "censorship" is not AGF. And no, though Aminz invented this notion, OUP and CUP do not automatically mean inclusion, certainly not inclusion by any means. Probably these things will be included once our dispute resolution gets there. Maybe you should try harder regarding the intro so that we can move along. Str1977 (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling other people's edits "POV mess" is not AGF either. And no, Aminz didn't invent the concept of considering University presses (that'd be giving him too much credit), it came about through consensus at WP:V. You should read that policy, and pay attention to the clause "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses". Then you should go to the top and read that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability [by a reliable published source]".

"Maybe you should try harder regarding the intro so that we can move along." I actually have. Jedi asked me to concede that the prophet lead (or was responsible) for the expedition against Qurayza, and I conceded that. Yet, you, continue to deny reliable sources on the topic.Bless sins (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, so are we even now with non-AGF terms?
You do not actually address my point. UP does not mean automatic inclusion.
It is strange that you call your conceding this a great feat when in fact it was an undeniable fact. My concerns are quite of another sort. Str1977 (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding non-AGF terms: this isn't tit for tat. Nor do I insist that you AGF. I only insist that you not accuse me of having bad faith, when you yourself are guilty of the same act. Anyways, I don't see the point of this (we should discuss content).
Ok, this is my reasoning. 1. University Press = reliable. 2. Published by a reliable source = verifiable. 3. Verifiable = Inclusion. DO you understand? If yes, do you agree?
Sources: 1. "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses"
2. "verifiability ... meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source..."
3. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability..."
Regards, Bless sins (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
BS, this isn't about tit for tat. I did not intentionally use a non-AGF term to retaliate but a descriptive, though polemical term. However, I see how you can take that in a bad way.
"Nor do I insist that you AGF. I only insist that you not accuse me of having bad faith, when you yourself are guilty of the same act."
Well, I don't see that I am guilty of the same act. Regarding the back and forth, I was merely reacting to your reverts.
"Anyways, I don't see the point of this (we should discuss content)." Indeed we should, so let's get started.
"Ok, this is my reasoning..."
Your reasoning is okay in principle. However, I disagree with any conclusion that takes that being published by a UP already settles the matter and automatically has to result in a full-fledged detailed inclusion. Also, I disagree that only UP-books are allowed (that was the conflict with Aminz once). All in all, I do insist that it is us who write the article based on RS, not the RS themselves writing.
Regards, Str1977 (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Your above comment in no way objects to my reasoning (if I missed something please point it out), so I'll assume that UP -> inclusion is true. I agree that "a full-fledged detailed" inclusion is not necessarily implied and we can paraphrase the UP etc. Also I never said "that only UP-books are allowed".
SO back to content, you're removing content published in the Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. I assume you know what you're removing, but if you want me to be more explicit, just ask.Bless sins (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
BS, I suppose you haven't carefully read my comment. I specifically rejected any automatism about UP and inclusion. Sure, being published by a UP is a plus but no more.
We will have to deal with how to include things once we get there. Please follow the way set out by the Master Jedi. Str1977 (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me ask you this: if a source is reliable, and relevant to the topic providing useful information, should it be included?
Secondly, you may notice that I have restored sourced content. But you will notice that I have not reverted back to my previous version. I don't mind you editing at all, but if you blanket revert me, or simply remove the content I included, then I too will not hesitate. Please also note that I'm trying to make a compromise, I could have included much more content, but I didn't.Bless sins (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As for your question: yes, IF ALL these condition are met, the information should be included.
I had a look through your (re-)additions and have all considered them with an open mind. I have retained some, reverted some, modified some. I have explained each edit in the edit summary. There is only one item I want to single out now because of its importance:
You included: "According to Barakat's calculations, after Qurayza's 600-900 males were killed, there still remained 24,000 to 28,000 Jews in Medina./ref:Ahmed, 1979, p. 43.)"
  • First of all, I take it that this Barakat, referenced as Ahmed 1979, is the Barakat Ahmad we list alongside of Arafat in the skeptics' passage and whose book/paper was also published in 1979. Therefore, you have confused first name and family name, which is annoying.
  • If that is so, we cannot use Ahmad's calculation as a quasi fact. He is not the mainstream on this. Therefore I moved him to the skeptics' passage.
  • Finally, I wonder whether these figures are accurate. Ahmad argued that only the leaders were killed. Now, he calculates that this made up for "600-900 males". This pretty much agrees with what normally is taken as the death toll - it seems that Ahmad does not after all disagree on the death toll but on the size of the Jewish tribes (since he says 600-900 were killed and were all leaders - how many BQ were there?) And which tribes did these other Jews belong to?
Please clear this up.
And one more thing: please provide the book's title everytime you add something new. Watt 1974 is meaningless to me and I will not go looking for the information which book Watt published in that year.
Str1977 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I will ignore your first point, considering you get annoyed by spellign mistake (though you make them yourself).
  • We never used it is fact, though we can. I did say "According to Barakat's calculations..."
Bless sins (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the use of citations such as "Watt 1974": this is entirely consistent with wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:CITE#Shortened_notes).Bless sins (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding citations like "Watt 1974": it is entirely consistent with your disregard for any readability and providing actually verifiable information. No one is helped by Watt 1974. I have struggled hard to keep the references clear but you don't care about that effort - you just post your old pieces of text over and over again. That is not helful.
When in conjunction with the following item, this really seems like you don't care about a well written article outside of pushing your POV.
Regarding the so-called "Barakat": yes, you did insert him as quasi fact (this is what I said) - your introduced him (by a wrong name) without indicating that his views are controversial on the matter. Simply saying "X says ..." doesn't make for neutrality or balance.
Using a wrong name is harldy the saem as a spelign mitsake. Str1977 (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I will repeat myself: saying "Watt 1974" is what wikipedia calls for (Wikipedia:CITE#Shortened_notes). I can't be blamed for doing what wikipedia tells me to do. If you have problem with the policy go change it, and then I will change my ways as well. But until the policy remains, I will continue to use the short hand notation.
"When in conjunction with the following item, this really seems like you don't care about a well written article outside of pushing your POV." Please refrain from making personal attacks.
"without indicating that his views are controversial on the matter" Are there authors that say that his views regarding the calculation of the non-Qurayza Jewish population of Medina is wrong? If so, please give the quotes below.Bless sins (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No, BS. WP does not call for it. WP allows for this way of giving references. That's granted. But "Watt 1974" only makes sense a) if the article uniformally adheres to that and (more importantly) b) if the literature section included a book by Watt from 1974 - but our literature section doesn't (if it did, I would be able to clear up your mess myself). This makes your using that item perfectly disruptive. And you are consistently doing it, not caring about how the article will look like. This is no personal attack but an observation about your editing practices and their failures.
Ah, and please don't feign ignorance. You know that Ahmed's views are controversial. Str1977 (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
a)Just because Wikipedia conventions aren't applied to the entire article, doesn't mean they shouldn't be applied to atleast a part of the article.
b)Ok, I'll include the book I'm using in the literature section. I don't see why that's such a problem (and why you didn't say this before).
No sorry, I can't subscribe to your theory that actions sanctioned by wikipedia are "disruptive". If anything, you style of referencing (if not sanctioned by wikipedia) would be considered disruptive (again only if not sanctioned by wikipedia).
I know that one of Ahmed's views is considered controversial. And I am not inserting that view in (its already there). As for the calculations, you need to show (using reliable sources, not your OR) that it is controversial.Bless sins (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
a) BS, WP does not dictate you to use that reference style. This article uses a different one and your refusal to cooperate on this shows your bad faith and disregard for the article's quality.
b) I didn't say so before because I clearly stated what the problem was: that Watt 1974 means nothing to me from reading this article and that I will not browse through WP or the net to find out what book that might be (with the possibility that make a wrong identification). If you add the book to the literature section I at least have enough information to clean up the ref myself. Though I'd prefer if you posted properly worded references yourself, I will not scream if I have to do that myself.
No, sorry, many thing are allowed on WP but an article must have uniformity in such things.
It is exactly Ahmed's view on the BQ massacre that is controversial, hence his figures are too unless an uncontroversial reliable source would confirm them. YOU have to show that it is not controversial. Str1977 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Your references argument is going around in circles (first you admit that wikipedia allows me to use the, then you turn around and forbid me from using the references style). I know that my referencing style is sanctioned by wikipedia and that's what matters the most. I also know that you have not provided an wiki policy that sanctions your referencing style.
Ahmed: let's start on this. Which source shows his views to be controversial? Please provide it. For now on I will assume nothing, and you have to state it clearly and back up yourself with (hopefully reliable) references.Bless sins (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
References: you are to accept the way references are used in this article just as everyone is to accept that this article uses the "CE" notation and should neither revert it to "AD" nor include single "AD" notations. Your violation is of course complicated since including books like you did is incomprehensible to others.
Ahmed: Look into the article. Str1977 (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You are to accept the way references are prescribed to be made on wikipedia. Your argument is basically a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and hence not legitimate.
I have repeated my point again and again: I will take my MOS from wiki policies. If a wiki policy supports your MOS, I'll be more than happy to follow it. I'm not here to impose my style on others, only to follow what wikipedia tells me to do.Bless sins (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I will no longer respond to your disrespectuful attitude towards other editors. WP is not meant for you to leave your droppings as you go by. Please stop misrepresenting wikirules and plese respect how this article is formatted. Otherwise I will simply clean up your mess behind you - if I can. Str1977 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

{reset indent} The issue is actually quite simple. My referencing style is supported by Wikipedia:CITE#Shortened_notes. You have not quoted any wiki policy to support your style.

Regarding Ahmed, all we have currently is you saying he's not an appropriate source. You have not backed up your claims (atleast in this section of the talk page).

As long as the above situation (where you don't quote any wiki policy or reliable source) doesn't change, there is indeed no point of discussion.Bless sins (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is no need for discussion as you aggressively insist on your right to be uncooperative. Frankly, I have no need for such discussions (especially if they are as illfounded as this, due to the fact that WP does not dictate you to introduce that ref style.) As long as you do not introduce books unknown to this article (when the exact edition is not included in the literature section) I will simply clean up the mess you make.
Regarding Ahmed, you are totally misrepresenting my point (whether you are unaware of that even though I have explained it to you time and again I don't know). He is an appropriate source for his views. His views on the BQ massacre are controversial as evidenced by the sources referenced in the article. Hence, Ahmed is to be included as an opinion and not simply as fact. Str1977 (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"you aggressively insist on your right to be uncooperative" I have made no such insistence, much less "aggressively". I request that you provide the diff where I made a mention of a "right to be uncooperative". If you can't do so, then you should retract your comments, which I find quite offensive.
"His views on the BQ massacre are controversial as evidenced by the sources referenced in the article." One of his views is "not entirely convincing". That doesn't make him overall an unreliable source.
There are often minor disagreements between scholars (such as those between Stillman and Serjeant on a special treaty), but that doesn't mean everything they say is an opinion.Bless sins (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you really not understood? So once again: I care more about what you do than about what you say. I never said you mentioned a "right to be uncooperative" so stop asking for diffs. However, you are uncooperative. You insisted that you have a right to insert refs like "Watt (1974)" - I call that uncooperative.
As for offensive, stop your behaviour and I will not have to comment it. I find your behaviour offensive.
Watt is clearly using understatement. Also, what we have is enough to see that Ahmed is uncontroversial (and the nature of the figures confirm this) and hence we cannot use him as you want to. Only if another, uncontroversial scholar agree with these figures can we include them as fact. In which case we cold also use that other scholar, if he exists! Str1977 (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"You insisted that you have a right to insert refs like "Watt (1974)" - I call that uncooperative. " If you consider me following wikipedia policies (which is what I am doing) is "uncooperative", then I've nothing further to say. I suppose a vandal would also call me uncooperative if I reverted his/her edits - so "uncooperative[ness]]" isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Watt says what he says, and that is that he disagrees. Simple. Scholars often disagree. I already told you that Stillman and Serjeant disagree with each other on the existence of a special treaty. Does that make them both "controversial"?Bless sins (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you please cite me the policy that forces you to use this format? I never questioned that WP allows for it. I will not go to another article and insert my style there (at least not without a major rewrite, say of a stub). What I am asking you is merely to respect the uniformity of this article.
Yes, Watt disagrees with Ahmed. By what logic does that suddenly make Ahmed's figures consensus? Str1977 (talk)
Watt only disagrees with Ahmed on one point. Even that is not a complete disagreement as he says it is "not entirely convincing". That doesn't make Ahmed's figures as consensus - but it doesn't make them unreliable either.
Finally, I never included Ahmed as fact - I have clearly attributed Ahmed's words to Ahmed himself.Bless sins (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ahmad is also quoted by F.E. Peters, whom you should agree is a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"Watt only disagrees with Ahmed on one point." - The trouble is that this point and what you want to include is intertwined. Apart from a statement by Watt that the figures are correct, we must assume that Watt would disagree with them.
"That doesn't make Ahmed's figures as consensus" - Then why are you treating them as if they were? We have no other figures (apart from the number of victims) in the article - hence your presentation means endorsement. The reader has no alternative but to take these as "the truth". And that's what I meant with "you present them as fact". Merely adding a "X says ..." does not change this.
"Ahmad is also quoted by F.E. Peters ..." - I would. Can you quote the relevant passage with the figures here? Str1977 (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If you are too lazy to go find other figures, that is not my fault.
Regarding F.E. Peters' quote see [[3]]. It's interesting that you yourself have deleted this quote (in your last blanket revert), and now ask me to provide it.Bless sins (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
My actual or supposed laziness does not authorize you to push POV and present a controversial author as "truth".
As for Peter's quote (1994, p. 301): "According to Ahmad, whose estimate of the Jewish population at 36,000-42,000 has already been cited, the departure of the Banu Nadir and the decimation of the Banu Qurayza would still have left between 24,000-28,000 Jews at Medina." - Does that mean that Peters agrees with him or does he merely cite him? I am asking you that.
Another point: this all puts doubt on our claim that B. Ahmed disputes the massacres' extent as his figures pretty much agree with the traditional figures - as opposed to Arafat who actually disputes the killings.
I see three elements that should be distinguished:
  • Ahmed's figures (if endorsed by Peters): Jews before the BQ massacre minus the number killed (and expelled) makes the number afterwards.
  • Ahmed's view that the 600/700 were merely the leaders and the rest were let off.
  • Arafat's claim that hardly anyone was killed.
Do you agree with these distinctions? Str1977 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Str1977 you can't remove a source because you can't be bothered to go find other figures.
I got the Peters' quote off google books, and can't view all of it. (Don't worry I'm trying to get a hold of the book in the meantime). From what I can view, it appears that Peters is atleast citing Ahmed (alongside another source). He is also saying "whose estimate of the Jewish population at 36,000-42,000 has already been cited" implying that he has relied on Ahmed's figures below. In my opinion that makes a borderline case for agreeing with Ahmed, though I'll have to check out the book.
However, merely citing him should be enough. As Peters' cites Ahmed, while attributing him, so can we, as Peters' book is a reliable source.
I don't understand why you are making the "distinctions".
  • Jews before the demise of Qurayza and the expulsion of Nadir minus the number killed, died naturally, exiled etc.
  • I'm not sure exactly what Ahmed's view on the number killed is, but I'll verify it as I can get access to his book.
  • I'm not using Arafat, so I don't see how he's relevant.Bless sins (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
BS, you make it hard to assume good faith. Are you intentionally misreading me or are you just unable to read. "Str1977 you can't remove a source because you can't be bothered to go find other figures." I DID NOT REMOVE AHMED! I MOVED HIM!
Re Peters: This is an honest question I hope I am right in deducing from your second paragraph that you take it that way.
"I don't understand why you are making the "distinctions"."
I dinstinguish so that we can properly cite all elements in their proper place. In other words, if Ahmed's figures are not controversial but his characterisation of "only leaders were killed" is (currently referenced in the article), both should be properly covered. This makes Ahmed's view quite different from Arafat (I never said you used him) who denies the entire massacre. Str1977 (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
By putting it in footnotes, it's as good a removing them. Imagine if I put Zietlin's opinions in the footnotes.Bless sins (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. Putting in footnotes is putting in footnotes.
Why would I put them in footnotes: because there is one point that is basically undisputed: Watt's "There remained Jews in town." and details to that contradict each other: Ahmad's figures and Firestone contradicting them. The main point (Watt) however is not disputed.
Putting Zeitlin's opinions in footnotes would be a clear sign of POV pushing. I didn't expect such a disruptive suggestion even from you. Str1977 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am confused:

Above, Ahmad seesm to accept a figure of 600-900 dead.

But according to his article,

Ahmad further argues that the account given by Ibn Ishaq cannot possibly be accurate[5], as, for 
example, states that the beheading and burial of 600-900 men would have been physically too colossal 
an undertaking for a small city like Medina,. He also writes that the corpses would have constituted 
an obvious menace to public health.[1]

So is he actually disputing the figure or is he accepting it. For the moment, I will go with our earlier take that he disputes them, that he thinks only the leader (who would not make up 600-900 people) while keeping the Jews after massacre figures intact.

But we have to clear up this issue. Str1977 (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

One more discovery:

Ahmad's figures are disputed:

"10. Some Jews not belonging to the three great Jewish clans of the Qaynuqa', Nadir, and Qurayza seem to have continued to live in Medina after the destruction and expulsion of the Qurayza (W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961], pp. 174-175), but their numbers could not have approached the numbers suggested by Ahmad (Barakat Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews: A Re-examination [New Delhi: Vikas, 1979], p. 43)."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n4_v46/ai_20583579/print

Str1977 (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good. Now you can no longer claim: The reader has no alternative but to take these as "the truth". I have mentioned both opinions and that should clear matters up.Bless sins (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope. It was I that mentioned both opinions. It was I that dug up disagreement (confirming my sense that the figures are ridicilously high.
Except for agreeing with me without noting that you do, you should rather comment on the other stuff that needs clearing up.
Str1977 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Arbitrator

Should the article note that both Muhammad and Banu Qurayza chose the arbitrator and agreed to submit their dispute to him? I believe yes, because this is stated in reliable sources:

"For example, in the incident of Aws and Khazraj tribes of Medina, the Prophet acted as a mediator according to Arab tradition, and ended their enmity; in arbitration between the Prophet and the Banu Qurayza, (a Jewish tribe) both agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them." [Context: the author is giving examples of mediation and arbitration in the life of Muhammad.]

Source:Mohammed Abu-Nimer (2000-2001). "A Framework for Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam". Journal of Law and Religion 15 (1-2): 247. 

"The arbitration between Muhammad and Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe, in which both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them,..."

Source:Khadduri, Majid (1955). War And Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. 

"After twenty-five days, the tribe [Banu Qurayza] agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing."

Source:Hashmi, Sohail H.; Buchanan, Allen E; Moore, Margaret (2003). States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries. Cambridge University Press. 

Are these sources sufficient (note they have been published in the Journal of Law and Religion (an academic and peer-reviewed journal; see the JSTOR summary), Johns Hopkins Press (a university press) and Cambridge University Press (also a university press)).Bless sins (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question: yes. ITAQALLAH 22:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, BS, please stop misrepresenting the case by presenting only the sources that suit you best. Remember "unconditional surrender" etc. Str1977 (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You have failed to mention that Banu Qurayza were punished according to their own law. so there execution and enslavement can hardly be seen as Muslim brutality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.59.98 (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear guest, we have not failed not mention that. This is a very contentious and problematic claim. We have discussed it in the past and will do so in the future. Str1977 (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite. We are re-hashing old material here. See, e.g., [4]. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Umm, this RfC is not regarding the Torah issue, but rather regarding a different issue (i.e. whether the Qurayza agreed and chose the Sa'd). I don't expect you to know what you're talking about considering your opinion is solicited in an attempt to vote-stack, and that the solicitor mislead you about the topic of the discussion (by claiming the discussion was about the "Deuteronomy issue").Bless sins (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
BS, I was clearly responding to the comment above, by the unregistered user, claiming that the BQ were killed "according to their own law." Your personal attacks are entirely out of order. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I had two things on my mind - probably because they were linked your edits and because these two items really serve the same goal: blame the victims for their death - and hence the headline was wrong. I rectified that mistake. Str1977 (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So, does that mean that you judge the merit of inclusion of a point of view mainly based on whether it agrees with your view rather than whether it is sufficiently sourced? Wikipedia should ideally include "all" point of views that could be sufficiently sourced. Wikipedia:Verifiability says:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

--Be happy!! (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. O judge information on its own merit. I foyu haven't noticed it is not about my POV but about BS's and others POV pushing I am concerned. The POV involved being to blame the victims for their own death not only through the charges under which they were killed (that is hardly avoidable and no problem, as long as these charges are presented in a neutral manner) but also through rubbish claims that the Jews chose their hangmen and that they were killed by their own law.
The threshold or inclusion in Wikipedia is not apologetic value to Islam nor falsehood. "No Undue Weight" is a WP policy too. Str1977 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the reliability of these three reliable sources is already established by the consensus here there is a clear consensus for their inclusion.
I think we should apply similar standards through the whole article. By the same standards, the view of Michael Lecker should be included (which is already included). We should not act based on what one of us think is falsehood; and in fact to say that something is falsehood requires such a high degree of confidence is rare in historical studies. I think we should only care whether the content is verifiable. If there are differing views, we should mention them all. Also as you can see on the reliable noticeboard, your claims of John Esposito being unreliable is not accepted. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus! This is not tit for tat (and if anything Lecker is already paired with a "massacre was normal then" crowd). Undue weight should not be given. Str1977 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This is completely unacceptable Str. The consensus is clear in this section. Can you see anybody here agreeing with you on the RfC point? --Be happy!! (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course I can see that. Ah, and consensus connot override our need for accuracy. Str1977 (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
So, do you think there is a problem with Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability (e.g. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth") and WP:Consensus? --Be happy!! (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem with editors misusing that statement to make WP into a den of POV pushing and falsehood. You can spare yourself (and me) repeating that sentence again and again as it doesn't solve the issue. Str1977 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: yes, mention it. It's verifiable in a very reliable source. However, if another reliable source disputes the claim, it should also be mentioned that the claim is disputed. Nick Graves (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the third location for this consensus. The first was a discussion at WP:RSN that can be found here. Both responding users agreed that the sources were reliable.

Secondly, we had a discussion about this at the mediation, where everyone including the mediator (who said "Its clear that we have reliable sources stating that the Qurayza chose Sa'd and I see no reason to exclude that from the article") agreed on the reliability of the sources.

The third is above where - once again - Str1977 is the only user disputing the reliability of the sources.Bless sins (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What is a location for consensus?
  • RSN cannot say anything about this issue.
  • The mediation never yielded a result on this. You are forgetting that I was part of the mediation and I certainly did not agree to your claims. Certainly the mediator cannot dictate consensus.
So after clearing up the smoke produced by BS, there remains only this section. Again, a consensus has not been reached here either when two editors disagree. You are using sources (some lacking expertise for this subject) in contravention of other sources. Str1977 (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:RSN is an oft used avenue for generating consensus on the reliability of sources. Consensus was generated there that the sources are reliable.
You are forgetting that only you opposed the sources at the mediation, while everyone else supported this. Even the mediator, who wasn't a party to the dispute (and thus an outsider) supported the inclusion.
Finally, here, you are again the only user opposing this. (Briangotts was responding to the Torah issue, which you mislead him to believe was the issue here).Bless sins (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, consensus was not achieved here. RSN cannot solve the issues of this article, only issues like reliable sources.
Hey, a mediation is about getting disputants to agree. Since I did not agree there was no consensus.
You are mistating things. Brian clearly restatet that he was not misled by mistake in his last posting and stated that he opposed your views. Str1977 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Every user here, except for you, believes in the inclusion.
WP:RSN established that these sources are reliable, something you have yet to admit.
During the mediation every wikipedian agreed except for you.
Thus I'm restoring it since consensus has been established at every venue. You don't have a single good argument, and continually present your original research.Bless sins (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Last time I said you mistated things. After my correction , I can only take it as a lie. I was not the only one speaking against your claims here (not getting into those that disagree with you without speaking up).
And of course, you are still missusing the mediation. I hereby vow that I will never enter into mediation with your again because of your evident bad faith stance.
I restore and I revert because there is no consensus. Str1977 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"I can only take it as a lie" In light of such remarks discussion becomes quite difficult, still I'll try to persevere.
Whether you will ever enter into mediation again or not, is beside the point that you did enter into mediation. The mediation did produce results that have been confirmed by consensus here and on WP:RSN.Bless sins (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey look, BS. It is your bad faith behaviour that's the problem here. The first time you made your claims about the mediation I assumed good faith but the second time, after I corrected you, I have to deduce bad faith.
I did enter mediation with you and the Master Jedi. Mediation yielded some results, mainly the solution to the word "massacre". It did not yield results on what you claim. Mediation is strictly voluntary, based on the agreement of all parties (me, you, Mik). The mediatior is merely a tool bring this about. I disagree with how the mediator ended the mediation. Nothing gives you the right to mispresent the mediation or use it for your POV pushing (for which you are quite notorious). Mik is honouring the mediation's results and I have nothing to complain about him. You are misusing the mediation and this is why I will not go to mediation with you ever again. But that doesn't mean that I'll accept your wrongdoing in this case. Str1977 (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
During the mediation we had agreement of every user except you, correct? You can't deny the fact that every user accepted the inclusion of the sourced content except you. I'm not claiming that you agreed, only that everyone else besides you agreed. Consensus doesn't require that everyone agree, only that the vast majority do.Bless sins (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"During the mediation we had agreement of every user except you, correct?"
That's a nonsense statement. Mediation requires the consensus of ALL parties to have a result. I do not claim the support of mediation in things where Mik and I agree but you didn't. Stop your extremely bad faith behaviour.
Also remember: WP is NOT a DEMOCRACY! Str1977 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't require that every party agree, only that the vast majority agree. That is what I'm claiming. I know that (currently) you don't agree, that is why you are reverting me. But as this section, and others listed above, show everyone except you agree with the addition. Please don't use straw man arguments.Bless sins (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
In mediation, agreement by ALL parties is required however.
On this page, I was not the only voice of disagreement. Str1977 (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That is not a requirement for consensus, which is what I'm claiming.
On the issue of the above (Qurayza choosing Sa'd) you are the only voice of disagreement. Bless sins (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Still, you are misrepresenting things. I am NOT the only dissenter. Don't forget Merzbow (not mentioning any silent ones). Str1977 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Merzbow has not commented once in this section. Now please don't go storming off to Merzbow's talk page, dragging him into this - because if you do, I'll have to report you for canvassing (you've already stated that you think he's opposed to me).
regarding the "silent" ones: they don't count as "silence implies consensus", per WP:CONSENSUS. Now please stop flouting it.Bless sins (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry but I confounded Merzbow and Briangotts. My mistake. But your mistake, that you inentionally try to ignore his voice of opposition.
Your constant threats will get you nowhere. You won't expell or massacre me.
Silence does not imply consensus - at best it means indifference. I don't bring them up (as I said) because they are not countable. But be sure they do exist. Str1977 (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"... and both Muhammad and Qurayza appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh" - that's POv-driven twisting of the sources into saying something they never say. Str1977 (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I can read the sources do say this. What leads you to believe that they don't?Bless sins (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, what sources say that Muhammad and the Qurayza together chose Sad? Most sources (including the most reliable) say that Muhammad chose him. Some say that the BQ accepted him. A lone one (which I think careless wording), I think, sad the BQ chose him. It is your OR combination that results in the above statement which - given the circumstances - is nonsense. Str1977 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
" what sources say that Muhammad and the Qurayza together chose Sad?" The three sources I quoted above. Look carefully and again.Bless sins (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, do you mean these:
"For example, in the incident of Aws and Khazraj tribes of Medina, the Prophet acted as a mediator according to Arab tradition, and ended their enmity; in arbitration between the Prophet and the Banu Qurayza, (a Jewish tribe) both agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them." ::::Source:Mohammed Abu-Nimer (2000-2001). "A Framework for Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam". Journal of Law and Religion 15 (1-2): 247.
I don't see your claim in there.
"The arbitration between Muhammad and Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe, in which both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them,..."
Source:Khadduri, Majid (1955). War And Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Not here either. Oh, and wait. Isn't that thehe identical text? Who copied whom? Clearly, one os not an independent source.
"After twenty-five days, the tribe [Banu Qurayza] agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing."
Source:Hashmi, Sohail H.; Buchanan, Allen E; Moore, Margaret (2003). States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries. Cambridge University Press.
This also merely says taht the BQ chose the arbitrator. This of course controdacicts aour earlier, more reliable sources.
You want to mix up contradicting sources! Str1977 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again (sigh), here is the text that supports that the Qurayza chose Sa'd:
"...in arbitration between the Prophet and the Banu Qurayza, (a Jewish tribe) both agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them."
"...arbitration between Muhammad and Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe, in which both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them."
"...the tribe [Banu Qurayza] agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing."
Tell me one thing: do you see the words "Banu Qurayza" and "choosing"/"chosen"? Yes or no. I'd really appreciate if you answered that question.
"This of course controdacicts aour earlier, more reliable sources." There was consensus on WP:RSN that the sources above are reliable. Thus reliability can't be an issue.
Bless sins (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"Once again (sigh), here is the text that supports that the Qurayza chose Sa'd:"
Only that you didn't claim that before. Only that you didn't put that into the article. You fabricated a claim that Muhammad and the Qurayza together agreed on an arbitrator. Which is not in the sources.
And the claim that the BQ had any say in this contradicts our most reliable sources.
Badly visited discussions at RSN cannot eliminate policies like "no undue weight". And they cannot remove the sources that oppose your claim. Str1977 (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
So you agree that the above sources state that Qurayza chose Sa'd. I also not that not a single source contradicts the above sources. Even if they do, we do what Nick Graves has suggested: mention both.
'our most reliable sources" The above sources are one of our most reliable sources.
Again I urge you to respect consensus at WP:RSN. I'm not sure what "badly visited" means, but I don't think that's something from wiki policies.Bless sins (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that some sources say that but they are not our most reliable sources. Hence, we msut proceed as I stated below. Str1977 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so assuming that we have two sets of sources making directly opposing claims (i.e. some saying Qurayza chose Sa'd or were happy with him as arbitrator, and some saying they didn't chose Sa'd), then why not just mention both claims alongisde eachother? This is of course assuming we do have the sources saying explicitly that Qurayza had no say or right of approval in the selection (as opposed to making inferences from general statements like 'unconditional surrender'). ITAQALLAH 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
These are not merely inferences as you want to put it. "Unconditional surrender" is a clear term with a meaning and your suggestions contradict that term. The most reliable and most longstanding sources speak of that. The BQ agreeing to him formally does not contradict that but the "chose him" does. Any mentioning of this must be treated accordingly as per no undue weight. I never opposed that. Str1977 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Unconditional surrender means surrender without stipulated conditions. If we say that their captors gave them the liberty to choose an arbitrator, then it doesn't mean the Qurayza necessarily demanded it (which would make it a condition). So saying the surrender was unconditional and that the tribe was allowed to choose an arbitrator aren't necessarily contradictory. ITAQALLAH 16:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Which source does say that Muhammad gave the BQ such a liberty? I see not a single one. Those that claim the BQ chose Sad simply ignore the fact of the unconditional surrender. Those that include the unconditional surrender do not talk about the BQ chosing anything.
As I said, we may include the books that state the BQ chose Sad (even though I think them badly mistaken – but that, as you'd rightfully note, is no valid criterion) but only as an alternative view, e.g. "Some sources/scholars report …" Str1977 (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no source that contradicts the view that the Qurayza chose Sa'd. You have yet to provide a "Banu Qurayza didn't choose Sa'd" (or something similar) quote from a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. There is no requirement to provide such a direct, negative statement. If you chose not to think so be it. But I will not turn off reason. "BQ chose" and "BQ surrendered unconditionally" do contradict.
I already stated an acceotable way for inclusion of both views but as long as you do not take it up, we cannot go there. Str1977 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, most reasonable people won't necessarily see a contradiction between surrendering unconditionally and choosing an arbitrator after the surrender. To choose something, and to demand it, are two different concepts. No one is saying the Qurayza demanded Sa'd, they simply chose him.Bless sins (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, most if not all reasonable people would agree with me. Chosing and demanding are actually quite close - consider that in French "demander" means "to ask". A different thing would be "to accept" or "to submit". Str1977 (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well the people of the preceding RfC didn't agree with you. Nor did the people participating in the mediation (you excepted ofcourse).
Simple example: when given the choice I can go to a shop and choose the ice cream I want to have. I can choose chocolate, vanilla, etc... A different situation would be me demanding chocolate ice cream, and threatening of some sort of consequences if my demands are not met. In a society where I'm simply an ordinary citizen I can easily do the "choosing". But it would very difficult for me to do the "demanding", as I have no special powers to threaten others with.Bless sins (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That's too bad for them if they don't agree.
Stop bringing up the mediation (yes, Mik agreed with you) - it ended without result on this.
I don't need your explanations. I never said that "demand" and "ask" meant the same. I said they were close. Hence I can only restate my posting above. Str1977 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't need my exmplanations, then I'll stop giving them to you. Thanks for acknowleging that Jedi Master agreed, please also acknowlege that Aminz and Shell also agreed. That is all I'm claiming.

"I never said that "demand" and "ask" meant the same. I said they were close." Oh yes, I can probably concede that sources may come "close" to "contradiciting" but don't actually do so.Bless sins (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Aminz and Shell were no party to the mediation. I grant you that Aminz agreed with you here.
Stop your bad faith remarks about things being close. You give explanations that nobody asked for while ignoring actual issues. The BQ chosing Sad contradicts their status as having "unconditionally surrendered". Str1977 (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Now you need to acknowledge that Shell also agreed with me. After that you will have, in effect, said "everyone at the mediation (except Str1977) agreed with Bless_sins".
"The BQ chosing Sad contradicts their status as having "unconditionally surrendered"." According to your original research, definitely. No scholar says that though.Bless sins (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Shell was no party either and hence doesn't count. She was a mediator aiming at bringing us three to agree.
So you do deny simple common sense? Str1977 (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
But Shell was/is a wikipedian. Consensus can be formed amongst almost any group of wikipedians (restrictions such as sockpuppetry etc. apply).
I explained "common sense" to you in my post dated 13:22, 3 June 2008. You, however, said that you "don't need [my] explanations". Fine. In that case we use exactly what the sources say. No source explicitly denies the Qurayza choosing.Bless sins (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. Shell has no interest in this issue. She was merely trying to help to get the three of us to agree. That unfortunately didn't work out. Stop bringing up hte mediation. It is of no consequence here.
Apart from the sources that state that Muhammad (with noone else mentioned) chose Sad. That is a contradiction. Str1977 (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because a source doesn't mention something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist! If a book talks about China, but fails to mention nearby Mongolia, doesn't mean that Mongolia doesn't exist! Only if the source says that "Muhammad chose Sa'd alone", "only Muhammad chose Sa'd", then we can infer a possible contradiction.Bless sins (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
"Just because a source doesn't mention something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist!" True but irrelevant. If Muhammad chose Sad that contradicts the statement that the BQ chose Sad. No "alone" is needed. Your combining the two is Original research. Str1977 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to jump in here since my name keeps getting mentioned, its pretty obvious that reliable sources exists that state BQ chose the arbitrator. I have yet to see any argument that would exclude this material. The claim that this shouldn't be mentioned because some sources say "unconditional surrender" doens't hold water - in order for that claim to be true, we have to assume a great deal about what the authors meant by "unconditional surrender" which clearly contradicts the original research policy. If there are any sources which state that BQ did not choose or agree to the arbitrator, then that viewpoint should be included as well. Shell babelfish 15:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If one wants to contribute to a discussion, one should first inform oneself about all points. The issue (on my part) is not to exclude any mentioning of sources that claim the BQ chose Sad. I am open to mention this as an alternative claim. But I oppose making it the claim #1 or constructing some kind of a mish-mash. That would really be OR - in contrast to a common sense deduction about what unconditional surrender means. The contradiction is there. Also, the most reliable and longstanding sources say Muhammad chose Sad - which also contradicts the claim the BQ chose him. Str1977 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Now what it is?

BS restored this passage:

According to Serjeant, the Qurayza were aware of the two parts of a pact made between Muhammad and the Jewish tribes in the confederation according to which "Jews having their religion and the Muslims having their religion excepting anyone who acts wrongfully and commits crime/acts treacherously/ breaks an agreement, for he but slays himself and the people of his house."

Now the passage "having their religion and the Muslims having their religion" has absolutely nothing to do with the issue addressed here (unless one wants to argue that Muhammad massacred the Jews for refusing to become Muslims).

And what is it that Serjeant says? Is it "anyone who acts wrongfully and commits crime" (which is not proper English) or "anyone who acts treacherously" or "anyone who breaks an agreement"?

Because of this, I asked for clarification via a tag. Removing this tag without even addressing the question, can only be seen as highhanded arrogance and a tendency to push POV. Str1977 (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

From the text, Searjent has written:

...excepting anyone who acts wrongfully (zalama) and commits crime/acts treacherously/breaks an agreement, for he but slays himself and the people of his house. (p. 28)

How is the above not proper English?
Oh, btw, "highhanded arrogance" is a personal attack. I wish you respected WP:NPA.Bless sins (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack. Look closer. In any case, if you would respect the minimum of respectful behaviour (like letting unaddressed tags stand) I wouldn't have to call you on this.
I am not prepared to quote Serjeant verabtim if he cannot make up his mind. What shall we do?
I was mistaken in thinking that "to commit crime" was wrong (and only that, could you please for once not mirepresent my point) - apparently it is acceptable though I still think it clumsy. Str1977 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is your argument against Searjent? Does the source not meet WP:RS? Does it in any way contradict a clause from WP:V, or WP:NPOV? Is there any other policy that leads you to have a problem with the source. Please note I will not entertain your personal opinions unless they are backed by wikipedia policies.Bless sins (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not an argument against Serjeant. It is an issue of how to include this. The way Serjeant puts it is not fit for an encyclopedia as he doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind what the text he quotes actually says. Isn't there some more accepted English version of this agreement? Str1977 (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"The way Serjeant puts it is not fit for an encyclopedia" Who decides the standards to judge whether something is "fit for an encyclopedia"? Ultimately the wiki policies. Thus, which policy are you suing to say that the text is not "for for an encyclopedia"?Bless sins (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see Serjeant being unable to make his mind up, and I don't see any confusion in his words. The quoted passage is pretty clear to me - and if the cited work is the one I'm thinking of (i.e. his publication on the Constitution of Medina), then it's a good piece of academic scholarship. ITAQALLAH 22:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Serjeant wrote a scholarly study and hence is able to include more nuances than our comparatively little encyclopedic article. It is a good piece of scholarship but we have to be concise here and give a short treatment with ONE translation.
PS, BS, policies do not decide anything - editors do. I now you never grasped this but we are not robots. Str1977 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"we have to be concise here" Wikipedia is not paper.
"policies do not decide anything" On the contrary they decide everything. The editors only act in accordance with policy. No one said we're robots, but our actions need to be consistent with policies, especially when there are disputes. Bless sins (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not paper" – it is an encyclopedia nonetheless and hence has to be concise.
" On the contrary they decide everything. …" But you are above arguing for us being robots. We act and edit under the policies but is US who make editorial decisions – and argue over them.
You may have noted that I only tagged this quote for clarification and did not make any unilateral moves. My intention on this issue is to make the article a little better. I have no clue why you oppose even the slightest move in that direction. Or are you merely opposing me? Str1977 (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want clarification, then that is legitimate. I respect that. But your edits say different things. According to your latest edit you are removing the sourced content: "Jews having their religion and the Muslims having their religion excepting". Removing is different than clarification. For removal you need the justification from WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR etc.
So please make up your mind: is it clarification, or removal (or both) that you seek?Bless sins (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am clearly talking about the phrase:

"...excepting anyone who acts wrongfully (zalama) and commits crime/acts treacherously/breaks an agreement, for he but slays himself and the people of his house. (p. 28)

"
You know that so don't pretend otherwise. Str1977 (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If so, then why are you removing "Jews having their religion and the Muslims having their religion excepting" You say one thing, but do another, which confuses editors like me.
I have an issue with you removing the above statement as you haven't explained yourself on it.
Regarding:

"...excepting anyone who acts wrongfully (zalama) and commits crime/acts treacherously/breaks an agreement, for he but slays himself and the people of his house. (p. 28)

"
It means that someone who commits a crime or breaks the agreement (through treachery or otherwise) will not enjoy the provisions of the agreement and is responsible for his killing.
Is it clear now?Bless sins (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"If so, then why are you removing ... I have an issue with you removing the above statement as you haven't explained yourself on it."
How is that passage relevant to the BQ?
"t means that ..."
I know what it means. My question was not what it means but whether there is a better, more readable way of including it. Str1977 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Relevance: I think its a statement from the treaty with Qurayza, though let me double check.
I thought you wanted a "clarification" on the statement. to answer your question: yes, there probably is a better way of including this.Bless sins (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I am merely looking for a better, less wieldy way to include this. Str1977 (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Large Muhammad quote

Devotus made a valid addition but also added this:

In spite of the religious polemics the following principle was established, in the form of a saying ascribed to the Prophet: < blockquote >"He who wrongs a Jew or a Christian will have myself (Muhammad) as his accuser on the day of judgement."< ref >Ahmad Ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri: Kitab Futūḥ al-Buldān. ed. by Michael J. de Goeje. Leiden, 1866. p. 162; cited in: A. J. Wensinck, J. H. Kramers: Handwörterbuch des Islam. Brill, 1941. p. 18; q.v.: Bernard Lewis: The Jews of Islam. Princeton University Press, 1984. p. 32; Majid Khadduri: War and Peace in the Law of Islam. The John Hopkins Press, 1955. p. 175< / ref >< ref >For similar accounts see: Yaḫyā ibn Ādam: Kitāb al-Kharāj. Brill, 1896. p. 54 (cited in: James Hastings: Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Part 23: v. 23. Kessinger, 2003. p. 367); Abu Dawud: Kitab as-Sunan. Book 19, No. 3046< / ref > < / blockquote >

I think this part of the addition superfluous and wrong:

  • Superfluous because it adds nothing on the BQ. The topic of this article is the BQ and not the situation of Jews or Christians under Muslim rule. So any outlook on this should be very brief and concise.
  • Wrong because it creates the impression that no Jew and no Christian was ever wronged by a faithful Muslim. This is evidently not true. The Muhammad quote is also probably apocryphical as the addition itself seems to imply ("ascribed to the Prophet").
  • Furthermore wrong because giving the quote doesn't really tell us anything substantial about the situation of Jews and Christians. What is "to wrong a Jew" in Muhammad's eye?

Devotus, please respond to this. Str1977 (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, plus that text really makes no sense. Who established such a principle? Was it followed? "In the form of a saying" is meaningless - does this mean the principle was based off the saying, or the saying was established as law? Plus, I checked at least one of the references provided - p. 32 of "Jews of Islam" - and found nothing on this. Given that red flag, I've removed the text until it can be discussed further. - Merzbow (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The answer to all three of Str1977's points lies in the sources used. If the sources say this, then we state what the sources state. This is what WP:V calls for.Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to ask both St1977 and Merzbow both if they have viewed the sources, and verified for themselves that the sources are not talking about the Qurayza. Alternatively, Devotus can provide quotes for us here.Bless sins (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
BS, that is of no consequence. We do not include what random books are saying into this specific article. I needn't have to look up whether these books somewhere mention the BQ. If they do, I presume that they say about the BQ what our article already says. What Devotus included however didn't concern the BQ at all. So you can stick your cherished WP:V for once and introduce the actual issues. Str1977 (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I did spot check the one source on hand (Lewis), and there was nothing in there regarding such a principle, let alone the relationship to the BQ. - Merzbow (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The section concerns the analysis of the Qurayza-incident. Thus I have added the part about the legal judgements concerning this incident. But to avoid misunderstandings I have added, that the Qurayza-incident was no model for normal behaviour toward the ahl al-kitab. And in the ref given (SEI), this claim is clarified by the addition of the quote you have mentioned here. Therefore the quote is not dispensable, since otherwise the claim would become unclear.
  • There is no suggestion that this principle has invariably been followed. On the other hand it is a widely accepted fact that this was an important principle. Furthermore it is not the question wheter this account actually is authentic and the term "ascribed to" does not imply it being wrong.
  • To wrong a Jew (and dhimmis in general) was generally understood as not upholding the defensive alliance made with them, not fighting on behalf (to protect) them and overburdening them with taxes, just as e.g. Umar is supposed to have formulated it on his deathbed (see [5] and [6]). And this supposed utterance of Umar is an example for how the dhimmis were seen in legal aspects in early Islam, as Cohen puts it (Under Crescent and Cross, p.223).

Merzbow: Lewis cites a similar account, where the prophet is supposed to have stated the same about dhimmis in general.--Devotus (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Devotus, the quote doesn't make matters clear in any way. It is prophetic speak attributed to Muhammad but doesn't say what "wronging a Jew" or "wronging a Christian" is. As amply demonstrated by sources like Ramadan and editors like BS, some argue that the BQ were not wronged at all but had their bloody fate coming. Which results in Muhammad's threads not applying to them.
I agree with the addition that the BQ massacre was not the model for treatment of other religions. But that's as far as it goes. Str1977 (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like you are doing original research based on your interpretation of a large number of sources. Can you provide a quote from one of those sources that specifically says "In spite of the religious polemics the following principle was established, in the form of a saying ascribed to the Prophet: < blockquote >"He who wrongs a Jew or a Christian will have myself (Muhammad) as his accuser on the day of judgement.", and specifically ties it to the subject matter of this article? - Merzbow (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research by citing secondary literature? The sources are cited in accordance to the refs provided. Lewis, Khadduri etc. are citing akin accounts, stating the same. The quote is taken from the Handwörterbuch des Islam (as referred to in the article). How it is related to the article and thus is necessary has already been explained - I'm not gonna repeat it again.--Devotus (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Stating the same" is simply not true, as I verified by checking the Lewis reference. If all the other references are like that, then it appears we are left with the "Handwörterbuch" reference, which you still claim says specifically that. It looks to be in German and from 1941, so you'll have to provide us with the original and a translation of the text from there you claim supports your text. - Merzbow (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lewis cites a similar account, as already mentioned; so does the ERE and Khadduri. That's why I wrote "q.v." in the ref. That you don't have the HdI is your problem, not mine; it's a shorter, German edition of the EI1, so you can look it up in there, too, in the article "Ahl al-Kitab".--Devotus (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid it has become your problem, because your other cites have not panned out; Lewis p. 32 says nothing about the principle or the saying in the article text. You need to prove to us what you are quoting is accurate, because so far, that hasn't been the case. - Merzbow (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Before we go on to the debate on "whose problem" it is to provide the quote, let me say some thing.
  • Wikipedians are not obliged to provide direct quotes from their sources in order for the material to be included. If this was true, I could force you to spend hours in the library in just providing quotes for all the sources used in this article.
  • However, if another user checks the reference (or claims to have), and finds that another wikipedian has misrepresented the material, then quotes must be provided to ensure that there is no misquoting.
  • Please note that if you don't have access to a source, and I provide a quote from it, then ultimately you must trust me for accurately giving you the quote. Thus, whether a user provides a quote or not, we trust him/her, unless we have access to the source.
So far Merzbow claims to have checked only the Lewis reference, obliging Devotus to provide the quote to sustain his addition. I don't think Devotus is obliged to provide the quote for other sources that Merzbow hasn't verified.Bless sins (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
A short sentence like that does not need a half-dozen cites to support it. The fact that the cite I checked has nothing to do with the text, unlike what Devotus claims, casts serious doubts on his other cites. The fact he is unwilling to spend 30 seconds providing the full quote from EI casts further doubt. If he wants to add controversial material to an article, he needs to go the extra mile. How would you like it if I dug up some book that only those with a $1000 university subscription could read, and used it as a source for "Muhammad tortured X and Y before killing them", and then said "forget it" when you ask me to provide the quote? Think about it. I know exactly what you'd say. - Merzbow (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
What you're asking of Devotus can be called a "favor". It'd be very nice of Devotus to do such a thing, but he's not under an obligation. I'm sorry that you don't have "$1000 university subscription" (I don't even know what that means).
"and then said "forget it" when you ask me to provide the quote" You're right that I'd get a bit emotional. Maybe even jealous that you had access to such resources that I didn't. But none of that would be legitimate.
I re-iterate my point to you: even if Devotus provided the quote, you would still be 100% dependent on him and would have to just trust him. Why not trust him now (and save him the trouble)?Bless sins (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Guys... we're trying to build an encyclopedia here. We're all colleagues - if someone would like insight into the passages cited from sources then providing that shouldn't even be an issue. ITAQALLAH 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that statement. We all should be more forthcoming to each other (and I include myself in this for sure.) Str1977 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Here the quote: "Trotz aller in gehässigen Sprüchen ausgeprägten fanatischen Gefühle ist in Form eines dem Propheten zugeschriebenen Ausspruchs folgender Grundsatz aufgestellt worden: 'Wer einem Juden oder Christen Unrecht tut, gegen den trete ich selbst (der Prophet) als Ankläger auf am Tage des Gerichts.'" You do not need a "$1000 university subscription" for getting acces to the EI1, neither for the SEI or the HdI. And Lewis cites a similar account, in the German edition (which does not use Roman numerals for the preface) on page 46, in the English edition on page 32; that's why I wrote "q.v." (quod videm).--Devotus (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And from the SEI: "Against all fanatical sentiment expressed in odious terms the following principle was established, in the form of a saying of Muhammad's: 'He who wrongs a Jew or a Christian will have myself (the Prophet) as his accuser on the day of judgement.'". On page 17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotus (talk • contribs) 11:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Established by whom, and what does this have to do with the BQ? And the Lewis ref still doesn't back up that sentence; I see no "similar" account. - Merzbow (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Muhammad quote is not needed in this article. I already explained why it is meaningless. We acknowledge the general fact that the BQ massacre was the model and give references for those scholars telling us this, including the Handwörterbuch, Lewis, Khadduri. I tagged the whole thing as "clarifyme" in case there is still doubt about whether all these say that.

I also tagged the Handwörterbuch as we still need the lemma - assuming that this works like Encyclopedias an and Lexica commonly do. What we do not need is to copy the reference section of that Encyclopedia.

In regard to different editions of Lewis: While I do not object in principle to the German version, the English version is preferred. Especially, if there seems to be disagreement that something is not found in the English version. The English is the original written by Lewis. Str1977 (talk)

I already explained why your assumption that it is meaningless is wrong. Refs have been given; if you can't check them it's your problem. The German edition of Lewis' book does not contain any differences regarding the content. Why do you need the lemma of the Handwörterbuch ref? it's the same as in the SEI and EI1: Ahl al-Kitab, written by Ignaz Goldziher.--Devotus (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Lewis: then why didn't Merzbow find the information?
Re Lemma: We need the lemma because that is how an encyclopedia is referenced. No one picks it up and looks for page numbers. Also, encyclopedia often have different authors for different lemmas. The lemma is the article.
One more question is the "Shorter encyclopedia" merely a translation of the "Handwöterbuch"? If so, the Handwörterbuch will have to go as we should not name the same reference twice. 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Since Merzbow claimed cite-check failed[7], Devotus seems to have changed the reference[8].
Are you saying that the information is not even present in that new reference?
As a side note, can you (Str1977) sign your comments? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have seen the change in the reference BUT Devotus above explains that there is no difference between the two editions. If there is no difference, Merzbow's point stands. I am defending his request against your attempts to censor it.
PS. I do sign my postings. No need to lecture me on that even if I forget it once. Str1977 (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Handwörterbuch des Islam is no translation of the Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, especially since it's been published 12 years before the SEI. Other than that I would like you to explain me why you don't want the quote to be in the article.--Devotus (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

All right. I was just asking whether they were one and the same in two languages. If they are different both may stand.
Why I don't want the quote?
You state the quote is meant to clarify but in fact the quote doesn't clarify anything. I explained above. In the quote, Muhammad warns Muslims to wrong Jews and Christians and threatens retribution on Judgment Day. Only, the quote doesn't say what "wronging Jews and Christians" actually is? Muhammad had the whole tribe of the BQ killed – was that wronging Jews? In his view probably not because he applauded the decision. So any Muslim bent on killing Jews could have taken the massacre as an example and state "I am not wronging Jews but punishing them!"
Furthermore, the quote doesn't add anything on the topic of the BQ. Str1977 (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote is an important addition to the claim that the execution of the Qurayza was no model for later relationship of the Muslim rulers towards their non-muslim subjects. But I do have to admit that it is not clear what "wrongs" means in this context; that's why I'll add another similar account, where Umar is supposed to have told his successor shortly before dying to "abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis of God and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax them beyond their capabilities."[9]. This will clarify the quote.--Devotus (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The Muhammad quote does not add anything to our coverage because it is so vague. I am quite open to any different account and will consider it. However, the "wrong a Jew" quote has to go. Str1977 (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The Umar quote is a bit more specific but still quite vague. However, if Muslim jurists quote these I am prepared to include both, the Muhammad and the Umar quote, in a footnote. What do you think? Str1977 (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why only mention them in a footnote? Scholarship generally accepts the fact that this was a principle: See the HdI ref (and accordingly the EI1 and SEI under the same lemma). See e.g. also Muhammad Hamidullah: "Muslim Conduct of State" (p.113f.), who quotes Abu Yusuf (Kitab al-Kharadj, p.69ff.): "O Commander of the Faithful (Amr al-Mu'minin, i.e. the caliph)... It is necessary that thou should treat the people who were protected by thy Prophet and thy cousin Muhammad (i.e. non-Muslim subjects) with leniency, and inquirest about their conditions so that they are neither oppressed nor given trouble nor taxed beyond their capacity, nor anything of theirs is taken from them except for a duty encumbering them. For it is reported from the Messenger of God who said: Whoever oppres a non-muslim subject or taxeth him beyond his capacity, then I shall be the opposite party to him in the litigation on Doomsday." But maybe you can show me scholars who disagree. Otherwise I see no reason for relativizing this simple but important fact. And why are the quotes vague? After I've added the Umar-quote it is clear what to wrong a dhimmi means.--Devotus (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Devotus, I am trying to compromise and you slap me maximalist demands in the face. I can do that too: Why include them at all. Both are vague and meaningless. Even the Umar one who says something about contracts and regulations. How does not contradict the possibility of applying the "BQ solution"? Str1977 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I too disagree with Str1977 putting them in the footnote. While putting very long and unnecessary quotes in footnotes is alright, these quotes are fine in the article.
I don't find either to be "vague" (if you want a clarification, ask), nor "meaningless". The quotes, in the manner included, seem to satisfy WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Is there any policy that would call for a removal of them?Bless sins (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If that is so, please explain to me in simple terms how the M quote and the U quote work in the context of this issue. How do they explain that the BQ massacre was not made the model? Things like that.
And because THAT is the issue, you can leave your policyquoting at the door. They don't mean a thing if the things that are "verified", "neutral" and "not originally researched" are not relevant to the passage. Str1977 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bless sins. Str1977: simply answer the question: are there any scholars disagreeing this? Regarding the context: as I repeatedly have told you, the quotes clarify that the Qurayzaexecution was no model for later behavious toward the ahl al-kitab.--Devotus (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with what?
The problem is that currently there is nothing to disagree with. Aside from view "BQ not taken as a model" - with which nobody disagreees, there is not argument.
The quotes do not clarify that but only give vague instructions "not to wrong Jews" and to "keep contracts with Jews" and "not to overtax Jews". I again ask: Where the BQ wronged by Muhammad? Did Muhammad keep his contract with the BQ? Were the BQ overtaxed?
The quotes don't add anything. My suggestion to keep them in footnotes (where they do not disrupt the chain of thought) was to my attempt to please you.
The alternative is: please explain to me the logical connection between any of the quotes and the statement "BQ not a model". Currently, it doesn't make sense. Str1977 (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree with the fact that the quote represents a principle.
  • The quotes are clear enough. Anyone who knows what a dhimmi is will understand what is meant.
  • The Qurayza have never been dhimmis. The quote deals with regular behaviour toward the ahl al-kitab, excluding the Qurayza, since it is mentioned in the text that their demise was no model for later treatment of the dhimmis.
  • The connection with the principle has already been explained several times.--Devotus (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • How does the quotes relate to the statement that tbe BQ were not the model.
  • I know what a dhimmi is but I still don't understand the quote.
  • "since it is mentioned in the text that their demise was no model for later treatment of the dhimmis" - what text? Can you quote this text to me? It might be the thing I am looking for.
  • No, you haven't yet explained it. Str1977 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not an answer to my question.
  • What part of the quotes don't you understand?
  • The text meaning the article.
  • Again: to avoid misunderstandings I mentioned - after the mentioning of ash-Shafii and others - that the way the Qurayza had been treated was not the normal way Muslims acted towards the ahl al-kitab. This claim is made in the EI1 unter "Ahl al-Kitab" (and thus in the SEI and HdI); it is clarified in the same ref by the quote in question. Since you are of the opinion the quote is not clear enough I added another quote clearly stating that "wronging" in this context means: a) breaking the defensive alliance made with the dhimmis b) not to protect them (fight for them) and c) to tax them beyond their capabilities. Thus the quotes are necessary, since they clarify on what basis the ahl al-kitab were normally treated.--Devotus (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Devotus,
What was your question?
My question was what the exact question between the statement "BQ were not the model" and the two quotes. Can you explain that to me.
The second quote did not clarify what "wronging" meant very much. Str1977 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If we wanted to describe the Dhimmis' situation we would have to do it comprehensively or at least give a summary of such a comprehensive treatment.
You say the BQ were not Dhimmis which is true because that concept only fully developed later. But was their situation so completely different? Would they have fared differently had they been Dhimmis? Str1977 (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is no spot for argumentation; the only thing to be cleared here is what the technical literature is saying about this topic. You can look up what my question was. Your question has been answered several times now.--Devotus (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I see no question by you and if you cannot repeat it I assume it wasn't that pressing after all.
If you mean by "the only thing to be cleared here is what the technical literature is saying about this topic" that we merely have to quote sources you are dead wrong. Currently, the quotes are included without any link in thought to the rest of the article. We have to include them in a proper form, in order to explain something, not merely for their own sake.
That way my question and my question has not been answered at all. Str1977 (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The question was: "are there any scholars disagreeing this?"[10] - "this" meaning the quote being a principle. Regarding your question: the reason for including the quotes has been explained several times now. The sentence of mine you just quoted meant that were not here to discuss why what was or wasn't, i.e. not here for discussions about the topic itself. That referred to your questions here.

Since I already explained several times why the quote is necesarry and not vague after the addition, and since you don't seem to be able to name scholars disagreeing the facts described in the text I see no reason for relativising all of this by making it a footnote or even deleting it at all.--Devotus (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. The problem is you haven't explained how the quote explains that the BQ massacre was not model.
A call for "scholars disagreeing" is futile. Irrelevant stuff should not be included.
If you don't like the footnote. Fine. Next time the quotes will be gone alltogether. Str1977 (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are you calling it "irrelevant". If a scholar says that the execution of the Banu Qurayza was never taken it sa a model, isn't that relevant to Banu Qurayza?Bless sins (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That is not irrelevant. I never said that. The statement that the BQ massacre was not taken as a model is certainly relevant, referenced and I support the inclusion 100%. My beef is with two quotes that thus have not been properly linked with that statement and hence with the article. Str1977 (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977: You're repeating yourself. Your question has been answered several times; the HdI itself clarifies the claim by mentioning that principle. The call is not futile at all: since you seem to doubt that the quote in question is a principle I wanted you to name scholars (academics that is) disagreeing that it was a principle. And as I said before, if you can't name such scholars I see no reason for relativising this simple fact.--Devotus (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am repeating myself because you are. My question remains unanswered. How are these quotes linked to the statement that the BQ were not taken as a model? Nothing in these quotes would have saved the BQ from their killers. Str1977 (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it that the sources are that use these quotes are actually making the argument "Banu Qurayza were not taken as models"?Bless sins (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977: the Banu Qurayza were no dhimmis. Regarding the link between the quotes and the statement: "Again: to avoid misunderstandings I mentioned - after the mentioning of ash-Shafii and others - that the way the Qurayza had been treated was not the normal way Muslims acted towards the ahl al-kitab. This claim is made in the EI1 unter "Ahl al-Kitab" (and thus in the SEI and HdI); it is clarified in the same ref by the quote in question. Since you are of the opinion the quote is not clear enough I added another quote clearly stating that "wronging" in this context means: a) breaking the defensive alliance made with the dhimmis b) not to protect them (fight for them) and c) to tax them beyond their capabilities. Thus the quotes are necessary, since they clarify on what basis the ahl al-kitab were normally treated"[11] --Devotus (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Devotus, shall I copy and paste my postings too? And we can do that ad infinitum. Only, that doesn't help anyone. I have read your posting before I replied to it.
So I am asking again: how are the quotes and out "not a model" statement are linked? Str1977 (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote is a principle on which the Muslims based themselves in the treatment of the dhimmis. It clarifies why the Qurayzaincident was no model for later behaviour, since normally the ahl al-kitab were not executed but protected. See the ref given.--Devotus (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We are getting nowhere with this. Simply saying that something "clarifies" something does not make it so. Maybe it would be of advantage if you provide a large citation explaining how this whole thing works.
I know that the BQ were not Dhimmis but they had a status in their city allying them to the Arab/Muslim tribes. An alliance in which both pledged to fight for one another against enemies. Still, at the end of the day, the BQ were dead at the hands of the Muslims, which cited treachery as a justification. That is what happened to the BQ - how does this conflict with the principles outlined by the two quotes. I simply don't see it. Str1977 (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. You have absolutely no justification for removing the tag from the section as long as there is doubt about the Lewis source. Merzbow looked up the English Lewis, didn't find what the reference claimed and hence tagged the section. You replaced the English Lewis with the German edition but also stated that there is no difference between them. What is it now. I will also inform Merzbow of this as it was him looking up Lewis. Str1977 (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you have time to revert but not time to explain, Devotus? Str1977 (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism

Str1977 has dragged the issue of terrorism in the discussion.[12]

Str1977 has accused me of "list[ing] a supporter of terrorism as a scholar." I find this accusation to be false. Thus, I'd like Str1977 to substantiate evidence that I've done such a thing.

Bless sins (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You know which scholar I am talking about. I will say no more. Str1977 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Str1977 has failed to substantiate his/her allegation showing that it was indeed false. I'd like to repeat my request to Str1977, that he/she not make any false allegations against myself or any other wikipedians.
Such a false allegation serve only to derail discussion.Bless sins (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My "allegation" is not false and not directed against any wikipedian. We both know who I am talking about so there is no need to go into that any further. Str1977 (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Str1977 has been blocked for 24 hours for continued incivility and personal attacks. Shell babelfish 08:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Given the block I went through, I consider this section closed. Any more comments needed (not stooping so low as I did before) I will post where it is appropriate. Str1977 (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tariq Ramadan

As Tariq Ramadan's own biography here on wikipedia states (completely sourced):

In September 2006, a State Department statement said: "A U.S. consular officer has denied Dr. Tariq Ramadan's visa application. The consular officer concluded that Dr. Ramadan was inadmissible based solely on his actions, which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization."[5][6] Between December 1998 and July 2002, Ramadan had given donations totalling $940 to two charity organizations, the Comité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (CBSP) and the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP).[7] The United States Treasury designated both the CBSP and ASP terrorist fundraising organizations for their alleged links to Hamas on August 22, 2003.[8] The U.S. Embassy told Ramadan that he "reasonably should have known" that the charities provided money to Hamas. In an article in The Washington Post, Ramadan asked: "How should I reasonably have known of their activities before the U.S. government itself knew ?"[9][10][11][12]

I think this alone proves he is not a reliable source for this topic, and shouldn't be included. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok so the American government accuses Ramadan of something, so he is not reliable (according to Yahel Guhan's reasoning). What if the Chinese government accused a scholar of something wrong? Would that scholar be unreliable? What if it was the Turkish government making accusations against a scholar on Armenian genocide?
Secondly Yahel Guhan ignores the fact that Ramadan's book is published by the Oxford University Press.Bless sins (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The US government stated that he financed Hamas, an antisemitic terrorist group; if that doesn't scream bias, I don't know what does. Now maybe NPOV only matters to you if the article opposes your agenda, but otherwise, it is an important policy to keep in mind when editing, something I have never noticed you do in your editing. The US governmet, unlike the Turkish government, has no connection to islam, or statement on it, and is therefore an unbias source to make such a discretion. If a Chinese government accused a scholar of something, it might mean that scholar is bias too. I don't care who the publisher is. Publishers are a business, not a source; they don't matter. Scholars write material, and therefore maters, not the publishers, so that arguement is irrelevant. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yahel said: " I don't care who the publisher is. Publishers are a business, not a source; they don't matter."
Unfortunately for you, wiki policies say the opposite thing: (from WP:V) "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability" (emphasis added)
Besides Ramadan is a research fellow at Oxford University.[13]Bless sins (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
All three, meaning no single one. Thus something can be written by a reliable publisher, and still be unreliable; you seem to be focusing only on one. Anyway, I'll initiate an RFC on this now. Lets get a (hopefully) unbias opinion on this. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You might not care about the publisher, Yahel, but Wikipedia policies do. "Thus something can be written by a reliable publisher, and still be unreliable" -- can you specify where exactly it says this in Wikipedia policy? Quotes about context will be irrelevant, as we know that OUP is a high calibre publisher and has a solid academic pedigree in the field of Islamic studies. ITAQALLAH 16:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
A user has requested comment on religion or philosophy for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCreli list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


Please read what has been stated above, and decide for us if Ramadan is a reliable source and/or how he/she should be included. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The source: "In the Footsteps of the Prophet"
  • Author: Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan is a Research Fellow at St. Anthony's College, Oxford University, and the Lokahi foundation.[14]
  • Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP). WP:V says "the most reliable sources are ... books published in university presses". OUP is the largest university press in the world.[15]

Bless sins (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since BS selectively quoted WP:V, and misrepresent the issue, I'll quote the policy and bold the relevant parts BS missed:

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

A few other notes to be aware of:

  1. The U.S. State department said "A U.S. consular officer has denied Dr. Tariq Ramadan's visa application. The consular officer concluded that Dr. Ramadan was inadmissible based solely on his actions, which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization'
  2. Between December 1998 and July 2002, Ramadan had given donations totalling $940 to two charity organizations, the Comité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (CBSP) and the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP).[7] The United States Treasury designated both the CBSP and ASP terrorist fundraising organizations for their alleged links to Hamas on August 22, 2003
  3. Hamas is a designated antisemitic Islamic terrorist organization.
  4. The Banu Qurayza is a jewish tribe that was persecuted by the muslims under Muhammad
  5. Context and NPOV are important in determining WP:V YahelGuhan (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
These "few other notes" you raise are red herrings - unless the US State department determines Wikipedia policy, which it doesn't. Bless sins certainly didn't misrepresent the policy, and you have failed to explain why the parts of policy you highlighted are relevant here (in short: they aren't). In fact, both the highlighted and non-highlighted passages seems to confirm that Ramadan should be included- considering that he is a scholar and is published in a top quality academic press renowned for its work in Islamic studies. ITAQALLAH 16:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
1. I didn't know that the U.S. state department is such an expert on deciding who is a scholar on early Islamic history. Maybe I should use Iranian state departments on deciding who is a scholar on Jewish history.
2. When Ramadan gave the donations the organizations were not classified as terrorist. After they were, Ramadan didn't donate to them anymore.
3. Not the links to Hamas are "alleged".
4. Completely false.
5. Sure they are. And I have provided some of Ramadan's credentials in the field.Bless sins (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Is this a joke? I said the US state department called him a terrorist supporter; they never questioned his scholarship directly
  2. yeah right.
  3. That only means the organizations have not been convicted yet.
  4. No it isn't. See the first paragraph, which explains exactly who they are and what Muhammad did to them. Once again, you seem to be misinterpriting basic english.

YahelGuhan (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand Yahel's concerns. They shouldn't be shrugged off.
However, despite Mr Ramadan's leanings and links to certain organisations, he is also a scholar. Scholars maybe all sorts of things apart from being a scholar.
The point I wanted to raise, albeit in maybe not acceptable terms, was that simply counting scholars and adding more and more is not neccessarily ensuring neutrality and balance, regardless of how often BS is sporting that idea in edit summaries. Neither does the size of a page (no matter how he calculates it) of any real importance to its quality. Str1977 (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Yahel makes a good case, but I do agree that a person's personal opinions don't detract from their reliability if they are qualified in the field and the material is published in an academic press. I think we'd all like to ensure that the issues in the article are covered in a way that is balanced, logical, and incorporates all viewpoints of significance. ITAQALLAH 16:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Str1977, we're not judge scholars b the way they spend their money. What Ramadan did was perfectly legal, else he would have been charged for his crime. Thus, the scholar is innocent until proven guilty in a fair court of law.
Secondly, regarding scholars. To ensure neutrality we must present fairly "all significant views". If we remove the views 11 different scholars, its hard to call our change as "neutral", as then we are far from presenting "all significant views".Bless sins (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, while is is correct that non-scholarly activities do not affect scholarly notability or reliability, they do tell us something about the personality - something that will also be present in their scholarship.
I agree in principle that we should present fairly all notable views. Nobody is disputing this. Only you claim that others are - you push the article in a certain and also make a few indifferent changes, count scholars and then call that more neutral. That's no valid argument. Str1977 (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"personality" is something we don't care about. We should not judge a source on its, say religion. Anyways, this matter seems settled.
What I count is the number scholars you remove in your reversions. If you removed the opinions of one or two scholars, one could still claim that the article is balanced. But if you don't like the views of 11 different scholars, it means the article has become unbalanced.Bless sins (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course we care about it. It is no reason to exclude someone but we have to take everything into account that could affect the balance and neutrality of the article.
Your calculations are nonsensical as I actually did not remove eleven scholars. At worst I removed references from eleven scholars (as I said, I don't probe into your numbers as the whole case is pointless) without removing these scholars alltogether.
You see, I say your version is unbalanced by adding either voices favourable to your POV (Ramadan being just one example) or by presenting them in such a way. Str1977 (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Then we agree that we shouldn't exclude someone on the basis of color, race, nation of origin, religion, sexual orientation, or other personal, non-scholarly affairs. Bless sins (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

{reset}Here are the scholars who were used as sources to the information you removed:

The above is the content that I have personally verified. In addition you are removing content sourced to:

  • Mahmoud Ayoub
  • Handwörterbuch des Islam

I'm confident that this content belongs in the article, though the sources I haven't personally verified.Bless sins (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said that these should be removed. No one should be removed alltogether if he or she has something notable to say on the topic. Notability in my eyes includes expertise.

As for your list - I never removed

though I removed some content referenced to some these (Ramadan, Watt, Nomani) but these fall into two categories:

  • small things that were not actually needed and that were often merely bad stylistic blurbs (e.g. Watt's "practically all" and Ramadan's "the feared the consequences of their treachery" especially - both are not needed and do push a POV)
  • larger parts that pertain to the two issues that are still controversial on this talk page: "Deuteronomy" and "BQ chose Sad". You can hardly say that I haven't provided reasons for removing these.

I did removed Abu-Nimer because his expertise is in a different field (and anyway, he falls into the "BQ chose Sad" field as well). In my latest edit, which you graciously destroyed, I even let a glimpse of Abu Nimer stand in a case where he seemed reliable and informative to me.

I removed Ceaser Farah (another misspelled name) because he fell into the Deuteronomy issue about which there is no consensus to include it.

Hossein Nasr I removed, that is, I removed a superfluous quote from Britannica. Britannica! We really do not need to quote another general encyclopedia. Furthermore, the way he was included was nonsense: Nasr's "Muhammad discovered" was contrast with Muslim tradition attributing such a discovery to "Gabriel". Actually, it doesn't. The decision to attack the BQ was attributed to "Gabriel" in tradition, not any discovery about wrongdoing by the BQ.

As for Mahmoud Ayoub and Handwörterbuch des Islam, I am not removing the content that's relevant to the article. That's my dispute with Devotus, who seems unwilling or unable to clearly explain how the quotes relate to the "no model" statement. "How" and not "that". He merely repeats that they do.

As you see I have good reason for each any every of my edits. Str1977 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Informal mediation?

Formal mediation didn't seem to work for some of the participants here, so what would everyone think about something informal? It looks like there's still some things that need sorting out and a few more editors have gotten involved, so maybe its possible to find a way to work things out at this point? Shell babelfish 08:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the issues under dispute have been discussed since September 2007 (see this). Any method that transcends mere discussion I welcome, since I think all of us are desperate to find a solution.Bless sins (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
An informal mediation has been going on thanks to the Jedi Master though his recent absence has halted matters. I am open to any efforts to make this a stable and balanced article and I would advise BS to adopt a more compromising and a less "being difficult" attitude. He should start with the Peters/Ahmed figures question.
Any formal medition however has been made impossible due to BS's choice to misuse the recent, unfortunately failed mediation and my subsequent vow. I also don't see any role for Shell in any solution. Too much has happened for that. Str1977 (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You just came off a block for personal attacks and immediately resume discussing other editors in a bad light. You need to find a way to discuss the article content that doesn't require you to bad-mouth other editors. Shell babelfish 12:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Shell, I am not personally attacking anyone. You should seriously consider your motives for your last posting. Str1977 (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"I am open to any efforts to make this a stable and balanced article " thn why not go through informal mediation?
"I also don't see any role for Shell in any solution." Actually, I think that the more users come to this article the better it is. We need more inputs, more suggestions, more opinions, and, may I say, more mediation, if we are ever to get past us two bickering.Bless sins (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not informal mediation? Yeah, why not. But you see, apart from Mik's absence we're at it.
That depends on who it is. Some people unfortunately have eroded my trust in them. And I don't think a combination that didn't work out in a past mediation is a good remedy for the future. Str1977 (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The mediation did work out in the past: we got over the issue of "massacre" and "execution".
Str1977, here is your choice: accept informal mediation for a chance to end this dispute. Or continue to address this dispute through reversions, and discussion that is fruitless more often than not.
As for me, I choose the former option, I want this dispute to end, so I can move on. What about you?Bless sins (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
All right, the medition yielded some results but then went of the rails. For the very same reasons that our discussion here does not proceed. You are not addressing my points but prefer to use rhetoric to justify reverting me.
In any case, what would be the difference between an informal mediation and what we already have?
I would want this dispute to end to but if that means yielding to each and every of your POV pushing aims I am not able to do it. Maybe it is time for you to realise that you have to move towards the others too, that you cannot turn this into a "Muhammad killed a couple of Jews who had it coming anyway and only have their selves to blame" article. Str1977 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
PS. Also you should not use false edit summaries like "the issues are still very much the same; accept Str1977's and Devotus' changes" - you accept none of my changes but simply blanket reverted.
The first thing you should address is the apparent contradiction regarding whether Ahmad has 600-900 Jews killed or whether they have to be much less. Str1977 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)