Talk:Battle of Khaybar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

An entry from Battle of Khaybar appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 8th May, 2006.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500) Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600–c. 1600)

	Saudi Arabia Portal This article is part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Saudi Arabia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

	Middle Ages Portal Battle of Khaybar is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

• Talk:Battle of Khaybar/archive1 (to June 2006)

Contents 1 =Did You Know? Template 2 NPOV 3 Moving 4 Totaly disputed 5 Suggested sources 6 Sources 7 "Muhammadan" 8 Disputed tag 9 Arrow740's reverts 9.1 Kinana 9.1.1 Bless sins' version 10 What I miss in this article 11 Contemporary scholars 12 Unsourced statement in introduction 13 Contemporary scholars 14 TotallyDisputed? 14.1 Muhammad: The Messenger of Allah 15 Arrow's revert 16 Unprotection? 17 Please do not editwar... 18 Partisan religious sources 19 Issues with article 20 Pogroms 21 the torturing Kinana 22 Nomination as a good article 23 Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

[edit] =Did You Know? Template

This article was listed on Did You Know as the result of an error; the template at the top of the page misleads the reader into thinking that it was legitimately listed there. Why is the (presumably honest) mistake being compounded by the restoration of this template? — JEREMY 08:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically it was listed as a DYK on both the 8th and 9th:

22:54 May 8th till 04:40 May 9th

• Start
• End

I agree with Jeremygbyrne though that the template shouldn't be there... I've removed it. Netscott 08:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, why shouldn't the template be there?Timothy Usher 08:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Due to the logic that Jeremy has expressed. Netscott 08:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the folks who work on DYK might be the ultimate decision makers over this. Jeremy, I'd recommend you contact those folks. As this'll likely deteriorate into an edit war otherwise. Netscott 08:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. The template reads only a statement of fact, and is accurate in that. It doesn't say it righteously and gloriously appeared on DYK, or anything like that.Timothy Usher 08:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Original research"? Pull the other one. — JEREMY 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I continue not to understand what the problem can be with this perfectly standard template which neutrally reports a fact. Why not follow up on Netscott's suggestion?Timothy Usher 07:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I simply can't make myself believe that you don't understand, Timothy. You might disagree, but you understand perfectly well my contention that the template misleads others into thinking the article was a legitimate DYK entry, instead of being removed from that category because it had been promoted against the rules. (Wow, deju va!) — JEREMY 08:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the listings' last mention on the DYK suggestion page showing no dispute. Please provide a link proving your point. --tickle me 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a completely nonsensical assertion that the article was listed on DYK as a result of an error; furthermore, there is no policy, guideline or whatever saying that the Did you know template should be removed from an article's talk page under certain circumstances. If Netscott or JEREMY thought the article should not appear on the Main Page, they should have stated their arguments on the Did you know talk page. It's silly to raise issues several months after the fact. Pecher ^Talk 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing "nonsensical" about it. It was listed in error and was subsequently removed for that error (see also section second from bottom on this diff). The situation was rectified immediately, but certain editors edit-warred the template back onto the page despite knowing full well that the error had been made. — JEREMY 13:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know says: "Eligible articles may only be up to 5 days old, or significantly expanded beyond 1000 characters in the last 5 days." This article was expanded from a stub before being shown on the Main Page, so it was not shown in error, even if one admin thinks it was. That the article was on the Main Page is a fact, don't try to suppress it. Pecher ^Talk 13:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It might say that now, but it most certainly didn't then. If you'd even bothered to glance at the page you'd have noticed the big, bold notice saying THESE ITEMS MUST BE NO MORE THAN 120 HOURS (5 days) OLD! I'm not "suppressing" anything, and I'd thank you not to make such ad hominem attacks. — JEREMY 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It had been an unwritten rule for quite long before it was finally codified. If you look through the archives, you'll find lots of articles unstubbed and then featured in the Did you know. Pecher ^Talk 07:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be the secret-handshake unwritten rule known only to the 133ts like yourself, as opposed to the rest of us chumps who took the CAPITALISED, BOLDED WARNING at face value? Bzzzt. Sorry: no credibility for you. — JEREMY 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have context on what the problem was, and wasn't the admin that added the selection or the template but I'm not sure I see the harm in leaving the template on the talk page. You could add a note if you wanted that it was added by mistake. But it's not a big deal, DYK is supposed to be fun and a way to introduce readers to new articles (that they might be able to improve). Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Having apparently exhausted logical discourse after every one of his objections has been addressed with undeniably factual evidence, User:Pecher — returning unrepentant from a 24-hour ban for edit-warring — is now chosing to merely revert my alteration to the template describing the mechanism by which this article was gamed into DYK and thus onto the main page. Perhaps he or his supporters might suggest a compromise they'd be happy with, so we can all move on? — JEREMY 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unstubbed articles are just as valid for DYK as newly-created articles. Regardless, it makes no sense to remove a template specifying that this article was once on the main page, when it in fact was once on the main page. Articles that used to be Featured but were delisted still have a notice saying that they were on the main page when they were featured, simply because removing that notice makes no sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-10 07:26

I suppose, the issue is settled now. Pecher ^Talk 13:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was misinformed by Pecher that the article was unstubbed. It was definitely an invalid nomination. I'm neutral about whether the notice should be removed or not. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-10 16:50

Here is the unstubbing diff[1]. The previous version[2] was a stub. How come I misinformed you? Pecher ^Talk 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Going back a bit more into history shows that the article has experienced lots of changes. --Aminz 20:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The article was stubbed because a prior version was a blatant POV copyvio; see discussion above. Pecher ^Talk 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I was misinformed by Jeremy that it was not a stub, when it clearly was. Either way, just keep me out of this debate, since I have no clue what any of your motives are. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-10 21:17

Guys, the article was selected, rightly or wrongly. That's all that matters. I'm with Brian on this one, why does this matter in the grand scheme of things? ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I see this article as anti-Muslim. It is based on western histories which are in fact derived and twisted from Muslim ones. Prophet Muhammad did not actually participate in Khaybar, he sent his cousin Ali as the leader of the army which is a known fact to all Muslims. Why is this stated as a fact->"Kinana ibn al-Rabi, the treasurer of Banu Nadir, whom Muhammad's followers first tortured, demanding to reveal the location of the hidden treasures of his tribe, and then beheaded" This is not true, torture to prisoners is forbidden to the Muslims, I am a Muslim and I know that Muslims especially at the time of the prophet were the most merciful conqueres in history, otherwise not so many people would be muslims today. Sure, booty was one of the goals, but the main reason of the conquest of Khaybar was that the Jews in Khaybar proved to be mortal enemies to the Muslims by helping the Alliance at the battle of the trench, spying, and ultimately attempted to take the life of the prophet. The prophet couldn't deal with them before because he was threatend by Quraish. Banu Quraizah were judged by a dying companion of the prophet named Sa'ad Ibn Ubadah. He was shot by an arrow during the battle of the trench, he was asked by the prophet to judge a suitable punishment for their betrayal of the alliance between them and the Muslims. Hence, he judged their men to be killed and their sons and women to be enslaved. This severe punishment is suitable for allying themselves with the Muslims and when combat starts they try to stab the Muslims from the back. This has nothing to do with them being Jews, it has to do everything with their betrayal

Hamidious 13:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Why does that battle have a lage dump of non-Muslim view to start with? Why can't i read any Muslim views there? --Striver 21:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wtf? The article then procedes with a long bable on their inocense and peace loving-merchant-only greatness and then mind-reads Muhammad's evil motives?! --Striver 21:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"His henchmen stole into Khaybar at night and assassinated Abu al-Rafi ibn Abi al-Huqayq, one of the Khaybar chieftains. "? Is that a neutral tone? --Striver 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Striver, this is a report of fact.How else you would like people to write it?132.72.149.74 05:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving

This article is about events relevant to the battle , info about the century old history of khaybar does belong to Khaybar and not here, so i am moving it there. --Striver 23:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totaly disputed

OMG! Look at this:

"The conquest of Khaybar would enable him to satisfy with ample booty his companions who, having hoped to capture Mecca, were disappointed and discontented at the treaty with the Meccans. In addition, the Hudaybiyya agreement gave him the assurance of not being attacked by the Meccans during the expedition."

Even basic understanding of the events shows that they did have no hopes of capturing Mecca prior to the treaty of hudaybia, there is 0 (zero) probability that any scholar whould claim that, and still is that sentence referenced to two scholars. This puts the accuracy of the entire article under question. --Striver 23:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Again the article got it wrong, Bukhari explicitly includes hadith were horse meat are declared halal during this particular incident. --Striver 23:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested sources

Below are some books by scholars that might (from their titles) prove relevant to this article. They should be available in large university libraries. Just suggestions. I haven't had a chance to track down any of them yet. All the authors have other publications too.

G. R. Hawting (2000), The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hugh Kennedy (2006),The Byzantine And Early Islamic Near East (Collected Studies, Cs860)., Ashgate

Hugh Kennedy (2001), The armies of the caliphs : military and society in the early Islamic state, London: Routledge

Michael Lecker (1999), Jews and Arabs in Pre- And Early Islamic Arabia (Collected Studies Series, 639), Ashgate

Michael Lecker (1995), Muslims, Jews, and Pagans: Studies on Early Islamic Medina (Islamic History and Civilization. Studies and Texts, V. 13)

Institutional affiliation of authors Hawting – SOAS, University of London Kennedy – not known but books are reviewed in scholarly journals Lecker– Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Itsmejudith 09:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry the edit I just made[3] was not minor.Bless sins 13:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need to mention Banu Qurayza in "Background" section. I think it should be removed.Bless sins 23:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, you should not add claims such as "Muhammad moved to attack Khaybar in response to the settlement's incitement against the Madinah." without a source. Inserting such POV material isn't made acceptable by including a fact tag. It would appear that you are going to every article about Arabian Jews and inserting material to suggest that they fully deserved their grim fate, and are willing to use baseless claims from partisan/extremist sources or even no sources at all to do this.Proabivouac 07:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, what does Watt say?Proabivouac 08:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You can find it in one of my emails to you (do you remember? ) it discussed the views of Cateani and Watt... I'll try to find the quote and post it here. --Aminz 08:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The article in EI is written by L. Veccia Vaglieri so the statements made by the article are POV of Vaglieri. The article says: "If one accepts the idea of commercial activities undertaken especially by the Jews of Medina, one understands better the reasons for which Muhammad attacked them in particular. His hostility towards the Jews would have had economic causes similar to those which have brought about persecutions and pogroms in so many countries during the course of history...According to Caetani, Muhammad was moved to attack kh̲aybar by motives of political opportunism: on the one hand, the pact concluded with Quraysh at Hudaybiyya gave him the assurance of not being attacked by them during the expedition; on the other hand, if he conquered khaybar he wouldbe able to satisfy with ample booty those of his companions who, having hoped to capture Mecca, were disappointed and discontented...Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu 'l-Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood. So Muhammad had not only a just motive for attacking them, but there was also the positive necessity to destroy these enemies, more formidable even than the Quraysh because of their adherence to their own religion, their intelligence and their superior culture. Muhammad Husayn Haykal (385-6) maintains that the Prophet did not feel sure of the northern fringes of the peninsular: he was afraid lest the Jews established in the oases of Northern Arabia betray him, and lest Heraclius and Kisra seek help from them against him. The sources give support to the view of Montgomery Watt, showing that the Jews, already responsible for the coalition which had laid siege to Medina in 5 A.H. and worried by the growing power of the Prophet, continued to stir up the Arabs against him. Haykal's opinion, however, is to be rejected in that it is inappropriate to consider an event in the light of subsequent developments. In the year 7 A.H. Muhammad was not yet a figure to be reckoned with in the estimation of the rulers of the empires to the north of the peninsular. While giving full credit to the opinion of Montgomery Watt, one should not overlook the fact that the Prophet was in great need of arms and money to accomplish his objectives and he knew that he could find these among the Jews at khaybar (the sources give precise details of the number and type of arms captured by the Muslims from the Jews at Medina and at khaybar.)." --Aminz 08:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If we have the relevant passage from Watt and Caetani, we can creat a passage which presents Caetani's, Watt's and Vaglieri's views in sequence. It does not seem to me that Vaglieri is dismissing Watt's view out of hand, only observing that Caetani's reasoning is equally valid.Proabivouac 09:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It also seems that Vaglieri is more pro Caetani than Watt. He does accept Watt's view but has his own view as well as in "While giving full credit to the opinion of Montgomery Watt, one should not overlook the fact ...". I need to go now but will try to find the other sources. Cheers, --Aminz 09:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

There should be no problem with sources in an article like this. We have the three classical historians who wrote about the life of Muhammad; Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari and al-Waqidi. It would be most proper to build the base of the article around what they have written, and add modern historians and their commentaries afterwards. This would guarantee an article which there should be no need to make long discussions about. --Fjellgauk 06:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we may also want to mention Haykal's view and then say that Vaglieri rejects his view because he consider the event "in the light of subsequent developments". --Aminz 09:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Muhammadan"

Zora, you are absolutely correct that we should not use the term "Muhammadan." Thank you for correcting that.Proabivouac 07:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed tag

Might someone explain to me how the factual accuracy of this entire article is disputed?Proabivouac 01:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you mean that the tag should be moved to a relevent section in the article, then you seem to be correct. But I think Aminz can explain this better (since he put this tag).Bless sins 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a message on his talk page[4], he shoudl respond soon. Thanks for being patient.Bless sins 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you stated[5] that I added these edits and put a fact tag on them. Infact I only put a fact tag[6], the edis were made by some anon (68.145.173.96). I don't like it when people accuse me of something I didn't do. You also said "It would appear that you are going to every article about Arabian Jews and inserting material to suggest that they fully deserved their grim fate, and are willing to use baseless claims from partisan/extremist sources or even no sources at all to do this". I have only gone to three articles, and have cited all my edits:

• Banu Qaynuqa: my edits were cited to Nomani, Watt, Ibn Kathir, (translated by Guillame), who sourced Ibn Ishaq.
• Banu Qurayza: edits sourced to Maududi (I know you don't like him), Gene W. Heck, Mubarakpuri
• Battle of Khaybar: Ibn Hisham (translated by Guillame), and Mubarakpuri.

None of them is an extremist source. Maududi may seem a religious source, but he is still not an extremist source, and well noted for his scholarship in the Muslim world, and by Western scholars.Bless sins 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

1. "Contemporary scholars believe that Muhammad moved to attack Khaybar in order to raise his prestige among his followers, as well as to capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests." This is quite factually wrong. 2. "Seen in this light, Muhammad's attacks against the Jews, first in Medina and then in Khaybar, have economic roots similar to those which have brought about persecutions and pogroms in other countries in the course of history." Usage of the terms pogroms,etc etc when the source doesn't mention it is meaningful. It is not even faithful to the source. "If one accepts"--> "Seen in this light" 3. All in all, the whole article is terribly POV and badly needs a cleanup. --Aminz 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

1. This is exactly as in referenced sources. Anyway, that's a matter of opinion rather fact. 2. Your assertion is simply false. The sources does mention the word "pogroms". 3. No good reasons have been stated to support this claim. Beit Or 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary scholars, right! See my post on 08:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC). --Aminz 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have anything to say on this subject, say it here and say it concisely. Beit Or 20:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu 'l-Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood. So Muhammad had not only a just motive for attacking them, but there was also the positive necessity to destroy these enemies, more formidable even than the Quraysh because of their adherence to their own religion, their intelligence and their superior culture." --Aminz 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So, what's the problem with adding Watt's view? He is merely restating Ibn Ishaq. Why are you defacing one article after another with disputed tags instead of improving them? Beit Or 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently Arrow740 is disputing parts of the article by reverting.Bless sins 15:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, re: "I don't like it when people accuse me of something I didn't do." You're quite correct. I apologize for having inadvertently mischaracterized your edits. No one likes false accusations, and I completely understand why it upset you. Apologies.Proabivouac 22:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arrow740's reverts

The section Battle_of_Khaybar#Muhammad.27s_marriage in Arrow740's reverts [7] is absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, it says that "According to ibn Ishaq...", but the statements are sourced to ibn Hisham. Secondly, this is not at all what ibn Hisham says. I looked ibn Hisham up, and this is a clearly a misrepresentation of ibn Hisham. About the negotiations. I didn't really remove any sources, like Arrow740 alleges "replace secondary sources..." nor did I add any new "primary sources". Arrow740's mass removal is totally unjustified.Bless sins 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham are mostly interchangeable since Ibn Hisham's sira is an abbreviated version of Ibn Ishaq's. You must substantiate your claim of misrepresentation. Beit Or 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I was quite clear in my edit summary as to why I undid your revert, BS. Arrow740 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually expanded and detailed the part on Kinana ibn Rabi, why are my edits reverted?? I also added to the "Negotiations" section, while Arrow740 is deleting. It is Arrow740 and Beit Or who need to explain and justify their reverts.Bless sins 22:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The sectioning is correct, and no need to dub it as "over-secitoning". If there were more than three fortresses then add information about them as well. Also, none has really explained my reverts on the talk.Bless sins 04:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless Sins, re Watt, it is a given that his view is notable and should be represented. However, you're pushing it too far, giving him significantly more space and clearly taking his position. Vaglieri opines...Montgomery Watt, however, draws attention to the fact that...was, in fact..." This is a clear example of biased editing. I will revert it, and we can discuss some reasonable compromise here.Proabivouac 04:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then we can change "draws attention to the fact that" to "argues". Why did you delete the entire edit? My edits in other secitons like "Negotiations" and "Kinana al-Rabi" were sourced and relevent. Why did you delete them?Bless sins 05:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you revert my edits without completely reading that which you were reverting?Bless sins 05:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't. We also should be treating potentially controversial facts from Mubarakpuri "with caution" per WP:RS, as we've discussed elsewhere. Instead you've treated it as just another source of valid facts. We should be relying upon Watt and other academics wherever possible. If and where Sealed Nectar is relaying a real Islamic tradition, as is often the case, we should characterize it as such, with reference to the primary sources as well. But that is just my opinion.Proabivouac 05:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we start with Watt and work our way downward? It'll take a little bit longer on talk, but it should avoid edit-warring and allow your material to stay. As it is, you've been editting against consensus (not a criticism, just an observation.)Proabivouac 05:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac,can you explain your recent revert. I can see an interesting point in your recent revert [8]: "Veccia Vaglieri opines" is replaced with "nowadays the common opinion among academics is". Indeed Nice! --Aminz 05:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, would you give me a minute? I'd already attributed the most controversial sentence before you showed up with your snarky comment, and I'm right now writing a compromise version for Watt. So hold on. Bear in mind that the siege engine point isn't really controversial, but the stuff about progroms is clearly so, and we must take care that it's presented neutrally.Proabivouac 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also "Seen in this light" is different from "If one accepts the idea of commercial activities undertaken especially by the Jews of Medina". Further, there is no reason to follow EoI's order. i.e. adding Watt's quote after Veccia Vaglieri. Watt is certainly more renowned than Veccia Vaglieri. It is the best to state different possible motifs in one sentence rather than first saying one view and then another view later.--Aminz 05:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's unfortunately impossible. However, I don't care about the order. Rather, I want to make certain that all these sources are being accurately represented and are neutrally presented.

"Seen in this light"...what difference would it make? No one denies they were traders, and even if they were just hoarding goods for themselves, it would only make Vaglieri's claim that much more likely.Proabivouac 05:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac: I want to assume good faith for your edits, but you haven't responded to me as to why you removed my additions from "Negotiations" and "Kinana al-Rabi". Please do so.Bless sins 05:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to address everything, as we all should be. You can hardly blame me for the edit-warring which has plagued this page. Let's go through this one by one, and methodically. To start with, the scheming material does not belong under "Khaybar in the seventh century." It was placed there, apparently, to argue against Vaglieri's claim. The more logical place for it is in the section below, "Muhammad and the Jews of Medina." Would you agree?Proabivouac 05:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. I think "Muhammad and the Jews of Medina" should not exist, as no one identifies this conflict as Jewish-Muslim. Even Vaglieri suggests the reasons were financial. Thus we should replace "Muhammad and the Jews of Medina" with "Political situation" or something like that. There we can present the poltics of the battle, including both Vaglieri and Watt. Btw, Im not blaming you of editwarring, I'm just upset that you reverted EVERYTHING I posted.Bless sins 06:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I tend to agree with you about the section title. Though it is obviously largely Muslims vs. Jews here, that will be obvious from reading the text and we don't need to prejudge it. First question: why was Watt sourced to Vaglieri? I had just moved that section over from the previous version. Can someone fix that?

As for Kinana al-Rabi, I agree that there is oversectioning here, and in reverse. He killed al Rabi, then took his wife. The version you've given is, first, cited only to Sealed Nectar, a source which must be "treated with caution," per WP:RS. So let's make sure we're doing that. Second - and this is one thing what I'd objected to before - it clearly makes al-Rabi sound like the bad guy here, which isn't quite fair to a fellow who was tortured and beheaded. Let's see if we can find a way to present topical material without arguing either side, and let the facts speak for themselves.

I also would like to make sure that we give everyone time to weigh in. Would that be alright? I've also solicited FayssalF's involvement here.[9]Proabivouac 06:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Good we agree about the title. Then perhaps we should put both Vaglieri and Watt there. We can leave "Khaybar in the seventh century" for geographical facts. The reason Watt is sourced to Vaglieri, is that Vaglieri him/herself presents many different views. One of the views that Vaglieri finds credible is Watt's (he/she dismisses another view).

2. Note that you removed my references from Shibli Nomani and other sources. We will eventually have to put them in.

3. About al-Rabi let's wirte up something below. Everything is sourced to ibn Hisham except "breaching the agreements with Muslims" which is sourced to Muarakpuri. He states that al-Rabi was bound by agreements to not hide anything from the Muslims.

4. About the negotiations, I think my version was perfectly netural.

From now on let's contniue our discussion on this numerical basis.Bless sins 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kinana

According to ibn Hisham, Kinana ibn al-Rabi was inquired about the treasure surrendered to Muslims as part of the negotiations. Upon denying knowlege of the treasure, Al-Rabi was warned that he would be executed for breaching the agreements with Muslims.^[1] However, al-Rabi maintained that he had no knowlege of the treasure. Then, a Jew reported to Muslims that he had witnessed al-Rabi going round a certian ruin. When the ruin was excavated, the treasure was found and al-Rabi was asked to produce the rest. Upon repeated refusal, Zubayr al-Awwam burnt al-Rabi's chest. After that Muhammad bin Maslama beheaded al-Rabi in revenge for killing his brother Mahmud. ^[2]

How do you want to make the above netural?Bless sins 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Guillaume's translation of the relevant passage is as follows: "Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought"), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes". The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has." So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud."

• To begin with, we can remove the portion cited to Mubarakpuri.Here is the section of Sealed Nectar which discusses these events. The description of the death of Kinana doesn't give any source (I can only presume because it would help readers find the original passage) and is so sanitized as to constitute disinformation. Clearly, Mubarakpuri is very uncomfortable with the event, and appears to have invented a justification for it not found in Ibn Hisham.
• He was warned he would be killed if the treasure was found after the informant told them about the ruin. There's no indication that at any point he was given the choice of disclosing its location or being excecuted; his only choice was whether to be tortured or not at a point when his excecution had already been decided.
• You've omitted the fact that Zubayr didn't act on his own initiative; Muhammad had ordered Zubayr to "Torture him until you extract what he has."
• Zubayr didn't just "burn his chest," he kindled a fire upon it until Kinana was nearly dead.
• You've omitted the fact that Muhammad handed Kinana over to Muhammad bin Maslama.

Now consider the current version: "According to ibn Ishaq, Muhammad's followers tortured al-Rabi, demanding to reveal the location of the hidden treasures of his tribe, and then beheaded him." This, too, makes it sound like Muhammad's followers did it of their own accord. Not so.

I would propose this:

According to Ibn Ishaq, when Muhammad asked him to locate the tribes’ treasure, al-Rabi denied knowing where it was. A Jew told Muhammad that he had seen Al-Rabi near a certain ruin every morning. When the ruin was excavated, it was found to contain some of the treasure. Muhammad ordered Al-Zubayr to torture al-Rabi until he revealed the location of the rest, then handed him to Muhammad ibn Maslamah, whose brother had died in the battle, to be beheaded.

For obvious reasons, this has been a difficult passage to write. I have done my best to summarize it neutrally and dispassionately. Al-Rabi lied to Muhammad and was caught, which neutrality requires us to mention, but wasn't mentioned before. At the same time, Muhammad's central role wasn't mentioned. Please note that al-Rabi hadn't done anything to Mahmud ibn Maslamah, who, according to the same source, was the first to fall in battle when a millstone was thrown at him from the fort of Na'im.Proabivouac 07:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion (mostly a paraphrase of the above):

According to Ibn Ishaq, when Muhammad asked Kinana al-Rabi to locate the treasure of the Banu Nadir, al-Rabi denied knowing where it was. A Jew told the leader of Muslims that he had seen al-Rabi near a certain ruin every morning. When the ruin was excavated, it was found to contain some of the treasure. Muhammad ordered al-Zubayr to torture Kinana until he revealed the location of the rest. Al-Zubayr struck fire into al-Rabi's chest so that the latter was nearly dead. Muhammad then handed Kinana to Muhammad ibn Maslamah, who beheaded the treasurer of the Nadir.

The suggested version contains not only Muhammad's orders, but also their result: Muhammad ordered al-Zubayr to torture Kinana and Zubayr did so. Beit Or 08:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know the scholarly view on this? Putting aside Muslim sources, the academic sources rarely talk about this. EoI article on Kinana doesn't even mention this incident. --Aminz 09:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Both Beit Or's and Proabivouac's versions have two problems. Firstly, neither of you take into account that Muhammad said to the man :""Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes"." Clearly Muhammad warned the man of the penalty he was about to face. This was done on a suspicion of an informant, but before the evidence (treasure) was found.

Secondly, Muhammad bin Maslama beheaded al-Rabi in revenge for killing his brother Mahmud. Neitehr of you say that.

Thirdly, al-Mubarakpuri maintains that the concealment of the truth (in other words lying), was forbidden by the treaty. Mubarakpuri is a valid source.

This is what I propose (a compromise version that includes everything):

According to Ibn Hisham, Muhammad inquired Kinana al-Rabi, about the treasure of Banu Nadir. Mubarakpuri states that al-Rabi was bound by agreements between Khaybar and Muhammad to reveal the location of the treasure.[ref] A Jew told Muhammad that he had seen al-Rabi, who had custody of the treasure, go round a certain ruin the every morning. Muhammad asked al-Rabi if he knew that he would be executed if the treaure was found, to which the latter said "yes". When the site was excavated, some of the treaure was found. Al-Zubayr then, on Muhammad's orders, kindled a fire with flint and steel on al-Rabi's chest, until the latter was nearly dead. Al-Rabi was given to Muhammad bin Maslama who beheaded him in revenge for killing his brother Mahmud.

Once again the advantage of this version is that it includes everything.Bless sins 14:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Including everything can't be our goal, or the article will become extremely long. In particular, "Muhammad asked al-Rabi if he knew that he would be executed if the treaure was found, to which the latter said "yes"." per my earlier comments, adds nothing. His chance to spare his life by leading them to the treasure had already passsed; all it does is confirm that, by this time, he knew his execution was imminent if the excavation was successful. I really don't see what is gained by specifying the details of his torture, although as I'm not in the business of suprressing information, I suppose we can if ou both think it important. However, Muhammad isn't said to have ordered Al-Zubayr to start a fire on his chest per se, but to torture him until he reveals the rest of the treasure. It's not presented as a punishment, but as an incentive (as he's already going to be executed anyhow.) As for revenge, please take note of my earlier comments. "Al-Rabi was given" should be active, "[Muhammad] handed him." It is an important detail that Mahmud died in battle (the first to fall, according to the narrative), and that implicitly, Muhammad is throwing ibn Maslama a bone by allowing him the honor of the act. However, the narrative makes it clear that Al-Rabi is executed for anything he'd done to ibn Malama, but as punishment having lied about the treasure. The "revenge" wording obscures both of these points. I believe my version is the shortest and most informative of the three proposals.Proabivouac 02:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I couldn't find your earlier comments. "His chance to spare his life by leading them to the treasure had already passsed"? Why? ""Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought"), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes"."--Aminz 03:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say, "If you don't tell us where it is, we'll kill you," but "if we find it [there];" they'd already been told where it was by the Jewish informant. Finding it there would show (as it did) that Kinana had lied to Muhammad. What would be the point of offering to spare his life for telling them what they now already know - a chance that wasn't given later when there was actually more treasure to be located? If there is a sort of second chance being offered here, it is too ambiguous for us to summarize it with any degree of confidence.Proabivouac 03:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that Kinana's chance was already exhausted. We don't know what would have happened if he had confessed that he had lied. If the story is true, it at least proved to Muhammad that he is a liar and doesn't admit it even until the last minute. So, this might have been a reason for his torture (again if it happened)--Aminz 03:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he was given another chance, but there's nothing in the text to suggest that. Observe that I am not inclined to affirm in the text, "His sentence by this time was fixed," for the same reason we shouldn't be deploying the text to suggest something it doesn't. It's a primary source, so must be treated with caution, sticking only to the least ambiguous points.Proabivouac 04:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"So, this might have been a reason for his torture." Arrow740 06:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And there is nothing in the text which denies that he was not given another chance. We don't know and we should be cautious. --Aminz 07:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing in the text that denies he was set upon by winged monkeys from the seventh dimension, either. Does caution require us to mention this as a possibility? "Nowhere does Ibn Ishaq deny the possibly that..."Proabivouac 08:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sin's comment explains why we should include:""Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes"." What this could have been meant? We don't know. It requires a secondary source to explain it. But it does add something to the article. Other points of Bless sin's should be also discussed. I need to go now. Will be back later. --Aminz 08:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this section is becoming longer and longer, and thus more prominent. I believe that itself may violates undue weight - we are talking one passage in Ibn Ishaq here. Lingering over either Al-Rabi's perfidy or suffering is undue weight in either direction. If we're to include every possible nuance of the passage in both directions, we may as well blockquote the whole thing, but I think that'd be a real disservice to the reader and the encyclopedia. Let's just state this briefly and factually (i.e., only what is necessary to gain a bare understanding of the situation) and be done with it. This isn't Kinana ibn al-Rabi, where a blockquote would be appropriate.Proabivouac 08:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any good argument for the inclusion of these two sentences. They only repeat that Muhammad attempted to extort the treasure threatening Kinana with death. This is, however, already clear from the rest of the passage. Beit Or 08:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is actually not clear to me, either. Rather, Muhammad is merely informing him that he will be executed if the treasure is found in the ruin. There isn't any point at which Muhammad states, "tell us where it is, or I'll kill you." Of course I agree with you that this sentence is uninformative. It's as if he asked, "do you know who I am?" and Kinana replied "yes;" just dialogue between events.Proabivouac 09:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Direct speech must usually be kept away from historical articles unless these dialogues or quotes are themselves notable. See Battle of Salamis, for example. Beit Or 09:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the we are giving undue weight then let's just say that al-Rabi was executed, and link to Kinana ibn al-Rabi. Proabivouac, I think we must provide all details. I don't think it is fair to provide the reader with torture narrative, but omit Muhammad's warning. The reader can think whatever they want to think but we present what ibn Hisham says correctly, and fully. If you want to omit a detail - so do I, but for the sake of NPOV, let's just provide everything.Bless sins 13:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A general comment, you should understand that by using Ibn Hisham you're opening Pandora's box. Arrow740 19:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is one of the primary sources. NOT using it would violate NPOV. Wandalstouring 20:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole story come from Ibn Ishaq as transmitted by Ibn Hisham. If we discard him, we'll have nothing to write about. Beit Or 21:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

<reset>My point is that if we rely on Ibn Hisham as the main source instead of modern scholars in this article, where he is being used to portray Jews in a negative light, then other editors will use Ibn Hisham and the hadith to inform about Muhammad's murders, sexual escapades etc in the main articles. So BS should tread carefully. Arrow740 21:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you have to be careful with any assessments in primary sources and provide some background info about the source, but that is the common problem with ALL primary sources. You can provide some commonly agreed points (by modern scholars) about how the primary sources presents events, so the reader understands what is an opinion and what is an event. Come on, have you guys never read the intro of a scholar who works with primary sources? They all try to find out the POV of their sources first. Wandalstouring 00:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bless sins' version

Bless sins, you asked me on my user talk what was wrong with your version of the Kinana passage, so per your request, I'll reiterate my objections:

"According to Ibn Hisham, Muhammad inquired Kinana al-Rabi, about the treasure of Banu Nadir. Mubarakpuri states that al-Rabi was bound by agreements between Khaybar and Muhammad to reveal the location of the treasure.[ref] A Jew told Muhammad that he had seen al-Rabi, who had custody of the treasure, go round a certain ruin the every morning. Muhammad asked al-Rabi if he knew that he would be executed if the treaure was found, to which the latter said "yes". When the site was excavated, some of the treaure was found. Al-Zubayr then, on Muhammad's orders, kindled a fire with flint and steel on al-Rabi's chest, until the latter was nearly dead. Al-Rabi was given to Muhammad bin Maslama who beheaded him in revenge for killing his brother Mahmud."

Putting aside the unacceptable awkwardness of some of the text (e.g. "Muhammad inquired Kinana al-Rabi, about the treasure of Banu Nadir."):

• Mubarakpuri is a religious/partisan source, and does not substantiate his claim here (so far as we can tell, he made it up, as Ibn Ishaq mentions no such agreement.)
• You've eliminated the explicitly-stated purpose of torturing Al-Rabi - to compel him to reveal the location of the rest of the treasure - while falsely stating that Muhammad ordered the specific manner of torture, making it sound (especially in conjunction with the irrelevant dialogue) that it was intended as a punishment.
• Who handed Al-Rabi to Muhammad bin Maslama? We know this, so why choose a passive voice?
• You’ve eliminated the detail that Mahmud was killed in the battle, in favor of wording that quite falsely states Al-Rabi to have killed Mahmud. Ibn Ishaq only says "in revenge for his brother Mahmud," while elsewhere it's stated that Mahmud died when a stone was thrown upon him during the siege.

Per Talk:Banu Qurayza, let's not turn this discussion into another perpetual runaround. All of these points had already been amply explained above.Proabivouac 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 1. About Mubarakpuri. He is a reasearcher at the Unviersity of Madina, has excellent background in Islam, and is infact a scholar on Islam. He is neither an ayotallah, nor the a Grand mufti.

2. Ok, sure we can put that in.

3. I doubt Muhammad personally handed him to Masalma, but was probably handed on his orders. But if you want we can put excatly what ibn hisham says about that.

4. Then we can put "in revenge for his brother Mahmud", instead of "in revenge for killing his brother Mahmud".

Any more objections?Bless sins 20:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to eliminate the detail that Mahmud was killed in battle, presumably by someone other than Al-Rabi?

As for Mubarakpuri, you are no doubt aware that I and others have addressed this at some length elsewhere. Merely restating his credentials, which merely underscore that he is a religious/partisan source, is unlikely to change anyone's judgement.Proabivouac 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I want o put what Ibn Hisham says, "in revenge for his brother Mahmud". I am not trying to omit anything. If you find a source that says this feel free to include it as well.

Secondly, about Mubarakpuri. He is a scholar, if you don't believe me go to The Sealed Nectar to find out. His work was reviewed by others. Working in Saudi Arabia doesn't one make a "religious" source (not that wikipedia says we should exclude religious sources). Please state your argument against Mubarakpuri clearly.Bless sins 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"I doubt Muhammad personally handed him to Masalma..." Ibn Ishaq disagrees with you: "Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama..." Beit Or 21:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

":I want o put what Ibn Hisham says, "in revenge for his brother Mahmud". - it seems you prefer the exact words of the translation here precisely because they are easily misinterpreted - indeed, they must have been, for you very recently falsely stated that Al-Rabi had killed Mahmud himself. Are we trying to mislead our readers to the same false conclusion? In more standard usage we would say that he felt himself (or Ibn Ishaq after the fact felt him) to be avenging his brother, but this is a minor point unworthy of belaboring; it's already summed up in a perfectly neutral manner by observing in this passage that his Mahmud had died in the battle. Perhaps we can change "died" to "was killed?"Proabivouac 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Might I remind you that we are not stating the events as fact, rather in a "According to ibn Hisham..." manner. Thus, we need to represent ibn Hisham as accurately as possible. Beit Or: I'm sorry about the inaccuracy. But as I stated earlier, I have no problem with the active voice. Again, please don't label some statements as "minor", and attempt to exclude them. Bless sins 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, other editors will, as you say, "label" some issues as minor. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it does have contraints related to length, readability, and due weight. We cannot and should not dump the whole Ibn Ishaq into Wikipedia, so we'll necessarily exclude some minor points. Beit Or 16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Like you said the wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Thus there is no reason to exclude some details while include others. Infact that is highly POV. If you really want to shorten this then move this narrative to Kinana ibn Al-Rabi, and just direct the reader there, with a very short passage on this article.Bless sins 16:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Like Proabivouac, I too want this to get over with. Can someone please find a single problem with this version.

According to Ibn Hisham, Muhammad inquired Kinana al-Rabi about the tribe's treasure, but al-Rabi denied knowing where it was. Mubarakpuri states that al-Rabi was bound by agreements between Khaybar and Muhammad to reveal the location of the treasure.^[3] A Jew told Muhammad that he had seen Al-Rabi near a certain ruin every morning. Muhammad asked al-Rabi if he knew that he would be executed if he was found to be in possesion of the treasure, to which the latter responded in positive. When the ruin was excavated, it was found to contain some of the treasure. Muhammad ordered Al-Zubayr to torture al-Rabi until he revealed the location of the rest, then handed him to Muhammad ibn Maslamah, who beheaded him in revenge for his brother Mahmud.^[4][5](edited Feb. 17)

If you guys still disagree, then we'll just put Ibn Hisham/Ishaq's view in verbatim. As that way it will not my POV, as Beit Or has accused this version of.Bless sins 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think you're going to wear us down by suggesting the same thing over and over again after it has been shown to be unacceptable, you're not. Arrow740 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You're above comment assumes bad faith. The version above is actually Proabivouac's version, with some additions from me.Bless sins 18:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To better see the differences between Proabivouac's version and the final version that I edited, take a look here. This shows that the version I posted was basically Proabivouac's version, except a few changes from me.Bless sins 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins for the fifth time, Ibn Ishaq does not say that Al-Rabi killed Mahmud. In fact, it is Marhab who is said to have killed him by throwing a millstone upon him during the siege of Na'im, and ibn Ishaq shows Muhammad b. Maslama accepting Marhab’s challenge to single combat in order to avenge his brother! I don’t know what to make of the fact that you keep tying to add this falsehood.Proabivouac 21:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, and keep it cool with heavy words (e.g. "falsehood"). I've changed it to what Ibn Hisham really says " Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud". Was this the only problem you have with the passage?Bless sins 21:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already outlined my objections to Mubarakpuri, both generally and regarding to this passage, and to the banter about him saying "yes." If you wish to merely state that Muhammad told him he would be killed if it were found, that would be fine, but strikes me as a little too interpretive and unnecessary - it is already obvious from the shorter version why he is killed. At the same time, we aren't out to confuse people; if the significance of something isn't clear, we should leave it out for the sake of clarity and brevity. Similarly, for the "revenge" language - all Ibn Ishaq is saying, as is clear if you read the whole thing, is that b. Maslama was still upset over the death of his brother in battle at the hands of Marhab. Your version appears to contradict itself - Muhammad threatens to excecute him for lying about the treasure, but when he's finally beheaded, it's not for this, but to avenge Mahmud. The record of this talk page shows that you yourself were misled by the wording of this passage; why would we would want to likewise confuse the reader?Proabivouac 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you objections towards Mubarakpuri are valid, he is a legitimate scholar.

"Muhammad told him he...", Muhammad asked him, as is clear from the question mark. Also, al-Rabi responded to Muhammad's question. I never said "yes" in my final version but replaced it with "responded in positive".

Finally we are not trying to deliver a message about what happened, but rather what ibn Hisam says what happened.

Since it is unlikely that we might reach a compromise, I suggest we quote ibn Hisham verbatim and put that in quotes. This way no one, except ibn Hisham himself, is to be blamed for any "confus[ion]". None of our POVs will be included in that. Bless sins 22:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not obliged to duplicate his phrasing, only to represent its substance. If there is something potentially confusing about the language, we're obliged to restate it in a clearer form (that's true of all paraphrases.) The fact that the "revenge" wording is misleading is evidenced by the fact that you yourself had it wrong until just now. So I ask again, why would you want the reader to be similarly misled? We're citing a source, not just a single paragraph. It is completely appropriate to be informed by the fact that it's already mentioned who killed Mahmud, and in fact b. Maslama had already taken revenge against Marhab. Apparently, he was still pretty upset about the whole thing, so Muhammad let him blow off steam by delivering the death blow to Al-Rabi. As you observe, Muhammad told Al-Rabi he would be excecuted if the treasure were found in the ruins; it was, so he was. Nothing to do with Mahmud at all.Proabivouac 02:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Again it is not our place to question the truthfullness of ibn Hisham, since wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. If something a scholarly source says does not make sense, then it is the fault of that source, not ours. I know you are not obliged to duplicate the langauge. But you have two options,

1. continue to dispute this with me, and worry about NPOV, and other wiki policies, or,

2. quote ibn Hisham verbatim (after all he's only a primary source), committing no violation of any wiki policy, and end this debate.

Personally I favor the 2nd one - what about you?Bless sins 17:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you're going to edit war until everybody is sick of it and you have it your way? Beit Or 19:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you always portray my words in such a negative tone? I will continue to work on this article until it meets wikipedia standards (esp. of NPOV). I'm trying to avoid furhter disputes, by putting in the absolutely correct version. Infact I said that I favor the option in which we can end this debate ASAP. Please try to assume some good faith.Bless sins 19:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Again it is not our place to question the truthfullness of ibn Hisham, since wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth"

Bless sins, it's not the truthfulness that's at issue here: it's not obviously inaccurate to say that b. Maslama was motivated by a desire for revenge, just as he was when he slew Mahmud's actual killer, but misleading to readers who aren’t looking at the whole narrative, and begs the question, "just what did Al-Rabi do to Mahmud?" which we'd be obliged to answer: he was a member of the same tribe as the man who slew Mahmud in battle. Nor is it "the source's fault," as the source makes the answer perfectly clear; it is only the proposed excerpt which would be misleading on its own.Proabivouac 20:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'll repeat: we are not saying anything about Kinana al-Rabi or Mahmud. We are only saying that Ibn Hisham says XYZ about Kinana, Mahmud etc. There's a difference between the two. The former states that the XYZ is a fact, while the latter states that the XYZ is considered a fact by ibn Hisham. If the reader has any further questions after reading this, we will redirect the reader to the article on al-Rabi or Mahmud, where this would discussed in much more detail.Bless sins 20:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer why you want to mislead readers by opting for a more obscure version instead of a clearer one. Proabivouac has explained very well why the current paraphrase is preferable to quoting Ibn Ishaq verbatim. Beit Or 20:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I did answer. Please read my comments above. It is not misleading to say that ibn Hisham says XYZ. That is perfectly, and 100% accurate. It is misleading to partially quote ibn Hisham, and remove references to Muhammad's dialogue with al-Rabi, Masalma's motivation through revenge for his brother's life. Bless sins 20:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham states that Mahmud died during the siege of Na'im when a millstone was dropped upon him. That is why the current version, attributed to Ibn Ishaq, says of b. Maslama, "whose brother had died in the battle."Proabivouac 20:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cool. We can also put that in. Remember, I'm in favor of quoting ibn Hisham. Its interesting that in your paraphrase you included some statements of ibn Hisham that are not even in the passage concerned, yet you continously neglect other parts, such as Muhammad's dialogue with al-Rabi.Bless sins 20:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing at all unusual about representing a passage in light of earlier portions of the same narrative from the same source. Most readers will intuit that the only reason we include the fact that b. Maslama's brother had died in the battle in this passage is to throw light on b. Maslama's personal motive, which is exactly what Ibn Ishaq is doing. We aim to summarize the most salient information in the fewest number of words; nothing unusual about that, either.Proabivouac 21:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What I miss in this article

• I would like to see a better overview of the politicial and economic constellation and the role of the various Jewish and pagan Arabian clans.
• Other contemporary procedures in case of conquest could be used for further information (foototes) if it is possible to retrieve known examples of warfare in Arabia that didn't involve Muslims.
• Neutral statements would be a brilliant idea, no matter what bloody butchery it was in the end. Wandalstouring 09:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, then, stick around and help. Speaking very generally, the problem in this space is that nearly every editor is perceived as either a Muslim fanatic or an anti-Muslim bigot. I don't think that's remotely true, but the perception is real and hinders trust and cooperation, leading to constant accusations of bad faith and edit wars. We badly need external intervention.Proabivouac 09:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my religious disposition: I was raised Roman Catholic, but I'm an atheist now (quite as bad as a satanist). I love Muslims as much as I love Jews and I have read a bit in the Tanakh and in the Qu'ran. Wandalstouring 10:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You could improve the article if you determine the authority of your sources by checking how many other scholars use them and avoid undue weight for minority opinions. Wandalstouring 10:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of satanist, but it sounds scary :| --Aminz 10:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary scholars

As discussed, this sentence is a misrepresentation of the source. Even then, "Contemporary scholars" is not supported by the source. --Aminz 10:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussed where? This opinion is shared by William Montgomery Watt, Norman Stillman, Bernard Lewis, Laura Veccia Vaglieri. Have you even read the cited sources? Which one has been misrepresented? Why did you disrupted the references? When will you finally stop edit warring until everyone is fed up? Beit Or 10:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In the "Suggested sources" section above, edit 08:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC) onwards. The full quote is given there. By no means Muhammad's motivations were restricted to these. The prose of the sentence is also non-neutral. Your comments also border incivility. --Aminz 10:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we use this section to lay out the views of the referenced scholars, in order to judge whether it's fair to state that "contemporary scholars" believe this?Proabivouac 11:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, please read Watt before accusing other editors of misrepresentation: "Perhaps it was on the way back from the pilgrimage manqué that the idea occurred to Muhammad of attacking the rich Jewish oasis of Khaybar. The Muslims were disappointed at the apparent fruitlessness of their expedition to al-Hudaybiyah, and it was only natural for an Arab like Muhammad to feel that virtue should not be allowed to go unrewarded. So when he set out for Khaybar some six weeks after his return from Mecca, he allowed only those who had made the Pledge under the Tree to accompany him." (Prophet and Statesman, pp. 188-189) Beit Or 11:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Separate opinions of contemporary scholars and the narrative a bit. They all have just one primary source, the Qu'ran, or is there anything I'm not aware of? My suggestion is to base the narrative of events on this primary source. Where necessary we can comment the events by 'Foo says that', 'many Foo interpret/see it as', 'from this the Foo group of Islamic belief derieved a law based on Foo's fatwa'. It would however greatly benefit if we split the article in a narrative of events (with small comments), a section or several subsections with the interpretation of events by modern scholars(See Pericles), and a chapter where we discuss the different religious interpretations of this event. Wandalstouring 12:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I share Wandalstouring's opinion. Any other thought? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the approach I find most logical. In this case, the main primary source would be the biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. Beit Or 15:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Ibn Ishaq is a primary source, but there are others too. Aside from some of the medieval biographies, there are the hadith collections (but they are discontinuous). But I generally agree that we should split the narrative from the interpretation of events. Infact, Khaybar has far more significance in the development of Islam, than it has otherwise.Bless sins 16:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No other biography of Muhammad comes even close to the status of Ibn Ishaq. Beit Or 07:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 has (with minor errors) put the Watt quote in quotes. Should the quotes of all scholars be put in quotes?Bless sins 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't advise this step if you have many scholars. If you have a few authoritative works or something that must be quoted word for word, than use some kind of blockquote. See Hannibal, Erwin Rommel or blue-water navy for comparison. Wandalstouring 17:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess you would disagree with the edit[10] that exclusively puts Watt's opinion into quotes.Bless sins 19:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Considerations of appropriate weight and conciseness also apply. Anyway, quotes must never be so long and numerous as to overwhelm the article (unless the article is written in the form of a scholarly debate). For this reason, I usually prefer brief paraphrases. See, for example, Rus' Khaganate, a featured article, which was written mostly as a paraphrase. Beit Or 20:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is, why do we put one scholar's opinions in quotes, but not do that for other scholars?Bless sins 20:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Direct citations must be put in quotes. If you paraphrase a statement you don't put it in quotes. Wandalstouring 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So should we use direct quotations for all scholars or paraphrase them all? Going one way with one, and another with othrs doesn't seem right to me, esp. since they reperesent opposite views.Bless sins 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

First things first, get all of these scholars out of the narrative and use only small paraphrased comments or footnotes if it is absolutely necessary. Create a different chapter where you discuss their opposing views in detail and cite their stuff in quotation marks. Wandalstouring 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree.Bless sins 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

EoI says:"Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu 'l-Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood. So Muhammad had not only a just motive for attacking them, but there was also the positive necessity to destroy these enemies, more formidable even than the Quraysh because of their adherence to their own religion, their intelligence and their superior culture."

So, the contemporary scholars say that Muhammad attacked exactly money. There are two types of misrepresentation of a text: censoring some part of the text, or distorting the part mentioned. It also seems that Beit Or has asked all contemporary scholars about their views. --Aminz 23:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems the EoI was wrong about Watt's view on this. Arrow740 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, we wouldn't be citing him second-hand, anyhow. I think what is needed is to follow up to the cited Watt portion. It does seem probable to me that Muhammad would have found the presence of the Banu Nadir objectionable, as he did in Medina, and it would hardly be surprising, after all that had occurred, that they'd be "intruguing" (a.k.a. diplomacy) against him. Who wouldn't be? But we should take care that our wording isn't prejudicial, and that we're focussing on substantial points. I can't see any part of the sentence "So Muhammad had not only a just motive...superior culture" which would be necessary here.

Actions often reflect several motives, and I don't see how wishing to pursue the Banu Nadir contradicts the desire to raise his prestige among his followers. Judging only from the material which has been presented here, Watt doesn't either.Proabivouac 02:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. In Prophet and Statesman Watt cites two reasons for the attack, one of them being the necessity to raise his prestige after the Hudaybiyya. As usually, Aminz keeps ignoring this quote from Prophet and Statesman, which doesn't fit his POV. Beit Or 07:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There are various points which might have motivated Muhammad. All of them must be stated, not just a portition of them. This should be addressed in a section in details. We shouldn't fill the intro with various interpretations.--Aminz 23:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

<reset> BTW, How do you know that all the contemporary scholars believe that? --Aminz 23:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All the leading scholars, who expressed position on this issue, agree on this. No dissenting view was ever found. If you claim that a different opinion exists, you must find it. Beit Or 07:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's also see Proabivouac's view. --Aminz 21:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Per the other Watt quote, there does seem to be broad agreement on this point. We can all agree that other motives attributed by reputable scholars, such as the desire to preemptively strike or otherwise pursue the Banu Nadir, may also be included.Proabivouac 21:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Instead of saying "Modern historians" or something similar, we should jsut name the scholars, to avoid any sort of ambiguity. THat way we are being exact and to the point.Bless sins 16:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

All the scholars are named, so your comment is beside the point. Beit Or 21:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly the version you reverted to misquotes Watt. His quotation is on this page, so verify yourself. Secondly, why is Watt's opinion in quotes, yet others' opinion not? Thirdly, "Modern historians" are not named. I only removed the ambiguous statement and replaced it with a more accurate one attributing the views to thier proper scholars.Bless sins 22:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the consensus opinion, as has been demonstrated by the quotes from the leading historians. You have failed to find a single contradicting opinion. Beit Or 22:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1. you didn't respond to you misquoting Watt.

2. I'll repeat: why is Watt's opinion in quotes, yet others' opinion not?

3. Just because four scholars agree with something does not mean that all or even most scholars agree with it. That is only your OR. On the contrary if you find a scholar that says that all modern historians say XYZ, I'll admit to your version. Remember the burden of evidence is on you. My version is perfectly accurate.Bless sins 22:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For everyone this is what Vaglieri says:

Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu 'l-Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood. So Muhammad had not only a just motive for attacking them, but there was also the positive necessity to destroy these enemies, more formidable even than the Quraysh because of their adherence to their own religion, their intelligence and their superior culture.

Before reverting my edits please read this.Bless sins 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess neither you nor Aminz understand that commenting on what a historian has said about history is not to be used to push a POV in an article. Arrow740 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And I think you do not accept that EoI doesn't attribute wrong statements to a scholar. Watt has written many books. It is good to try to search his works and find where he has said something but given the information we have now, it is not necessary. --Aminz 03:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We're already quoting Watt. Then on top of that we are quoting Vaglieri quoting Watt.Arrow740 04:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quoting Watt twice would be giving him undue weight. Beit Or 07:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To include a secondhand characterization of Watt's opinion aside his own would be unnecessary, but to the extent that Veccia Vaglieri "credits" Watt's view, this is worthy of mention in itself. However, I recall the relevant passage to be somewhat less of an enthusiastic endorsement than has been presented here. Perhaps I recall wrongly - might someone share it again?Proabivouac 08:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember that there are now two scholars that support Watt's view (Watt and Vaglieri). Thus, we are not giving undue wieght. I'll try and post the passage as soon as possible.Bless sins 16:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeating the same argument twice is always synonymous with giving it undue weight, no matter how many scholars support it. In Vagleri's case, she merely acknowledges Watt's view as a possible alternative explanation. She herself emphasizes the economic aspects of Muhammad's motivations. Beit Or 12:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First and formost, you are continuously inserting "According to Watt, leaders of the Banu Nadir paid neighboring Arab tribes". Watt says no such thing. Before reverting, please show otherwise.

Secondly, the argument "Contemporary scholars believe that Muhammad moved to attack Khaybar in order to raise his prestige among his followers", is repeated: "The conquest of Khaybar would enable him to satisfy with ample booty his companions who hoped to capture Mecca and were discontented at the treaty with the Quraysh" and "one reason for Muhammad's decision to attack Khaybar was the need to raise his prestige among his followers, which had been eroded by the Treaty of Hudaybiyya". It is interesting that an argument repeated three times, has not been removed, but an argument repeated only twice is constantly being reverted. It looks as if you are applying double standards.

The fact that Vaglieri supports Watt's view must be mentioned. Wikipedia is not censored.Bless sins 17:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are also removing "Muhammad also ordered the restitution to the Jews of their holy scriptures.^[6]". Why? Again wikipedia is NOT censored.Bless sins 17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant. Arrow740 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevent? It's about Muhammad's actions towrds the Jews after the Battle of Khaybar. How is that irrelevent?Bless sins 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I won't pursue this for now. Arrow740 05:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here it is.

The sources give support to the view of Montgomery Watt, showing that the Jews, already responsible for the coalition which had laid siege to Medina in 5 A.H. and worried by the growing power of the Prophet, continued to stir up the Arabs against him. Haykal's opinion, however, is to be rejected in that it is inappropriate to consider an event in the light of subsequent developments. In the year 7 A.H. Muḥammad was not yet a figure to be reckoned with in the estimation of the rulers of the empires to the north of the peninsular. While giving full credit to the opinion of Montgomery Watt, one should not overlook the fact that the Prophet was in great need of arms and money to accomplish his objectives and he

Mind you, the quote also contains Vaglieri's opinions on Haykal's suggestion that the Jews may have betrayed Muhammad and helped Byzantium of Persia ("rulers of the empires north of the peninsular") against him.Bless sins 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

All Vaglieri seems to be saying is that Watt's view is a possibility. Arrow740 19:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Vaglieri says "The sources give support to the view " and "giving full credit to the opinion of Montgomery Watt". That's pretty much like saying that she agrees with Watt's view.Bless sins 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"While... one should not..." Arrow740

If you'd like to quote, do so correctly. "While giving full credit to the opinion of Montgomery Watt, one should not overlook the fact that the Prophet was in great need of arms and money..." (emphasis added). Cearly Vaglieiri supports Watt's view.Bless sins 13:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

She gives some kind of positive acknowledgement, but this is hardly unreserved support. She seems to be saying "he could be right, however there are these other reasons.." Arrow740 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We are approaching a straw man argument type scenario. This is what I am trying to insert "Vaglieri gives (1) full credit to Watt's arguments and (2) believes that his views are supported by sources". I never said "unreserved support", thoguh that is true. Indeed Vaglieri's claims are shown clearly in the quote above.Bless sins 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again with the repetition. I've already proved my point. Arrow740 17:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that Bless sins' latest edit[11] was not a self-revert despite the edit summary. Beit Or 23:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a partial self-revert where I moved teh statement about Jewish scriptures to a position where Arrow740 put it in this edit.Bless sins 15:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced statement in introduction

I removed this statement because I don't see a source for it in the footnotes:

"Jews continued to live in the oasis for several more years until they were finally expelled by caliph Umar. The imposition of tribute upon the conquered Jews served as a precedent for provisions in the Islamic law requiring the exaction of tribute known as jizya from dhimmis, i.e. non-Muslims under Muslim rule, and confiscation of land belonging to non-Muslims into the collective property of the Muslim community."--Sefringle 23:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is effectively a repetition of a part of the first paragraph in the "Aftermath" section. Beit Or 07:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

then you should do a double citation.--Sefringle 07:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, done. Beit Or 08:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary scholars

It seems to me - correct me if I'm wrong - that there are two claims here: one that Muhammad sought to raise his prestige among his followers, the other is that he sought booty not just to satisfy the troops, but to support subsequent conquests. Who supports what? If the first is indeed supported by Watt and Lewis as well as Stillman and Vaglieri, then "contemporary scholars" is enough, no need to list all four. This can then be followed by another sentence along the lines, "Others such as Stillman and Vaglieri add..."Proabivouac 01:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If we want to talk about motivations, we should mention all possible motivations together. Not delay one or two to the end. Also, scholars includes both "Muslims" and "Western" ones. --Aminz 01:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Does Esposito also say these motivations? --Aminz 01:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Modern historians" is vague, while listing the scholars is more precise. We also don't know if all scholars agree with this opinion or only four of these.Bless sins 21:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be equally true were there a dozen scholars saying this; would you still say we should list them all? It was enough for Aminz, at least, to state that modern scholars believe Muhammad to have been sincere in his belief to be receiving divine revelations. I agree with Beit Or on this point. Where Lewis and Watt are joined by others, and there is no one who's been shown to disagree, it is fair to depict this as a consensus.Proabivouac 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There is some difference. Watt said: "Modern historians must accept Muhammad's belief in receiving revelation" and Scheimmel said recent studies has shown X. Still, I was okay with word-by-word quoting of the sources directly (i.e. Watt says Modern historians must accept; Scheimmel says recent studies has indicated...) If Watt or Lewis or Stillman or Vaglieri say that "Modern historian must accept that Muhammad attacked for these reasons" or that "recent studies have shown that Muhammad attacked for these reasons" that would be okay with me. --Aminz 23:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if the opinions were phrased differently, opinions would they remain. Looks like you have much lower standards of proof for material you like than for one you dislike. Beit Or 11:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TotallyDisputed?

I see that the article is well sourced. If there are specific sections that are disputed, please tag them as such so that these can be corrected/sourced, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The constant removal of source material and application of double standards with regards to NPOV is the reason for the dispute.Bless sins 21:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Then tag specific sections. {{totallydisputed}} means that the factual accuracy is disputed, but I see that the article is well sourced. If all there is is a dispute about neutrality, then the tag should be {{POV}}. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that if you believe the sources to be "not neutral", that in itself is no grounds for a POV tag. In these cases, the best course of action is to provide alternative viewpoints sourced to additional authors. That way we create NPOV, by describing all significant viewpoints and by not asserting any of them as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

who is "Anwar Hekmat," and what are his academic credentials? Prometheus books isn't considered an academic publisher on material related to Islam, a lot of their works (all, actually) come across as aggressively polemical. in fact, i just skimmed through the book, and there is a notable lack of scholarly objectivity. ITAQALLAH 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not all sources have to be "scholarly" to be deemed useful for an article. Scholarly sources are preferred but that does not exclude other sources. Also, we are not looking for "objective" sources, as all sources have their bias. Read WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

with sources that are less than reliable and have an obvious agenda, the least we do is employ attribution, instead of presenting the opinion espoused as fact. ITAQALLAH 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. We can attribute that statement to the author, so that it is not asserted as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't promising. Supposing these are really his words, I agree completely with Itaqallah that we should not be using Anwar Hekmat in this serious historical article, anymore than we should be using Maududi.Proabivouac 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources have to be assessed in context. We are using Hekmat to support a specific aspect of the battle, that is not disputed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is sourced to Hekmat, and what to Stillman? We should not be conflating the opinions of polemicists with those of respectable academics.Proabivouac 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I oppose Hekmat, I just want to say that Maududi's works have been widely acclaimed by scholars in academic journals as well as professors at prestigious universities. Nothing of the sort can be found for Hekmat.Bless sins 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad: The Messenger of Allah

Likewise, this is not an acceptable source for this serious historical article: Adil, Hajjah Amina; Al-Haqqani, Nazim Adil; Kabbani, Muhammad Hisham (2002). Muhammad: The messenger of Allah. ISBN 1930409117. As Itaqallah correctly observed above, "Prometheus books isn't considered an academic publisher on material related to Islam;" how much more is this true of the Islamic Supreme Council of America.Proabivouac 18:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

indeed, this isn't the best resource to be using. assuming that what the source asserts is verifiable, i request that we replace it with a more appropriate source. ITAQALLAH 18:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned about what could be a misunderstanding about sources. There is no policy in WP that requires from editors to only produce "academic sources" for its articles. Sure, given two sources with same material we would prefer the scholarly one. But that does not mean that we go about challenging sources on the basis of not being "scholarly" enough. If a better source is found, great. Otherwise the material and the source should remain. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this is not a very scholarly source. However, I'd like an admin to interpret the new wiki policy ATT, which seems vague to me. What is a reliable source and what isn't?Bless sins 19:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins do not have any privilege in the interpretation of policies. They are just users with some tools. Beit Or 22:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

He's being used for fact, not POV, keep that in mind. Arrow740 19:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, "he's" a she.Bless sins 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone cite the relevent policy that says we can't remove this source? That would be much appreciated.Bless sins 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arrow's revert

Please explain why it was distorting EoI(quote EoI please) and why further explanation why the second is vague when EoI says the same thing. --Aminz 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the burden is on you to show that Vaglieri gives this as one reason among equally important reasons for Muhammad's attack. Also drawing attention is not as relevant as the conclusion drawn. Arrow740 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So, you haven't even read EoI and yet you first revert it and then ask for quotes. EoI says:"Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu 'l-Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood. So Muhammad had not only a just motive for attacking them, but there was also the positive necessity to destroy these enemies, more formidable even than the Quraysh because of their adherence to their own religion, their intelligence and their superior culture... While giving full credit to the opinion of Montgomery Watt, one should not overlook the fact that the Prophet was in great need of arms and money to accomplish his objectives and he knew that he could find these among the Jews at khaybar (the sources give precise details of the number and type of arms captured by the Muslims from the Jews at Medina and at khaybar.)."--Aminz 00:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read those quotes as you must know. It appears that the only view that Vaglieri herself is fully endorsing here is the view that Muhammad did it for arms and money. Regarding the "drawn attention to" thing, it's better to quote Watt than to quote someone's vauge characterization of Watt's view. Arrow740 00:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"While giving full credit to the opinion of Montgomery Watt," so she is not disagreeing with Watt.And I don't have to find from which of Watt's book she has taken this quote. EoI is an enough source. --Aminz 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the only view that Vaglieri herself is fully endorsing here is the view that Muhammad did it for arms and money. Regarding the "drawn attention to" thing, it's better to quote Watt than to quote someone's vauge characterization of Watt's view. The fact that Watt has drawn attention to something is not relevant, what is relevant is his actual opinion. Arrow740 00:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Again Vaglieri gives "full credit to the opinion of Montgomery Watt". Itaqallah has also edited the sentence. --Aminz 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"give full credit" means it's worth considering. "Noting the presence" isn't better than "drawn attention to," and the payment idea must be clearly attributed to Watt and not stated as fact. Arrow740 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• "...what is relevant is his actual opinion...", which is what Vaglieri gives "full credit" to. Watt writes about these subjects in numerous books. it's highly unlikely that Vaglieri, a trained scholar, is mistaken in her characterisation. for our purposes, as it is a reliable source making the characterisation, it is totally acceptable. ITAQALLAH 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The sense I get from the passage is only that she thinks Watt has a point worth considering, as the sources show them to have been responsible for the coalition which attacked in the Battle of the Trench, but thinks this may not have been the primary motive for the attack on Khaybar, or something which literally left him no other choice, only one motive to which she adds another. You are construing the phrase "giving full credit to [his] opinion" more absolutely than is justified.Proabivouac 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

whether or not Vaglieri is fully endorsing Watt's point is irrelevant. what's significant here is her characterisation of Watt's argument, which we should presume to be accurate. ITAQALLAH 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, Watt has written too many books and we don't have to double check Vaglieri. The reviewers of her work have already done that.

Proabivouac, The sense I get from the passage is that she agrees that the view of Watt finds support from evidences. And she does not disagree with that. So, saying that she believes Muhammad attacked exclusively for money is incorrect. --Aminz 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she agrees that the presence of the Banu Nadir was a motive, and that they had, in fact, assembled a coalition against him. That is why I supported inclusion of this material. What I don't see is her agreeing that that was the primary reason, or that this left him no choice but to attack.Proabivouac 00:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Watt believes "but there was also the positive necessity to destroy these enemies", i.e. it was a primary reason. Do you think she agrees with Watt at this point. --Aminz 01:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Vaglieri says "The sources give support to the view of Montgomery Watt". Historians advocate views if and only if the views are based on reasonable sources of history. No scholar would advocate a view strongly and at the same time state that his/her opinion is baseless. Similarly, no scholar would deny a well-sourced opinion based upon history. Thus Vaglieri's statement is equivalent of "Watt's view, as far historians know, is the truth". Bless sins 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, let's look at the whole passage you've just partially quoted:

"The sources give support to the view of Montgomery Watt, showing that the Jews, already responsible for the coalition which had laid siege to Medina in 5 A.H. and worried by the growing power of the Prophet, continued to stir up the Arabs against him."

As I've stated above, that is exactly what she agrees with.Proabivouac 02:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes correct this is what she agree with. She also, however, agrees with the rest of Watt's opinion. that's why she accords him "full credit".Bless sins 02:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No. For the third time on this page, she is saying that his view is worth considering. Arrow740 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We can put this if you like.

William Montgomery Watt sees the intriguing of the Banu Nadir at Khaybar as the primary motive for the attack. Watt points out that the leaders of the Banu Nadir had paid other tribes to make war against Muhammad, leaving Muhammad no choice but to attack Khaybar.^[7] Vaglieri gives full credit to Watt's arguments and believes that his views are supported by sources that suggest that Jews were responsible for the coalition that beseiged the Muslims during the Battle of the trench.^[6]

Or we can put this shorter version.

William Montgomery Watt sees the intriguing of the Banu Nadir at Khaybar as the primary motive for the attack. Watt and Vaglieri agree the Banu Nadir had paid neighboring Arab tribes to go to war against Muhammad during the Battle of the trench, leaving him no choice but to attack Khaybar.^[8][6]

The choice is yours.Bless sins 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to either or both of the statements above?Bless sins 03:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

if there are no objections, shoudl we unprotect the article?Bless sins 14:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The objections were stated many times above. Your new version does not differ from the one you've been pushing previously in any meaningful way. Beit Or 16:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Though you disapprove, you have not stated any specific objections. Does anyone else have any specific objections?Bless sins 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TROLL#Pestering. Beit Or 14:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you pointing out to me a totally random page on wikipedia. I have assumed good faith that you are decent enough to not call other users a troll in order to have your way on an article.Bless sins 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection?

No one really has any objections, else they'd have seriously conducted some discussion. I am going to request unprotection.Bless sins 00:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

On both talk and with edit-warring, across a number of articles (some involving me, some not) it seems the goal is to return every week or so to repeat the very same points and edits that failed to gain consensus the last time, while stating that they haven't been discussed.Proabivouac 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had enough of you WP:uncivil behavior. You keep accusing me of things I don't do. I'd love to discuss article content, but not myself.

Re:"across a number of articles (some involving me, some not)", please mind WP:point.Bless sins 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You have apparently objected to using the word "intriguing". However, this word is used in the source we are quoting. By comparison the article contains words like "pogrom" and "torture", both very loaded words. Should we remove them as well?Bless sins 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care all that much about the POV content of "intriguing" - you might recall that I once replaced it with "scheming" because it is more direct than "intriguing," though others have objected to both of these.

Neither is actually necessary, though, in the context of this narrative:

"Watt sees the presence of the Banu Nadir in Khaybar as the primary motive for the attack. According to Watt, the Banu Nadir had paid Arab tribes to go to war against Muhammad, leaving him little choice but to attack Khaybar."

As the specific intriguing/scheming they are alleged to have done is described explicitly in the very next sentence, changing "presence" to "intruguing" is redundant.

It is difficult to see your change from "According to Watt" to "He points out that" as anything other than taking Watt's side; see [12]. Perhaps there is some justification other than bias for this change which I've not considered; if so please share it.

As for the equation of partisan religious sources with academic opinion, we've discussed this at length on many occasions.Proabivouac 23:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Partisan sources"? How does politics play into this? Also, if Watt uses the word "intriguing", the there is no reason not to use it.

Also, please note that you have remvoed a lot of reliable sources (in your reverts) including Watt.

I don't think we have discussed the "the equation of partisan religious sources with academic opinion". BUt it doesn't matter, since I'm not doing that anyways. I know we should avoid partisan sources. But that doesn't mean that if someone is a Muslim they can be "academic".Bless sins 02:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mubarakpuri is a religious partisan source. I have no reason to have confidence in Nomani or Zurqani, either. Bless sins, please stop pretending that you don't know what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with whether the author is a Muslim, but whether the work is academic or religious/partisan in nature. For starters, one does not write an academic biography starting with the inflexible premise that its subject is the flawless representative of God on earth, then fitting all facts to this assumption. That is the very definition of religious partisanship.

Accordingly, I have no objection at all to Watt's inclusion, even though he is sympathetic to your point of view, and as you aware I have objected to the inclusion of partisan sources which oppose it.

I would like to restore any relevant material from Watt (1956) to the story about the delegation; however your edits cited both Watt and Nomani together. Please share the relevant passage(s) from Watt here so we can add this information.Proabivouac 04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Given your comments above, I'm under the impression you have not read 100% of my edits before reverting them. Infact, my edits go beyond the political situation etc. and into the course of the battle and aftermath. If you haven't done so already, I urge to to consider all my edits before reverting them.Bless sins 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, please respond to my request to share the relevant Watt material. Given the liberties you've taken with sources in the past, I request that you share here exactly what it is you are citing for what. You write, "On the way, Unays, a Muslim, became suspicious of Usayr, who tried once or twice to grab Unays's sword. Watt and Nomani both speculate that it is probable that Usayr changed his mind about the negotiations," it is still not clear who the source is for the grabbing of the sword.Proabivouac 23:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should it matter? Both are reliable sources. Below I have provided an argument for why Nomani is a reliable source. Bewlo my argument pls. provide a counter argument, quoting the relevet WP. Bless sins 23:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that your evasive response confirms my suspicions: It is difficult not to believe that you wrote this passage in the way you did in order to obscure the source of the very most dubious claim, which you state as fact. That is dishonest, Bless sins.

Once again, I ask that you share here, word for word, the passages which you are citing to support these changes, including the revised language, "a struggle broke out."Proabivouac 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to obscure anything. Look the best way to move forward is in good faith. I've seen your edits elsewhere. They're pretty reasonable. I don't know why, when it comes to me, you accuse me of things (dishonesty bieng the most recent one). If you don't believe me, then you should verify the source, I've listed a page number for each.

Having said that, yes I'm trying to evade the obvious. The reason? I don't want to set the precedent that Muslim scholars are unreliable because they are Muslim. If you want the answer to the first question (i.e the source for the grabbing of the sword) is: Watt (1956). I've answered your question, thus your accusation of dishonesty is proven false. However, at one point or another, you need to admit that Nomani is a reliable source.Bless sins 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you find your kind words regarding my edits elsewhere.

The best way to move forward here is for you, as requested, to share in full the passages you are citing, from Watt and Nomani alike.Proabivouac 08:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That can be done.And thankyou for recognizing Nomani as a legit scholar.Bless sins 01:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing about Nomani's purported legitimacy as an academic scholar of history, but only asked - as I ask again - that you to share in full the passages you'd cited, from Watt and Nomani alike.Proabivouac 01:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm ready and willing to that. But in return I ask you to recognize Nomani as a relaible source.

<reset> As a gesture of good will, I will provide you with what says about the sword grabbing incident (I don't have Nomani on me right now).

On the way Abdallah b. Unays became suspicious of of Usayr, who was behind him and seemed once or twice to be feeling for Abdallah's sword, presumably regretting his decision; from this and from the fact that later he used a branch of tree [to attack Unays] it is to be inferred that the Jews were unarmed.

Nomani's version gives the exact dialogue that was exchanged between the men. Bless sins 21:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Nomani is a legitimate scholar who had a position had one the most prestigious Muslim universities in India (Aligarh University). Please present you case against Nomani clearly here.Bless sins 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

<reset>"even though he is sympathetic to your point of view" Are you saying that you don't have a POV? We both know what types of edits we both make.Bless sins 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "Ibn Hisham. Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (The Life of The Prophet)" a partisan source? Perhaps we should remove this as well.Bless sins 21:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the version you are reverting to misrepresents the sources. For example, the content supporting the sentence "This set the future precedent of killing any enemy delegation sent to negotiate with Muhammad" is simply not present in Stillman.Bless sins 21:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it's not. An anon added it;[13] Thank you for catching it.Proabivouac 20:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not editwar...

... unless you want this article protected again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partisan religious sources

Arrow740, why do you insist on reverting the maerial I have added? Can you please explain yourself here.Bless sins 12:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, you may think Mubarakpuri, Nomani and other partisan religious sources perfectly reasonable. It is, however, quite clear that you've not obtained consensus to use them.Proabivouac 00:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Arrow740's reverts remove a lot of information from Watt and Stillman too. Secondly, no one has really posted any objections to me using the material I am. If there are any, I'd be happy to answer them. But as no one is really using talk, how can I know what objections you may have?Bless sins 03:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, forcing people to revisit the very same subject ad infinitum isn't using talk, but abusing it. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an endurance contest. I'm not aware that you've gained consensus for your proposition that partisan religious works such as Mubarakpuri's Sealed Nectar are reliable academic sources for history. If, in the future, it seems that there is a consensus to this effect, then add them; until then please do not.Proabivouac 00:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Arrow740 04:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I simply can't understand why you are removing Watt and Stillman. Are they too "partisan religious sources"?Bless sins 13:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are Nomani and Mubarakpuri reliable sources? I have complied a followuing list of reasons/sources at to why Mubrakpuri and Numani qualify as RS. If you oppose either or both of them bieng RS, then please state why quoting the relevent wiki policy.

• Shibli Nomani:

• He was a professor at Aligarh University.[14] He is praised for his Urdu literature (the language in which Sirat-ul-Nabi was orginally written).[15]
• His work, Seerat-ul-Nabi, is renowned, and "considered a masterpiece among all biographical works on Prophet Mohammad".[16]
• In the Journal of American Oriental Society, an article titled "Intellectual Modernism of Shibli Numani", by Mehr Afroz. The article describes him as the "leading figure in Indo-Muslim revivalism", praises his biographical works, among them the "voluminous" Sirat an-Nabi. The article also affirms that he was a professor at Aligarh University for a long time.

• Safi Mubarakpuri. All info (unless a source is given) is from his autobiography, but it can be easily verified online.:

• He taught at Madrasa Faid-e-Aam for three years (between 1963-66). He also taught at Madrasa Dar-ul-Hadeeth, and was the principal at Madrasa Faidul-Uloom at Seoni (Madhya Pradesh), and later at Madrasa Arabia Darut-Taleem.
• While the previous institutions are little known, Mubarakpuri obtained the title of Ustad (similar to the western title of Professor) at the Jamiah Salafiah in Banares. He held this position for 12 years.
• Finally, since 1988 he has been a scholar at the research institute at the Islamic University of Medina.
• His book, al-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, won a world-wide competition for a biography of Muhammad in 1979, by the Muslim World League.

Bless sins, as we have discussed Mubarakpuri's tendentious work to exhaustion, I confine my comments to Nomani:

• Mehr Afroz Murad's work was not published by the Journal of the American Oriental Society - that's Annemarie Schimmel's review you're looking at.[17] The publisher was Lahore's Institute of Islamic Culture..
• You forgot to mention the rest of the title "Intellectual Modernism of Shibli Numani: an exposition of his religious and socio-political ideas."
• "A leading figure in Indo-Muslim revivalism" - that is the sole appearance of "Indo-Muslim revivalism" on Google...but Indo-Muslim revivalism doesn't sound to me like a strictly academic mission.
• Shibli Nomani is given the honorific Maulana, is he not? Not the sort of title one associates with a non-sectarian academic.
• This website states: "By translating his Sirat-un-Nabi into English, the translators have rendered an invaluable service for the cause of Islam." - not the sort of thing one would say about a non-partisan work, is it?
• The book is entitled "Life of the Prophet" -not exactly promising an objective view of Muhammad, is it?
• "considered a masterpiece" by whom? Academic historians, or a random poetry related website
• "[Yakub Omer] says that Gyan Chand even sometimes ridicules Shibli Nomani and Maulana Hali who are not only pivotal to Urdu language and literature but are also great advocates of Islamic civilization."[18] No mention of academic historical scholarship here! (FWIW, not much about Yakub Omer can be found on the web, but this article suggests him, like Nomani, to be an expert on the Farsi language.)Proabivouac 19:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Proabivouac. No please discuss Mubrakpuri here. He was a scholar at the Islamic University of Medina, and I have provided other reasons for his reliability. Please note that you haven't quoted a single Wiki policy that woudl suggest that Numani is not a reliable source.

• Sorry about, that. It is Annemarie Schimmel, of Harvard University, that I was quoting. I have not yet read the work "Intellectual Modernism of Shibli Numani: an exposition of his religious and socio-political ideas", but only read the review as published by the Journal of American Oriental Society. I don't see how that changes anything.
• Again, sorry about not mentioning the entire title. I don't see how that changes my argument.
• You can be assured that I'm not forgin my claims. You may go ahead and verify the article/review I'm quoting. I never said that Numani is strictly an academic, and he may well have been involved in other missions.
• I'm not sure whehter he is given this title. But the title "Maulana" doesn't nullify scholarship any more than the title "Sir" does.
• Firstly, the reference is to translators, and not Numani. Secondly, I don't see how the "cause of Islam" is neccessarily political. Translating works into English, thus allowing English speaking to know more about Islamic history, can hardly be characterized "partisan". In a way, you and I are doing the same thing.
• If your objection is to the word "Prophet", be assured that the term is used by scholarly sources all the time. Even the EoI uses it. A search in google scholar turns up many references, [19] amonst them are scholars like Esposito (Islam: the straight path) and Lewis (Freedom and Justice in the Modern Middle East).
• The website is affiliated with Allpoetry.com, the internet's largest poetry website. [20]
• The article states "pivotal to Urdu language and literature". Sirat-un-Nabi is one of his most famous works of Urdu literature.
• In any case, you haven't responded to my most fundamental argument for Numani - that he was a professor at Aligarh University.Bless sins 20:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, There is no "Aligarh University." There is, however, an "Aligarh Muslim University":[21]

According to this (admittedly poorly cited) Wikipedia article, the first goal of the Aligarh movement was "To protect Islam against the onslaught of Orientalists and to prove that it was the one true religion." This was added by User:Falcon007;[22] I doubt he was trying to discredit them.

The majority of Google references call Nomani "Maulana":[23],[24], the title of a Muslim religious scholar. - for example, Maulana Maududi,[25] another religious and political ideologue you attempted to portray as a respected academic.Proabivouac 21:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, "Maulana" doesn't discredit someone any more than "Sir" does.

Ok, so it is Aligarh Muslim University, that just says it a place for the study of Islam. Also, if User:Falcon007 can be considered a good source on Aligarh University, can User:Bless_sins be considered a good source on the Battle of Khaybar?Bless sins 21:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is one of the most siginificant sources I've found:

Francis Robinson writes "The leading Muslim historian of the day, Shibli Numani(1857-1914), devoted his energies to reawakening interest in past Muslim lives and culture, especially in the achievement of Arabs and Persians."

Source:The British Empire and Muslim Identity in South Asia, by Francis Robinson. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th Ser., Vol. 8. (1998), pp. 281.Bless sins 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I beleive the central theme of NPOV is to portray all POVs. The primary centers of the study of Islam and Islamic history in the non-western world have always been religious centers. The most celebrated, noted and accredited ones as well. Restricting the definition of academia to western institutes is a world-centric bias. Make the relevant attributions and cite the information. Let the readers decide if they want to beleive or disbeleive the words printed from a Jewish press, an Islamic press or some other press. The only thing to look for is that the POV is notable, verifiable and not a fringe one.--Tigeroo 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick google on Shibli too and found this, Darul-uloom Nadwatul Ulama and this among plenty of others, not sure if you guys are doing the same search or I am hitting the wrong person but he appears to have been quite notable, recognized authorative and influential by quite a few people. Important enough to be recognized on a national government portal page of India as an important historical person. It appears however his works were not in English.--Tigeroo 18:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And yes, you're right, his works were originally written in either Urdu or Persian. However, we shouldn't be biased toawrds any particular language or religion. Just to assure you, I have found a translation of his works, and am not translating his works myself.Bless sins 02:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No one denied that he was notable, as was Maududi even more notable or for that matter Qutb. As is Robert Spencer, actually, or Jerry Falwell. That is not the equivalent of being a reliable source for findings of historical fact.

Beit Or hasn't been too active recently, but I asked him on his talk whether Nomani might be considered a reliable academic historian and his answer was an unequivocal no.Proabivouac 02:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomani seems to be a pretty bad source. Arrow740 04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have shown you above how Nomani is called "a historian" by an academic source. In addition to that he was a professor at the Muslim University of Aligarh for quite a bit of time. Generally, if someone was a professor at a University in the North America or Europe, you would accept him/her as a reliable source. Why not someone who is a professor in India? Or Saudi Arabia, as in the case for Mubarakpuri?Bless sins 12:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, the book by your Saudi "professor" begins:

Beyond a shadow of doubt, the biography of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) manifestedly represents an exhaustive embodiment of the sublime Divine Message that he communicated in order to deliver the human race from the swamp of darkness and polytheism to the paradise of light and monotheism."[26]

Surely the fact that Muhammad's life is the exhaustive embodiment of the sublime Divine Message is of greater significance than most of what is on Wikipedia. Should we now add it? If we don't, are we discriminating against the Muslim world by displaying a "regional bias"?Proabivouac 16:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV has a methodology to deal with this and does acknowledge the existance of a possible religious bias for/or against. Wikipedia does not define or allow editors to define what is the truth. It acknowledges that there are different POVs and merely asks that they be acknowledged and presented failry, that is all. The criteria being notability, verifiability. Shibli and Nomani(Insert Mubarakpuri or anyone else here it doesn't matter it was just a typing error) are not fringe but very mainstream personalities representative of a particular and very prevalent POV. Your quote presumes to say that acknowledgement of Muhammad as the embodiment of the sublime Divine Message is somehow a POV not worthy of mention whereas a version that divests him of it is correct. I suggest that both these stances represent religious biases - one for and the against.--Tigeroo 22:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC) self edited --Tigeroo 09:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Shibli and Nomani are not fringe but very mainstream personalities representative of a particular and very prevalent POV."

Tigeroo, "Shibli" and "Nomani" are one and the same.Proabivouac 00:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Including "their" testimony shifts the article toward being a piece of religious polemic. Arrow740 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not about testimonials but the question of the representation of a mainstream and significant point of view, or interpretation.--Tigeroo 04:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"one for and the against."

"Against" would be the inclusion of polemicists who proceed from the premise or aim to show that Islam is false or otherwise objectionable (see for example this earlier section). Academic scholarship is rightly neutral on such questions.Proabivouac 00:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You can't just presume that because someone has a certain bent, everything that comes from that source is agenda driven propoganda or that they cannot adequately perform a fair analysis. Use context and good judgement specific material. Blanket censorship results in a bias against a prominent reading of events. NPOV does not even presume that academic scholarship is or needs to be neutral, and lays out a fair framework of attribution and citation. If someone disagrees and is notable then they get fair space with due weightage.--Tigeroo 04:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, you still haven't responded to why Nomani is an unreliable source. Note Nomani is not a Saudi professor (an Indian one, actually). I have even showed you how sources have called him a "historian".

As regarding Mubarakpuri: adding that "Muhammad's life is the exhaustive embodiment of the sublime Divine Message" is not at all relevent to the Battle of Khaybar. Thus we don't add it. However, the obvious question arises: do we add this in the article Muhammad?

But please consider the following. In the article we have sourced some content to Ibn Hisham. But in his introduction Ibn Hisham states,

"...when the mother of the apostle of Allah became pregnant with him she had a vision, and a voice spoke to her, saying, “Thou art pregnant with the prince of this nation...” While she was carrying the child in her womb she saw a light issue from her which illuminated even the castles of Busra in Syria. "

Now should we add this supernatural event to Muhammad? Proabivouac, I understand that you have a valid point. However, per Tigeroo (and NPOV), we should represent siginificant religious viewpoints, but we should clearly attribute those view points as bieng the viewpoint of a particular relgious group. Bless sins 18:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We need watch out that in the quest for neutrality we are not conducting OR and creating a new POV to try and brige the gulf when we should be merely accurately representing existant POVs on the subject. RS means the source should be credible and authorotative on the subject. Mubarakpuri and Nomani meet those criteria for a significant portion of the world population. They are peer-reviwed, they are not fringe theorists, they are notable and verifiable. Their perceived POV can be dealt with by attribution not censorship, they more than likely view western academia as inherently POV. Remember on Wikipedia we are not defining the truth, we have to be careful on that score, we are collecting significant information and interpretations and making it available.--Tigeroo 05:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We also must watch out that we don’t redefine neutrality as the midpoint between scholarship and partisanship. It's not up to us to determine the truth, but it is certainly our job to weigh the reliability of sources and significance of opinions.22:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We have the established criteria for both reliability and notability provided. POV is dealt with by stating and attributing not by committeeing a syncretized version. Wether it is one of a perceived religous, secular or cultural one, simply state and attribute objectively the stance of the POV.--Tigeroo 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list of opinions. Arrow740 23:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Beit Or 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually DOES require a representation/ collection of WP:NPOV|all significant views on a subject. The threshold for inclusivitity is verifiabilty, not truth. Wikipedia acknowledges that there are differences on these (POVs) and has a consensus outline methodology on how to deal with this particular issue. I still see no reason forwarded on why facts and interpretations of by these personalities is censored, except by the vague and over-arching accusation that it is POV. To that issue there is a solution. To be regarded as WP:RS neutrality is NOT a criteria, peer review, significance and authority of the source is all that is required and then digispace depends on the weightage of the significance of the view. I beleive these sources can be included as long neither of the following can be demonstrated as applicable to them:

1. fringe theory,
2. non-notability of view or opinion,
3. involved little editorial oversight or academic rigor
4. or that the same view can be substituted by a more informed or reknowned source.

Right now the exclusions of these sources appear to be purely based on an western-centric academic bias.--Tigeroo 06:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we now take this opportunity to list our issues and resolve them here rather than article reversions. My personal opinion is we need to revisit WP:NPOV and establish a method of evaluating sources on the specific criteria. Else we can go out for third party mediation, comments or even Arbcomm to help set up a definite rule. Personally, I've tried a couple of places to bring in non-involved editors to come comment to help us out but do not seem have met with any interest.--Tigeroo 09:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's start to reach an agreement before the unprotecting of this article.I'll start a new section below.

[edit] Issues with article

Here is what I believe are burning issues here:

• Is Nomani a reliable?
• Is Mubarakpuri a reliable source?
• Watt and Stillman need to be "evaluated".

Am I right? If yes, let's proceed to resolve these issues.Bless sins 15:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In the beginning there's an error..it states that the Bani Nadir were beheaded..that is not true..it was the Banu Quraydah

This may seem pedantic compared to other issues debated here, but there are several typos in the article including bieng instead of being and thrity instead of thirty. I don't seem to be allowed to edit these at the moment so can someone just clean those up? I'm invoking {{editprotected}} (my first time so apologies if I've mucked the phrase) Jonathan Cardy 15:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to unprotect the article, so you will be able to edit it yourself. Everyone should be aware that edit warring can lead to editors being blocked as well as to the article being protected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, thankyou Carl. Jonathan Cardy 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pogroms

The tone of the article is unbelievable! It suggests the battle is a "pogrom" solely because the battle took place against Jews. I quote: " ... Muhammad's attacks against the Jews, first in Medina and then in Khaybar, had economic roots similar to those which have brought about persecutions and pogroms in other countries in the course of history"

This is a very biased approach since equal attention to Islamic religious aspects of the battle are not addressed. If this article was a part of a description of Jewish sentiments in the context of Jewish history such a biased approach could be accepted but, in this context it should be a neutral historical approach to factual events. It should not be an argument in favour of Jewish sentiments nor an article portraying Islamic dogma. The article itself substantiates reasons for Muslim hostility in prior actions by the Jews thus, the event does not merit itself as a pogrom in this context, if at all.

To fix the anti-Islamic tone claims even if correct must be presented in their correct context! Most importantly statements that suggest relative comparisons to other pogroms must be removed. This is not an article on pogroms. Pogrom is a biased word for atrocity, if killing your enemy counts as that.

This article if it something then it is pro-Islamic bias.We need to give more different opinions and NOT only William Montgomery Watt.I am sure there are other historians that think differently then him.87.69.77.82 18:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm a guy attacks jews,ensklaves the woman and children,kills the men and steals their possesions.I dont know if i would call it pogrom..more like ethnic cleansing,with clear economic thought in it. He hides his horrific deeds behind "orders from god"(heard something similar before? nürnberg?) And somebody is arguing about the tone of this wiki article...Truth can be insulting for some —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.251.215.40 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Only one author has made the assertion that the men were killed and women/children enslaved, everyone else states that they were allowed to live there as long as the Muslims allowed and as long as they payed tribute. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the torturing Kinana

It should be mention in this article in the aftermatch.87.69.77.82 21:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is, its just not quoted. Jedi Master MIK 16:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination as a good article

Do you agree to nominate this article as a good article.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No.It is not good article.It show all the event from Muslims point of view and not from neutral point of view.Oren.tal 16:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats a bit presumptuous considered virtually all the references given are from non-Muslims. Jedi Master MIK 16:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

First it should be evaluated for B-class.Bless sins 17:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Jedi Master MIK,Watt is non-Muslim but consider as apologist of Islam.in wikipedia criticism of islam it say "Responses to critics have come from non-Muslim scholars like William Montgomery Watt".Therefore in oreder to give more neutral poit of view we sould have also other historians that criticise Islam or al least no apologist.Oren.tal 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, Watt is far from being the only non-Muslim author cited on this page; there is also Lings, Stillman, and Lewis. Second, I don't know whose authority or decision your citing to label someone like that but the fact that he is a non-Muslim and defending Islam at the same time doesn't mean he's apologist, in fact using him to cite defense of Islam would be more neutral than a Muslim defending. Third, I suggest you don't label people apologist b/c IMHO it carries both negative and POV overtones to it. Jedi Master MIK 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

neutral point of view on this article is to accurately depict history in accordance with what the scholarly sources relate (Watt is perfectly reliable in this regard). it isn't an issue of piling up pro-Islamic vs. anti-Islamic views. ITAQALLAH 21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)