Talk:Banu Qurayza/Archive 2

Zora's addition: muslim responses

Zora added the section cited below as her compromise to present Muslim perspective of the issue, but the section is deleted by Pecher because according to him it is unsourced. I am putting the section for reference only, and when the source can be substantiated, the section can be put back to the main article. I have reference for the third point from a published work by an Ahmadiyya Muslim scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali, so I might put the third statement back into the main article. Any comments, guys? Meutia Chaerani 12:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(Written by Zora, May 2006)Muslim responses

Non-Muslims may find this story disturbing -- so too do many Muslims. The Muslim view of Muhammad is that he was mild and just, avoiding violence unless it was absolutely necessary. How then would he have allowed the killing of hundreds of men? Why were the Banu Qurayza not exiled, like the other Jewish tribes of Medina? Muslim scholars have approached this event in several ways.

• 1. Some scholars believe that Ibn Ishaq is not a reliable source, and that his account may be embroidered or exaggerated. They note that some elements of his story could only have come from descendants of the Banu Qurayza, and that those descendants may have lied.

Opponents would say that there are hadith that confirm Ibn Ishaq's account.

• 2. Some scholars say that Muhammad had given authority to Ibn Mu'adh to settle the affair, and had confidently anticipated that Ibn Mu'adh would sentence the Banu Qurayza to exile. When the arbiter ruled for death, Muhammad felt that this was the will of God and that he should not use his authority to challenge it. The blame for the killings belongs to Ibn Mu'adh, not to Muhammad.

Opponents say that Muhammad had the power to prevent massacre and should have used it.

• 3. One scholar has argued that Moses had directed the Jews to kill all the men of some tribes encountered during the conquest of Israel. If this was Jewish law, then it was only fair that Jews be treated according to Jewish law.

Opponents say that this was not Jewish law and not codified in the Talmud.

Treason

According to Muslim writings, there was no punishment in Qur'an at that time, which means that they chose a similar punishment in Torah. If Muslim accounts say this, why to completely nullify it using strong words like "in fact". Maybe non of them is right, but it important to write it down. Maybe Arabian Jews were following slightly different version of bible, which we don't have or they changed afterwards, or maybe it has nothing to do with treason at all, as the directive in Torah is regarding believers attacking someone else, I am not suggesting, I am just making assumptions. Hence, I believe that both views should be presented without pushing one more than the other. This is according to WP:NPOV. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The passage linked to does not say anything about the treatment of traitors, but about the treatment of a city that refused a peaceful settlement and was then conquered. Hence, any claim that it did is factually incorrect and hence must be reverted. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The judgement - copyedit

I simply re-organized the information, if you think I've lost some crutial information, we can discuss. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Al-Tabari

Al-Tabari is one of the main sources for early Islamic history, but no academics trust it to tell the whole truth all the time. There are too many demonstrable errors in it. For example, the al-Muqawqis who is said to have sent Maria the Copt to Muhammad is identified with Cyrus of the Caucasus, but he didn't take office in Egypt until years after the 627-628 date on which Tabari says Cyrus sent tribute to Muhammad. Examples could be multiplied. Citing Tabari doesn't prove anything. Zora 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He is still a vitally important primary source. Citing the Quran doesn't "prove" anything either. Removing him is entirely improper. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your re-addition of the work is marginally better, in that it doesn't claim reliability, but I'm not sure that this work should be singled out over Waqidi, Baladuri, Ibn Sa'd, and other early works. Why is this particular work is being stressed? Do you think that I'm a Muslim dedicated to proving that the massacre didn't happen? Far from it. My concern is historiography, not apologetics. I'm not sure that one should trust DETAILS in works written so long after the fact, but I think most historians would agree that the Muslims drove out the Jewish tribes of Medina. It would be great if we could do a proper archaeological dig in Medina and confirm or deny some questions re early Islamic history but I think that the chances of that happening are just ... about ... nil. Zora 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to add citations to Waqidi et al, then do so, by all means. to take ibn Ishaq out because Muslim apologists don't regard him as reliable (because... gasp!... some of his assertions contradict the Quran) is ridiculous. I never accused you of being any kind of apologetic-writer. Whether you are or are not a Muslim is entirely your own affair, and of no material weight in determining what should or should not be included in this article. I do agree with your wish for meaningful archaeological exploration of Arabia, as well as with your assessment of the odds of that happening. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Judgment based on Torah

I have removed the claim that Sa'd "announced that he would base himself on the Torah" when pronouncing judgment on Banu Qurayza. Ibn Ishaq does not say so, and this claim is pure original research. Beit Or 20:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This claim is from Mizan, which eventually gives reference to Ibn Ishaq. This is why I gave both references. TruthSpreader^Talk 22:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't understand the previous comments. The content is already sourced! the whole sentence is sourced from Mizan. TruthSpreader^Talk 01:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please quote the reference? Note that we are talking verifiability here - that the claim is nonsense is clear to anyone who can read the verses in Deuteronomy and compare them with the case 2000 years later. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 02:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've stated earlier, it is sourced from The Islamic Law of Jihad, written by Ghamidi. This article refers Ibn Hisham. I've already refered Mizan (which is a secondary source) and I've also refered Ibn Hisham and Deutoronomy (which are primary sources). TruthSpreader^Talk 03:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I believe that adversaries of Israelites 2000 years earlier were persecuted for denying or opposing a Messenger of God and hence they were punished. Islamic sources refer it for the same reason. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have copies of both ibn Ishaq (in Guillaume's reconstruction) and ibn Hisham. They never mention the Torah. Please stop this POV-pushing. Beit Or 05:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a POV of some Islamic scholars, because the statement by Sa'd, "I decree that the men be killed, the property be divided, and the women with their children be made captives." matches exactly with the punishment of Torah in similar circumstances. They consider it more than a coincidence. I would strongly recommend presenting this opinion, but only as an opinion of "some Islamic scholars". TruthSpreader^Talk 07:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

First, Sa'd's judgment has nothing to do with Torah. Secondly, the opinions of Islamic scholars on Torah are of no relevance. Beit Or 07:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well! I do respect your knowledge, but I think those who have this opinion are reputable scholars. There is no harm in presenting as an opinion, a definite POV, especially when we have quotes from John Esposito as well that Muhammad's action were not different from Hebrew prophets. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

While you're now saying it is POV, you stated it as fact. It is not only POV, but also a non-notable one: as I said above, what Ghamidi thinks on Torah is of no significance. Beit Or 07:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, please spare this article of Esposito's ramblings on warfare, which are not directly related to the Qurayza affair, and are only meant to attack Jews. Beit Or 07:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghamidi is a notable scholar. Maybe others will not look at Torah like this, but I've stated clearly that this opinion is held by some Muslim scholars. And I don't find a problem in preseting this opinion by a notable scholar. And what esposito is saying about Muhammad is in general about his warfare. And this incident is a very siginificant event in Muhammad's military compaign. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic in question. I'm already tired of repeating that views of Islamic scholars on the Torah are irrelevant. No one is trying to quote Jewish religious authorities on the Qur'an; I'm puzzled why it's happening the other way around. Beit Or 08:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is happening the other way around, because Muslims believe in Torah but Jews don't believe in Qur'an. Simple! Hence, Quranic exegetes like Islahi present alot of things from Torah to explain the Qur'an itself. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Muslims believe that Jews corrupted the Torah, and that's pretty much everything Islam imparts on the subject of Torah. Your claim that the ulema can be used as sources on the Jewish law is beyond ridiculous. It's like saying that Islamic scholars are good sources on cosmology because the Qur'an has several verses on the earth, sun, moon, and stars. Beit Or 08:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ulema do believe that Torah is currupted, but not completely. And I have given you opinions. Even early historians like Al-Tabari uses alot of things from Jewish traditions to explain in Islamic context. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And also they believe that to understand quran, the occassion of revelation is also important. Hence, study of direct addressees of Qur'an is very important in Quranic exegesis. I just can't figure out why notable Islamic opinions can't get space in this topic. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That was probably intended as an important argument, but it doesn't seem entirely relevant to the Banu Qurayza. Beit Or 08:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And interestingly, interpretation of Torah is done differently by Jews, Christians and then Muslims. For example, why don't we remove opinions of Christian theologians who believe that Christ is Messiah as per Torah when Jews don't consider him Messiah. Similary, why can't a notable Muslim opinion have space in encyclopedia? TruthSpreader^Talk 08:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above. Beit Or 08:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is still not answered. I've also given the opinion on your last comment. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

TS,

The Torah has objectively nothing to do with Saad's verdict, as the Torah does not state that traitors should be summarily executed and their women made captive. That's like saying US law states that thieves are punished by death because the law punishes some other crime like murder this way.

If Saad however wrongly thought this way or used the Torah in a manipulative way (which ever) this must be clearly referenced. However, your statement "it is a POV of some Islamic scholars, because the statement by Sa'd ... matches exactly with the punishment of Torah in similar circumstances. They consider it more than a coincidence" indicates that there is no basis for attributing Saad with such claims: what we have is the verdict given and then opinion (and hence a POV) of Islamic scholars. It is the scholars that draw a link between the verdict and the Torah. That they are wrong is another matter as the two do not match exactly, as explained above. Still, this view can be mentioned and I think the best place would be a footnote saying "Some Islamic scholars have opined that Saad took this punishment from Deuteronomy which states ...". It must however be clear that this verse has nothing to do with treason.

As for your statement "I believe that adversaries of Israelites 2000 years earlier were persecuted for denying or opposing a Messenger of God and hence they were punished." is peculiar. First of all, you change the alleged crime - suddenly we are concerned with "dennying or opposing" a prophet. If this was Muhammad's accusation then he was the one that breached the Medina constitution. Secondly, of course you are wrong as no one ever was punished legally (as opposed to some act of God) for denying or opposing a prophet. Prophet was no legal position but a calling from God. More often than not it was the prophets that had to endure punishment. And of course this is entirely logical as you cannot legally prescribe a prophet. A prophet will prove a prophet in time, when his prophecies come true.

I cannot tell how notable these scholars are, but I completely agree with BeitOr that Islamic scholars cannot be quoted to explain what the Torah (or the Gospels) - two books they effectively reject - mean. They may use it occasionally but since they have been allegedly corrupted and superceded by the Quran, this is rather inconsequential, since how are they to know that they are not dealing with a "corrupted passage". What they are doing is still arguing within the Islamic sphere. Hence their view and their interpretation is entirely Islamic.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your lengthy comment. Qur'an clearly says it doesn't disregard previous books but confirms them. Hence, previous books are considered currupted but not invalid and this is why Islamic scholar think that there is some truth in these books about previous incidents, to which Qur'an sometimes only alludes in a very concise way. The thing, which is really bothering me is that Jews and Christians will always say that Muhammad was not a prophet and hence, he was incompatible with Hebrew prophets and Islam would always assert that he is the last in these prophets. This is exactly, why I quoted Esposito, which is a very relevant quote as it compares Muhammad with Hebrew prophets (which you might not agree). I would never say that people were killed because of betraying. They were killed because of denying a prophet or his message. If I can still remember, according to Qur'an and Bible both, people who worshipped Golden calf were persecuted, as it is not betrayal but challenge to God infront of his designated messenger. And these things make people like Esposito and Karen Armstrong to think that there is no difference in basic philosophy of Hebrew prophets and Muhammad.

I think, the comment "such punishment is not in Torah" needs to be presented properly and sourced, otherwise it simply shows your conclusion that such punishments doesn't exist but not of any scholar in particular. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether your points are relevant, I will address them:

• The Quran confirms the existence of previous books but disqualifies the actually existing previous books by calling the subject to corruption. In the words of some promiment Muslims (don't know who it was): if they disagree with the Quran they are wrong, if they agree with it they are superfluous. In any case, Islam revolves around the Quran and around the Torah or the Gospels (not that Judaism or Christianity revolve around these - these are not book religions).
• That Muhammad is not accepted by Jews and Christians might bother you but you can't be helped on that. And we do no reject him and because of that declare him incompatible - no, we think him incompatible and therefore reject him. How Esposito helps is beyond me.
• I know of no one in the Bible who is punished for denying a prophet. The Golden Calf worshippers were not actually persecuted (it was a one time event) but punished for idolatry. I can't remember hearing about Isaiah killing people for not accepting him - rather he was killed by the King according to extrabiblical sources. Jeremiah had a lot to suffer from both the people and the King. Muhammad is quite different on this: the worst case is I think that of Beni Qunayqa, the first Jewish tribe he attacked ... for refusing to convert to Islam. In the end, they were exiled because of Abdallah's intercession. In case of the Qurayza, they had at least really broken faith (though I can only understand too well, why they did it).
• The point about such a punishment for treason not being in the Torah is already sourced, as the verses referenced by your scholars do not talk about treason. If you (OR rather your scholars) can come up with a verse linking treason and that punishment then provide it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• What's up with the OR? Who cares? Find a scholar and quote him, or stop wasting wikipedia resources, your OR will not get to the article, and well sourced scholarly quotes are not going out due to OR. You view that the quoted scholars are not showing the whole picture? Bring other scholars, but stop the argumentation. --Striver 14:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont't get it, why are you engaging in OR? Who cares if the Islamic scholar is right or wrong, that is totally irrelvant. The only question is: Is the scholar notable or not. In this case, the answer is yes. His comments are regarding this issue, hence they will stay here, as long as they are attributed to that scholar. That all there is to it, No OR thanks! --Striver 13:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely not irrelevant. But what I am doing is stating the obvious, that the article is not about treason but about - not conquest of a city by any conqueror, but about the conquest of a city of the Canaanites by the Israelites. And that is not OR.

As for Esposito he is not only wrong but he is off topic. We are not talking war, we are talking a verdict and its execution. I know that topicality is a concept that not every editor around grasps, but this it is foundational to any encyclopedia.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The worst thing is ALM's unashamed POV pushing by writing "Although Sa'd judged according to his own views, his ruling coincides with Deuteronomy 20:10–14. His ruling does not coincide with Deuteronomy. I guess doesn't mean that the two appeared alongside without causal connection (which is what the sentence actually means, which is ridiculous given that the two events are apart at least 1200 years) but that Sad's verdict agrees with these verses. Which, as I said, is clearly not the case. At best it is a Muslim POV. But of course we have learned by now that according to some editors everything has to confirm the Muslim POV (which is not a POV but the plain truth). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Split

Per Khaybar - Battle of Khaybar, i want to split out the seige into Siege of Banu Qurayza, since the section is getting undue weight in a tribe article as is now. In ordinary cases, i would not hesitate to go bold, but in this case, i will wait and let people think about it. --Striver 18:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Man, the waiting his hampering my work, ill go ahead. If anyone objects, please let me know. --Striver 19:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You didn't wait particularly long. I STRONGLY object to what you're doing, and will likely revert this radical change undertaken without any serious attempt to seek consensus. The main reason why the Qurayza are known today is that they lost a war against the early Muslims and were massacred. To split that out into a separate article makes no sense whatsoever. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bro, please, i did not do this to hide anything, now we have a whole article dedicated to just that: Siege of the Banu Qurayza. And they are acctualy notable for their alliance with banu Nadir, pleading for them, their part in the Battle of Bu'ath, being in the constitution of Madina etc, they are not notable ONLY due to that event, are they? Maybe if we make that section more prominent would satisfy you? Im just trying to keep with WP:NPOV#Undue weight, you know... think about it, now this way, the most prominent event has it's own article, doesn't that make sense? --Striver 19:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it wasn't WP:NPOV#Undue weight, give me a sec, ill dig out the guidline *searching*... --Striver 19:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly not your "bro". And no, it does not make sense to split this off into its own article. This is how most people know about the Banu Qurayza. If it is not your intent to hide this information, and I will assume in good faith that it is not, it is definitely the consequence. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "sis"? --Striver 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Undue weight" means not giving excessive coverage to a marginal view. If anything in the article is given undue weight, it is your false contention that Sa'd's judgment comported with Jewish law. At best it comported with a single sentence in Deuteronomy, taken entirely out of context and distorted beyond its intended scope (as that scope had ALWAYS been defined in Jewish law.) Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

If you cut out the hadith quotes and move them to the appropriate section, that is the siege section, then the seige will get have even more text and details than the entire history of the entire tribe, including post-Islamic times. This is clearly to my "quantity of text" and "depth of detail" and should be split out per Undue weight. But it is also very true that the tribe is most prominent due to this event. Both issues can be solved to every bodies content without violating the guidelines, can't it? How about we put a prominent link to the siege in the intro and then put some picture on the siege summary section of the main, making it more prominent. Wouldn't that solve your concerns? --Striver 20:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just think about this: The "Campaigns of Muhammad" campaign box is at the top of the article of a tribe article - now, is that really reasonable? Then the article start by giving the history of the tribe. Now, think about it, all of that would be solved with a split out of the notable section: Nothing is lost, all is better. --Striver 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article is entirely unnecessary. And as I said, the only undue weight I see appears to be your insistence on including sources of dubious scholarly work that erroneously state the Banu Qurayza were exterminated in accordance with their own law and beliefs. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, what source is "dubious scholarly", specifically? --Striver 20:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is Ghamidi who is blatantly lying that Sa'd referred to the Torah when pronouncing his judgment and makes a reference to ibn Ishaq. There is simply no mention of the Torah ibn Ishaq. Beit Or 20:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ill answer that in the a appropriate section. --Striver 20:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I urge you to think about what i quoted from undue weith, "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints...undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text"--Striver 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

i just wanted to comment: i think it's entirely logical to split the siege, its events and the scholarly analysis of it (and there is much) into another article. it also seems to facilitate an important addition for this 'Campaigns' template as Striver suggested. Qurayza is not merely known for its supposed bloody end, it did indeed have a significant role and history in pre-hijri Medina and during its time in post-hijri Medina. Khaybar seems to set a logical precedence for this. ITAQALLAH 20:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Per Itaqallah's agreement, i have expanded the siege section and moved it to its own article that now spans twice the content of the main article. It's not reasonable to have a battle take 2/3 of the entire space of tribe article. To make sure that nobody misses the article, it has been linked to 3 (three) times, two (2) of them in the lead - and it has been prominently depicted as killing of many men. Im sure nobody will miss the article now and nobody alleged any motives of hiding the article, something that is done in good faith in order to follow wikipedia guildlines. --Striver 05:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And as an added bonus, Template:Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad now linkes directly to the siege article, going right to the killing, ensuring that nobody gets bored reading the tribes history. And would they want to read it, then they are more than well informed about this article, all in accordance with efforts to please those who want to ensure that nobody misses the event. --Striver 05:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be split. The name "Sieg of Banu Qurayza" already indicates that it is centred around this tribe. I don't see a problem with the Campaignbox, but if you don't like it we can remove it here and link to this article from "Battle of the Trench". Undue weight also is not a problem since IMHO a people's demise is an important part in its history, especially if it did not "die a natural death" but was massacred. And Itaqallah, whxy is the tribe's end only "supposed" to be bloody? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Here, see Siege of Ta'if and Ta’if. I have cited guidelines and given precedence to support the split. What the arguments against a split? I am not arguing that their death is non-notable, on the contrary, i say it was so notable that it needs a whole article to present it in detail. Isn't it logical to give an entire sub-article on notable event? --Striver 13:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Their end is not only notable in itself but it is even more notable to an article on the Qurayza. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is right, that is why i put three (3) links to the article, two of them in the lead and one in a specific section giving a summary. Now that we agree that the event is notable enough to have it's own detailed article, why are we keeping a copy of it in this article? --Striver 16:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if I get this right: after posting again and again absurd justifications for this massacre, you create a separate article for the actual facts (without consensus) and now you ware using this as a basis for removing the facts from this article? Brilliant, quite brilliant. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing that i need consensus to create an article about a battle? And obviouly, most if not all my additions to this article were kept, and those who were not kept would be kept now that i know more about them. --Striver 13:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I am arguing that you need consensus to strip this here article from information if you haven't obtained (or even tried to obtain) a consensus for creating this fork article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Siege of the Banu Qurayza is a typical example of a content fork. The problem with starting this article is that we have no information on the siege proper other than it lasted for 25 days. This is insufficient material for an article on a battle. Furthermore, Banu Qurayza is reasonably short at the moment - just 21KB - while there articles in excess of 100KB. Beit Or 10:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from the article, there is ample material about the siege and and surrounding events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by striver (talk • contribs).

dubious scholarly

"It is Ghamidi who is blatantly lying that Sa'd referred to the Torah when pronouncing his judgment and makes a reference to ibn Ishaq. There is simply no mention of the Torah ibn Ishaq."

Well, first of all, that is your interpretations. He did not says that Sa'd referred to the Torah, just that it coincided. So no lie here. Im sure you misread his statement. And even if he was lying, that does not make him any less of a notable scholar.

Further, the view that there is a likeness to the Torah is not restricted to Ghamidi, it is also quote by Mahdi Puya and the PBS documentary film, so that link is in no way non-notable, rather to the contrary, it is drawn by multiple independent scholars. --Striver 20:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A PBS "documentary" spawned by a bunch of who-knows-who is not a scholarly source. To say the judgment "coincided" with the Torah without having actually drawn on the Torah is to engage in total irrelevancy. I "coincide" with Brad Pitt in that we both have brown hair, but that doesn't mean that Angelina Jolie is going to jump my bones when I get home (more's the pity).Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not but I can still dream!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this the people who you call "a bunch of who-knows-who"? --Striver 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If the contention is that Sa'd drew on the Torah and Jewish law in making his judgment, then state that and let's include the multiple and diverse sources that refute this view. If the contention is that the judgment bore some passing resemblance to a phrase in the Torah taken out of all context, it has no place in an encyclopedia article and should be removed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, our conclusions are totaly irrelevant, we only get to cite scholars. We determine if they are notable, and then we quote them and do some editorial work. Doing our own conclusions is OR and is strictly prohibited per policy. I personaly welcome you to "include the multiple and diverse sources that refute", that would put an end to you feeling that there the article is unbalanced. I am not sarcastic or anyting, we need you to bring scholars that you feel will remove any objections you have, that is what we do, we do not remove scholars based on our arguments. When conflicting views emerge, we do not remove both, we include both. So, please, i beg you, bring the contradicting sources so we can move on to more other issues. --Striver 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Since, at that time, no specific punishment had been revealed in the Qur’an about the fate of the Jews, Sa‘ad announced his verdict in accordance with the Torah."[1] These are the words of Ghamidi; as you can easily check, ibn Ishaq says nothing of the kind. Then, another falsehood: "As per the Torah, the punishment for treason was that all men should be put to death; the women and children should be made slaves and the wealth of the whole nation should be distributed among the conquerors." This has already been addressed above in details. Beit Or 21:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I received information who stated that the English version of the book is a mistranslated. But even if it wasn't, it would be irrelevant, we don't conclude things, we do not make arguments. Is he lying? Then it will be easy to bring scholars who expose him. Please do that so we can move on.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Striver (talk • contribs).

It is interesting that some of the same folks who claim that Daniel Pipes et al. are not qualified to offer interpretations of the Quran are so quick to accept Mahdi Puya and Ghamidi's infantile interpretations of Torah. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

An honest question: Is Daniel Pipes regarded as a authority on the Qur'an? I do not know him, thus the question. As far as Mahdi Puya goes, he has writen his own tafsir and it is the the only one used at Al-Islam.org's quran translation. As little as i know about Daniel Pipes, he hasn't written any tafsir, only being a political commentator. Am i wrong? In any case, this is not really relavant to this topic. Bring the scholars that have the pov you view is missing, and then we will have NPOV (all POV) and all will be fine. --Striver 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver, no one said Pipes were or were an authority on the Quran (and I have no view right now on this). However, if you deny him that qualification, how can you turn around and think that Puya is qualified to interpret the Torah. This double standard is the point Brian was making. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither Daniel Pipes is an authority on Quran, Islamic Law etc. nor is Puya an authority on the Torah. Puya, however, must have studied the Torah (to become a scholar of Islam) as the Quran relates many events in the Hebrew Bible, that however, doesn't make him a scholar. I think the best we can do is state that "such and such" scholar writes "such and such". Note, however, Daniel Pipes isn't even a scholar (on niether Islam nor 7th Century Arabian history), so he doesn't deserve to be quoted as such.Bless sins 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That is absolutely ridiculous. Daniel Pipes has a PhD in medieval Islamic history and has authored many peer reviewed articles and papers on Islamic jurisprudence. He is eminently qualified to discuss the Quran. Your assertion that Puya "must have studied the Torah" to become a scholar of Islam is likewise ludicrous; at best it is OR for which you have provided no support. There is no such requirement for an interpreter of the Quran. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this article can be reduced significantly as we have Siege of the Banu Qurayza.Bless sins 02:33, 17

Yes, i agree, we should change it to this version. --Striver 06:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not how Wikipedia works. There is no consensus that that section is necessary or proper. It is certainly not proper to "reduce" this article in the absence of such consensus. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. He can have his own article if he wants to do but he cannot use that to "reduce" this article here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment You do not need to be a scholar of Y to say "X is like Y", but you need to be a scholar of X in order for your view to be relevant on an article about X. Thus, if X is "Islamic scholar/historian" and Y is the Torah, it is fully valid to quote the scholar who states "The judgment was like a verse from the Torah".--Striver 06:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-correction As has now been established that Pipes indeed does have qualifications to scholarly talk about Islamic history, so I'll adapt my above comment. Anyway, Pipes is not the subject of this article.

Comment Puya however has no qualifications to scholarly talk about the Torah, which does not prevent him from talking about it anyway. BUT: it is not scholarship! What he says he says in the context of the Islamic religion. That his statement is factually wrong is another indicator for this. Still I do not object to this view being included IF put in the proper context. So no POV pushing claims like the ones we have heard in the past. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources and judgement

I am going to review all the sources, that talk about using Torah in judgement of Banu Qurayza:

1. Ghamidi: Ghamidi's contention is that Qur'an is saga of Muhammad. Hence, absence of prescription of this punishment for Banu Qurayza at that time gives him a good excuse to believe that the decree came from Torah as Ibn Ishaq's statement matches with a ruling in Torah (which talks about treatment of inhabitants of a city at a particular time and space). There is a mistake in his English translation, the original Urdu version doesn't give *treason* as the reason and I have pointed this mistake to the webmaster of the website with the translation.
2. Mahdi Puya can be merged with Ghamidi's sentence.
3. John Esposito: His quoted comments are just after the persecution of Banu Qurayza, hence, these comments by Esposito are not *out of context*. His comments might not be related to the decree from Torah, but definitely related to the judgement of Banu Qurayza. Actually, he even goes onto giving the examples of Hebrew prophets who took arms with the permission of the God e.g. Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Samuel, Jehu, Saul, and David. Secondly, discarding a cruitial source from Oxford University Press will not be a good idea, especially when it talks in the context.
4. Caesar E. Farah: She is Professor of History at University of Minnesota. She writes in "Islam: Beliefs and Observances" on page 52:

Angered by the betrayal of the Banu Qurayzah in the violation fo their oath, Muhammad submitted them to trial by the chief of the Aws whom they had requested to pass judgement upon them. Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, the chief, decreed all fighting men of the Banu Qurayza be put to death. This was in keeping with the Jewish law (Deuteronomy 20:12), which decreees the killing of every male in such situations, He was convinced that they would have meted out similar judgement on the Muslims had they and their allies triumphed instead. None but four would forsake Judaism for Islam as a price of survival.

Her profile can be read here.

• Even *if* the persecution was done according to laws in Torah, I believe that Banu Qurayza would not have accepted it as a punishment of Torah by the Lord. Hence, I believe that it is irrelevant that what is Jewish interpretation of this law, as the decree was *simply* promulgated by an old Jewish ally.

However, I believe that it is important to write that Ibn Ishaq doesn't explicitly state that the punishment was given from Torah. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC) December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Caesar Farah is a man. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Lolz, I didn't know that! TruthSpreader^Talk 03:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish interpretation of the Torah

The first thing is that giving an example of the interpretation of Torah does not prove that Jews of certain time and place also had that interpretation. Secondly, even *if* the punishment was given according to Torah, it was simply promulgated rather consulted with any of the Jewish tribes, hence, I find it useless and also Original research to say that Torah was *always* interpreted this way. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's simply your original research that the Jews at that time and place may have interpreted the Torah differently. The interpretation given in the article is a standard one, and it's referenced to standard sources on the Jewish law. Beit Or 20:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Original research is to introduce a "standard interpretation". If it is really that standard, i am sure you will find some scholar that refutes or disagrees with the multiple scholars who have cited the Torah. Just bringing it up yourself is the very definition of OR. --Striver 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Multiple scholars" apparently stands for the two modern Muslim scholars, who are, of course, uniquely qualified to interpret the Torah. You've apparently failed to notice that the current interpretation is referenced to a tractate from the Talmud and to Maimonides: it's difficult to find more widely accepted references on the interpretation of the Torah as these two. Beit Or 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I note again that the "scholars" cited themselves cite to no source for their assertion of what is or is not Jewish law beyond quoting verbatim a couple of cherrypicked lines from Deuteronomy. Farah's allegation that Sa'd judged based on what he thought the Banu Qurayza would have themselves done is ludicrous and is Farah's opinion; it is perhaps the most unscholarly of all the many dubious assertions made by him in his tome. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the scholars that mention the Torah in conjecture with this event:

• Mahdi Puya, supported by al-Islam.org
• Caesar E. Farah
• Javed Ahmad Ghamidi
• John Esposito
• Fethullah Gülen [2]
• Ali Asgher Razwy [3], supported by al-Islam.org
• Abdullah Yusuf Ali
• others.

• Non-RS include: islamanswers.net
• Really non-RS: [4]

--Striver 22:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Beit or

Beit or, i applaud you for inserting new material, but i wished you had not deleted other material in the procces. At the same time, your edits have unbalanced the article by inserting one point of view and removing the other. Please correct this, so that others do not feel that you are doing this on purpose. --Striver 17:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Here is some changes i am doing:

• "The bulk of the tribe's men" was changed to "Nearly all of the tribe's men". I am reverting this, since that is a contested, some view that it was the warriors who were killed, while a few scholars reject the whole story--Striver 17:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • jews-for-allah.org is an ultra-reliable source. Beit Or 20:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The article happen to be on their server, but they are not the source. Did you read the article? --Striver 22:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• I sectioned the article and rearranged it into chronological order. I also added a few more sources. Nothing is deleted by this edition. --Striver 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Massacre is not an appropriate term, since it denotes wanton and indiscriminate killing. This was not the case, however, i will not remove it, so other editors can weight in. --Striver 18:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Beit or, what MOS? --Striver 20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Killing every male except those that converted to Islam is not massacre? Give me a break! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

TotallyDisputed

The article has several problems now.

• Sa'd is not even mentioned in the intro, while Muhammad is painted as the only resposible
• Massacre is neither accurate nor neutral
• The scholars that reject the whole incident as unfactual is not even mentioned
• The Scholars that view that only the fighting men were killed is are not even mentioned
• The article has removed all references of Banu Q choosing Sa'd as arbitrator. It's is not even mentioned as a POV.

Guys, are we trying to be NPOV or just advocate the viewpoint that we happen to have? --Striver 22:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Given credible sources we can include the POVs that are missing.
• Massacre is a completely accurate term. If you are ashamed of your prophet's actions that is your problem and not WP's.
• According to what I have read, the Qurayza did not chose Sad as judge (arbitrator is really a wrong term, given that the Jews had already surrendered - if the was arbitrator it was between Muhammad and the Aws). From what I read, the Aws interceded on behalf of their old allies, the Qurayza, and Muhammad proposed (according to what I read terminally ill) Sad, one of their chieftains, as judge. The Aws agreed and Sad pronounced his deathly verdict. The Qurayza, not being part of the negotiations, were not in the position to chose.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks are against WP:CIV, consider not repeating it. Hmm... i just read "Massacre" in order to disprove you, but instead i found that it does meat that definition. So, you will add that some scholars reject the whole notion of a massacre, provided that they are notable? --Striver 01:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• My posting contains neither an argument "ad hominem" nor an attack (and, if you haven't noticed, the two are not the same).
• If there are notable historians that reject the historicity of the event in its entirety or in parts, they can be included as a view according to their due weight. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you call this "If you are ashamed of your prophet's actions that is your problem and not WP's."? --Striver 02:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is neither an attack against you, nor is an argument. Since you now accept the applicability of the term "massacre", the reason for the comment is no longer valid, for which I am grateful. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 02:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Sa'ad, Seyyed Hossein Nasr in Britannica Encyclopedia, Muhammad article writes: "When it was discovered that members of the Jewish tribe Qurayzah had been complicit with the enemy during the Battle of the Ditch, Muhammad turned against them. The Qurayzah men were separated from the tribe's women and children and ordered by the Muslim general Sa'd ibn Mu'adh to be put to death; the women and children were to be enslaved. This tragic episode cast a shadow upon the relations between the two communities for many centuries, even though the Jews, a “People of the Book” (that is, like Christians and Zoroastrians, as well as Muslims, possessors of a divinely revealed scripture), generally enjoyed the protection of their lives, property, and religion under Islamic rule and fared better in the Muslim world than in the West. Moreover, Muslims believe that the Prophet did not order the execution of the Jews of Medina, but many Western historians believe that he must have been, at the very least, informed of it."--Aminz 02:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, does that quote help. It certainly is not well informed, since Sad is called "a Muslim general". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Punishment from Torah

I just received the email from Ceaser Farah, as I inquired about her sources and this is what she responded:

Dear Mr, *****:

I am puzzled by your inquiry. Yes, the book is scholarly; the publisher was the first back in 1965 to commission this study as a part of a series on religions. Secondly, the chief (Sa'd) judged the banu Qurayzah by their own laws as per their agreement in the document they signed at Yathrib with the rest of the tribes settled there.

Farah

I am even ready to reveal the original email. The point is very clear. She didn't make a blind opinion. Jews had the agreement with the Muhammad, that they can only be put on trial according to their own laws. This is not Original research and book is scholarly. Hence, any comments against this assertion are Original research unless sourced properly. Thank you! TruthSpreader^Talk 16:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I will assume that this letter is exactly what you claim it is.

So Farah thinks that the book is scholarly. Great. The fact remains that the assertion made by Farah that Sa'd judged according to how the BQ would have judged is unsourced, unreferenced, and unscholarly. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, FYI, Caesar Farah is a man!! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Farah doesn't need to prove that she is scholarly. Just look at her profile! Secondly, please stop pushing your POV. If scholars believe that every thing happened according to Constitution of Medina, then don't censor it. Instead, try to bring sources that would oppose it. It is in the same context that she says that B.Q. would do the same to Muslims if something happened the other way around. --TruthSpreader^Talk 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the letter doesn't add anything to our discussion that we didn't know (or could safely assume). Farah doesn't give her sources and from what I gater the agreement of the Qurayza she is talking about is the agreement to the Constitution in which Muhammad was made final arbiter. And hence, they had in advance agreed to abide by his judgement. He transferred this to Sad. However, are we expected to believe that the Qurayza agreed to their own death? All other claims about "their own law" are unsourced here as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by unsourced! Constitution of Medina says very clearly "The Jews of the ... are one community with the believers. To the Jews their religion and to the Muslims their religion. [This applies] to their clients and to themselves with the exception of anyone who has done wrong or committed treachery, for he harms only himself and his family." It was not Banu Qurayza who would have agreed with Muhammad to their own death but other Jewish clans, who were left with no other choice but to obey their old ally who (Sa'd) had converted to Islam by that time. Even common sense asks for the explanation of this peaceful handover of this clan to be persecuted, which would show that they didn't have any honor and they handed over one of their clans to be persecuted, which is very difficult to assume in Arabian societies, especially if you look at their previous dialogues with Muhammad. TruthSpreader^Talk 01:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The excerpt from the Constitution of Medina you have cited does not demonstrate that Muhammad had any right to be judge over the Jews, let alone judge them according to the Jewish law, no matter how twisted. Beit Or 10:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from a few remnants there were no Jews left in their city of Jathrib, thanks to the previous expulsions. Those agreeing to Sad being judge are those from among the Aws that had interceded for the Qurayza. M's move was indeed very shrewd.

And as for unsourced, thus far who haven't explained to us what these sources are. Where is Mr Farah getting this from? The mail certainly doesn't add anything (unsurprisingly). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I do respect your analysis, but it is Original research to suggest that Farah has a blind comment. If the book is scholarly, it wouldn't have passed through just like that! I don't want to discuss it further its actual implementation because we are never going to come to the same understanding, otherwise we will be in trouble of legitimizing all the bloodshed (rightly or un-rightly) by Hebrew prophets. My only concern is the trivialization of Farah's comments and removal of Espositos comments (which are said in this particular context in his book). It is not our job as wikipedians to assess that what is right or wrong, but rather reputation of the author and the publisher determines the quality of the quote. If we don't understand, leave it to the scholars. Thank you! TruthSpreader^Talk 07:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The reputation of Esposito as a Saudi-sponsored propagandist not known for any independent research on Muhammad is pretty low. Not to mention that the quote was not about the Qurayza, regardless of the place in his book where it appears. Beit Or 10:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your leaving it to the scholars is meaning lets leave it to the e-mail you got from MS. Ceaser Farah whos signing her name with last name only. Not Mr. Caesar Farah who probably doesnt.

Also WHY would we be in trouble of the legitimizing all the bloodshed by Hebrew prophets? Thats not on the topic of this article!Opiner 10:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, I have encountered this in some many Muslim apologists: replies like "your bible contains contradictions/errors etc too" (to criticism of the quran) or "your prophets killed people too" (to criticism of violence by Muhammad) or simply "crusades". Well, even if all this counter-criticism were true, this would not in any touch the matter of criticism of Islam or any of its elements. It might be that all three religions are not true (obviously not my view, but there you go). Just one more thing: "all the bloodshed by Hebrew prophets"? which prophets are we talking about? Well, Moses did spill some blood as did Elijah. Elisha probably too. Phineas comes to mind too, but he was no prophet as such. And that's about it. (It is noteworthy that none of this happened merely because someone refused to believe a certain prophet - there are many prophets that were disbelieved in their day without resorting to violence and many prophets were also killed. Unfortunately, Islam cannot give other examples as it has only one prophet.) But I guess those uttering that reply are not actually interested in discussing this but only in silencing criticism of their prophet. I agree with TS that it's not our job to assert what is right or wrong but to report events, facts and views. However, we do report events truthfully even if this results in "bad press". Saying that that something was evil would violate NPOV but hiding some fact would be an even worse violation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why MR.Farah sign e-mail with only his last name?Opiner 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, it is indeed possible that he or she (I don't know which right now) did sign this way. Sometimes a signature has only the second name. I see no reason to doubt TS claim. However, the letter is completely irrelevant as it doesn't help us. It doesn't help anything scholarly and, since it is not a published source, it could only give a hint as to how understand a certain wording in her/his book. But that is not our situation. Best to forget about the letter. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe normal where TS is from but definitely NOT at University of Minnesota where Mr. Caesar Farah is teaching. Okay though anyhow youre right we cant citing the e-mail. SO not relevantOpiner 00:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think the mail is irrelevant and doesn't help. However, I must now agree with Opiner's sceptiscism: If such a mail exists, why is the recipient misspelling the name and why is he mistaken about the sender's sex? Just observations. In any case, the mail is useless. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Did Mr. Farah authorize Truthspreader to make their correspondence public? If not, then we might be in a real life trouble. Beit Or 22:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make any contract for not publicizing it. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is assumed that any communication done througfh private channels, including emails, will stay private. Making it public without permission is, at least, reprehensible. Beit Or 10:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that private communication is usually confidential and I hope TS doesn't get into trouble. However, can we close the discussion about this irrelevant mail? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Except maybe, if anyone can shed light on the question whether Mr Farah is a Muslim or not. Some book titles sound very Islamic but I will not judge from them. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

POV section names

What's up with the pov section names, "Muhammad against Meccans and Jews" being the most glaring one? --Striver 03:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Should be Muhammads Friendship with Meccans and Jews.Opiner 07:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be a proper section title, the one I chose is definitely open for improvement. However, "battles and expulsions" is quite vague and the format with the year preceding this is ugly (and inaccurate, not all this happened in one year). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And always remember: this article is about the BQ so that whole narrative, the structure and the headers should be denoting how this is important to the history of the BQ. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent addition

If you look at Ibn Hisham here. The exact phrase is: "She was the woman who threw a millstone down from the Qurayza fort and killed a Believer". I still have good faith and believe that this mistake was not delibrate. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For the recent comments on recent edit; I will never present it as a justification of massacre. I've already given the opinion in my previous comments. I don't equate things like killing of one person to the killing of the whole tribe. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Then don't lecture me about a "scholarly source". It was obvious to me all the time that her stone killed a Muslim ("a believer" would be POV) - otherwise it wouldn't have been mentioned - so obvious that it didn't occur to me that anyone could not understand. And I think Muir thought the same when he wrote what he wrote. And yes, under the premise of the massacre, the woman's death is only logical. If this is merely an honest augmentation of an honest edit (I say not mistake as there was no mistake), then why cry so loud? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You also wrote that it was clear. Don't tell me that it was clear. The punishment was only for adult males. You are giving a wrong impression to the readers by censoring the information. The woman was punished for killing a person, not for the reason Qurayza was killed. Unfortunately, if Qurayza wouldn't have signed the treaty with Muhammad, they wouldn't face this problem. As R.B. Serjeant gives a complete agreement which was exclusively between Muhammad and Banu Qurayza, just prior to battle of the trench. Muhammad even raised the status of Qurayza against other Jewish tribes by making blood money of Qurayza equivalent to Banu Nadir.

Kindly see: title={The" Sunnah Jami'ah," Pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the" Tahrim" of Yathrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents Comprised in the So-Called'Constitution of Medina'}, author={Serjeant, RB}, journal={Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London}, volume={41}, number={1}, pages={1--42}, year={1978}, publisher={JSTOR}

--TruthSpreader^Talk 13:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I said it was clear to me and I thought it would be clear to everybody else too. You can hardly use the "The punishment was only for adult males" against me, when I was the one that added the one exception. You could have merely posted the clarification that she was killed as a combatant, to use modern language. If the Qurayza and the Nadir would have supported their brethren against their ultimate slayer they wouldn't have faced this problem. It was M. who first broke his part of the compact by exiling and robbing the Quanayqa (though he would have rather killed them, if Abdallah hadn't prevented this). So again (and this time clearly) you are justifying the slaughtering of a complete tribe. But at least you are doing it without twisting the Bible. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

But all this is irrelevant to our article here. Here is a relevant question regarding your edit [5]: What does this mean about the blood money? You will have to explain it, so that everyone can understand. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting that this article is about Banu Qurayza and not Siege of the Banu Qurayza‎, which has been deleted. Hence, any information, regarding Banu Qurayza, notable enough, is relevant to this article. I may not have represented the information properly. Serjeant says that Banu Qurayza were inferior to Banu Nadir. Muhammad raised their status and made them equal to Banu Nadir, and blood-money is a very important measure in those days to see that what is the status of each tribe. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

TS, could you please be so kind and actually read what I have written! Where have I said that this were not relevant? (What is irrelevant is your and my moral consideration of Muhammad's deeds.) I have asked for an explanation on what this means - no more and no less. Please do so now or do research to find out. In which way were the BQ inferior to the BN, who originated this and how etc. And please, no mere repitition of what you have already written but so that we all may understand. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is what serjeant says:

The person who made the pact (~ti~ib 'a.qd) and treaty on behalf of Banii Qurayzah was the chief Ka'b b. Asad. Qurayzah disliked the coming of Meccan Quraysh and their tribal allies; they were at peace with the Prophet (silm-un li-'l-nabiyy) ,87 and on good terms with the Muslims who even borrowed implements from them to dig the Trench to defend Yathrib. It looks as if Muhammad had established friendship with Qurayzah by backing them up against the Banii Nadir with whom they seem to have been on bad terms. Qurayzah was of inferior status to the Banii Nadir since the blood-money for a man of Qurayzahwas only half the full blood-money payable for the slaying of a man of Banii Nadir. Muhammad raised the assessment of Quray~ah to the full amount of blood-money.88

--TruthSpreader^Talk 16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged the added information. Some issues remain:

• "suggesting that Muhammad never broke any contract with them or exposed them to any shame"

I added a fact tag as I added the word "them" to then sentence without knowing for sure what is meant. Without an an object the sentence is incomplete. Furthermore, what is the basis for this and who suggests this, the narrators or Kab?

• "According to the hadith collection, the Sahih Bukhari, this was the second time the Qurayza had broken the peace treaty and allied with the Banu Nadir against the Muslims; the first time, Banu Qurayza suffered no loss and were allowed to stay in Medina" - if this refers to the events that led to the Nadir's exile it should be covered there, with the necessary disclaimers to keep it NPOV. We want to report facts and not justifications for the massacre like "the Prophet forgave them the first time". This is the imoression created if this is narrated here.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the first problem. TruthSpreader^Talk 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to your last post, relating Serjeant's quote:

The quote is in really bad English - please check whether the transcript is accurate.

However, I still can understand what he is saying.

There is a contradiction between Serjeant's statement that BQ and BN were on bad terms and M support the former and the Hadith referred which claims that BQ shared in the BN's treason. Which one is it. My nose tells me that the former is correct and that the latter is merely slander but I cannot tell. We can include both with side by side while stating the contradiction. I will post a wording including this, as the relationship of the BQ to the BN is definitely relevant and makes the BN passage much more topical as well.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to rationalize any of the sources again. But F.Y.I. both of your assessments are right. Muhammad initially supported B.Q. to have a political ally (most probably), but when B.N. would have told B.Q. that they can defeat Muslims by joining with Meccans, they could take over Muslims easily. There is no contradiction. TruthSpreader^Talk 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, could you first discuss such sweeping changes on the talk page. Again you are turning this into a Watt says this and that. I will see what I can do with your addition. Please don't disturb this by intermediate postings. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Such a detail is surely should be discussed here. There is certainly controversy over that and it should be discussed. These additions were already discussed in Muhammad article and I am adding them here. --Aminz 17:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't care whether they were discussed elsewhere. I have not the entire M discussion page in mind. Anyway, I brought some order into this, retaining the content you added. Here are my changes:

• I consistently separated scholarly analysis (Watt, Scholler, Stillmann) from the narration according to the various sources. Therefore I moved the Watt etc. bit down and and the the conclusion of the siege up. For the same reason I moved the the bit about the surviving boys up and the "minority of scholars" down (they are dealing with the massacre account, not with the siege).
• I placed the M. became suspicious bit after the passage dealing with the negotiations, as there were first negotiations, then M's suspicion. Also, the suspicion is a good bridge to the scholarly analysis of the actuality of the treason.
• I integrated the scholars into the flow and simplified the bit from Watt. We really do not need to report any variation on what he says here or there ("almost certainly" vs. "probably")
• Nasr was lost due to the edit conflict (as you didn't heed my advice). However, I don't think he is needed (he merely tells us what Watt has already told us and he gives no analysis) - also he have already quoted several specialist encyclopediae, so we don't need the Britannica.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Str, I do appreciate your approach of clearly separating primary and secondary sources: this is exactly how one should write in general and expecially on topics with few primary sources available. However, I'm pessimistic about such a structure remainign intact for any extended time period, taking into account the "X says, Y say" quote farm I've witnessed in other article on similar subjects. Beit Or 20:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I know that it will be an endless battle against the tide. But then again, that can be no reason to simply yield and let this article get swept away. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this must be stopped at some point. Beit Or 20:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading before editing

Aminz, are you trying to be disruptive? Before you add something could please have a look whether it is alreay included somewhere? Or is that too much to ask for. The Watt view you included in early history is almost verbatim already mentioned in the section "arrival of pagan tribes", where it belongs chronologically. Please, be more careful. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro

It is POV. "Nearly all of the tribe's men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were taken prisoner and then killed at Muhammad's command"

It was Sad who issued the decree. EoI writes: " On this ground, as soon as the besiegers withdrew, Muhammad attacked Qurayza and besieged them in their forts for twenty-five nights. After negotiations they agreed to surrender unconditionally. Sad b. Muadh, chief of the clan of #Abd al-Aê9hal, with whom they had an alliance, was brought to give judgement on them. He decreed that all the men (who numbered between 600 and 900) were to be put to death and all the women and children sold as slaves."

So, I suggest we write: "Sad b. Muadh, chief of the clan of #Abd al-Aê9hal, with whom they had an alliance, was brought to give judgement on them." and he made such a decree. The lead as it is now is certainly POV (see Britannica Encyclopedia quote above). Nobody disputes that Sad made the decree. But according to Encyclopedia Britannica, there is a variety of views, the minimum of which is that Muhammad at least was informed of it. --Aminz 17:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sad is too obscure a figure to warrant an inclusion in the intro. Also, you ommit that Muhammad did indeed order that they should be killed. He merely yielded the judgement to Sad. After Sad had spoken Muhammad confirmed it, calling it the judgement of God and ordered the execution of the verdict. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Str, Muhammad didn't issue the decree and he didn't oppose it afterwards. You are adding your own beliefs to the facts. --Aminz 18:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sa'ad is not too obscure for this article. --Aminz 18:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, while you are edit warring again:

• Muhammad explicitely endorsed the verdict. And he was the main man in what came to be Medina. If he had not wanted the Jews dead they wouldn't have been killed. It is you who are closing your eyes before the facts. Okay, do so. But don't close everybody else's eye.
• Sad is certainly not too obscure for this article. That's not what I said. Again you are (very annoyingly) not reading what I said. I said he's too obscure for the intro.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between Sad issuing a decree and Muhammad issuing the same decree. As Str1977 observes, Muhammad immediately endorsed it and ordered its execution, obliging his followers - not Sad's followers - to carry it out.Proabivouac 01:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sad was appointed as a judge and it is possible that Muhammad partly didn't want to change his word on appointment of Sa'd. Of course we can say that Muhammad approved it but saying Muhammad issued it is wrong. --Aminz 01:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe my last attempt on the intro will statisfy you. It does not mention Sad for the reasons given above but also removes the statement that Muhammad commanded the massacre. There is no doubt that he wanted it but the exact details cannot be covered in the intro. I do not know what Hodgson says in his book (and according to your principles, Aminz, it would have to be included even if unsourced and contrafactual) but I will settle for this version now. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second. If we are including unsourced opinions that Sa'd judged according to the Torah, which is factually absurd, we must also include the scholars who say that Muhammad commanded the slaughter. Here is what Hodgson says: "Muhammad now allowed no ransom but insisted that all the men, about six hundred, be killed."

Hodgson is a very well known and respected academic and his work can hardly be considered Islamophobic (if anything, he falls over himself trying to show what a great guy Muhammad was.) As Aminz and others have pointed out, it's irrelevant whether he cites sources or not, the information MUST be included. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with taking the Hodgson ref out if the Farah reference (that Sa'd judged according to how he believed the BQ would have judged the Muslims), which is of far lesser reliability in my opinion, is also removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Briangotts (talk • contribs) 22:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

I totally agree with you on the subject content, as you know.

I guess by unsourced you mean "reference to a scholar who gives no sources for his assessment" and not unsourced claim. I could be argued that a work not sourcing its claims is not scholarly (I know of one historian who once refused to have a work of his published without footnotes, terming such an edition "worthless").

I am very much in favour of including Hodgson, but I think a detailed treatment is more in order in the main body. Of course, it can be in the intro as well, if it can be worded in a simple way. In any case, I would not accept any wording of the intro that tries to shift the responsibility for these events away from Muhammad. My wording does not do this IMHO.

I oppose trading in Hodgson for Farrah, because a) it is trading in gold for lead, and b) because I think it better to retain the Farrah view (as ridiculous as it is) with a proper discussion. The current version makes it clear that it is fringe and supported by a single scholar. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My point was that removing Hodgson is inappropriate when the ludicrous Farah quote is allowed to remain. I thought you were proposing to move the ref altogether and I see you did not. I am still not comfortable with the wording as it removes the direct responsibility from Muhammad, but I can live with it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear Aminz take on the new wording. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles

I want to achieve uniformity in the citation of Encyclopedia articles. How should the references look like? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are the variations we have now:

• "Kurayza, Banu." Encyclopaedia of Islam
• "Al-Madina." Encyclopaedia of Islam
• "Qurayza", Encyclopedia Judaica
• “Muhammad”, ‘’Encyclopaedia of Islam”
• “Kurayza, Banu”, ‘’Encyclopaedia of Islam”
• "Kurayza, Banu", Encyclopaedia of Islam
• Watt in Encyclopedia of Islam, Banu Qurayza Article
• Qurayza article, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, vol. 4, p.334
• Welch Encyclopedia of Islam, Muhammad Article
• Watt, Banu Qurayza Article in Encyclopedia of Islam, </ref>
• Ehlert, Trude. "Muhammad." Encyclopaedia of Islam
• "Qurayza". Encyclopedia Judaica (CD-ROM Edition Version 1.0). Ed. Cecil Roth. Keter Publishing House, 1997. ISBN 965-07-0665-8

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

On more thing: I think it better to include the major encyclopedia articles in the references as items under the subheader of their respective encyclopedia. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Allright, since no one here responds I will unilateraly institute the following format in the footnotes.

Author (if applicable), "Article name as given by the encyclopedia", Encyclopedia XY.

I will ommit all notes about page numbers, volumes, the word "article", editions, ISBN. This does not yet concern the literature section. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I tagged the following item from the references section:

Buhl, F.; Schimmel, Annemarie; Noth, A.; Ehlert, Trude. "Muhammad." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2006. Brill Online

Is this supposed to mean that the M article in the EoI was written by Buhl, Schimmel, Noth and Ehlert? Other information suggests that someone called Welch wrote it. Furthermore, what is Welch's full name? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the Encylopediae in the references section, I think it best not to reference any article but the entire encyclopedia. The articles are already mentioned in the individual reference footnotes. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we include the following books in the reference section ...

• Hodgson, M.G.S. The Venture of Islam, Vol. 1. University of Chicago Press, 1974. p. 191.
• Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. Mizan. "The Islamic Law of Jihad". Dar ul-Ishraq, 2001;Mahdi Puya. Holy Quran (puya) on al-Islam.org [1].
• Caesar E. Farah. Islam: Beliefs and Observances, pp.52.
• William Muir, Life of Mahomet, ch. XVII.

... or are they too general or too specific? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Torah Judgment

Does Caesar E. Farah say that the judgment was based on Deuteronomy 20:10-18? or just consistent with the semitic practice? --Aminz 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

He says explicitly! Please see Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Sources_and_judgement. --TruthSpreader^Talk 18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"In keeping with," though stronger than "consistent with," is not yet equivalent to "based upon."Proabivouac 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OR

This entire sentence is OR:

No contemporaneous source says explicitly that Sa'd based his judgment on the Torah. Moreover, the respective verses of the Torah make no mention of treason or breach of faith, and the Jewish law as it existed at the time and as it is still understood today applies these Torah verses only to the situation of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, and not to any other period of history.

Note: I am not claiming it to be wrong, i claim it is OR. --Striver 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. That's an editorial comment. "No contemporaneous source says explicitly that Sa'd based his judgment on the Torah" one is unsourced. The second one seems to have a source. --Aminz 01:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the second is not a source either, it's a source to it's original source. We need a scholar that conects that view with the scholars statement.

Ridiculous. The first is a statement of obvious fact. The second is well sourced. Stop playing games. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me. To, for all i know, the Jew's in the Arabia did not bother with any "conservative" interpretation. It is indeed OR to claim they had a conservative interpretation, "No contemporaneous source says explicitly that Sa'd based his judgment on the Torah." is as much of obvious OR as it gets. --Striver 11:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is so obvious, it should be easy to source, rather than commenting stop playing games. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If any source reports that, we would be very much obliged if you could produce it. If not you are indeed playing games. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If no source states the mentioned comment, then it is OR, if there are sources that do state that, go find them so we can move on. --Striver 11:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The view that ibn Sa'd based his judgment on the Torah is a fringe one; respected scholars pay very little or no attention to it and don't bother refuting it. You're stretching the no original research policy ad absurdum. Beit Or 12:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on how widespread that view is, but stating that the BQ had the same view of those parts of the Torah as Maimonides, and not supporting it one anything, that is most certanly OR. How on earth whould you know what BQ viewd on those parts of the Torah? Rememer that unorthodox and deviant variation of both Christianity and Judaism existed in 7th century Arabia, some of those chritians went so unorthodox that they included Maria in the trinity... And also remember that Jews who had extramarital relations were stoned in accordance to the Torah and the constitution who stated that they would follow their own rules. Im not arguing that this must have been the case, that Sad´must have based it on the Torah, but i am stating that it is OR to dissmiss a scholars view that might be possible, and doing so without a single source. You are not a scholar, you are not qualified to dissmiss his views. Find one how is qualified to dissmiss it, or let the reader make their own judgment. The longest you can go is to say that contemporary orthodox scholars do not view those parts as being something to follow, and even that is OR, but to start presuming what BQ belived, that is going to far. --Striver 13:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Didn't you notice the references to Tosefta and Sanhedrin? Beit Or 13:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, i am not stating that there is no orthodox view, you just pointed out to me that there is one. What i am stating is that there is no proof that BQ held an orthodox view, and provided plausibility for that not being the case.--Striver 18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we cannot a priori assume that the BQ held the same view as Tosefta and Sanhedrin. However, if there is no case made for them holding a different view - and thus far this case has not been made, neither by Farah nor by anyone else - then we must conclude that they did not disagree. Note, our Muslim friends are claiming an affirmative statement in two ways: that there was a "heterodox" view and that the BQ held it. The disputed statement above, labeled OR, is merely a summary of the sources and the scholarship. Unless our Muslims friends here are hiding scholarship from us that would lead us there. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, may i ask you to rephrase that? I'm not sure if i understand you. Peace. --Striver 01:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Briangotts, Str, Beit Or, you are making a claim that the early sources don't mention this. It is you who are making this claim and according to the policy it is your responsibility to prove it. --Aminz 03:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. We have provided sources of Jewish law from various periods (including contemporaneous with the BQ) and there is no source that you can produce that will deny the acceptance of these legal notions among Jews of the period (including the BQ). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is an increasingly widespread misconception that WP:NOR mandates the inclusion of all verifiably-published material. The "point of view" that the Banu Qurayza were judged according to their own law is 1) plainly false 2) a latter-day fabrication of no historical importance 3) not clearly stated even in the sources alleged to support it 4) apparently too marginal to warrant debate or rebuttal in the mainstream literature. Neither this claim, nor its rebuttal (original research or not) belongs in this article, where its only function would be to mislead or confuse the reader.Proabivouac 03:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, whoever claims "No contemporaneous source says explicitly that Sa'd based his judgment on the Torah." should provide a reliable source for that. Will believe it only when see it myself in a reliable source. Either source this sentence or please remove it. As to the Deut. passage, so far we have a quote from Mainmoind. We can say Mainmoind says X about the relevant verse. If Mainmoind says that all scholars say this about that verse, we can say it and attribute it to Mainmoind. Similarly, saying that *only* Caesar agrees with that idea requires source and its burden is on the one who claims it. --Aminz 04:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not one of those quoted above are saying quite what you want them to say. One speculates that this may have been the reasoning on the basis that it's not found in the Qur'an. Others draw an analogy to ancient history which is hardly topical to a factual narrative. I have removed this quarrelsome thread from the article.Proabivouac 06:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To do so was really a good idea. This marginal issue occupied too much space in the article and on the talk page. Beit Or 08:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To rephrase my paragraph above:

I am asking our Muslim friends to to provide evidence for their claim that there was a "heterodox view", that the BQ held such a view, and, since they insist that the statement No contemporaneous source says explicitly that Sa'd based his judgment on the Torah. is wrong, to produce such a source. Farah, if he is such a great scholar, will contain it in his writings, if there is one. Also which sources does Farah use? Please enlighten us. PS. And please take more care of formating and orthography. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Put on trial

Some one inserted the false claim that the BQ men were put on trial. They were not. A trial consists of prosecutors and defendants making their case, evidence and witnesses being considered and a verdict given by a judge. Nothing of this kind happened here. Muhammad accused the tribe, besieged them. After they had surrendered, some of the Aws pleaded for leniency and Sad was chosen arbitrator not between Muslims and Jews but between those pleading mercy and those bent on killing the Jews. And even if this had been a trial, a summary trial of an entire tribe can hardly be presented in such a way. Socrates tried to veto a summary trial of half a dozen generals and here we are expected to let it slide for 700 men (most of which had not decided on tribal politics)? GMAB Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A trial? It was more like giving a verdict, BQ's guilt never came into question. --Striver 01:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point: there was no trial. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote Farm

What is the story of this template? This template can be used when there are a lot of long quotes. Here we are summerizing the views of different scholars which wikipedia should do. --Aminz 02:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

See Proabivouac's insightful comment above. Not everything that can be referenced is relevant to the article. Thr quote farm tag was placed before a collection of quotes that add nothing informative to the article. Beit Or 08:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find the Proabivouac's comment. I think the quotes were of cours adding some information to the article. There is no reason to assume that all these sources were wasting their time raising a subject which is not informative at all. --Aminz 12:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think they add some information to the article, the please let us know what exactly information they are adding and why this information is important and relevant. Beit Or 12:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

They state what different scholars think of what was the fault of Banu Qurayza and its possible consequences. It is pretty important. All these scholars have addressed it. --Aminz 12:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The comment is as meaningless as the quotes. Please explain how exactly each quote improves the article. Beit Or 12:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

He can't explain it to you, you have already maid up you mind that anything that is negative about BQ is irrelevant to the article, no mater if it is scholarly opinions or not.--Striver - talk 13:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why those scholars wasted their time writing un-informative statements about Qurayza and all of these scholars made that mistake. --Aminz 01:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Editorial comments

Moved from Briangotts's talk page

I think it is not proper to add personal editorial comments and criticisms of the works of scholars (e.g. [6]). Such comments could be found in the reviews of the works of scholars. So, please find reliable sources for them. Thanks, --Aminz 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

They are not "personal editorial comments." They are facts. Your refusal to recognize them does not make them less factual. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Editorial comment would be "he is wrong". Saying "he cites no source" is recognizing a fact evident from the face of his work. If you have further comments to make do so on the talk page. This is not the place for this type of discussion. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying "without any citation he says" implicitly means that he doesn't have any citation. How do we know he doesn't have any? How do you know that he hasn't omit it? And furthermore, such comments produces a negative bias with respect to the scholar. It is not our job to check citations, it is the job of the reviewers, if they feel it is necessary. --Aminz 05:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it is such a contentious issue you would do well to quote the passage in Farah and shut his critics up. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Annoying

It is very annoying when some editor repeteadly introduces nonsensical claims [7], like:

• The Aws asked M. to forgive the BQ ...

Being expelled is hardly forgiveness. We are talking of allieviating the punishment, not forgiveness.

• ...like he had forgiven the Nadir for the sake of Abdallah.

Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa!

Abdallah interced for the Qunayqa!

Also annoying is the complete disregard for formatting issues. I outlined how to cite Encyclopedia articles in the section above, an in comes someone and adds that Britannica article under yet a different format. Grrr! [8]

Or complete disregard for the rules of English grammar:

"Those of the Aws who wanted leniency for Qurayza seems to have been regarded Qurayza unfaithful only to Muhammad and not to Aws" [9]

• "Those" > "seem" and not "seems"
• "have been regarded" denotes that the Aws were regarded as unfaithfull. Learn about the difference between active and passive. The wording above makes the next bit "Qurayza" out of place.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: "like he had forgiven the Nadir for the sake of Abdallah." As far as I remember the source puts it that way. So, it is not me but Watt. --Aminz 12:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also nonsense to write:

"Arrival of Muhammad transformed the political landscape and the longstanding enmity between the Aws and Khazraj tribes was dampened as both embraced Islam and accepted Muhammad's leadership."

Both tribes did not emrace Islam. Some of their members did, increasing numbers and finally all of them (how sincere is another matter). But that was a long process. And the enmity did remain afterwards, as can be seen after Muhammad's death in the question of his succession. In any case, this is of topic. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hadith

Do we really need this long and repetitive section on Hadith? It is getting tedious and is much worse than any other quotefarm. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly we do not. We should briefly paraphrase and footnote them. I may do do at any moment.Proabivouac 09:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The hadith look like Wikisource stuff. I suggest simply transwikiing them. Beit Or 09:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also think that hadith literature is the root case of the quotefarm tendency. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It may also be the predictable result of second-language speakers empowered by cut-and-paste functionality. I don't know how to transwiki, so leave it to you.Proabivouac 09:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've transwikied it, but the Wikisource page requires considerable cleanup with regards to links. Beit Or 09:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral summary?

Does anyone want to attempt a short, neutral summary of what is in dispute here? There is 100K of argument on this page, far bigger than the article itself. It is very hard for anyone but the parties to the dispute to tell what is going on, unless they want to give it an hour or two. - Jmabel | Talk 01:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, If you ask me, the people on the "other side" of the argument try to depict this as an unjustifiable slaughter of civilian Jews by removing or giving WP:OR explanations to key issues that might give an alternative portrayal of the events, while they presumably view me as somebody trying to justify a mini-holocaust. Sort of... --Striver - talk 01:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. One side, aware that massacres are commonly not seen in a positive light, are trying at the same time to justify the massacre and to dissociate Muhammad from this act. There also stylistic issues on how an article is to be written (see "quotefarm"). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote farm (2)

I remove the following stuff again:

• "there is no need to suppose that Muhammad brought pressure on Sa'd ibn Mua'dh"

Well, there is no need to include this since no one is actually claiming that M. put pressure on S. He merely chose someone whose stance he knew.

• "Those of the Aws who wanted leniency for Qurayza seem to have regarded Qurayza unfaithful only to Muhammad and not to Aws; the old Arab tradition required support of an ally, independent of the ally's conduct to other people."

There is a conflict between tribal and muslim bonds, but it's enough to state that Sad preferred the latter over the former. Above quote argues as if the Aws' request was for declaring the Qurayza innocent. They did not. They asked for their exile, no more but also no less. They actually argued that the bond to the Aws was not severed by Islam, not that no infraction to them (as Muslims and as citizens of Jathrib) took place.

• "Muslims believe that it was Sa'd, and not Muhammad, who ordered the execution, however many historians hold that Muhammad must have been, at the very least, informed of it."

This sentence is utter nonse. First of all, please source your statement that Muslims in general do believe that. I can think of a couple of Muslims that would unashamedly link Muhammad and the massacre. Second,y "order the execution" suddenly introduces new terminology, Sad's was the judgement - the execution is something different. Thirdly, not "many historians" hold that Muhammad was informed of it, the Muslim sources say so when they report his immediate endorsement. Since M could do this, he must have been present and hence knew.

• A small rewording of the Arafat paraph. It is only fair not to introduce that view by an immediate dismissal, but still the facts must be stated further down.
• Eposito is still apologetics and downright factually wrong: M. introduced massacres and assasination into Arabic "politics. The Hebew prophets did not engage in massacres and anyway are more than a millenium prior to M.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

My replies:

1. *"there is no need to suppose that Muhammad brought pressure on Sa'd ibn Mua'dh" - :Well, there is no need to include this since no one is actually claiming that M. put pressure on S. He merely chose someone whose stance he knew.

Reply: Str1977, That point is already included in the article as Stillman states that. Watt states that the reason Sa'd made such judgment was not because Muhammad knew who to choose. Sa'd being close to death, according to Watt, didn't meant any anger at Banu Qurayza. According to Watt, Sa'd was close to death. He therefore was concerned with his afterlife. As such, he didn't want to prefer tribal values over Islamic ones, since in Sa'd's eyes those values were forgotten. Aminz

Yes, Stillman and I agree on this. Still, no one claimed that M. put pressure on S. The sources also speak of Sad praying that he would only live long enough to take his revenge. Of course, the massacre of an entire tribe for a arrow wound might seem overkill but that is what he did. The sources also speak of Sad rejecting the pressure put on him by the Aws pleading for for leniency. I agree with what you wrote about Sad's considerations about the afterlife, tribal and Islamic allegiance, but of course I strongly disagree with the Islamic tradition that has Sad immediately enter the gates of paradise. IMHO, the gates he passed led elsewhere. However, unlike so many of the first generation Muslims that were quite easy to talk about others being in hellfire, I leave that judgment to the Lord Sabaoth. However, I have my opinion. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I am astonished by the naivity of these claims:

• 1. Sa'd was dying of a wound inflicted by the Banu Qurayza, but this did not in any way affect his judgement of them, against whom he harbored no anger. Instead, as he lay dying, he was thinking of tribal vs. Islamic values. (although weren't we just saying after Farah that the judgement reflected Jewish values?)
• 2. It didn't occur to Muhammad, either, that Sa'd might be just a little upset that the Banu Qurayza had just inflicted a mortal wound upon him.Proabivouac 21:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You are writing about the POV of Stillman. My point is that Watt's POV should be also included. I don't think we should figure out which side is the truth. After all, whatever conclusion we come up with has a good degree of intrinsic uncertainty. --Aminz 23:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

2. *"Those of the Aws who wanted leniency for Qurayza seem to have regarded Qurayza unfaithful only to Muhammad and not to Aws; the old Arab tradition required support of an ally, independent of the ally's conduct to other people." -:There is a conflict between tribal and muslim bonds, but it's enough to state that Sad preferred the latter over the former. Above quote argues as if the Aws' request was for declaring the Qurayza innocent. They did not. They asked for their exile, no more but also no less. They actually argued that the bond to the Aws was not severed by Islam, not that no infraction to them (as Muslims and as citizens of Jathrib) took place.

Reply: It is good to explain the very reason why some of Aws asked for forgiveness. It is explaining the old Arab tradition and it is informative. Aminz

You still are talking about forgiveness. This was never about forgiveness. To expell a tribe is not forgiveness. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

3. *"Muslims believe that it was Sa'd, and not Muhammad, who ordered the execution, however many historians hold that Muhammad must have been, at the very least, informed of it." -:This sentence is utter nonse. First of all, please source your statement that Muslims in general do believe that. I can think of a couple of Muslims that would unashamedly link Muhammad and the massacre. Second,y "order the execution" suddenly introduces new terminology, Sad's was the judgement - the execution is something different. Thirdly, not "many historians" hold that Muhammad was informed of it, the Muslim sources say so when they report his immediate endorsement. Since M could do this, he must have been present and hence knew.

Reply: Str, this sentence is quoted to Encyclopedia Britannica. If you think it is wrong, it is okay, we can say: "BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA" CLAIMS X. Believe me, I have at many times personally disagreed with the writings of many academic works. But Wikipedia should not reflect the views of the editors, but the authors. We simply report everything. If a claim is wrong, we say X claims Y and that's it. We can further bring neutrality back by quoting from another scholar. Aminz

We should not include utter nonsense, even if it is from the Britannica. As Beit Or writes below, the Britannica often and despite its reputation does a very lousy job regarding humanities and history (and note, it called Sad a "Muslim general", which is at best an anachronism). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, Britannica is a reliable source. Wikipedia does not ask its editors to read the sources and find the ones which are correct and write the article based on them. But rather the POV of every reliable source should be included even if wrong. --Aminz 23:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

4. *A small rewording of the Arafat paraph. It is only fair not to introduce that view by an immediate dismissal, but still the facts must be stated further down.

Reply: I haven't seen your edits to this yet. But my point was that Arafat was the only one who proposed this theory, not the only one who believed in it. Usually a few propose theories and many others follow it. Aminz

5. *Eposito is still apologetics and downright factually wrong: M. introduced massacres and assasination into Arabic "politics. The Hebew prophets did not engage in massacres and anyway are more than a millenium prior to M.

Reply: Str, John Esposito is Professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University and is editor-in-chief of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, The Oxford History of Islam, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, and Oxford’s The Islamic World: Past and Present. His book is published in Oxford University Press. Of course he has his own POV. But can you find any scholar who doesn't have one. Did you know that "Lewis is perhaps the most articulate and learned Zionist advocate in the North American Middle East academic community, and an important opinion leader outside the ranks of academia. He contributes to the leading mouthpiece of neo-conservative militant Zionism, Commentary, the leading pseudo-liberal journal, New Republic, and the semi-official forum establishment discussion of foreign policy, Foreign Affairs…His book on Muslim-Black relation, Race and Color in Islam, was a thickly-veiled effort to undercut the rising sympathy of American and African Blacks for the Arab cause after 1967." cf. Joel Beinin, Review of "Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice." You can find this in JSTOR. There is no clean academic. Wikipedia does not ask us to make all these consideration. Any work that satisfies WP:RS could be used. --Aminz 01:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if Esposito's scholarship were impeccable, his remarks are outright on this are outrigh wrong. Of course, we could include him as a POV and then add an accurate understanding, but this would bloat the article. And furthermore, more than half of what he wrote (incorrectly) has no real bearing on this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, I do think that the quote from Esposito is correct. It might be wrong in your mind, but I am sure that you are kind enough to respect other people's views. So, please don't remove it. Let's include all POVs for different people have different ideas. --Aminz 23:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Replies:

1. Stillman does not state that Muhammad pressured Sa'd, only that Muhammad had made his decision long before Sa'd's verdict. This is pretty clear from ibn Ishaq's texts, and anyway it makes no sense to pressure a dying man. The current, condensed version of Watt's argument is entirely appropriate; previously, Watt took up half of the paragraph.
2. Aws reasoning is adequately explained in the article. I'm not sure what Aminz is objecting to.
3. Britannica is usually not a good unless it is used for some straightforward material. Here, the author of the article makes an unsupported, off-the-wall claim, not found elsewhere. Per WP:NPOV, opinions of a tiny minority do not belong to Wikipedia.
4. There is no basis for the claim that any expert supports Arafat's reasoning. Aminz seems to argue that someone might agree with Arafat, but there is no evidence of that.
5. What Esposito thinks on Hebrew prophets or Indian yogas is irrelevant to the topic of Banu Qurayza. This quote only serves to sling some mud at the Jews.

Beit Or 13:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The only evidence we have is that Arafat suggests a theory and we should include that. We don't know if there are others who accept it or not. And Esposito's quote (followed by that of Watt) is important. Banu Qurayza incident wasn't anti-semitism for example. It was a political thing. And he says that such punishment for a dangerous treason is death and it is pretty relevant. --Aminz 23:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

haven't had much time to follow the discussion here, but simply assuming that nobody supports Arafat because you know of no one who does is argumentum ad ignorantiam. another academic would be Barakat Ahmad (who holds a doctorate in Arab history from the American University in Beirut), about whom Leon Nemoy states: "Dr. Ahmad states that he is, to the best of his knowledge, the first Muslim scholar to deal with the Jews of Yathrib in the spirit of 'independant study and research (p. 4).' As far as this reviewer is aware, he is indeed such a pioneer, and it is to be hoped that other Muslim scholars will follow his example." he wrote the book "Muhammad and the Jews: A Re-examination" (which received a number of positive reviews), in which he opines similar to Arafat in his questioning of Ibn Ishaq's narrative, suggesting that it is likely that the leaders were killed, but not the rest. here are some reviews outlining Ahmad's position:

Ahmad, focusing on the B. Qurayzah, also considers the nature and consequences of the events themselves. He argues first of all that Medina, during the time of Muhammad, was not equipped to execute 600-900 people in one day. He deals with the effect such an act would have had on the performers and spectators in that cultural context. Such a massacre is all the more inconceivable since Ali, the fourth caliph of Islam, whose reputation is one of compassion and honesty, is supposedly one of the main executioners.

(Harold Kasimow, Journal of the American Academy of Religion,Vol. 50, No. 1 (Mar. 1982), p. 158)

Leon Nemoy, speaking in generally positive language of the book, says:

Nevertheless, Dr. Ahmad concludes, the Prophet has on the whole exercised remarkable restraint in his final solution of his Jewish problem: two of the Jewish tribes were merely expelled, while the alleged wholesale massacre of Banu Qurayzah is, for a number of logical reasons (e.g., the mass execution of the tribe and the burial of some 600 to 900 corpses in a trench dug in the center of a small town like Medina would have been physically a colossal undertaking and would have constituted an obvious menace to public health), highly improbable- very likely only the leaders of the tribe were actually put to death.

(Leon Nemoy The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 72, No. 4 (Apr., 1982), p. 325)

-- ITAQALLAH 02:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Two minor and insignificant scholars do not make a tiny minority any less tiny. Beit Or 08:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a nice thank you to Itaqallah for finding these sources that you put the view in notes. --Aminz 08:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tiny minority views do not belong to Wikipedia at all, except for articles about themselves. However, I understand that you will insist on this claim being included into the article, so putting it into a footnote looks like a reasonable attempt at compromise. Beit Or 09:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I remember EoI doesn't put it in references. --Aminz 09:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

The accounts of the Banu Q, are shrouded in mystery according to the very sources provided in this article, quite simply not enough is known about them by any one source for a proper account to be transcribed. When we touch on any topics covered by Islamic historical scribes, there is going to be allot of debate. I propose the only thing we can do is cut back on as much information as possible simply presenting a well formed stub. When one looks at all the conflicting reports from all the diff sources quoted here, we can see they clearly not reliable in the simple meaning of the word. They are mostly contradictory and poorly chronologised. The accounts depicted in the sources provided here, if anyone cares to read them, make no sense at all. I call for a rewrite by an expert we nominate. Such a person would be renown personality in academia. frummer 09:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If we have contradictory sources, then we present all sources and explain the contradictions, we don't through them all out as garbage. --Striver - talk 15:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

For once I agree with Striver. There is no need to remove large chunks of information to create a pseudo-stub. On a moral note, we owe to those butchered in 627 to not gloss over there fate. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

State of article

I don't dare edit in this obviously very controversial article on a topic about which I really know nothing but what I read here, but just as a piece of prose:

1. I don't agree at all with the tag complaining about too many quotations, but I think that the issues about historians' disagreements are, in some cases, too threaded through the article. The general comments on reliability of the sources more or less contemporary with the events could go in one place, not mixed into the narrative.
2. There is a sentence fragment: "but gives only eight intermediaries between Aaron and the purported founder of the Qurayza tribe"
3. kahinan is a very odd way to write the plural of "Kohen"; kohanim would be much more normal.
4. Seems to me that we should not assume that the reader has any idea who Al-Samhudi is, and should say "15th century Sunni scholar Al-Samhudi". Similarly on others who are mentioned: one could easily be confused as to which accounts date from what era. Ibn Ishaq is introduced without so much as a link.
5. This sentence doesn't parse: "According to William Montgomery Watt, the clientship of the Jewish tribes is not borne out by the historical accounts of the period prior to 627, and maintained that the Jews retained a measure of political independence." Who "maintained"? I'd presume Watt, but the grammar clearly doesn't allow that.
6. "The continuing feud was probably the chief cause…": "Probably" is according to whom?
7. There seems to be no consistency about when the word "Banu" is used before the name of a tribe
8. There is at least one stray angle bracket.

I suspect there is more, but as a reader, at about this point, having really read only half the article, my patience was exhausted. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a good article once. Between the ardent detractors and just as ardent defenders of Islam, it has degenerated into mush. It is no longer an article, but a battlefield. Optimistic believers in the wiki-way seem to think that, barring a few dips in quality here and there, articles will just get better and better. This article is proof that they're wrong.

I've become a wiki pessimist. If there's going to be any stability in the battlefield articles, they have to be closed to edits by newbie editors with strong opinions and no specialist knowledge. Perhaps editors should have to earn the right to edit contentious articles. The more edits an article has logged, the more experience -- or perhaps qualifications? -- should be required of anyone who wants to edit it. Zora 07:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jmabel and Zora, instead of saying "it's all rubbish, I'm so disgusted at reading it", you can roll your sleeves and edit, just like other editors have done. Jmabel, you could have fixed your objections yourself within five minutes. Zora, I'm afraid you should raise your problems all the way to Jimbo because he envisaged Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. This article has indeed been turned into a battlefield, and you know very well who is waging the war to push "the Jews deserved it" view into the article. Beit Or 08:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I will ignore Zora's general opinion, and address a few of Jmabel's items (I have numbered them for this purpose.

2. "but gives only eight intermediaries between Aaron and the purported founder of the Qurayza tribe" is no fragment at all but the second part of the sentence "Ibn Ishaq traces the genealogy of the Qurayza to Aaron and further to Abraham"

3. I do not know for sure but maybe kahinan is an Arabic term for kohanim. If so, this should be explained.

4. I will introduce some prefaces to names, but this shouldn't get out of hand.

5. I will try to fix the Watt sentence

7. There need not be consistency about when the word "Banu" is used. What is important however is that it's preceded by an article.

8. As for your stray angel bracket: either fix it yourself or stick it. Are we now to parse through the text looking for your one stray bracket?!

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Str, I agree with you that antecedents should used very sparsely because otherwise the article will be unreadable. Al-kahinan is the Arabic dual number; it can best be translated as "the two priestly tribes". Beit Or 14:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Pointless tag

I cannot no longer see the point of the "totally disputed" tag. Several editors have put terrific work turning this article into something approaching a coherent and well-grounded historical narrative, free of the irrelevant quips and tendentious hedges by which it once was marred. What issue remains?Proabivouac 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How is that I revert article to the other version and you remove the tag? --Aminz 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

According to your edit summary, do you believe it is factually inaccurate because the quotes have been cleaned up? Do we aim to confuse readers with irrelevant material, so, like our frustrated visitor above, they might walk away without understanding what occurred? It is for good reason that there are no templates, "This article may not be cluttered with enough quotes," or "This article may be too clearly presented for an encyclopedia entry;" the "totally disputed" tag should not be deployed as their substitute.Proabivouac 02:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, do you agree with me on the principle that "I am right as much as others might be right". --Aminz 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You must state what factual inaccuracies you're disputing if you want to keep the tag. Beit Or 07:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I consider it an act in bad faith to reinsert the "totally disputed" tag while removing the "quotefarm" tag (by reinserting the passage it referred to without the tag). I will reinsert the quotefarm tag. Turnaround is fair play, at least. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Necessary corrections

Apart from a few stylistic tweaks

I had to implement some necessary corrections:

• It is very annyoing that some editors do not consider whether the same stuff has been said somewhere else, even some lines futher down or up or even with the same reference. Hence I had to merge the two statements about Sad's conflicting allegiances. I also removed the hagiographic "far-sighted".
• I moved the bit about the "disquieting results" up, to its proper chronological place.
• Once again I removed the inaccurate and apologetic Esposito bit.
• I reinstated the full discussion of the "according to Jewish law" issue. I retained the bit about the command not practised after David, despite certain misgivings: the last time I know of this command being demanded was by the prophet and judge Samuel - in conflict with King Saul. Note this is no matter of time but a question of who the enemy is: Samuel demanded it in case of the Amalekites but in the case of other peoples.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am looking forward to see the changes you propose. But regarding far-sighted, I think it explains it well. As what explains, if the old allegiances had come before Islamic allegiances, this could have ruined the new hopes they had. That was the place where the conflict happened and the decision was important for the future of the community. --Aminz 12:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, "far-sighted" is too lauding a term to be squared with NPOV. Actually, Sad had his eyes set on two things: his afterlife and his revenge. The conflict you, Aminz, are talking about is not a necessarily existing conflict. Sad could have well stayed loyal to Islam and his tribe's alliance. Abdallah ibn Ubay managed to do that. However, Sad could not square his vengeanc with his tribes's loyalty. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of the changes are very good. I haven't read them all yet. The sentences:"It is reported that as Sa'd was coming to Muhammad's presence, he made a remark to the effect that since he is about to die, he must consider above all doing his duty to God and the Islamic community, even at the expense of former alliances.", it should have support from Ibn Ishaq or other early sources. Maybe we can use that instead. --Aminz 12:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I used this expression, didn't I? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, which expression? --Aminz 13:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"consider above all doing his duty to God and the Islamic community" or similar words. "former" alliances BTW is POV. Just because M. and some Muslims think their new religion somehow dispenses them from earlier bonds of family, friendship and alliances doesn't mean that these bonds were factually dissolved. If the non-Muslims of Mecca (be it Abu Jahal or Abu Talib) had thought this way the son of Abdallah wouldn't have made it very far. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not re-add this stuff on "disquieting" results. "Disquieting" is by definition POV; in this case, it's Muhammad's POV. Furthermore, Watt refers to a minor episode in which Muhammad sent a representative to enquire whether the Qurayza had negotiated with the Meccans. If they had indeed negotiated, the representative was supposed to give Muhammad a secret sign. These are irrelevant minutiae; ibn Ishaq's account of the negotiations is already discussed at length. Also, please refrain from re-adding these "opinions of scholars". Essentially, they just rehash the same story of negotiations as told by ibn Ishaq and have no encyclopedic value. Beit Or 13:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The article yet does not explain how negotiations of Qurayza made Muhammad anxious and how important that was to him. That quote explains it well. --Aminz 13:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It explains nothing, actually; only states what we already know. Beit Or 13:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it does makes the context clear. That Muhammad was in a critical position. Enemy armies were 10 times more than his. I think I should find a quote saying if they would have attacked, Muhammad's movement was in complete danger as I've seen it somewhere. --Aminz 13:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Let's continue discussion about Farah on Muhammad's talk page. --Aminz 13:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay we can continue now that I reverted your bad faith edit with the edit summary "for better I guess". How can you guess your version is better when someone (me) has already contradicted this and tried to include one piece of information from yours. But no, you have to have your version 100%. This is bad faith and a spirit of non-cooperation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions

Please explain why each of the recent editions are removed. --Aminz 07:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For starters, Aminz, what does this even mean? I am baffled: "According to Watt, Muhammad's choice of Sa'd was the only tactful way open to him in that difficult situation arising from the existence of persisting vigour of clan attachments and the old ideas connected with them. Muhammad, according to Watt, at that time didn't have any dictatorial power that wants to conceal it through the choice of Sa'd."

And who is that anon? It is unusual to see a grass-roots swell of support for incomprehensible nonsense.Proabivouac 07:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It means that Muhammad was in a difficult situation because of the existence of persisting vigour of clan attachments and the old ideas connected with them. And Muhammad's choice of Sa'd was the only tactful way open to him.

Please explain other edits as well. And I don't know who the anon is but good that we see him around. --Aminz 07:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, revert-only accounts add much to the experience of editing these articles. I suppose it would be redundant to ask him to appear here on talk?Proabivouac 07:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why you removed other sourced material. --Aminz 07:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, are you talking about "additions" or "editions" or "edits"? I think this constant carelessness (on talk and in articles) disrespectful to others and unhelpful to WP.

This "tactful" passage is highly problematic as it assumes that there was a problem. We don't want to word this in a anti-Muhammad way (and we very well could) but neither should we lapse into laudatory phrases.

And we have the bloating and duplication of the "Sad put the Umma before the clan" issue. We need to include this ONCE and in a NPOV fashion.

Whether we should really include speculations, even if referenced to Watt, is also a contentious subject. Certainly it should be discussed beforehand.

Finally, why are you asking those reverting the anon about their reasoning and not the anon about his? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss the other additions one by one. At last we get into Sad. Please

1. Although the Qurayza did not commit any act, overtly hostile to Muhammad, there are reports about their negotiations with the Meccans. was changed to Although the Qurayza did not commit any act, overtly hostile to Muhammad, they almost certainly engaged in negotiations with the Meccans during the siege which was disquieting to Muhammad. .
2. Watt holds that they would have attacked Muhammad in the rear had there been an opportunity. was removed.
3. It is reported that as Sa'd was coming to Muhammad's presence, he made a remark to the effect that since he is about to die, he must consider above all doing his duty to God and the Islamic community, even at the expense of former alliances. was removed.
4. The motivation for Muhammad's actions was political rather than racial or theological. John Esposito writes that the massacre of traitors was common practice, "neither alien to Arab customs nor to that of the Hebrew prophets." was removed.
5. Watt writes that in Arab eyes, the massacre "wasn't barbarous but a mark of strength, since it showed that the Muslims were not afraid of blood reprisals." was removed.

Thanks. --Aminz 07:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Let us discuss these one by one, determine if they are topical, and if so, how they might be best represented in the article.Proabivouac 08:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and explain why you removed it from the place they were and what suggestions you have. --Aminz 08:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Beginning with the first sentence:

1. Although the Qurayza did not commit any act, overtly hostile to Muhammad, there are reports about their negotiations with the Meccans. was changed to Although the Qurayza did not commit any act, overtly hostile to Muhammad, they almost certainly engaged in negotiations with the Meccans during the siege which was disquieting to Muhammad. .

Both are ungrammatical, and needlessly confused: The Qurayza not committing any overtly hostile act is the mere lack of action, and need not be mentioned. The only pith here is that Watt speculates that they were negotiating with the Meccans, and that's all that must be stated. The "although...overt" clause suggests that there is something sinister in the mere fact of negotiating, which is only true from Muhammad's anti-Meccan POV.Proabivouac 08:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with mentioning how those negotiations impacted Muhammad. Watt says that Muhammad enquired about them and found the results disquieting. It is Watt who says that. Neutrality means that the POV of all scholars to be presented. Do you have any scholar who disagrees with Watt? Do you have anything to add? or present the views of the other side through reliable sources? if so, please go ahead.--Aminz 08:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What does "disquieting" mean? From my perspective, the word imparts nothing infoirmative to the readers. Aminz, we have already discussed the issue on talk above. I have retold you the passage from ibn Ishaq to which Watt is alluding. I have explained why I find this passage to be unnecessary minutiaes. Neverthjeless, you keep reinserting the same quotes from Watt and claiming that you're being reverted without discussion. Sorry, I cannot take such claims seriously. Beit Or 09:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't mind including M's perception if it is clear that is his subjective perception and not objective fact.

2. pure speculation on Watt's part. Let's stick to the facts.

3. "come into M's presence" is an akward (possibly hagiographic) wording, "made a remark to the effect" is circumstantial. Most of all, the information is already included. Don't duplicate information, this is no hadith collection.

4. "The motivation for Muhammad's actions was political rather than racial or theological." is a factual statement though this matter could indeed be contentious. Esposito's claim, though referenced, is entirely false (massacre was foreign to Arab customs), partly off topic (Hebrew prophets are of no consequence 2000 years later in another country), and even nonsensical (massacre is mass killing - treason is a crime committed by certain individuals - it is not uncommon or barbaric, even in our day, to kill traitors via the death penalty, but are you saying that every member of the Qurayza was engaged in treason? Furthermore, there was no form of trial, hence massacre is correct. The correct analogy would not be "massacre of traitors" but "massacre of a vanquished foe", but again this was uncommon in Arabia before "Muhammad (saw)" introduced it.

5. What actually is the purpose of the fifth item? Apologetics? If so, against whom? At least it should be attributed to someone stating that at the time.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Number 1

Regarding 1, I have quoted Watt word by word. Watt states that Muhammad "became anxious about their conduct and sent some of the leading Muslims to talk to them; the result was disquieting." --Aminz 09:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Watt word for word is not a guarantee that it is NPOV. This is no quotefarm nor a hadith collection . I have instituted a change that would make the passage acceptable in my eyes. Also, why point out that Great Watt thinks them "almost certainly" (a meaningless rhetoric tool) correct, when no one has disputed this?

The passages looks okay to me as well. Thanks. If no one has disputed this, can we say "they negotiated with the Meccans" rather than "there are reports about their negotiations with the Meccans"--Aminz 10:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No. We simply state that there are report that tell us that, as this is both factually correct and a convenient link to the following narration. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. --Aminz 11:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Number 2

Would you please explain why it is an speculation(i.e. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence). Watt seems to me to say that had the siege taken much time or had they reached an agreement, they would have attacked from rear or ... Why do you think it is a reasoning based on inconclusive evidence? And please let me know how is it different from the view of other scholars on different matters? --Aminz 11:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See Counterfactual history. We have no way of answering the "what if" question. There is no evidence that something would have happened if something else had happened. It's like speculating "when would the World War II have ended if Hiroshima had not been bombed". This may be an entertaining subject, but it's not historical. Beit Or 12:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Watt thinks that the sources show that the only reason Qurayza didn't attack was because they didn't have the opportunity. That is not Counterfactual history]. --Aminz 12:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Watt says that the Qurayza would have attacked MUhammad if they had had an opportunity. This what you've added many times to the article. Now you've changed Watt's words slightly in an attempt to show that his speculations are not counterfactual history. At best, this approach is intellectually dishonest. Beit Or 12:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And how Watt knows that "the Qurayza would have attacked MUhammad if they had had an opportunity." Through evidences? Through sources. He thinks the only reason Qurayza didn't attack was because they didn't have the opportunity. It is not unencyclopedic. Otherwise Watt wouldn't have written it in the Cambridge history of Islam.--Aminz 07:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You do not respond to what I'm saying. All your arguments boil down to "it's sourced, so it can't be deleted". This is ridiculous. There is no policy like Wikipedia:Any sourced material must be never be deleted. Beit Or 07:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And Aminz, your definition of speculation is wrong: you can have conclusive evidence and still engage in speculation. If you are talking about future events, they might prove correct or not. But if you are talking about the past, there is no way of knowing. And because of this, such issues are excluded from the work of historians except as a interesting pasttime (but not actually historical scholarship). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Watt is saying Qurayza didn't have the opportunity to attack otherwise they would have done so. Yes, it does have the implication that if the war had taken longer, they would have done so, but it is not all about what could have happened in the future. P.S. I took that definition from a dictionary. There were other definitions as well and I am not a native speaker so I take your words --Aminz 05:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And why have you hitherto advocated the inclusion of a speculation. We might be able to include a note that the BQ did not act against M but that Watt says the were lacking the opportunity. What do others think?

PS. Looking definitions up is not enough, you also have to think. If we had "conclusive" evidence settling the matter we would not talk about what they would have done if. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"the BQ did not act against M but that Watt says the were lacking the opportunity." is okay. This is a tough article. --Aminz 03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, did you overlook my question: what do others think?

Anyway, I have tweaked your addition: we have already stated that the BQ took no action, so there's no need to repeat it - and BTW, this inaction is a fact and not Watt's opinion. The latter is restricted to the reason (lack of opportunity). I have edited accordingly. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, I sincerely don't know what others think. We can add the {[opinion needs balancing]} if you think other scholars may disagree. And you are right. The BQ took no *overt* action is a fact. --Aminz 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was merely surprised at the time. Of course we cannot wait for ever. And I disagree with the opposing view in an edit summary yesterday, that the current wording "blames the victims" - even if Watt tries to do that, we do not endorse it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone post the wikipedia policy that warrants the removal of such statements.Bless sins 19:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Number 3

Str, How is it to change addition number 3 to Watt says that when Sa'd was coming to pronounce the judgment stated that since he is about to die, he must consider above all doing his duty to God and the Islamic community, even at the expense of former alliances." This would explain that in Watt's view he didn't want to take revenge because of being wounded. --Aminz 09:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Aminz. The passage we already have is enough:

"Sa'd dismissed the pleas of the Aws, according to William Montgomery Watt, because he put what he considered "his duty to God and the "Muslim community" before tribal allegiance."

Why isn't that enough.

As for "he didn't want to take revenge because of being wounded" - regardless of whether Watt actually say this (I can't see where, certainly not in our much discussed quotes), the sources explicitely say that he wanted to take revenge and asked God to live long enough to achieve it. Oh, Lord have mercy on his soul. Also, again you speak of "former alliances", which is pushing the Islamic POV that Islam has voided older ties. Many Aws obviously thought differently. And I remember that the two of us once reached an agreement not to speak of "former" but of "old alliances". I presume that you have forgotten this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's discuss Sa'd related issues at the end. --Aminz 11:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Number 4 There has been little discussion on this, except Str1977 suggesting that part of this statement is "false". Is it that no one has an objection to this?Bless sins 19:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to know Muhammad's motivations and the justification by comparison of Esposito is irrelevant. This is all blatant POV and it is so extreme that it cannot be balanced. Arrow740 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There are actually two issues involved here, corresponding to the two sentences: M's motivation, and the claim that masssacres was common.

I think the former statement is correct, BUT it is a defense against a criticism never made, and actually itself based on fallacy: that a massacre for political reasons is somehow better. The reasoning goes like this: someone says M killed Jews and that this is anti-semitism. This creates shock because anti-semitism is commonly today considered the pinnacle of abomination. Then M is defended against this charge either by the silly reply that Arab as Semites too (when Anti-Semitism was never about Semites but about Jews) or by the above, that M had no "racial" reasons to kill the Jews (correct) or no theological reasons (partly correct). However, so far this doesn't get into this pseudo-ethical debate and we needn't present one side without the other.

As for the latter statement, it is factually inaccurate: massacres (for whatever reason) were not common practice in Arabia. What information is Esposito's claim based on, I wonder? As for the Hebrew prophets, the claim is not actually false (there were some prophets that did kill enemies - Moses, Samuel, Elijah - but that makes it hardly common, when one browses through the list of prophets) but also completely irrelevant: Maleachi, usually considered the last of prophets, lived 400 BC or, in other words, 1000 years before Muhammad's time (and for Elijah, who was involved in killings, you can add another 300 years). How is this supposed to be relevant for Muhammad's time (and place)? Not at all - Esposito's claim is rather a common rhetorical ploy, the critics are equated with Christians or Jews who supposedly can be shut up by the claim: your people did the same! Well, the claim is still inaccurate and irrelevant, it does not actually counter any criticism, and is essiantly a fallacious ad hominem argument. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For the first one:I see what you're saying. However, when one reads the article, anti-semitism is bound to enter one's mind. In any case I'll keep this quote in mind as I'm editing islam and antisemitism.

For the second part, if something is sourced to a scholar, then we don't need to worry about factuality. Second question is about relevency. The part about Arab customs is definetly relevent (how can it not be relevent?). I think it is relevent considering that modern Muslim scholars argue that the judgement was in accordance to Jewish Law, because the tribe was Jewish. But once again this argument is more of a counter-argumett against a possible charge of cruelty, Antisemitism, or something else. Still i don't see the harm in mentioning this.Bless sins 01:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

For the first part: then we need a consensus about whether to include such a discussion here. It is perfectly on topic on "Islam and anti-semistism".

For the second part: nonsense and intellectual laziness. Are we supposed to include David Irving's view (expect as a fringe view) in the Holocaust article? After all, he is a scholar and hence your reasonings forbids us to even consider the content. The harm is that this is used to smother any possible misgiving anyone might have about this cruel event - and it remains cruel no matter how you put it. The Jewish law bit is not the topic of this subsection but if I may use it as an example: we do not put the absurd view that the punishment was in line with the Torah in the article as the definite and universal explanation of the massacre. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well we need concensus for everything here. My point is to build consensus not check to see if there is.

Wikipedia is based on the principle of "verifiability, not truth". Besides how do we check the accuracy of a scholar anyways? If there is an opposing scholarly viewpoint then we can add that as well. The part about massacres in 7th century Arabia is definitely relevent. How can it not be? As for the part about Hebrew Prophets, no one is trying to make a "the definite and universal" explanation, but we are only presenting a viewpoint. Like I said you are free to find an opposing viewpoitn and add it to the article.Bless sins 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Number 5 Watt says: "It is clear that those of Muhammad's actions which are disapproved by the modern West were not the object of the moral criticism of his contemporaries. They criticized some of his acts, but their motives were superstitious prejudice or fear of the consequences... If they were amazed at the mass execution of the Jews of the clan of Qurayzah, it was at the number and danger of the blood-feuds incurred."

In Cambridge History of Islam, Watt writes that in Arab eyes, the massacre "wasn't barbarous but a mark of strength, since it showed that the Muslims were not afraid of blood reprisals."

Its purpose is to show that according to Watt "His contemporaries did not find him morally defective in any way." --Aminz 11:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Epithets like "barbarous" or "mark of strength" are both POV and unencyclopedic. These are attempts at moral evaluations, which should be kept outside the encyclopedia. Beit Or 12:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we have a section on "Moral Evaluations"? Why isn't it scholarly? --Aminz 12:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See, for example, Farhud or Armenian Genocide for other famous massacres. You won't find a "Moral evaluations" section there. Beit Or 13:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because scholars have not written on that. We have well-sourced material for this section and yes it is important. Wikipedia articles are not a source for wikipedia articles. --Aminz 07:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What? Scholars have not written on the moral implications of the Armenian Genocide? You must be kidding. Noet that one needs not be a scholar to write about the moral aspects of something. Beit Or 07:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If they have written on that, then we can have a section on that. We have reliable information on that topic and it is not unencyclopedic to have this section. --Aminz 07:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See above. Not everything that can be sourced belongs to an encyclopedia. Beit Or 07:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholars of course do have moral views too but in the case of historians (we are not talking about ethicists or moral theologians here) that is not part of their scholarship (though it might - or sometimes must - be included in their works) - history does not want to issue judgement but to elucidate and explain what actually or essentially happened (Ranke).

A Moral Evaluations section, if we were ever to create one, would have to begin with an outright condemnation of the massacre, as this is what Watt and Esposito respond to.

However, what they write is plainly inaccurate. Massacres were not the common thing in pre-Islamic Arabia. And as for Arabs not regarding such things as barbaric? Well, what about the criticism of Muhammad in Jathrib? If I am not mistaken, this partly consisted of protests against M's new practice of assassination orders. So saying that Arabs thought M. spotless and therefore had no problems with the massacres is misrepresentation of reality. Of course, once a few people have been murdered for speaking up, protests will die down. Also note, that the more people converted to Islam, they could not possible issue such criticism. And thirdly, if anyone spoke up, why should our sources include this? Why should say Ibn Ishaq contain a balanced discussion of M's moral character (I am not blaming him for this but we shouldn't expect this either.) So Watt's "were not the object of the moral criticism of his contemporaries" is just plainly false and even self-contradictory when he then goes on to say "They criticized some of his acts ..." What is it now, Mr Watt? It is cheeky to call the basis for all criticism "superstitious prejudice or fear of the consequences", unless one calls the idea that murder is bad a superstition too (and I don't think that in Watt's day people - himself included - were that deranged in general).

On "barbarous" vs. "mark of strength", I see no need for any contradiction. I guess that it was seen as a mark of strength, but still it was barbarous as well. So the "mark of strenght" part bit I think can be included, since blood feud was an important factor (after all, it saved M. in Mecca).

Finally, Aminz, thanks for your statement Its purpose is to show that according to Watt "His contemporaries did not find him morally defective in any way." Thanks for your open admission of what you are trying to bring across in the article (even if it's defintely flawed). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well put on all counts, Str1977.

"Its purpose is to show that according to Watt "His contemporaries did not find him morally defective in any way."

I must agree that this quote raises serious questions about whether its author means to comply with WP:NPOV at all. The dispute tag, which states, "The neutrality of this article is disputed," here takes an unintended but ironically aproppriate meaning: it is indeed its neutrality which is disputed.Proabivouac 19:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Great observation, Proabivouac! Beit Or 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, yes, I do think his contemporaries didn't find him morally defective in any way. So did contemporaries of Joshua during his wars. And we can start the section with a criticism. But please use a recent academic source for that, not an 18th century scholar or unreliable contemporary scholar. --Aminz 04:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, "The neutrality of this article is disputed" refers to exclusion of some well-referenced sources. Please stop harassing me. Okay. --Aminz 04:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, well, I alluded to the examples of contemporaries that stated their opinion about his moral defects - Not counting those that did not speak up. Do you think Abu Sufyan thought Muhammad a model of morality after he had under the threat of force accepted M. as a prophet - an act with the tacit approval of M. himself?

Come to think of it, your quote may refer to strictly personal morality, e.g. his not sleeping around, his truthfulness in business matters - if it is that, you and Watt may have a point - but only that. We cannot use that for a justification of the massacre.

"And we can start the section with a criticism." But you don't do it. You never do it. You never post anything that could possibly put Mr M in a negative light and you are going to great length to put him in the most positive light imaginable.

And finally, I don't think you are really interested in this, as you are immediately narrowing down what you will accept: I agree that, depending on the topic, a scholar must be serious (note however, that for criticism you do not have to be a scholar at all, let alone reliable - you just have to be notable) but there is nothing that absolutely demands his being recent. And, are talking about "reliable" all the while defending the inclusion of Esposito, long bereft of credibility? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"His contemporaries didn't find him morally defective in any way." So, why did the Quraysh prefer him out of Mecca? The members of his own tribe were shocked and enraged when Muhammad executed several prisoners of was after the Battle of Badr and threw the bodies of the dead into a well. "Contemporaries" apparently includes Jews; if Watt wants us to believe that the Jews did not find Muhammad in any way morally defective, then this claim alone is a big black mark on his credibility. Beit Or 08:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I am more and more convinced that Watt referred to M's personal morality. If not, his (inaccurate) statement is no basis for any observations about the massacre. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I think we don't know we can too quickly judge about the moral standards of people back then. Please see the following quote from William Sanford LaSor, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982), 147-48. about Joshua's conquest(I am adding the whole quote since it might be useful in other articles):

“The suggestion that God could command anyone to kill another or require the complete extermination of every living being in a city seems offensive or outrageous. To dodge the problem some have proposed that the God (Yahweh) of the Old Testament cannot be the same as the Father of jesus Christ of the New Testament. This, of course, runs counter to the teachings of Christ and the apostles, who clearly identify their God with the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and with the God who revealed himself to Moses and the prophets.

“A partial answer to this puzzle is the fact that religious “devotion” was a part of the culture of the day. Ancient Near Eastern people’s “devoted” persons and possessions and captives to their gods. That such action was customary does not, of course, make it right, 'but it does help explain why the Israelites did not think it necessarily wrong. God takes the people where they are, and leads them step by step until at last they will be where God is. Divine revelation is progressive. At this point, the Israelites did not have as their Torah the Sermon on the Mount (“love your enemies”). This understanding of love had to wait for the New Joshua (Jesus) to make it known in his life and death.

“But this is not the whole answer. The biblical position regarding the Canaanites is not simply “Exterminate them!” There is good reason behind the command. In Yahweh’s eyes, the Canaanites with their culture and religion were exceedingly evil sinners, who not only committed abominations against God but also sought to entice Israel to join them in these “religious” acts. The discovery of Ugaritic documents at Ras Shamra in Syria has opened up detailed information about Canaanite religious practices. Religious prostitution, child sacrifice, and other features of this religion plagued Israel for centuries, as the books of Kings and of the early prophets bear witness. Yahweh, the Israelites were often reminded, is holy, a God who does not tolerate such abominable practices, especially in the name of serving a deity. This was idolatry against both creation and Creator. The Canaanites merited punishment. Further, the purity of Israelite religion had to be preserved.”

Str, Re:"Well, what about the criticism of Muhammad in Jathrib? If I am not mistaken, this partly consisted of protests against M's new practice of assassination orders. So saying that Arabs thought M. spotless and therefore had no problems with the massacres is misrepresentation of reality.", I haven't studied these parts of Muhammad's life from reliable sources nor have I checked with their historicity. In Mecca, Abu Sufyan opposed Muhammad who was preaching against many social evils. I don't see Abu Sufyan as a good reference for moral judgments. I haven't done any significant research on any other above-mentioned instances. I don't know how people viewed killing others back then. I know they some were killing their daughters finding girls shameful and useless back then. I don't think Watt writes something unreasonable either. --Aminz 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, the ritual invocation of Joshua whenever a Muslim atrocity is discussed will not help your argument. Beit Or 10:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that invoking Joshua is not relevant here. We have discussed the "Torah punishment" issue elswhere. Joshua is not relevant to how M was perceived by his contempories (that really didn't care that much for Joshua).

As for your last paragraph, Aminz, Abu Sufyan I presented only as a last example. Your perception of him is wrong: he was not the main opponent of M. (whose preaching is only inadequately summed up with "preaching against many social evils") in Mecca but only after the Hijra and most leading Quraish had been killed during or after the battle of Badr. His own moral qualities do not preclude him from being a good reference for moral judgements (which I didn't do). Finally, you will not be able to deny that Abu Sufyan was coerced by Umar to acknowledge M as a prophet (after he had already voluntarily conceded that there was no god but God but expressed his doubt towards M's prophethood) and that the present M did nothing to stop this. You as a Shiite will know what came from this act of forced conversion: your "friend" the Caliph Muawiya.

The people assassinated were al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit, Abu 'Afak, Asma bint Marwan and Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf.

And Aminz, you might not yet have realized it, but pointing out faults in others is not a valid argument to defend someone. But this is not actually the issue here: the issue is whether any contemporary found any fault in M. Your usage and interpretation of Watt denies that in face of the fact that various people (rightly or wrongly) did find fault in M. And that is the problem: you are not prepared to even acknowledge criticism. I hope you will never follow the example your prophet gave in the cases cited. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, on a more technical note: could you please post in such a way that you take the indent one step further every time and refrain from starting your posting with a blank? Thank you. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to do that. --Aminz 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, please do so. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Str's responses on this page should be enshrined in wikipedia somewhere. Arrow740 20:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mawdudi

As Mawdudi's area of expertise is not history, but Qur'anic exegesis, I am curious as to why we are now representing his claim here[10] as fact. What is the basis for this assertion? Do any academic historians support this?Proabivouac 03:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Hisham is not a reliable source for facts. His zeal must be tempered. This is the only source for this "the Jews had it coming" factoid. Arrow740 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This claim does not come from Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham. Of course, this fantasy cannot be satted as fact. It looks like a tuny minority view that does not belong to Wikipedia. Beit Or 07:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Again and agian you refer to Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham. For the last time Beit Or, do you seriously believe that Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham have been the only two scholars on Muhammad in the history of mankind??

Why can there not be other scholars??Bless sins 17:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I find it interesting that, while you refuse to accept persons like Maududi scholars of life of Muhammad, you claim that "Leon Poliakov" is fit to analyze the Quran, (who isn't a scholar of Islam, let alone the scholar of Quran).Bless sins 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

According to this thread, I shall remove it pending further discussion on the part of User:Bless sins.Proabivouac 07:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Maududi is a very well-known and influential Islamic scholar. He has written Qur'anic exegesis, but as know the Quran (and Islam) are meaningless, nothing at all, without Muhammad, his sayings, his actions etc. For this reason, Ibn Kathir, Tabari both of them exegists, have also written scholarly biographies of Muhammad. Other exgists, such as Al-Suyuti have written other major works in Islamic history.

Maududi himself has written many literature on other Islamic topics.Bless sins 17:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the removal. Regardless of whether Mawdudi is reliable (and I have my doubt about this), this information is clearly included to somehow put the blame on the Jews. However, the chain of thought is illogical: Jews might be blamed for contacts with the enemy, thereby violating the treaty (we have discussed this numerous times and covered it in the article), but not for piling up arms. There was nothing that banned the BQ from having arms. How where they supposed to contribute to the defense of Yathrib without any arms. So, the claim is clearly ridiculous, even if it were accurate. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No body is blaming Jews for anything. We only present the facts here, as per WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. On the contrary it always Muhammad and Islam that are blamed for things. Our job is to only put the facts, not judge whether they make Jews look bad or not.Bless sins 17:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, part of the problem is that Mawdudi is not actuall facts, at least in a reliable way. Add to that that this is really a detail that adds nothing substantial we can leave it out. Unless, the intention is to blame the Jews after all. It is always Muhammad and Islam that are blamed for things? Maybe on certain websites but not around here. Here and also in the spheres of Watt we are practically bending over backwards to provide all possible explanations for why Mr M did this and that. It is not us that make him look bad but his actions when confronted with modern sensitivities. As for always blaming: blaming everything on outsiders is unfortunately a trademark of many people in many countries in the Middle East. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep our debate on whether Maududi is a WP:RS or not. This details does add something, for example in articles about battles we are always adding casualties, number of troops who took par tin the battle etc. I don't care what the trademark in the Middle East, stick to WP policies. Bless sins 13:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And how does Mawdudi add anything to the treatment of the battle. The Muslims besieged the BQ, in the end the latter surrendered. I know of no battle where we tell about the remaining weapons the vanquished side still had at the moment of its surrender (unless when the possession of weapons is given as a reason for the war as in the last Iraq war 2003). What's the point here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The number of weapons helps us have an idea of the military strength of the Banu Qurayza. We also know whether the Banu Qurayza were a military threat to Muhammad or not. In any case, it is up to the reader to decide what he/she wants to do with the info (if anything). We just present the info in the best manner possible.Bless sins 20:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, there is no consensus to include Maududi. Please do not resort to edit warring. Beit Or 20:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, why don't you start discussing things for a change? You have reverted edits without justifying the reason for doing so. What is the reason a scholar like Maududi is removed?Bless sins 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For reference many battles we talk about not only state how many weapons there were, but also the type and brand of weapons used.In the Battle of Baidoa article we mention how many Ehtipion tanks, and what type of tanks (T-55) were present in Somalia on december 22, 2006. In Second_Kashmir_War#Aerial_warfare you can see an assesment of all the types of air weapons Pakistan and India used against each other.

Exactly: "weapons used" - not "weapons unused". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok how about artciles on how much arsenal (esp. nuclear) India and Pakistan posses (and thus haven't used yet). BrahMos, Agni-III, Ghauri_(missile) all give an assesment of the military capabilities, as well as military threat a coutnry poses to it primary rival. Also see Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 to check out the exact details of what was surrendeed to Indian forces in the end of 1971 war.Bless sins 21:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Maududi is very reliable scholar. His tafsirs are very wel sold in Pakistan. I will try to find some figure. He has lot of respact in subcontinent. Those people who do not like Jamat-i-Islami even they respact Maududi. --- ALM 21:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not the same as enjoying respect as an academic historian. I do admit to some curiosity, however, as to how he knew that the stockpiled weapons were meant "to aid the Quraysh against Muslims." It's no secret that they were armed, after all.Proabivouac 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How did he know about the weapons? There is nothing on this subject in Ibn Ishaq or Ibn Hisha, or in the hadith. Did he uncover some hitherto unknown documents? None has been produced yet. Archeological digs? None were ever made in Medina. Are there any academic scholars supporting his claims? Evidently, no. If you want policy basis for the removal of Maududi, then it's WP:NPOV, see the section on tiny minority view. Or better, tiny minority fantasy in this case. Beit Or 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mawadudi is certainly a reliable sources. He might have used some Hadith or tradition which we are not aware of. And there is no proof for the belief that Mawdudi is in minority. --Aminz 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Might have" are the operative words here. Bless sins, what does the source say, and after what evidence? Are there any academic sources which even mention this? We should be willing to include it with attribution if there is something significant here; otherwise it should be ignored.Proabivouac 22:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from that, the point is not whether Mawdudi is in the minority. Right now he is all alone making a claim on an unknown basis about a detail that is completely irrelevant.

BlessSins brought up an article on Pakistani arms. Well, if you can gather enough material you can write an article on Banu Qurayza armament. Or Early Muslim armament? Still, this (questionable) information is totally irrelevant for this article. Everyone knows that the BQ had arms, as Pro pointed out. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get your argument. One you say that what Maududi is saying is obviously true. But then you guys remove Maududi's statements from teh article???

1. Beit Or's argument doesn't hold because every truth about Muhammad isn't necessarily in Ibn Ishaq etc.

2. Proabivouac's arguments also doesn't hold, because Maududi is a well-known and notable Islamic scholar.

3. Str1977's argument that thre is no point in mentioning arms on wikipedia, is baseless in the context of all the articles I ahve provided above.Bless sins 15:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, BS, I am not saying "that what Maududi is saying is obviously true" but that the BQ obviously had weapons. However, Maududi also claims that they were intending to use them to help the Quraish - a speculation which no one has the possibility of knowing. So Madudi consists of a problematic, unsourced claim and a truism, neither of which need to be included. If we want to include Madudi's problematic claim than certainly not in the narration of the events.

"(E)very truth about Muhammad isn't necessarily in Ibn Ishaq etc." but a) he is the earliest source, and b) we would like to know from which source Maududi takes his information. Is this too much to ask for?

Is Maududi a historian? Or is he a Islamic theologian? Where is he nottable? And please, use the English language when you describe him - no tafsirs please.

You ahve provided nothing comparable to this situation here. I already asked you to create an article on weaopons of the Banu Qurayza. Also, in your exumples we have hart evidense about the weapons and not merely a guy's claim. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Maududi is a relaible source. Why do we need to question where he get his info from? We don't do that for anything else. Why is Maududi's claim problematic? Is there a source that specifically states that Muadudi is wrong?? And what language due you think I am using? I make my statements in english, but use commonly used arabic terms, such as Quran, tafsir, sira. If you don't know those terms you shouldn't even be on this page.

Let me put it in a simple manner: give me reasons that say Maududi is not scholar on Islam and we'll remove him. Until then the stement stays.Bless sins 15:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So Mr M is a reliable because he is a reliable source? Brilliant!

Whether he is a scholar on Islam is not very relevant - we are talking history and not theology.

I restate my question: what is Madudi's source for his claim? If he is such a great scholar you will have no difficulty finding out. And you still haven't answered on the relevance.

My language complaint referred not to you but to postings like "Maududi is very reliable scholar. His tafsirs are very wel sold in Pakistan. I will try to find some figure. He has lot of respact in subcontinent. Those people who do not like Jamat-i-Islami even they respact Maududi". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No one us really saying that Maududi was not a scholar of Islam. Feel free to quote his opinion on how to perform salat or wudu. But when did the number of swords and spears possesses by the Qurayza become part of the Islamic creed? Please leave the matters of history to historians. Beit Or 20:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Life of Muhammad is very much a part of Islam. IF it wasn't for what Muhammad did, Muslims wouldn't know how to perform salat (since it is not explained in the Quran). For example in order to prove something is halal in Islam a mufti (jurist) merely has to point to a time when Muhammad himself performed that act. The very fundamentals of Islam are based on Muhammad, his actions, his saying and his interactions with others. One can't be a scholar of Islam without having sufficient knowlege of the life of Muhammad, his battles, his wives, his companions etc.Bless sins 13:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your usage of the word "knowledge" is in no way warranted. We do not "know" what happened at that place and time. All we have are certain sources, mostly it's Ibn Ishaq and some other early Muslim historians, like Tabari. Ibn Ishaq is the accepted Muslim biography of Muhammad and his narrative is broadly accepted by historians. Citing Ibn Ishaq is thus usually safe as far as NPOV is concerned unless some historians do not accept the historicity of a certain event; in this case, the disagreement is noted. However, even among Muslims, Maududi does not have nearly as high standing as Ibn Ishaq. Therefore, any editor who wants to include something sourced to Maududi must bring proofs that Maududi is at least not alone in his views. Otherwise, this is a tiny minority view that does not belong to Wikipedia. Beit Or 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't know anything if you put it like that. Did the Crusades really happen? Certainly there is evidence that suggests that, but what is the proof that establishes thier existence beyond doubt? This is a whole different argument. Our job is not to determine the truth but the verifiability, WP:Verifiability.

On a more relevent note, Maududi has a very high standing, maybe not as high as Ishaq, but still very high. You will find it difficult (if not impossible) to prove this wrong. Secondly, does Ishaq actually contradict Maududi?? If he does, then I agree that the view would not be mainstream. But realize that Ishaq is not the only source, not even the most authentic one, on Muhammad. Sahih Bukhari, Sunan al-Tirmidhi and the Sahih hadith are also very authentic sources though they weren't written by Ishaq, Hisham etc. Finally, Maududi is not "minority". He is often quoted by Muslim, and Western scholars alike on the topic of Islam, and his works are famous throughout the Muslim world (not just in Indian subcontinent). Infact, I don't know of a scholar more influential than him in the 20th century.Bless sins 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I must admonish Beit Or not to sidetrack the issue. It is not about "can we know something" but about "what do the sources say?" The situation is difficult in regard to early Islamic history as the earliest sources are from the 8th century (excepting the Quran) but still these sources do count. In our case: if Maududi is the source and noone else, his claim has no basis at all and shouldn't even be included anywhere. If he is basing himself on an actual source, bring it on.

The history of Muhammad might be important to Islam but being a scholar of Islam (and it is debatable whether Maududi is that) does not make one a historian. Maududi has absolutely no expertise on these events.

Finally, if One can't be a scholar of Islam without having sufficient knowlege of the life of Muhammad, why do Muslims object to the term Muhammedan? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he has referenced it, maybe not? (if yes, as Str said we include the original source as well). But it is also unlikely that Mawdudi has forged the story. --Aminz 02:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We've been asking for clarification on this for awhile now, but have heard nothing from Bless sins. We should put this discussion on hold until someone can tell us what Mawdudi actually says, and where he says he got it from. If the answer is from nowhere, then sure, he or someone from whom he heard it might indeed have forged it. If there is a real tradition here, then it will be found elsewhere, and probably has been at least mentioned by an academic historian at some point.Proabivouac 02:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What clarification do you wish? As far as I have read Maududi has not put a footnote or any such thing beside this comment. Also, Maududi is the scholar that mentions this event. Beit Or, Proabivouac and Str1977, please tell me what ur argument is. Right now thre's is three of you hurling accusations and then just leaving. Pls. state ur argument clearly and concisely below.Bless sins 18:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There might be a reference section at the end of the chapter(?). In any case, it is highly unlikely that an scholar like Maududi has forged this himself. He might be refering to one of the thousands traditions in some collection recorded after the Ibn Hisham's biography etc etc. Hence the reliability of the tradition might be controversial but apparently Maududi accepts it. So, we should attribute it to himself. --Aminz 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BS, finally you come across with the long sought for information. This is enough to settle the matter. Maudidi has no footnote or reference for his claim. Hence it is completely worthless. He might be a scholar but this is not scholarship if it is not referenced (as he is not able to have witnessed it himself.)

Also, I remove your audacious form for the "Main Argument against Maudidi". Both BeitOr, Pro and I have already stated ad nauseum our objections. You yourself have now given evidence to the nature of the claim.

Case closed. Unless you come up with a reference after all, further additions will be reverted on sight. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Material on wikipedia should be verifiable not necessarily true. As I said before Maududi says that and we say Maududi says that. Maududi has all the credentials to qualify as a notable Muslim scholar. Maududi doesn't follow the style of referencing. This doesn't mean he doesn't have any source. --Aminz 19:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the most abused sentence on WP: "WP is about verifiability, not truth". This means we can put side by side conflicting views verifiable from reliable sources without having to decide what is true. It certainly does not mean that we can put up lies (and yes, by now I believe Madudi to be liar) or that our ultimate goal is not truth. Maududi has all the credentials to make up a desktop thug (onyl read his article) an I pray that God will have mercy on him (and me). But even for him, standards of scholarly writing matter: either he conforms to them or he doesn't, in which case his books are not scholarly, certainly not as it pertains to history (a field he has zippo qualifications in anyway). Aminz, I would ask you to reconsider whether you really want to uphold this your statement and sacrifice your intellectual honesty just for the sake of blackening the BQ? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Maudidi has no footnote or reference for his claim. Hence it is completely worthless..." niether does Ibn Ishaq, Hisham etc. Also, wikipedia does not require us to soruce primary sources. Infact it encourages us to use secondary sources.[11] In any case pls. state ur argumetns clearly below and don't revert my edits on talk.Bless sins 20:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that Madudi is a primary source? You cannot compare him with Ibn Ishaq (who is a primary source) and lived centuries ago. Source criticism is used on his work to use him. Maududi lived in the 20th century and could have used modern methodologically and academical style. He hasn't. His claim is worthless. Stop pestering us. BTW, where is the usual call for RS from certain editors? Editors inimical too Islam will next be able to use vast material to push their POV thanks to this reasoning (if it stood, that is). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, "laugh out loud" is far past cliché, but that argument literally made me do exactly that. How did Maududi learn this fact, through commune with the dead? That would make him a primary source, wouldn't it? First you equate Maududi with Ibn Ishaq, a primary source, then you state that it's superior because it's a secondary source; ergo sources fabricated of whole cloth today are the best sources of all, combining as they do the virtues of both primary and secondary sources.Proabivouac 21:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't iknow if you are unable to read my comments properly, or you are doing this deliberately. But clearly, you are accusing me something I didn't say. Maududi is not a primary source, but a secondary one. A primary source would be the Sahih Hadith, Quran, Ibn Ishaq etc. I said wikipedia encourages us to use secondary sources, and thus we should use Maududi, Watt etc. instead of hadith, Ibn Ishaq etc.Bless sins 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, when you wrote, "Niether does Ibn Ishaq, Hisham etc." you equated Maududi with a primary source in this regard. Ibn Ishaq could not cite his sources because there were no other sources. Secondary sources are supposed to critically evaluate and draw inferences from primary sources, not make up their own material (down to the number and type of weapon.) Maudidi is not a historian and has even less business doing this than would Watt.Proabivouac 22:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Either Maududi is a primary source about the event (but he is too young for that) or he produces scholarly historiography for that event (but he doesn't cite sources) or he is plain worthless. I don't know either whether BS is doing this deliberately or whether either his admiration for that man or his hatred for Jews so is so great that he cannot order his thoughts any more. Please stop it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguments against Maududi

Pls. make your arguments against the scholarship of Maududi in the field of events directly related to the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, (in this case: the Siege and execution of the Banu Qurayza). Please make clear and concise arguments, and cite the relevent wikipedia policy to support your arguments.Bless sins 20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Maududi may be a scholar on the Islamic religion (may, as even that is not undisputed), but he is not a historian. He makes his claim without providing any reference where he got it from (as per admission of BS), hence it is just as worthless as me making up any claim about that or any other event. Maududi, as a man of the 20th century, must be measured on 20th century standards in regard to scholarly writing. He cannot be compared with a primary source like Ibn Ishaq. Also, Maududi is known as havin been involved in incititing violence, hence any claim uttered by him against a group must be treated with extra care. As for the substance of his claim, it serves not real purpose in the article and is only intended to blame the Jews and condone Muhammad, even though it even fails in that as everyone knows that the Qurayza had weapons and as there was nothing illegal about it. The intended purposed (help the Quraish) is pure speculation on Maududi's part, even more so since he does not cite a source. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To a previous comment, Bless sins has replied here:

I haven't said any such thing. Pls. state ur argument, or I'll assume you have none. I don't know why you are not cooperating.Bless sins 22:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You have, when asked about Madudi's source, given witness that he gives none. Hence his claims are worthless. I am now cooperating for the very last time. I don't know why you are not thinking. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are co-operating then why are yoou reveting my edits. Pls. don't remove that I'm making these comments in.Bless sins 22:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so is Maududi a reliable source (on events relating to Muhammad) or not? Also, can you identify the exact wikipedia policy that Maududi's statements violate, (pls. include a relevent quote from the policy). Thanks.Bless sins 22:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not reverting your edits (and this is only fixing your anti-chronoloogical posting). Madudi is not a reliable and if you want a policy try WP:RS. Look it up for yourself, as I am headed up to here with your games. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you quote the part of WP:RS that is relevent to you argument that Maududi isn't reliable.Bless sins 23:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

On a seperate note, which is unrelated to Maududi's scholarship, I found Maududi's claims to be repeated in a biography of Muhammad, as well as a work published by a journal. Just out of curiosity: how many sources do you require for this statement?Bless sins 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, stop putting your postings in between older postings. You are messing up the entire page.

Secondly, bring on what you got as hitherto you have provided nothing (except the confirmation that Madudi is worth nothing). The best would be to quote the passage, with footnotes/references and all. Still, the problem with relevance remains. But we shall see. I am not a deletionist after all. But you jump first. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pls. answer the question I asked. How many more sources do you require for this statement to be a part of this article?Bless sins 23:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have answered your question the way I saw fit (now in bold print). Stop pestering me! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel I'm "pestering" you. I am only asking you questions regarding sourcing of statements. If you get involved in controversies you can expect that questions will be raised and answers will be required.Bless sins 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BS, you might not have noticed but you are not the ruler of this page and are in no position to order around fellow Wikipedians. Despite the fact that the case against Maududi was already well stated many times you put up this form above. I initially objected to replying at all but then changed my mind and provided one last explanation, stating everything clearly. However, you keep on pestering and pestering, issueing orders and demands. Stop it.

As far as the case here is concerned, you have a claim but you have so far no source. Instead of pestering others you should search for one and come back when you have one. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless is insisting on me stating the obvious, citing from WP:RS (quotes will be in bold).

First the question: is Maududi's work cited here a piece of scholarship or is it a non-scholarly book (which is not the same as asking whether Maududi is a scholar)?

Let's assume it is scholarship and look at point 2.1:

Does Maududi's claim - that the Jews wanted to uses these weapons to help the Quraish. Not wether they had weapons (a triviality) or how many those where (dealt with other references) - conform with "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals."?

Also, take note of the following sequence:

• In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs, and traditional religious and academic views of religious practices should generally both be cited and attributed as such when they differ.

It says that such scholars (scholars on a religion, not scholars espousing a religion) are RS for the religion's pratices and beliefs and NOT for details of history.

But maybe M's writing is not scholarship (either because he is not a scholar or because he steps outside his field).

• Attributability—The more we know about the originator, either organisation or individual, of source material, the better. This helps us measure the authority of the content.

Unfortunately, we know some unpleasant things about Maududi. See his article.

• Expertise of the originator about the subject—An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics.

And an Islam scholar is more reliable when writing about Islam (see the definition above) than when writing about history.

• Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view.

Now, would we say Maududi has a bias against groups divergent from Islam? Read his article.

And now look at this gem:

• Declaration of sources—A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not. Ideally, a source should describe the collection process and analysis method.

Note, this is included under non-scholarly because citing your souces is a must for scholarly writing. For non-scholars it is a bonus.

This also solves our question above: Maududi's writing - on this point at least - is not scholarly. He does not cite his sources and hence cannot be considered reliable on this.

One last bit, unrelated to the RS issue: if other sources relate that the BQ had so and so much weapons (which they apparently do) and we include this, there is no need for Maududi's problematic claim. The other half of the claims (what the Jews intended to do with these arms) is nothing more than a restatement of the overall accusation of treachery, will is fairly well covered in the article already. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

this analysis consists of mainly an appeal to WP:RS (and some irrelevant ad hominem); yet, as i'm sure Beit Or will tell you, RS is merely a guideline, the general principle of which is to be followed. it is certainly not to be enforced in the way policies are, and plenty of editors believe that certain specifications need ironing out for it ever to become policy, which isn't remotely likely in the near future. regardless, WP:RS is irrelevant here: Mubarakpuri/Maududi are established Islamic scholars, and their opinions (in representation of Muslim/Islamic POV) are worthy of note where appropriate, as i have mentioned below. what cannot be ignored is WP:NPOV, and there should be no problem with including a few words about how Islamic scholars assess the existence of this cache. ITAQALLAH 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Itaq, to lighten up your darkness: this focuses so much on WP:RS because Bless asked me repeatedly for it. Please educate yourself what ad hominem means. You are basically indulging in it when you say because Maududi is a scholar therefore his non-scholarly opinion must be propagated too. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't understand how your retort makes sense. how am i engaging in ad hominem, and against whom? please do clarify. ITAQALLAH 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not understand. You are arguing ad hominem for Maududi. You are saying "because Maududi said it, it must be right". Ad hominem works both ways. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

au contraire, that's not what i'm saying at all, Str. furthermore, that's an unusual understanding of ad hominem (which means to discredit a person's argument by disparaging him), do you have any refs i could consult which substantiate your understanding? ITAQALLAH 00:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Straw, think for yourself. I know that this is not the common form the the argument ad hominem but it is covered by the actual words and it is just as fallacious. In any case, I was not engaging in ad hominem arguments. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

apologies, i'm not sure what you mean when referring to me as "Mr Straw." yes, the circular logic you attribute to me would be fallacious, but as i have stated, you have yet to prove that i ever made such an argument. the above analysis does seem to incorportate ad hominem, at least IMO. ITAQALLAH 00:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have to prove anything to you. But actually I should thank you since you looked at my posting above while Bless who requested it ad nauseum doesn't seem to care. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can hardly think of anything to add to Str1977's excellent analysis of WP:RS as it applies to Maududi's claim. Itaqallah, I agree with you that there is not a problem with "including a few words about how Islamic scholars assess the existence of this cache." Islamic scholars is a notable class if not reliable - that is, they are not reliable sourcse for findings of historical fact, but their views are inherently topical and informative in the context of Islam-related articles. However, I've see no indication that Maududi's view represents any widespread belief or well-established tradition, or even a major issue for Maududi himself. The belief that the Banu Qurayza were conspiring with Mecca against Muhammad is very widespread, and is made quite clear in the article, starting with the third sentence. That is not, however, equivalent to the seized weapons being intended to aid the Quraysh.Proabivouac 09:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

of course, Str, you don't have to prove anything to me. it is common courtesy, however, that when you attribute to people such reasoning (i.e. "because Maududi said it, it must be right"), then you at least substantiate where and how i have employed that logic. else, it looks like you have no basis to claim such. ITAQALLAH 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How about your claims being substantiated? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

excuse me? please address what i said, or respectfully acknowledge the inaccuracy of your remark. thank you. ITAQALLAH 15:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you said "this analysis consists of mainly an appeal to WP:RS (and some irrelevant ad hominem)" - it does refer to RS because that is what Bless requested. The ad hominem claim is your claim which you simply put into the world without substantiating it. Good day. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Is Maududi's work cited here a piece of scholarship or is it a non-scholarly book (which is not the same as asking whether Maududi is a scholar)?

Answer: Firstly, if Maududi is a scholar, then it generally (though not always) follows that his work is reliable. Wikipedia puts in emphasis on the scholarship of the author. I will be answering this question in more detail below.

1.1 The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.

Answer: Many other scholars have read Maududi's work and deemed it acceptable. One translation was made and endorsed by Professor Zafar Ishaq Ansari, the Director General of the Islamic Research Institute and the International Islamic University, Islamabad. Other translations such as that from Muhammad Akbar (the one I own), were published under the supervision of Professor Muhammad Ameen Javaid.

Maududi is also often cited, as searching "maududi quran" with Google scholar would show. For example he is cited by a paper published by Islamic Research and Training Institute (of the Islamic Development bank). A journal considered Maududi's work in question as "Mawdud'i's magnum opus" and further says "Apart from setting the verses/Suras in the circumstances of its time...", which is directly related to what we are talking about (the circumstances under which Ahzab was revealed).

1.2 In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs...It says that such scholars (scholars on a religion, not scholars espousing a religion) are RS for the religion's pratices and beliefs and NOT for details of history.

Answer: Notice it says "articles on religions and religious practices". Is this article on religion and religious practices? Also, where does WP say that a "scholar on a religion" is "NOT for details of history."

The Banu Qurayza incident has been reported to us primarily through ibn Ishaq and other medieval Muslim sources. Moreover, the incidents weren't reported historically by Ibn Ishaq, rather they were details to ibn Ishaq's Sira, which is a religious piece of work. Ibn Ishaq himself wasn't interested in history, rather only Islam. We know about Ibn Ishaq's work primarily through Ibn Hisham and Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari an exegetes of the Quran. Thus the story of Banu Qurayza falls in the category of Islam (amongst other categories).

2.1 Attributability—The more we know about the originator, either organisation or individual, of source material, the better. This helps us measure the authority of the content. Unfortunately, we know some unpleasant things about Maududi. See his article.

Answer: There are unpleasent aspects of every human's life! No human is free of sin and error. You'll have to be more specific if you want to discredit Maududi. However, this point is totally irrelevent since Maududi is already a scholar. This is shown explicitly on User:Bless_sins/notes#Maududi.

2.2 And an Islam scholar is more reliable when writing about Islam (see the definition above) than when writing about history.

Answer: Maududi may not be a scholar on Near East history but he definetly is one on Muhammad's life. Consider Asbab al-nuzul, and discipline in tafsir, which is the interpretation of the Quran. Thus a scholar who has written a tafsir (such as Maududi) will definetly be an expert in this field. Asbab al-nuzul means "occasions/circumstances of revelation". This studies the life of Muhammad while he was said to have been receiving revelations. The Surah Ahzab was revealed to him during and after the Battle of Ahzab, which saw the end of Qurayza. Thus as far as the historical events in Muhammad's life are concerned Maududi is an RS.

By analogy, a scholar on Christianity is an RS on Jesus' life (as it is known).

2.3 Declaration of sources—A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not. Ideally, a source should describe the collection process and analysis method. Note, this is included under non-scholarly because citing your souces is a must for scholarly writing. For non-scholars it is a bonus. He does not cite his sources and hence cannot be considered reliable on this.

Answer: Again, this criterion is for non-scholars. I doubt wikipedians are about to challenge the way Stephen Hawkings reaches his conclusions in Physics and Mathematics. Infact, any wikipedian doing that will be accused of OR, since Hawkings is world famous expert in his field. Similarly Maududi is a scholar in his field (Islam and Quranic exegesis).

Besides I'm not quoting a fact from Maududi, rather an analysis of the situation. That the Qurayza wanted to use their weapons against Muslims is not a fact - nor is the conclusion made by Donner that Muhammad turned against the Qaynuqa because they were in close contact with Meccan merchants (see Banu Qaynuqa article). Scholars have the right to make analyses and speculations. Challenging such specualtions is OR. Bless sins 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

1. "If Maududi is a scholar, then it generally (though not always) follows that his work is reliable." - no, if the scholar writes beyond his expertise.

1.1 Which historians have found Maududi's historical scholarship acceptable? Tell me. We are talking about a detail of history here - not about theology or Islamic law or exegesis or whatever. A classification of a opus magnum does say anything if it is beyond the field in question.

1.2. No, this article is neither about a religion nor about religious practices. That is the main problem with you and your friends. You treat anything as relevant only in regard to Muhammad and Islam. This article however is about a group of people called Banu Qurayza. A scholar on a religion is per definition not the same as a scholar on history - a person might be both, but they are not identitical. Ibn Ishaq is a primary source, hence we take him as he is and apply our analysis.

2.1. If you want me to be more specific: Maududi is one of the fathers of religious intolerance, persecution (and subsequently terrorism) in Pakistan. Sorry, if that hurts, but you asked about it.

2.2. I cannot accept his, unless the scholar in question has had training in the methods of the historical craft. Did Maududi. And no, a Christian theologian is no historian either (he might be one, by extra qualifications).

2.3. No, this is the criterion for non-scholarly writing. Stephen Hawking might be a great physicists (though in fact, he is terribly overrated) but once he steps beyond his expertise he is just as good as you or me, maybe even worse.

You say: "Maududi is a scholar in his field (Islam and Quranic exegesis)" - partly correct: Maududi is a scholar in Islam and Quranic exegesis - but this is not "this field". If he interprets the Quran to say that the BQ stockpiled weapons in order to use them against Muhammad, then says so? Which Sura is this based on? ... I am curious. ....

Nothing! Because he is not indulging in exegesis but issues claims about historical facts. His numbers are based in fact, we know that from other writings. His speculation is a logical conclusion given the view we have already covered (BQ were traitors). Still, it is speculation. Worse, a pointless speculation. I see absolutely no reason why we should include this. And no, scholars from another field have no right to have their speculations propagated by Wikipedia. We are writing this article, not they. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved my response to the current bottom of the page.Bless sins 00:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Stockpiles

I have removed Maududi's speculation as to what these arms were for as irrelevant. Of course the information would be very relevant were there some basis for it, but Maudidi's word isn't enough. As for the stockpiles sentence, what does Heck actually say?Proabivouac 00:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Pls. join the discussion above abou whetehr Maududi is a reliable scholar or not.Bless sins 00:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Beit Or, if discussing the proper way to perform salat or wudu, then he is an authority. On history he is not.Proabivouac 00:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not even an argument. SO Maududi is only a scholar salat or wudu?? What about jihad, Quran, God etc.? Pls. make ur argument under 2 above, and cite the relevent wiki policy.Bless sins 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Maududid is (arguably) a scholar on jihad (when and how it should be waged), Quran (whence it came, was is its authority, contents, exegesis), God (who is He, according to the Islamic religion). He is not a historian and not a scholar on particular events in a particular time (and so far I haven't seen how his claim is part of the Quran). Finally, Pro is free to post or not whereever he likes. Stop ordering him around. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

i disagree. Maududi and Islamic scholars in general are required to be competent in issues of the life of Muhammad, because it is through the latter that they explain the Qur'an and formulate rulings. i don't see how what Maududi forwards can be dismissed as speculation: it seems a rather logical deduction to me. it is known that the Qurayzans had stockpiles of weapons in their stronghold. it is also known that they planned to backstab Muhammad. that Maududi doesn't cite his source (and there are plenty to cite bar Tabari, Ibn Ishaq et al.) does not mean at all that this rather simple deduction originated with him. there are plenty of academic scholarly works that use citations rather sparsely. besides, we are in no position to dismiss those academic views we believe to be 'speculation.' ITAQALLAH 13:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Heck states that upon the defeat of Qurayza the Muslims reportedly seized large numbers of weaponry. Maududi opines that these were to be used against the Muslims. that is certainly plausible, when you have numerous academics like Serjeant stating that the Qurayzans intended to betray Muhammad. furthermore, Islamic scholars (especially mufassirs) are required to have competence in the field of early Islamic history (especially if, as mufassirs, they are to engage in implementing asbāb an-nuzūl - context of revelation). ITAQALLAH 01:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I had thought that the Banu Qurayza were weapons makers and traders. The disputed sentence currently reads, "Upon entering the strongholds of Banu Qurayza, Muslims found that the Banu Qurayza had accumulated stockpiles of arms (1,500 swords, 2,000 lances, 300 suits of armor, and 500 shields), which Maududi states, were to aid the Quraysh against Muslims." This suggests that the Muslims were not aware of the "stockpile" or were surprised by its extent, and that there was something surreptitious or nefarious about the Qurayza's "stockpile." That is what Maududi is saying, but does Heck say anything like that? Bless sins, please share the passage upon which this is based.Proabivouac 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Heck doesn't imply that, he refers to the seizure to demonstrate that the Qurayzans were able to develop substantial amounts of arms. i have altered the wording to reflect that. ITAQALLAH 01:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we please have a quote of what this Heck fellow says, including his references. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

cite 86, assumedly encompassing both sentences, cites: "Al-Zubayr b. Bakkar, Jamharat Nassab Quraysh, 1: 372; al-Isfahani, Bilad al-`Arab, 30; al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan, 67; al-Suhayli, Al-Rawd al-Unuf, 3: 125-26, 260, 298; al-Salihi al-Shami, Subal al-Hudan wa al-Rashad, 4: 286, 307, 408; al-Azdi, Ta'rikh al-Mawsil, 49; al-Halabi, Al-Sirah al-Halabiyah, 2: 666; J. `Ali, Al-Mufassal fi Ta'rikh, 7: 554-60; M. al-Alusi, Bulug al-`Arab, 3: 401; `A. al-Sayf, Al-Hayah al-Iqtisadiyah wa al-Ijtima`iyah, 156; `A. al-`Umari, al-Hiraf wa al-Sina`at, 314ff.; `A. al-Kitani, Nizam al-Hukumah al-Nabawiyah al-Musamma al-Taratib al-Idariyah (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-`Arabi, n.d.), 2: 75."

• regardless, as i stated above, requesting that academics cite their sources is a practice unfounded in wikipedia policy/guidelines. if they do, all well and good. if they do not, they are not to be dismissed because of this. because such individuals are academically trained and competent in their particular field, they are expected to be at the very least well informed in their views. there are plenty of unquestionably scholarly academics who don't make frequent use of citations in their works (and this is more common for books than journals). ITAQALLAH 14:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Since then I have found that Mubarakpuri makes the same argument as Maududi. And Mubarakpuri's work was reviewed by scholars, and chosen as the best out of more than a hundred other works. the post made by Itaqallah shows tens of other references, (soem hundreds of years old). I repeat my question Str1977: how many scholarly sources do you require?Bless sins 16:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"it is also known that they planned to backstab Muhammad." No. Also The Sealed Nectar does not attempt to be a work of history. Arrow740 19:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't believe you know enough about the work to be able to argue convincingly against it. it is indeed known that they planned to backstab Muhammad, as per Serjeant or any other of the academics who state this. ITAQALLAH 19:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Pro isn't being active enough so I'll have to entertain myself for a while with The Sealed Nonsense. I know there are some zingers in there. Regarding the "backstabbing" (the word assumes a treaty to break, no proof of that) there is no proof. Arrow740 19:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Regarding the "backstabbing" (the word assumes a treaty to break, no proof of that) there is no proof." - a defunct argument. academic opinions prove you wrong on both counts. whether or not you believe there are proofs is more relevant on your blog, not on wiki i'm afraid ^_^. ITAQALLAH 19:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to my blog? Academics opinions are just that. Arrow740 19:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A case can be made that "backstabbing" Muhammad was a meritorious thing to do. By that time, he had, among other things, expelled two Jewish tribes and had several people assasinated. There is nothing reprehensible in rebelling against a brutal tyrant. In any case, the discussion whether the Qurayza intended to use their weapons against Muhammad is superfluous. Of course, had the Qurayza decided to join forces with the Meccans against Muhammad, they would have used the weaponry that was at their disposal. The same is true for their able-bodied men, by the way. There no need to state it unless one wants to drive home a certain message to readers. Beit Or 21:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't think that mentioning the (logical) link drawn by some Muslim scholars is counter-productive as long as we employ attribution. ITAQALLAH 21:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This claim is uninformative and irrelevant, as I have explained above. Beit Or 21:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

<reset> i disagree, it is informative as it, at the very least, provides insight into the view adopted by Muslim scholars of this peculiar weapons cache. i don't see any need to purge clearly attributed, notable opinions from the article. ITAQALLAH 21:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, The Sealed Nectar doesn't make this claim, but only says, “In fact, the Jews deserved that severe punitive action for the ugly treachery they had harboured against Islam, and the large arsenal they have amassed and which consisted of one thousand and five hundred swords, two thousand spears, three hundred armours and five hundred shields, all of which went into the hands of the Muslims.”Proabivouac 21:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

that quote does forward the claim, this is how i'm interpreting it.. "the Jews deserved that severe punitive action for (1) the ugly treachery they had harboured against Islam, and (2) [for] the large arsenal they have amassed ...", else, the sentence doesn't make sense. ITAQALLAH 22:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"harbouring treachery" is vague. Arrow740 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It certainly suggests that there's something wrong with the Qurayza having all those weapons, but there could be a number of reasons for that (meaning to attack the Muslims on their own, not sharing them with the Muslims, having stolen them from the Muslims, etc.) besides meaning to aid the Quraysh. Vague insinuations aren't really citable. Were there some specific tradition, Mubarakpuri should have been glad to relate it.Proabivouac 23:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

<reset> and that observation is relevant, why? do you understand what we're disputing here? ITAQALLAH 22:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the inappropriateness of your edit is being shown in a variety of different ways. I read talk pages before reverting. This is a procedure you would be well advised to adopt at Islamic ethics. Arrow740 22:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

in short, sounds like a "no." ITAQALLAH 23:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The source is bad, even if it weren't you're taking liberties with it. Please assume good faith. Arrow740 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

you still haven't explained the relevance of your comment. we were discussing what exactly the extract asserts, not its validity. ITAQALLAH 23:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, i am responding here. it's pretty obvious that he means that the punishment was deserved based upon the Jews' intention to actually use them. moreso as earlier in the narrative, according to Mubarakpuri, Gabriel informs Muhammad of the impending betrayal, and this is the general impression that Mubarakpuri provides throughout the whole narrative. it is reasonable to assume that the amassing of weapons which Mubarakpuri says was a justification for punitive measures, is related to this. ITAQALLAH 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not from sealed nectar. Stop denying Maududi. --- ALM 21:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What is "al-Mubarakpuri (2002)", then? Google brings up Sealed Nectar, and Itaqallah directed us to it in his link above, as you no doubt would have seen had you read the discussion and looked at the cites to the material you'd reverted.Proabivouac 22:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I am happy to see that the shameful accusation of forgery against scholars like Maududi has been settled down. It was such a strange accusation. --Aminz 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We have yet to see any basis for Maududi's claim that the weapons were intended to aid the Quraysh.Proabivouac 01:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We have yet to see any basis for your claim that Maududi is not a scholar on the life of Muhamad. On a seperate note I'm glad Str1977 is no longer calling Maududi to be a "liar", and his claims to be "lies".Bless sins 07:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Maududi is a partisan/religious source per WP:RS (arguably also an "extremist" source,) he was not an academic scholar. Were it otherwise, we could simply state that Muhammad was God's last prophet, and the Qur'an is the literal word of God; academic historians generally avoid engaging such claims.Proabivouac 07:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

well, it has been shown that Mubarakpuri and Maududi forward this claim (i wouldn't discount the possibility of others doing so either), so i don't see the issue in inserting a sentence attributing a relevant opinion (and a logical deduction) to Islamic scholars. ITAQALLAH 13:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Where has this been shown? We know about Maududi (but his work is not scholarly) but we don't even know what Mubarakpuri is (unless there are other forums of communication on this).

Citing your sources is required in scholarly writing or else it's worthless. Read WP:RS as quote by me above.

Also, I don't know how Aminz can talk about an accusation of forgery. What Madudu did was merely stating his "common knowledge" that the BQ were traitors. This is not forgery. But it is not scholarship either, especially when no source is involved. Regarding the number of weapons, now sourced through Heck, is it really the fault of those calling for a reference that the reference was not provided sooner or that MadudI's unscholarly handling of the information seemed to blacken even what turned out to be sourced? Are we now the bad guys because we pushed others to finde a proper source? As for "shameful" or "strange" accusations: there are a couple of (indeed shameful) things I could accuse Maududi of. His scholarship or lack thereof is not an item of top priortiy in this. But these things need not concern us here.

In any case, the number of weapons is now sourced through Heck (Pro, do you have any source for the "I had thought that the Banu Qurayza were weapons makers and traders"? It would help including this information in a NPOV way), who actually only illustrates how many weapons were around at the time. What Maudidi adds, that the BQ wanted to help the Quraish with these, is merely a restatment of the overall Muslim view that they planned treason. This is alreay well covered in the article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, no I don't, I was thinking of the Banu Qaynuqa, to whom this profession is traditionally ascribed, and of the Jews of Khaybar, whom archeologists have speculated manufactured and sold siege engines (at least).Proabivouac 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac stated that Maududi is a "partisan/religious source". However the relevent section states that we should use such sources "with caution". This is exactly what we are doing when we attribute Maududi's claim to himself and not treat it as fact. Alseo note: "...although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source."Bless sins 22:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this alone is no reason for exclusion, but I see no "caution" in here. Caution does not mean that the view is to be attributed (it is anyway). Madudi's view on this is not scholarly and it adds nothing to our current covergage of the view that the BQ were traitors. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

some comments:

• "Where has this been shown?" - see above.
• "we don't even know what Mubarakpuri is " -not sure who "we" refers to, but everyone else on this discussion page is well aware of al-Mubarakpuri and his popular biography of Muhammad. in case you don't know: he is a trained Islamic scholar who specializes in the sira and primary source verification.
• "Citing your sources is required in scholarly writing or else it's worthless" - RS does not state that those works which don't employ citations are unreliable. there are plenty of books from high quality scholarship which don't make frequent use of citations. we still use them, and rightly so. one example would be Watt's 'Muhammad: Prophet and statesman,' same with some of Schimmel's books, Forward's books, and so on. if you frequent scholarly literature, you'll know that citation usage is mixed. citations usually tend to be used far more heavily in journals. as i stated before, we cannot dismiss academic material if they don't cite where and how we want.
• i have also explained how and why it is not unusual that mufassirs such as Maududi would discuss matters of early Islamic history. Islamic scholars of all types are required to have competence on the sira; it is a basic requirement. i don't agree that the sentence is already summarized in the rest of the article, nowhere does it express the link Islamic scholars make between the existence of a weapons' cache and its relevance to the wider dispute- which is of course worthy of note. ITAQALLAH 01:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Itaq, "see above" is no meaningful reply to my question, but your second item is. So you are talking about This "sealed" writing, which is still not a scholarly source. Citing sources (which doesn't necessarily mean footnotes and stuff, merely "I got it from ..." might suffice) is essential, otherwise it is simply not scholarly. I have already explained this often enough, as well as why the view is already represented. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

well, pointing you to the above discussion, where we analyse what Mubarakpuri has said, is more than enough to substantiate my point. as for your second point: 1) whether or not it is a scholarly resource is debatable (and we've had plenty of those); 2) regardless, it represents the traditional Muslim account, and the observation which is mirrored by multiple Islamic scholars is worthy of mention. demanding scholars use cites for their every assertion is unreasonable and has no basis in WP policy, and doing such eliminates a large number of scholarly books available, such as the ones i mentioned above. this specific view is represented nowhere in the article, as i have argued previously. ITAQALLAH 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither Mubarakpuri, nor Maududi add anything valuable to the article. The matter of the Qurayza negotiations with the Meccans is already covered in a NPOV manner. Beit Or 07:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

this is not a matter of negotiations, rather a matter of stockpiling wepons (for which we have an undeniably reliable source). Stating the Muslim view on an event that has to do with the founder of Islam is definetly relevent, if not crucial. If you find another Muslim view on this, or that of some non-Muslim scholar, do feel free to add it. But do not remove notable views from the article.Bless sins 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not making any new arguments, BS, and you've received responses from several editors to your old ones. You won't prove anything simply by asserting it. Beit Or 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

None of you have made any convincing argument against Maududi's and Mubrakapuri's scholarship (whose work was reviewed by a board of scholars, and chosen to be #1), and who is also a schlar at a reasearch institute known as "The Centre for the Services of the Prophet's Biography" at the Islamic University of Al-Madinah al-Munawwarah. My argument to you is the same: you can't deny their scholarship just by asserting it. The two men are far too notable and scholarly to not have their views on this article.Bless sins 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed by whom? University of where? Aha! The Sealed Nectar is a piece of hagiography, an honest business but not what were are after here. Your reply is why I was reluctant to answer your request. I see that I was right that you wouldn't even consider what I wrote anyway. A sad story. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed sad because this whole talk page is filled with the same arguments repeated over and over again. Beit Or 21:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

i see no problem with the sealed nectar as a representation of a substantial POV (i.e. traditional Islamic narrative). this particular and prominent opinion is not covered anywhere in the article. ITAQALLAH 23:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you, Itaqallah, that Sealed Nectar can be a source for traditional Sunni POV (it is decidely anti-Shi'a.) As history, however, it doesn't approach the primary sources in an appropriately critical manner, and makes no attempt to verify its conclusions with sources outside the Islamic sacred corpus (e.g. no consultation of Byzantine or Sassanid records, archeology, population genetics, etc., even though non-trivial assertions are made about each of these fields.) What is considered authentic or not is entirely predetermined by the POV it is intended to represent. Its primary virtue is to assemble the primary sources into a readable, coherent and ideologically reliable narrative, and is richly deserving of the awards from Muslim groups it has received. I also see no problem citing it in conjunction with primary sources where the material is uncontroversial, as you've suggested (other than the risk that its appearance will be taken as an acknowledgement of its academic virtue.)

However, as discussed, it doesn't say anything specific about what the weapons were for, and as it doesn't cite Maududi, there's no basis for construing it in light of Maududi's claim.Proabivouac 23:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

when the whole chapter is read then the quoted passage is clarified somewhat. we can all deduce that their possession of weapons was considered blameworthy according to Mubarakpuri. the reason for this seems rather clear in the context of his discussion (at least to me), as i attempted to explain earlier. ITAQALLAH 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To Str1977: the book was reviewed by the Muslim World League, at the first Islamic Conference on Seerah. Mubarakpuri is a scholar at a research institute at the University of Al-Madinah (I even said so in my post). Maududi's scholarship on Islam and Muhammad is beyond doubt.Bless sins 21:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not unaware that you mentioned the university. My question was rhetorical. We all know that the University of Medina is a centre of historical scholarship, settled in a country of freedom of speech and research ... or is it? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea that someone's scholarship is "beyond doubt" because their work is vetted by an extremist organization set up by the Saudi regime with well-documented ties to terrorism[12][13][14] is laughable. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

there exists no credence in this appeal to emotion. ITAQALLAH 23:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How was there any emotion involved in Brian's posting? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The "emotion" of being opposed to radical Islamist groups, perhaps? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah is right. This is not the place to discuss Middle Eastern politics, Saudi monarhcy, or terrorism. I don't care who Briangotts is opposed to, but please don't go off of topic.

To Str1977: Please don't bring up "freedom of speech". As far as I am concerned if Saudi Arabia doesn't respect complete freedom of speech, neither does China. However, your argument would lead us to conclude that Chinese scholars are somehow not RS, because of their government. This is ridiculous, since Chinese comprise of around 1/6 of all mankind. Wiki doesn't discriminate against universities based on the country they are in. Also, please refrain from making sarcastic comments. I'd appreciate it if you stated clearly what your argument was.Bless sins 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But it is an important factor. If certain institutions publish crappy research (now stating just the principle, not yet applying it) we must take that into account. If a university operates under a government with a certain ideological bent (i.e. a government that endorses and propagates a certain ideology) we must tread carefully. That doesn't mean that all scholars are crappy or that you cannot produce good scholarship but the problem of interference and propaganda persists. Some fields are less prone to that (e.g. computer science, electromechanics etc.) than others and humanities are unfortunately very vulnerable in this regard. The PR of China espoueses Communism and hence works related that ideology can be flawed. The same goes for Saudi-Aurabia and Wahabi Islam. No outright disqualification but caution is required.

In any case, where are the scholarly works rigidly citing their sources?

Finally, Bless, I would appreciate it if you would stop asking me to repeat myself. The argument is made and you have not responded to it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is to judge if some specific fact or opinion "crappy" or not. Certainly not me and you, because WP says that'd be OR. At the end of the day you need scholars to refute the claiums of other "scholars" should you find a contradiction. Sure, I agree caution - not censorship - is required.

You know the scholarly works I'm talking of: Maududi, and Mubarakpuri.

Also can you point me to the argument that I "have not responded to".Bless sins 23:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop equating WP:NOR with an unthinking parroting and quoting of others. We are here to write an encyclopedia. Also, you are once again assuming that Maududi's book is scholarly whereas you yourself have provided the information that it isn't. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, it would be nice if we could admit that Mubarakpuri does not, in fact, duplicate Maududi's statement. Once again, I agree that any significant Islamic tradition deserves inclusion on the ground of notability. However, there's been no indication that Maududi's statement represents any such tradition. So far as I am concerned, the burden is on you to demonstrate otherwise.Proabivouac 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, pls don't bring the old "hagiography" argument up, because Ibn Ishaq, Sahih Bukhari, Ibn Hisham etc. are also "hagiograph[ies]". Bless sins 13:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But Ibn Ishaq et al. are (primary) sources in need of Quellenkritik and not scholarly literature doing the Quellenkritik in their analysis. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Arrow740 23:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize, but can you tell me what "Quellenkritik" is supposed to mean?Bless sins 23:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Critical evaluation of original sources.Proabivouac 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that Maududi and Mubarakpuri are not critically evaluating primary sources? Does WP policy mandate that these persons, accepted as reliable scholars, conduct "Critical evaluation of original sources".Bless sins 23:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We cannot know since at Madudi doesn't tell us who his sources are. And hence they are not scholarship. Stop your wiki-lawyering and do not repeat your claims as long as you do not even care to address the analysis I provided at your request (which is BTW the longish excerpts from RS). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If they do not, as is the case with Maududi and Mubarakpuri, it makes more sense just to quote the primary sources, like Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham. The M&M are but an extra link. Beit Or 07:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

the claim that scholars like Mubarakpuri do not critically analyse the primary sources is categorically false. Mubarakpuri himself worked in the university's sira research department distinguishing authentic reports from the inauthentic, after which the university says he wrote a report regarding it. indeed, his book is based upon analysis of the primary sources: he doesn't simply include every report he finds. that much is obvious by simply reading the book. Bless sins doesn't need to address the analysis above, i have already demonstrated why it is defunct. ITAQALLAH 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again Str1977, how many sources do you require for the statements to stay. I found yet another source: Nur al-Din Al-Halabi and his book Sirat-i-Halabi. This is a massive multi-volume work. The current translation I have has been published by one of the Deobandi schools, which has a considerable following in South Asia. Also, Halabi was cited by Gene Heck in Journal Of The American Oriental Society Bless sins 23:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to share with us the exact wording of the passage in question?Proabivouac 23:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Once agains, Bless, stop your pestering me. I know by now that you will ignore my replies.

Also, you ignore the fact that the claim about what the weapons were supposedly for is redundant. If the BQ were traitors they surely would have used the weapons against Muhammad. But this view is already very well covered. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself: which "replies" of yours have I ignored? Please provide a specific link/time,date.Bless sins 15:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I second Str's call for you to stop asking the same questions over and over again. Beit Or 15:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

if Str finds the arduous process of dispute resolution tantamount to "pestering" by another editor (and this is an uncivil remark he has espoused several times now), then Str should reconsider whether he is defusing or in fact escalating the dispute. Proabivouac, i have explained earlier why i think Mubarakpuri rather clearly expresses the same view as found in Maududi's work. Beit Or, this specific assertion forwarded by Muslim scholars merits inclusion. the general prose simply says that the Banu Qurayza intended to rebel (according to Muslim sources). very few specifics, which should rightly be included, are given from what i can see. ITAQALLAH 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless, not only do you ignore my reply - you also ignore my reply pointing out what my ignored reply was. So one last time: you asked me to point out the relevant passages in WP:RS. I have done so, after much "pestering", in the section "Arguments Madudi". After having requested this over and over again, you have chosen to simply ignore it. For this reason I think it futile to meet your requests, especially if they are as irrelevant as your question about "how many sources" (to which I also have already replied by asking you to bring any source you got) as it completely ignores the nature of the sources as well as the nature of the claims and the topicality of them in this article (in other words: are they details of larger issues already covered?) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Again we are getting lost in the argument. If users would have made use of the templates I provided earlier, there would be no "I know by now that you will ignore my replies" accusations, as all comments woudl be correctly categorized. Anyways, I'll restate my arugment:

Some other users and I are currently trying to add some analysis. What do I mean by "analysis", here's an example.

• Fact: Muhammad besieged the Banu Qaynuqa.
• Analysis: Donner says, he did so because the tribe was in close contact with Meccan merchants.

Similarly, I'm trying to add some analysis, to facts.

• Fact: By the end of Battle of the Ditch Banu Qurayza accumulated large numbers of weaponry (x number of swords...).
• Analysis: Maududi (and others) say that they did so to aid the Quraysh.

Both Donner and Maududi are scholars (though Maududi is by far more noted for his scholarship), who have added their analysis. About sourcing statements. In Donner's case, he bases his analysis on several facts (i.e. Muhammad besieged Qaynuqa, the Qaynuqa was in contact with Quraysh), yet the analysis itself may not be sourced. This is because the source for the speculation may be the scholar him/herself.

Indeed, this is what "speculation" is defined as: "opinion reached on some matter by consideration of that subject". Scholars have every right to speculate and form opinions - wikipedians do not.

The same is with Maududi. He is considered a major (if not the greatest) Islamic thinker/scholar of the 20th century. You know that. Islam by definition includes Muhammad, his life, his actions, his sayings etc. And, ofcourse, no biography or study of Muhammad's life can be complete without mentioning the Battle of the Ditch, and the Banu Qurayza. Then there is Mubarakpuri. Again, acclaimed in the Muslim World for his notorious seera, he is a researcher at the Unviersity of Madina. The University of Madina is more scholarly in the field of Islam than the University of Chicago, where Donner teaches.Bless sins 15:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read Proabivouac's analysis of Mubarakpuri above. Writing a book exclusively from hagiography will produce more. Arrow740 19:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate it if you could point me to the exact post you are referring to, by either linking it, or stating the date and time.Bless sins 00:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Writing a book exclusively from hagiography will produce more" - nonsense. ITAQALLAH 19:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are both wrong. Writing a book from hagiography does not necessarily produce more hagiography, if the sources are dealt with properly. If one wants to write history, that is. If one intends to write hagiography (which is what the Sealed Nectar is about) then it will be just that. Hence, Arrow's remark is neither accurate nor is it complete nonsense.

Bless, "If users would have made use of the templates I provided earlier, there would be ..."

If everyone just obeyed the commands you issue and fulfill your every wish, we would have no dispute and the article would fully support your POV, probably just copying the Sealed Nectar (that's an exaggeration meant to illustrate, folks, so don't shout "straw man").

"... there would be no "I know by now that you will ignore my replies" accusations" - then why didn't you address my long-sought after presentation on RS? Why did you simply ignore it?

Also, you call it a "Fact" that "By the end of Battle of the Ditch Banu Qurayza accumulated large numbers of weaponry (x number of swords...)" - who actually is saying this? Thus far, I have only seen evidence for the BQ being in possession of many weapons when they surrendered, not that they accumulated them at that specific time. This is a specific interpretation (and actually OR, as your cherished writers do not tell us that) and your calling it fact casts doubt on your willingness or ability to distinguish the two. Finally, the view that the BQ meant treason is already included and well covers any aim regarding weapons.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1) a lot of scholarly works are based solely upon (the assessment of) Islamic primary sources. that doesn't mean to say they accept everything found in them. Arrow's argument is thus utter nonsense. 2) a number of Muslim scholars opine that the possession of such weapons was blameworthy as they were to be used against the Muslims. we should represent that opinion. the claim that the article already covers general Muslim narrative seems to reflect an attempted shoehorning of Muslim scholarly opinion out of the rest of the article. the sentence is relevant, neutral, precise, accurate, and attributed. there is, therefore, absolutely no reason to be constantly removing it. when the Banu Qurayzans acquired their weaponry is irrelevant. ITAQALLAH 01:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sing, "though Maududi is by far more noted for his scholarship" - actually, Maududi is famous for his extremist political views. Such notoriety warrants skepticism of his scholarship.Proabivouac 01:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To Proabivouac: I disagree. Maududi is noted for his scholarship. His tafsir of Quran is widely respected. In any case those who criticse him, never do so for inaccuracy, rather that he doesn't agree with their views on maulid etc. Infact his politics has nothing to do with how he views Muhammad or Jews, since there are no major Jewish groups or anything like that in Pakistan (where he was active). In Pakistan 95%+ are Muslims who respect Muhammad just as much as he does, hence I don't see any connection between his political activities and his writing on Muhammad.Bless sins 23:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To Str1977: Please calm down, and respond in a clear and civil manner.

"why didn't you address my long-sought..." I have repeatedly asked you to point me to the sepecific comment you are talking of. In your next post, instead of accusing me of "ignoring" you, please point me to your question tha you think I should answer.

About the weapons: It is clear that the Banu Qurayza had accumulated x weapons by the end of the Battle, what's there to doubt. This process of accumulation could've preceded the battle, we don't know. But we do know that by the end they had x weapons. This is referenced by numerous (10) sources, check out the post on (14:14, 3 February 2007) by Itaqallah.

Finally I don't thiink there is any analysis in the article about Banu Qurayza and the weapons, so we should include this.Bless sins 23:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am calm and don't see where my alleged incivility lies.

The "sepecific" (sic) comment I am talking about begins with "Bless is insisting on me stating the obvious". This is the last time I will point you to it. Any further claim of ignorance I cannot accept as good faith.

About the weapons: it is clear that the BQ had accumulated them by the end of the battle but not they had done all this just now (how dod you supposed they got these weapons during a siege?), just to do what Madudi & co. claim. Since Heck we know that the existence of the weapons is properly sourced (but Maududi didn't help uns in this)

You decry a lack of "analysis in the article about Banu Qurayza and the weapons" - I disagree. We do cover the Muslim acusation that the BQ were traitors. If they were, it follows that they would have used these weapons against Mr M. If not, then not. Hence, this is no sperarate view but the very same accusation of treachery. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thnks for pointing the edit out (I actually wanted a date and time, but that'll do), I will respond to it soon. I never said the tribe "got these weapons during a siege", infact we don't know when they got them. But is is clear they had them. I'll repeat: there is no analysis currently in the article on Qurayza's possesion of the weapons. Most analysis that the tribe committed treachery doesn't take into account the weapons. Sure, this may be an accusation of treachery, but it is an accusation taking into account circumstances different from before.Bless sins 14:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

i think it's been stated several times: we should include how Muslim scholars interpret the existence of this weapons cache. it really is as simply as that. your relocation was a little off also, the only reason the cache is relevant or notable is because the Muslims seized it, and thus the sentence belongs where it previously was. ITAQALLAH 01:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A still better place for it might in the discussion of spoils seized by the victors. Re Muslim scholars, as I've stated, I agree this would be notable were there any widespread tradition related to this. However, as Bless sins has not yet produced the third source, and as Sealed Nectar doesn't give us anything specific in this regard, all I see is one line (?) in Maududi.Proabivouac 05:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I have said, analysis is different from fact. That the Qurayza wanted to use the weapons, is analysis of scholars not a fact.Bless sins 14:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So, "the only reason the cache is relevant or notable is because the Muslims seized it, and thus the sentence belongs where it previously was." or, in other words, it is only meant to push the POV that the Jews only had themselves to blame. Reactions that are indeed revealing. For those who are still unclear about this: this article is about the Banu Qurayza and anything that pertains to them. It is NOT about the Banu Qurayza as far they are linked to Muhammad.

I don't mind proper arguments for the placement of the information but not this condescending "it is only important because Muslims seized it" attitude.

My placement of this information has the advantage that we could include a short reference (but no more) to the "the weapons were intended for" claims in the treatment of the supposed treachery of the BQ. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing we know of Banu Qurayza (esp. in their final days) is through Muslim sources. Thus the Muslim componenet cannot be forgotten. Also, we don't whether the Banu Quryaza had the weapons at the beginning of the battle or not, thus there is no point in mentioning that there. We do know they had weapons by the end of the battle.Bless sins 14:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

the problem here, Str, is the fact that had the Muslims not seized the weapons, there would then be nothing noteworthy about the Qurayzans actually possessing weapons. it has nothing to do with directing the blame to anyone. you mention the seizure in its correct chronological place, not anywhere else where it seems obscure and irrelevant. the relocation also falsely assumes that they were in possession of those numbers of weapons at the beginning of the battle, whereas we only know of the number when the muslims actually seized it, after the battle. ITAQALLAH 15:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that self-defense is here defined as treachery. As with Saddam's Iraq, the only use of these would-be weapons of mass-destruction that we know of was to defend themselves against the attack which exterminated them. Even if they intended to rebel (and who could blame them?) that is not equivalent to meaning to "aid the Quraysh," any more than Iraqi insurgents mean to "aid Al Qaeda" rather than simply fight foreign occupation. How is it "treachery" to reject the rule of a self-appointed dictator hailing from a distant place? Lewis makes it clear that they rejected this arrangement from the start.

The traditional narrative reduces the Jews of Medina to pawns of the Quraysh, instead of accepting them as real people with their own interests and agenda. This included trading with Mecca, not due to any shared polytheistic evil (for they were hardly polytheists, and I'm not convinced anyhow that polytheism = evil,) but because this was their livelihood - one at least as legitimate as raiding Meccan caravans and divvying up the spoils. These people were in Medina doing what they were doing before the Aws and Khazraj moved in, and long before Muhammad was born.Proabivouac 10:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Pro, I think this is not completely on topic, but since the relevant discussion is not happening, I may as well respond to what your said:

I used treachery as a short wording for the view espoused in the Muslim sources. I distinguish two things: was it treason/treachery and can I understand why they did what they did? I personally tend to agree that the BQ were indeed in treasonous relations with the Nadir (and through them the Quraish), though they probably did not intend this from the start but were won over by the Nadir and did not act in treason as they had no opportunity. Having said that, I can very much understand why they had ill feeling towards Muhammad who had expelled two tribes from their city (after all, the Qunayqa were the original settlers of Jathrib) ultimately because they didn't accept him as prophet. Furthermore, Muhammad on learning about the treason did nothing to stop it but indeed encouraged it through his moles. However, keep in mind: contrary to what some Muslims write, the treason was not against Muhammad but against the city of Jathrib. The Quraish and allies besieged not "the Muslims" but the city of Jathrib. Aiding the besiegers is indeed treasons, no matter what their motives were. And they definitely had their motives.

The Quraish too had their motives and it is not just polytheism and enmity towards Muhammad. Some clinged to their customary religion, while others feared for the economic repercussions of giving up the pagan cult with its pilgrimage and market (Muhammad later addressed this by retaining the cultic centre of the Kaaba), others had political reasons, as yielding to Muhammad's claim practically would have made him ruler of Mecca (who can contend with someone who can speak in the name of God Allmighty). There were also several reasons and motives for the wars between Meccans and Muhammad, who - lest we forget - started the hostilities by raiding Meccan caravans. What ever happened to "Thou shall not steal". The caravan raids certainly were the main reason for the ongoing battles. I agree that polytheism is not to be equated with evil (excluding the issue of worshipping false gods) - some of these pagans were likeable or virtuous characters (e.g. Abu Talib, Abu Sufyan for instance seems to be, well not the paragon of morality but certainly not an evil man) while others clearly were not (Ummaya, Abu Jahal). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, your last comment doesn't help the discussion one bit. I am not arguing here whether Muhammad "started the hostilities", though he was thrown out of his home city for proclaiming one God. Please keep your opposition to Muhammad, to yourself. I really don't care if you think polytheism is "not to be equated with evil". Same with Proabivouac, please don't bring Iraq and Middle East politics like Briangotts did.Bless sins 14:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

BS, please keep your views to yourself! You would do us all a favour!

Do you think that statement I made just now was appropriate? No? ... Excactly, it wasn't and neither was yours. If you don't care than simply read somewhere else.

You now sh*** about my views on Mr M and polytheism. That Muhammad started the hostilities by sending out raiding squads is a undisputable fact of history. Muslims commonly justify his acts but that he did it is undisputed. And finally, Mr M wasn't thrown out of Mecca, he fled. Not without cause, but he fled ... to the company of those who had promised to protect him like their kin. One can understand that separation ... but that doesn't give him the right to steal other people's property just because he wanted to be wealthy again soon. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. Please stay on topic. If you wish to rant, go somewhere else. Also what is "sh***" supposed to mean? If it is supposed to be something vulgar, then you bieng very uncivil. Your allegations against Muhammad, the hegira are not related to this article. Also, I have already requested to you stop using the term "Mr. M", as we have: Muhammad, Maududi, and Mubarakpuri. Please refer to Muhammad as "Muhammad" like all respected western scholars and encyclopaedia do. I have also requested that you stop calling me by "BS" and refer to me with teh name I signed up with.Bless sins 16:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I will not excuse you this time, Samir from Canada. You think you can order around other people? Do you think you can act like did and still demand that your "requests" are honoured. The sh-word, albeit vulgar is not uncivil, and you indeed know nothing about my views if you post what you did above. I did not make any allegations but simply stated facts. My altercation with Pro was not entirely on topic as I myself stated. Currently it is not disrupting the article and it will not grow very big, hence you have absolutely no reason (nor right) to tell us to shut up. If you wish to rant go somewhere else. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never ordered you around. I have always requested in a polite manner. You have started to now accuse me of ridiculous acts ("no reason tell us to shut up") that I have come nowhere near doing. I once again request please use my Username (i.e. Bless_sins), and not anything else to refer to me. Any post in which you make vulgar (like you yourself stated) remarks I will ignore. Same goes with posts "not entirely on topic" (as you yourself have stated).Bless sins 21:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I will also ignore that and consider the matter closed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

Request unprotection when you work out some compromise wording. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)