![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article is currently claimed by some to violate the Neutral Point of View policy.
There is currently a dispute over the accuracy of some statements in the article.
Discussion follows.
Need to see the sources of this story...first time hearing this! At least google it! can't believe this was featured on the main page. Do you have sources for this?
why cant we believe it..we dont need any sources to believe in the glorific(read horrific) exploits of mohammed.just a look at any islamic country of the intolerance of muslims in general might say what their revealed prophet might have been like....
I'm no expert but this doesn't seem to be very subjective.
people seem to get too confused with these two words.....no offence at non english speaking people or anyone else...
Looks like you've got two bad links there - might want to investigate them. Interesting article, though. Tony Fox (speak) 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
"Jewess" isn't an anti-Semitic term. At most it might be considered sexist, as explained at dictionary.com, but then why isn't "Latina" considered offensive? — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-16 17:16
There's a couple of sentances in brackets that need to be expanded on, and moved into the main body of the section, or removed. Mr Minchin 17:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Brian, are you by any chance a Jew? Maybe not. Doesn't really matter, as falsehood is false even if spoken by an honest man, and truth is truth, even if it is spoken by a liar. Which are you? I believe the former. This article, I'm afraid, mixes fact with opinion, blurring the line between truth and falsehood. I like the fact that you quote alot of Arabic sources, translated by one Mr Stillman. Have you read the original Arabic sources, or relied purely on the translation of one man who seems to have an agenda. The article, I'm afraid is flawed. It is not written in an objective manner at all. It's an article that should not be read seriously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redahmeid ( talk • contribs).
This article - and the first paragraph in particular - appears to have been written in order to deliberately display the Prophet of Islam in a negative light.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SafetyFirst ( talk • contribs) .
If we could find a middle ground between this article and the first part of [1], I'd be satisfied. BhaiSaab talk 18:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
changes have been made to the question now.
Ok, here's ny neutral view, if any would care to hear it: the article, as a whole, seems put into a negative fashion. Ill start adding them slowly to the talk page. BUT, the article can easily be simply toned down a bit and you can take only the info thats included in the POV sources and the NPOV sources.-- AeomMai 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, it is possible that Norman Stillman has a biased POV. Most of the negative parts came from his worls. It might be good to use info that eceryone agrees is fact, since no one can go back to 622 and say that he saw the looting. The killings during war are obvious. Is it true that ALL the men were killed?Even the old men? Bit of a surprise, seems a bit harsh. You guys vcan discuss the rest.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AeomMai ( talk • contribs).
I thought I may contribute some opinions -
Replies:
here are some reasons why i feel that this article is not of NPOV status
therefore, he himself violated the pact (conditions of which are highlighted in ar-raheeq al-makhtoom), to which he was also required to adhere to, and thus his killing was due to his incitement of war, as well as his insulting. stillman opines that it was merely a matter of honour.
"Addressing them, he said: "O Jews! Become Muslims before what befell the Quraysh befalls you." They said: "O Muhammad, you seem to think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you vanquished a contingent of Quraysh having no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for, by God, if we fight you, you will find that we are real men, and that you have not met the like of us". Their answer clearly contained a challenge and a threat, despite the fact that they had accepted his leadership according to the terms of the treaty. This report comes through Ibn Ishaq[2]. Ibn Hajar said that it was hasan.[3] But the isnad includes Muhammad ibn Muhammad, the freedman of Zayd ibn Thabit, whom Ibn Hajar himself said was majhul (unknown).[4]
Even if we accept Ibn Hajar?s suggestion that the report is hasan, that does not mean that the reason for the expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa was their refusal to accept Islam, because at that stage Islam still allowed the Muslims to live in peace with them, and the Prophet did not make entering Islam a condition for any one of the Jews to stay in Madinah. Rather, the Document[5] ensured the religious freedom of the Jews. The reason for their expulsion was the aggression which they showed. This resulted in a breach of the internal security of Madinah." end quote.
these are a few of the concerns i have highlighted with this article. unfortunately many of the articles concerning early islamic history seem to be a bit misrepresented (i.e. marriage to safiyya, expulsion of qurayza) also, perhaps muslims can spend more time dispelling speculation, POV and factually incorrect material? i propose the language used in this article is reviewed and expressed with neutrality, highlighting stillman's perspective as opinion and not fact. Itaqallah 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Muhammad took a share of the booty -first paragraph! This article is heavily bias and definitely uncited and lacks credibility. How it is featured on the main page is suspect. Wow..this is the biggest dent Wikipedia has put in its credibility in my eyes, outrageous. - Sohailstyle 2006-06-16 21:43 (UTC)
Okay so let us see. It is an article written about the history of Islam and Mohammad (PBUH) and the resources quoted include Bearman (who is Jewish) and Stillman (who is also Jewish). Arabic sources that are "translated" by Stillman (Jewish). Very nice! History of Islam written by Jews.
Oh and one more thing, the external resources cited, in fact, seem to give us another POV. This is quoted from http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml which is listed as an external resource.
"At Muhammad's insistence, Medina's pagan, Muslim and Jewish clans signed a pact to protect each other, but achieving this new social order was difficult. Certain individual pagans and recent Medinan converts to Islam tried to thwart the new arrangement in various ways, and some of the Jewish clans were uneasy with the threatened demise of the old alliances. At least three times in five years, Jewish leaders, uncomfortable with the changing political situation in Medina, went against Muhammad, hoping to restore the tense, sometimes bloody-but predictable-balance of power among the tribes.
According to most sources, individuals from among these clans plotted to take his life at least twice, and once they came within a bite of poisoning him. Two of the tribes--the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qaynuqa--were eventually exiled for falling short on their agreed upon commitments and for the consequent danger they posed to the nascent Muslim community."
The other site quoted, managed by Ali Sina who has made it his life's mission to "help muslims leave Islam". http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/b_nadir.htm
The third site http://www.shodalap.com/Jews_in_Madina.htm#_ftnref4 quoted says, "The Jews were NOT innocent at all. The punishment they got was an inevitable outcome of their horrendous and heinous crime. The crime was not ‘rejecting Islam’, but something more fatal, homicidal, and severely atrocious. It’s very absurd to claim that the prophet (peace be upon him) maltreated them; rather, the prophet (peace be upon him) was maltreated by the Jews in every step of his life in Medina."
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, now it should make any intelligent human think that first of all the article is written using the words of Jews. One of the external links is managed by a guy who has made it his life's goal to "help muslims leave Islam." The other two sites CLEARLY tell us another point of view. Mohammad(PBUH) was the one whose life was endanger and Jews were the ones who tried to kill him several times even after he gave them a fair chance.
And just because he took a wife, doesn't say ANYTHING about him exterminating Jews. What kind of logic is that? I take a wife who is "not my kind" and all of a sudden everybody thinks I am trying to exterminate her entire clan. I'll tell you what kind of logic is that. It is called twisted logic, biased logic, more like propaganda. If anything, by taking a Jewish wife, Mohammad (PBUH) was trying to patch things up. He was trying for peace.
Its pretty funny how from literally thousands of books, journals, articles, and various publications (may they be online or on paper), the author of THIS article chose to cite things written by Jews and a guy who has made it his goal to "help muslims leave Islam". The other two don't even belong here as external resources.
Oh and I almost forgot. You don't need to "brag" about those 13 references that are listed. If it is only the number of references that matters, I will provide you with hundreds, if not thousands, references from published works that say otherwise. I know, as impossible as it may sound, there just might be a Jew or two who might agree with me. So tell me, will you be willing to edit this page then???????? 137.78.140.190 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Ali —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.78.140.190 ( talk • contribs)
Uhhhhhhhhh, have you read the Quran? Quran is not a history book and it is most certainly not a book about Jews. How very typical of an arrogant Jew to assume that Quran is about Jews. Notice how both of these reponses seem to focus on my attacking the merit of Jewish scholars. No one bothered discussing the issue of the resources and external links provided. How ridiculuous is that! The links provided as resources, themselves tell another story than what is mentioned here. And you know what, if anybody attacks Mohammad(PBUH) claiming to do so for the sake of academics, I am going to attack HIS academic integrity. 137.78.140.190 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Ali
Dear anon,
Cheers, Tom e r talk 23:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately Gren, you are right. Scholars are often attacked for their religion rather than for their merit and for a good reason. Usually works are biased even if scholars don't intend do, religion is just so deep and such a sensitive issue within us that it is extremely difficult to stay objective. There is a saying which we have that it takes two hands to clap. I will never believe a Jewish scholar and a Jew will never believe a Muslim Scholar. Jewish scholars give a distorted view of history (in their favor of course) and Muslim scholars do the same. There are very few exceptions. I am a man of science and I try to keep religion and science seperate because they do often conflict BUT I am also a Muslim (alhamudulillah) and I WILL react if there is a pathetic attempt to defame Muslims all over because I am one of them and everything I hold dear is at stake here. But you know what, this battle is an old one. It is at least as old as Islam itself. If anything, history (depends which one) bears witness that Muslims actually treated Jews better than the Europeans/Christians did. We don't even need to go far back. One can just look at World War II. Hitler tried to wipe out the scum of Germany and England tried to throw them into a wasteland of Africa by relocating them there and "finding them a home" which ended up being Israel. Two-for-one...let's take care of Jews and Muslims in one strike and let's get rid of both our problems by making them kill each other and hence the infernal struggle of Palestine vs. Israel was born. 137.78.140.190 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Ali
A perfect Wikipedia article... is completely neutral and unbiased; has a totally neutral point of view; presents competing views on any controversies logically and fairly, pointing out all sides without favoring any particular ideal or viewpoint. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views given a somewhat lesser priority, while at the same time giving enough information and references for the reader to find out more about any particular view.
One aspect of a Neutral point of view is Fairness and sympathetic tone.
If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.119.55 ( talk • contribs)
The previously mentioned [2] says Muhammad arrived in Medina in 622 believing the Jewish tribes would welcome him. Contrary to expectation, his relations with several of the Jewish tribes in Medina were uneasy almost from the start. This was probably largely a matter of local politics. Medina was not so much a city as a fractious agricultural settlement dotted by fortresses and strongholds, and all relations in the oasis were uneasy. In fact, Muhammad had been invited there to arbitrate a bloody civil war between the Khazraj and the Aws Allah, in which the Jewish clans, being their clients, were embroiled.
Does anyone believe the article sympathetically presents this complex clan-based characterization of the situation in Medina?
Does anyone believe that the pbs page doesn't have a dramatically more NPV than the current article?
Does anyone believe the article currently meets the sympathetic tone standard? And thus the NPV standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.119.55 ( talk • contribs)
This was recently done. And then someone else removed it. In light of the current discussion, can we agree on some flag to inform readers there is a large divergence of opinion on the quality of the article? Some believing the article is just fine, and others believing it a disaster?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.119.55 ( talk • contribs) .
The front page is wikipedia's showcase. Where we show the best we have to offer. The Did you know guidelines explicitly emphasize NPOV. Beyond that normally expected of just any article. It is the second test mentioned, after only new-ness.
Does anyone argue that the article currently meets this stringent test?
If not, should it not be removed from the front page as being currently inappropriate for DYN?
As mentioned elsewhere, a totallydisputed tag was added, and then removed by someone else.
Accuracy dispute says
Does anyone believe a dispute has not arisen?
Does anyone believe a disputed tag is not thus now appropriate?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.119.55 ( talk • contribs) .
I don't understand how an article that clearly doesn't meet Wiki standards was not only placed on the DYK page, but also as positioned as the first article.
I think there are some accuracy issues here with not only the sources, but with the verbiage in the article. Someone who unfortunately sounded somewhat anti-semitic made the point that most of the sources stem from Jewish writers, and while he went off on a belligerent tangent, this is a point that should be taken into consideration.
The Jewish scholars may not have an agenda or be any less than fine academic scholars, but consider a juxtaposition of a similar religious tension: Would Wiki allow a series of Irish Catholic scholars to make up the bulk of citations in an article written about Irish Protestants? The fact that PBS, a relatively reputable source, had a completely different take on the same series of events should have resulted in an immediate removal of this article from the DYK page.
Pretty alarming, if you ask me. ----—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benplln ( talk • contribs) .
Ok, but there still weren't several thousand other articles that had comparable pictures of which content wasn't being disputed? I don't think it should be left up, especially in the midst of all of this debate. I think it's been shown that the article is less than objective in some areas, and there are immediate contradictions within it. ---- Ben
What a sad time in history, and the beginning of all the problems we have today regarding jihad. Monty2 06:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
This was the last version which didn't have absurd bias from loaded phrases. "Booty," my ass. All the academic references in the world aren't going to make up for writing in a style which ascribes all bad acts to only one side in an ongoing tit-for-tat conflict. All you apologists of this article's current state should be ashamed of yourselves. Publicola 06:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can specify the problems with this article, from this source:
The fact that that entire prelude (which I remember similarly from a different authoritative source which is currently inaccessible to me) was omitted from this otherwise very detailed and apparently carefully sourced article makes me suspicious.
I need to check the edit history -- back in May, this article, although much shorter, made it perfectly clear that the source of the dispute was controversial, with the truth of the matter essentially lost to history. The fact is that the conflict stemmed from a single disputed murder accusation.
This current article, in the "Arrival of Muhammad" section, completely omits these details, making it seem like the Muslims acted unilaterally, without provocation. I don't think it was a good idea to link this from the Main Page in this state at all. Publicola 06:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
When everybody agreed with the changes, especially made by "Publicola", then why things are changed back. I think prejudice should not be entertained on this encyclopedia. If someone is not ready to understand the fact that how the spoils were treated, how they were managed in the society in the times when human slaves were used to be considered worse than animals, then it is their problem and it is not history's problem. I would recommend that article be restored back to [4] ( 19:49, 17 June 2006 Publicola) SS
i thought that those who believe that changes are required in the article could contribute here so we can come to an agreement of what would be acceptable in terms of fact as well as NPOV (in the light of the above extract from POV dispute.
as opposed to the current paragraph on the arrival of Muhammad (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) in Medinah, i propose something like the following (which i have compiled):
"In September 622, Muhammad arrived at Medinah with a group of his followers, who were given shelter by members of the indigenous community known as the Ansar. Amongst his first actions was the construction of the first Mosque in Medinah, as well as obtaining residence with Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, Vol II, p.279). He then set about the establishment of a pact between the Muslims and the various Jewish tribes of Medinah(Ibn Hisham, Vol. I, p.501), which was to regulate the matters of governance of the city, as well as the extent and nature of inter-community relations. Conditions of the pact included boycotting Quraysh "commercially" as well as abstinence from "extending any support to them", assistance of one another if attacked by a third party, as well as "defending Madinah, in case of a foreign attack".(Al-Raheeq Al-Makhtoom, Saif-ur-Rahman Mubarakfuri; Ibn Hisham Vol. II, pp. 147-150; Ibn Ishaq pp. 231-235). It was later that certain tribes would be claimed to have violated this pact due to supporting enemy forces, such as the Quraysh, against the Muslims."
please discuss the viability (or not) of these alterations. if it lacks NPOV or factuality, please state where and how. i felt it necessary to mention more conditions of the pact relevant to the latter events. Itaqallah 14:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
i would also suggest that another section is added after the above which expounds upon the increasing tensions between certain tribes of the jews (not all, i.e. banu 'awf). this is important as opposed to jumping straight from the arrival of Muhammad to the expulsion of banu qaynuqa as the latter does not sufficiently contextualise the event and take into consideration the increasing hostility and emnity between the two parties. Itaqallah 14:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
as opposed to the current paragraph regarding banu qaynuqa, of which i have already previously highlighted certain problematic statements, i propose something similar to this:
"It was after the Battle of Badr that Muhammad decided to approach Banu Qaynuqa (the allies of the Khazraj tribe), in the light of previous hostilities, gathering them in the market place and addressing them as follows:
"O assembly of Jews, beware that something from Allah befalls you similar to the curse that descended upon Quraysh, and enter into Islam, for you have known that I am a Prophet that has been sent, due to what you find in your Book and the covenant of Allah to you"
They replied: "O Muhammad, you seem to think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you vanquished a contingent of Quraysh having no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for, by God, if we fight you, you will find that we are real men, and that you have not met the like of us" (declared by Ibn Hajar to be Hasan - Fath al-Baari 7/332; also in sunan abi da'wood 3/402).
It was this exchange which resulted in what is known as the seige of Banu Qaynuqa (al-maghazee lil-waaqidee, vol.1, chapter of ghazwat qaynuqa, al-waaqidee; as-seerat an-nabaweeyat, vol. 2, under chapter of "'amr banu qaynuqa" - arabic version, ibn hisham; ar-raheeq al-makhtoom, saif-ur-rahman mubarakfuri), which lasted for fourteen to fifteen days, after which the tribe surrendered unconditionally. Muhammad consented to the Banu Qaynuqa being expelled when Abdallah ibn Ubayy, the chief of the Khazraj, pleaded before Muhammad on their behalf. The Banu Nadir remained passive during the whole Banu Qaynuqa episode."
please excuse the current messy presentation of references. one may argue that mentioning the narration is original research. to this i disagree and say that i have provided the references in the books of historians who not only document this incident but relate it directly concerning the justification of the expulsion of banu qaynuqa. this is why i have provided the majority of references after the comment following the quote because the references used this narration in explaining the expulsion of banu qaynuqa. i ommitted the last part of the final sentence (of the original article) due to the previous discussion where i opined that it is neither NPOV nor a verifiable claim.
please also note that the first part of the exchange has been taken from ibn hisham. the version present in al-waaqidee is:
"O assembly of Jews! Enter into Islam, for by Allah you know that I am the Messenger of Allah, before there comes to you from Allah the like of what came to Quraysh"
please discuss the viability (or not) of this proposal. if it lacks NPOV or factuality, please state where and how, and propose the relevant amendments. ITAQALLAH 17:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
At least two people have reverted back huge amounts of very biased language while claiming to revert because of sources. This is unacceptable.
However, it matters not because I have found the following sources which agree on the genesis of the tit-for-tat dispute:
and:
and:
Therfore, I will be citing the contested statement with those three sources. In the future, if you feel you must revert unsourced statements, please do not also replace biased language such as I worked so hard to eliminate from the intro and the middle sections. Publicola 20:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I vandalised the article unintentionally, see my explanation here. -- tickle me 22:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Of those of you who have been reverting, would you please stop? I am certain that you do not believe that you object to the whole set of changes, because you are also reverting ovbious mistakes, text supported by reliable secondary sources, and re-introducing language claiming, for example, "[Muhammad's] first actions [included] the promulgation of a document known as the Constitution of Medina." -- which clearly implies that the Constitution was imposed without consent, when it was in fact a negotiated mutual-defense treaty. This is inexcusable.
If there is a reason that such reversions are intended to correct some error, instead of maintain an anti-Muslim bias, I can not see it. Please enlighten me. Publicola 19:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is an incomplete list of mistakes replaced by reverts:
"My version doesn't remove the Jewish point of view...": A historian's assessment who happens to be of Jewish descent or a even practicising Jew isn't the Jewish POV, at least not by academic or WP standards. "...it adds the Muslim point of view": We're to add notable POVs, a POV being regarded "Muslim" by some wikipedian is not notable by itself. "My goal here, has been an experiment": Please stop it. "Are modern-day Islamic scholars not authoritative Muslim historians?": Find those regarded authoritative by their peers in academia and use them to back up your edits. -- tickle me 17:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
"Muhammad took a share of the spoils, and took a captive Jewish woman as his wife."
This sets out to portray The Prophet as a warmonger. Reading this first paragraph, one could draw similarities between him and Genghis Khan.
The paragraph also sets out none of the intrigues and machinations of the Jewish tribe, making them out to be an innocent party —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.218.39 ( talk • contribs) .
It would be interesting to know that how these other sources knew exactly what Muhammad wanted, and are the bible on feelings of Muhammad!!!! From a Muslim perspective, nothing happened against the Constitution of Medina. The killings that followed this incident, were not normal killings. These were the same killings as what Moses asked his followers to kill all those who worshiped Golden Calf, when he was away for forty days. As the bible says, kill your brother, friend, and neighbor (Exodus Chapter 32 verse 27) or with the principle by which Solomon conquered so much land. Muslims believe that this responsibility of spreading the religion was now unto Ishmaelites, rather than Israelites. Once people, deny Messengers, there is no otherway to deal with them unless they are killed. Examples from Quran and Bible are numerous, like Nation of Noah, Nation of Lot and finally Jewish miseries after denial of Jesus. The most official document for Muslims is Quran itself, which says, recall that Abraham was put to the test by his Lord, through certain commands, and he fulfilled them. (God) said, "I am appointing you a leader for the people." He said, "and also my descendants?" He said, "my covenant does not include the transgressors" (2:124), you shall strive for the cause of GOD as you should strive for His cause. He has chosen you and has placed no hardship on you in practicing your religion - the religion of your father Abraham (22:78), We thus made you an impartial community, that you may serve as witnesses among the people, and the messenger serves as a witness among you (2:143), and numerous others. When people challenge the Messenger (by not obeying) and hence challenge the authority of God, they are punished by a natural disaster or by the followers of the Messenger. But the general principle in Islam still follows, as written in Quran, ... that whoever took a life, unless it be for murder or for spreading disorder on earth, it would be as if he killed all mankind; and whoever saved a life, it would be as if he saved all mankind (5:32) and And he who kills a believer intentionally, his reward is Hell; he shall remain therein forever... (4:93). The punishment for taking an innocent life is eternal hell, this can be read at numerous places in Quran. So the killing of Jews and others was a special case and is no more applicable. A very good article to understand this point of view is http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mar_d2y2.html and http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mapred97.html . Here I would suggest again, what Muslims believe, may not be fact to others, but should be present on the page as their opinion. A novice reader has the right to know the story from both sides. SS
I believe that once opinions of both sides are included, the article should be protected from editing until disputes have been resolved in talk page. And I believe that http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Banu_Nadir&oldid=59433750 is the proper version of article that contains balanced opinions. Only giving one party to explain an event is not a very good practice in Encyclopedic articles. SS 14:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that the article should be protected, but it will be protected forever. These two sides will never agree.-- AeomMai 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have requested mediation for this disputed article and Banu Qaynuqa. Publicola 16:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Since the section these came from is getting way too long, and because it might help with mediation, I am listing these points as questions:
As it appears there are now no pending requests for mediation prior to this one, I have requested unprotection. Publicola 02:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Good news, everyone! Mediation has been accepted by mediator User:Geo.plrd. Publicola 07:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
In order to help identify which problems exist and which are non-problems, I am offering this table so that those who have been reverting the disputed sections can answer the above questions, which I have lettered (A) through (O) and answered to start out. I hope I listed all the anti-Islamists who have been reverting, and I assume that the pro-Islamists agree with me, but if I missed anyone, then please add your own column.
Furthermore, I have indicated the correspondence between almost all of my fifteen questions (note there are still more questions about the remainder of the article) and ExLibrisCupertino's review of the cited Stillman source book below.
Question | Publicola | Pecher | Tickle me | Timothy Usher | Briangotts |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(A) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(B) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(C) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(D) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(E) | Yes | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(F) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(G) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(H) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(I) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(J) | Yes | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(K) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(L) | Yes | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(M) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(N) | Yes | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(O) | Yes | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
Publicola 08:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Geo. 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC) - I reviewed the reason for protection. IMO it is legitimately protected, please reword your opinion and post it here. To the side using Jewish sources please do the same. Then we can work them together and get a mutually acceptable version at which time I will ask Pschemp to unprotect the article. This is my proposed solution. Please go to the mediation page and approve it. Geo. 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Posted here on the talk page at the request of the mediator per above and
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-19 Banu Nadir#Proposed solution:
Actually posting the article here on the talk page in full is completely unworkable. Please see the proposed alternative (which has been further refined since the first proposed alternative was posted here in full) at Banu Nadir/mpov. Publicola 01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the request for unprotection was denied, I have placed my preferred version at Banu Nadir/mpov and encourage those on both sides of this debate to edit that to achieve a compromise consensus version. Publicola 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I just found a copy of Stillman's The Jews of Arab Lands, and I can see why there are complaints about it being used as a source in this article. For example:
No further mention is made in the chapter of any of the tribes referred to in this article. ExLibrisCupertino 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Good stuff. Do you think the way the book is used in the article can be attributed to good faith error, or intentional misrepresentation? His Excellency... 21:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
THANK YOU -- I was going to do that. Publicola 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
"If you can't figure them out", "there are certainly a number of clear inconsistencies": this doesn't warrant reaction, you're not to have other editors guessing. -- tickle me 23:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In light of this new information, I would like to retract what I have said about Non-Muslim sources in general and Stillman in particular (reminding everyone that I made it repeatedly clear that I was only complaining about Stillman if his work actually supported the statements attributed to him.) Since it now seems very clear that Stillman's book does not support any but a few of the potential bias problems which I identified, I would like to re-direct my criticism to whoever introduced the identified and confirmed bias in this article in Stillman's name. I have not yet studied the edit history to see who that is, but I intend to do so. Publicola 00:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Question (C): What is the source of the phrase, "widow of the tribe's slain treasurer"? Publicola 17:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Questions (D) and (E): Who are the "academic historians" who believe the Banu Nadir "to be an ethnically Jewish tribe connected with the Khaybar Jews"? Publicola 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Question (F): Is it reasonable to claim that the constitution was "promulgated" after it was reached through an agreement of the signing tribes, after had been "clear to all that eventually the Jews would have to go?" Publicola 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Bernard Lewis in his book "The Jews of Islam" (1984) page 10 writes that only Banu Qurayza were given the choice between conversion and death. Lewis talks about the Jews of Khaybar but only states they were capitulated to Muhammad. No mention of any massacre. -- Aminz 19:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think writing in the article that Muhammad got share from spoils without telling the fact that his property was actually state's property and was never divided amongst his heirs. If such details are missed out, then the article under discussion will not present the actual picture. See for yourself in Bukhari 5:59:368. Some serious overhauling of this article is needed. SaadSaleem 10:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Citing Bukhari and inferring on it is OR. The link is fit to illustrate a scholar's assessment, should he adhere to a literal understanding and a uncritical interpretation of sources. -- tickle me 01:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually that's not necessarily true. WP:RS : In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections.
The volumes of Hadith are published. Nothing in WP:RS characterizes the use of such primary sources as being "Original Research", so you're misinforming people with this statement. Additionally the original traditions themselves, reported by the many many sources cited in Sahih Al Bukhari would have been primary sources UNTIL they were compiled by Imam Bukhari and made into volumes. Thus, Sahih Al Bukhari is a secondary source which hosts the many hadiths, each which were primary sources before Bukhari collected and sorted them. His Excellency... 02:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Scholars make conclusions as to policy and traditions based on the Hadith, not what the Hadith stated to have happened. For example, whether or not it's haraam to engage in a certain practice or deal with a person a certain way. Since we're not formulating policy based on the Hadith, but merely documenting events, for our purposes "Sahih al Bukhari" and "Sahih Al Muslim" are secondary sources. This is beyond the point that WP:RS does in fact allow the use of primary sources if they have been published. You still haven't addressed the issue of how quoting a primary source constitutes OR. His Excellency... 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Who wrote this biased original research?
Article:
C'mon, the style, the tone, the accuracy, its all a total dissgrace! -- Striver 00:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Article:
Omg, is this for real? -- Striver 00:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, I'm somewhat confused by your intransigence with regards to edits on this article. Do you honestly believe that this article as it stands is unbiased and neutral? Or do you believe there may be some bias, but you're unwilling to change it without reference to reliable sources?
From a personal standpoint, speaking as a Muslim, I don't care whether source material comes from a Christian, a Hindu, a Jewish, an atheist, or a Muslim source, my only interest is in accuracy. I belive the article currently underplays the importance of the Banu Nadir's alliance with the Quraish at the Battle of the Trench as a precursor to the massacre and seems to ascribe devious motives to Muhammad (notably the "convenient pretext" line).
What are your thoughts? Stile4aly 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
This has been protected for a while and there seems to be little substantive discussion. Unprotecting. -- Tony Sidaway 20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to the latest burst of editing, the article says now: "Arabic language is capable of exercising over the minds of its users such irresistible influence". Unbelievable. Pecher Talk 16:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Where there are legitimate disputes, showing multiple points of view is the only way to attain neutrality. I'm not the only one who says so:
I note that those who are complaining about the version copied from Banu Nadir/mpov didn't lift a finger to edit it for the whole month it's existed, most of which we have been in mediation. It's not too late. Publicola 12:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
All of the problems mentioned above in this section (POV tag, "Arabic language is capable of exercising over the minds of its users such irresistible influence", the capitalization of "Jewish" and "Muslim") as well as colonized categories, are now fixed in Banu Nadir/mpov, so I suggest copying again from there into the protected version, and encouraging further edits there per mediator instructions. Publicola 12:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I am requesting that a totallydisputed tag is added to this article. The current version is blatantly POV and inaccurate (see some examples above), and it's obvious that there is a dispute here. Pecher Talk 20:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Unless "MPOV" is adopted as WP policy I request admins who tolerate it to state the obvious at least. "I note that those who are complaining about the version copied from Banu Nadir/mpov didn't lift a finger to edit it for the whole month it's existed": mocking WP on a subpage is frivolous, demanding others to participate is worse. -- tickle me 00:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
i would agree that certain statements may seem problematic unless sourced. i would appeal to the opposing party to amiably participate in mediation instead of edit wars (as also seen on Banu Qaynuqa) as this seems to be the only way to achieve a consensus article and consequently lay the issue down to rest. in this way we can work with eachother instead of against.
regarding "MPOV", then part of it is already catered for by WP:NPOV in that all significant views merit mention without giving undue weight as long as they qualify under WP:RS, and when we state analysis that may be disputed then we say that "X says/claims/documents/opines.." instead of expressing X's words as fact. i have not yet properly studied what "MPOV" entails, but any participation in mediation would naturally not include involvement of such a policy. the article under the "mpov" dir is not being edited with MPOV policy in mind (well at least not in my case) in that wikipedians do not have to follow a non-wiki policy in order to edit, and so nothing stops editors from making edits in accordance with the existing wiki policies. furthermore, anything within the article conforming to what is perceived as "MPOV" but in contradiction with current wiki policy (although MPOV on the face of it seems to just be a re-expression of WP:NPOV in order to achieve the same goal of attaining neutrality without contravention of currently existing WP policy) would not be able to defend itself against removal, were we to engage in the mediation process. ITAQALLAH 01:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I note it has been more than a month now since the mediator asked the opposing sides to participate in mediation. All of those with whom I agree in this dispute have accepted mediation and followed the mediator's instructions. None of those on the other side have. I would like to take another opportunity to urge participation in mediation. Thank you. Publicola 09:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I take it, then, that no proponent of the original article consents to mediation? Publicola 07:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
What is the reason for writing the following sentence: "Huyayy ibn Akhtab attempted to recruit Banu Qurayza within Medina to fight against the Muslims" Also what is the source for the reason Muhammad married the wife of the man he tortured. Arrow740 06:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The above quote has to be edited since it dose not describe muhamed correctly even according to his own followers:
Asma said: “You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men, is there no honor among you?”Upon hearing those lines Mohammad said, “Will no one rid me of this woman?” Umayr, a zealous muslim, decided to execute the prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Mohammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, “You have helped Allah and his apostle” . Umayr said, “She had five sons, should I feel guilty?” “No, “ the prophet answered, “killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.”
Ishaq 676
The prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fireon Kinanah’s chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinahah was near death. Then the messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him.
Tabari VIII:122
MDG Nov. 19 2006
Originally this article was biased against Muhammad. Now it is biased towards the Muslim POV that Muhammad was a great man who was provoked, not a man who committed genocide. This needs to be fixed. Titanium Dragon 22:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Use secondary sources. And don't use The Sealed Nonsense. Arrow740 05:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
There are several things that keep being changed back and forth which should be resolved. For starters, saying they were not allied with the Muslims under the Constitution of Medina after being expelled from Medina (because they were before) I think is better than saying they were afraid of being attacked so they encouraged others to raise arms against the Muslims, that was one POV of Stillman on why they did what they did. Next, I read Stillman and even he doesn't explicitly state that the men of Banu Nadir were executed, just not given quarter. On Kinana, the agreement they made did say that they had to hand over their properties and treasures otherwise there would be no quarter and according to the page on Kinana, they did find a good amount of treasure. I'm saying prisoners because slavery isn't exactly the same concept in Islam as it is considered in modern times and so it might imply something different. Finally, When he is said to have been eating the poisoned meat, he was eating with many companions and not just one and only one died so I was correcting that sentence for that reason. Jedi Master MIK 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
1. The Jews will profess their religion, and the Muslims theirs. 2. The Jews shall be responsible for their expenditure, and the Muslims for theirs. 3. If attacked by a third party, each shall come to the assistance of the other. 4. Each party shall hold counsel with the other. Mutual relation shall be founded on righteousness; sin is totally excluded. 5. Neither shall commit sins to the prejudice of the other. 6. The wronged party shall be aided. 7. The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers. 8. Medina shall remain sacred and inviolable for all that join this treaty. Should any disagreement arise between the signatories to this treaty, then Muhammad shall settle the dispute. 9. The signatories to this treaty shall boycott Quraish commercially; they shall also abstain from extending any support to them. 10. Each shall contribute to defending Medina, in case of a foreign attack, in its respective area. 11. This treaty shall not hinder either party from seeking their lawful retaliation.
[15]"The apostle occupied the Jewish forts one after the other, taking prisoners as he went. Among these were Safiya, the wife of Kinana, the Khaybar chief, and two female cousins; the apostle chose Safiya for himself. The other prisoners were distributed among the Muslims. Bilal brought Safiya to the apostle, and they passed the bodies of several Jews on the way. Safiya's female companions lamented and strewed dust on their heads. When the apostle of Allah observed this scene, he said, 'Remove these she‑devils from me� But he ordered Safiya to remain, and threw his reda [cloak] over her. So the Muslims knew he had reserved her for his own."
Bless sins, you have once again substantially misrepresented Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham's narrative. [16] You wrote:
You are well aware that Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham says nothing at all about al-Rabi's being killed for breaking any treaty, but merely states that he was killed for having concealed its location. You are also well-aware that the torture is presented not as a punishment, but to extract information. I know you are aware of this because we've discussed it before at some length. Do not misrepresent sources, Bless sins. I cannot emphasize that enough. Proabivouac 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot be more Muslim than the Islamic websites by presenting theories as facts to justify the expulsion of Banu-Nadir from their Medina mansions. How can one reconcile this story of a Jewish invitation to discuss religion with the widely known account of Muhammads's request for a contribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
We can't deal with speculation. We would have heard about it if there was any substance to the contradictory story. 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 09:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You have failed to substantiate the story that contradicts all the Muslim websites. 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 10:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
For over 1,300 years, the world has not heard such a story. You and your colleagues have had ample time but failed to substantiate it. Not a single Muslim website makes any mention of it. 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 10:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Your response defies logic just as the unreliable account that you keep reposting which is unfounded in the whole history of Islam. All the Muslim websites speak of Muhammad's requested contribution but make no mention of the alleged invitation to discuss religion. 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
February 2008 (UTC)
It is you who needs to substantiate an account you keep reposting that the Muslim historians such as Muhammad Ibn Ishaq make no mention of it. 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You and your colleagues have failed to produce or quote al-Halabi's exact words or to reconcile his alleged account with the historical account.
Ibn Ishaq and the other Muslim historians undoubtedly would not have refrained from mentioning it if the story is real. 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 18:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Just popping my head in to state that Mik is correct on this. The account about the attempted assassination is a standard one and should definitely be included. Str1977 (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You may quote the exact words of the book on the alleged Jewish invitation to discuss religion. It sounds a lot like the Muslim invitation to Banu Nadir's Usayr ibn Zarim who was slaughtered on the way to the debate along with his delegation of thirty men except one who fled.
I wonder why no Islamic website makes any mention of this story. Perhaps because it contradicts the widely known account of Muhammad's request for a contribution. 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The conflicting accounts indicate that they are based on mere speculation, which raises serious doubts on the authenticity of the alleged assassination attempt as a whole. Accredited ( talk) 10:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
How can one reconciliate the requested contribution with the debate invitation? Why did Muhammad's biographer Ibn Ishaq, make no mention of the latter account? Accredited ( talk) 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the oldest biographer makes no mention of it, indicates that it is based on mere speculation. Accredited ( talk) 07:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have put a 31 hour protection on this page from edits. It was a close decision versus blocking Accredited and Devotus for edit warring. Accredited seems to have gone over 3RR too.
Please use this period of page protection to discuss changes here properly. It looks to me like the current locked version matches the version which was discussed by a number of editors in the past. Accredited, you have come in and kept trying to change it. Please explain here clearly and briefly what the problem you have with this version is and then consider people's replies to your comment before trying to edit the article. -- BozMo talk 12:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The previous text is one of long standing on Wikipedia and on Muslim Websites. It is therefore unwarranted to erase the whole account and replace it with an unfounded allegation. Accredited ( talk) 13:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Banu_Nadir&diff=200321436&oldid=200294428 http://islam.pakistanway.com/showtopic.aspx?topicid=258&typeid=25 http://islam.pakistanway.com/showtopic.aspx?topicid=267&typeid=25
The above does not say that Banu Nadir "had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench."
I have no objection to quote the actual words without adding a false interpretation. Accredited ( talk) 10:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[17] and [18] is no academic source and does not state the current state of knowledge. We don't quote everything 1:1, we state the meaning with our own words. and since you do not have the references shown above I doubt you can check the correctness of the statements in the text independently. there are also other problems with your version which ahve already been discussed. -- Devotus ( talk) 12:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the record of our last discussion on the matter.
Islamic sources mention that only Akhtab and his son rather than the whole Banu Nadir tribe, joined the siege of Medina. It should also be mentioned that they bribed Ghatafan and tried to recruit Banu Qurayza. Accredited (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Watt's theory is generally accepted in scholarship. That the Nadir joined the siege is also a fact that any recognized scholar accepts as such. "From Khaybar, the exiles planned with the Quraysh the siege of Medina..." EI2, s.v. Nadir. "Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in Khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood... The sources give support to the view of Montgomery Watt, showing that the Jews, already responsible for the coalition which had laid siege to Medina in 5 A.H. and worried by the growing power of the Prophet, continued to stir up the Arabs against him..." s.v. Khaybar. Primary sources are not to be used in Wikipedia. End of Discussion. --Devotus (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
If this is Watt's theory it should read according to Watt. No scholar has said that the Nadir joined the siege. You may quote Watt or any other scholar on the matter. Accredited (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
see above. it doesn't say hat they joined the siege, it sais they had participated in attacking the Muslims; there's a difference. --Devotus (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither Watt nor any other scholar has said that the Banu Nadir participated in attacking the Muslims. Accredited (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
See quotes above. You don't seem to have any academic work, neither Watt nor anyone else, so I doubt you could know that. --Devotus (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
How would the Banu Nadir participate in attacking the Muslims if they did not join the siege? Accredited (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not here to give you private lessons. End of discussion. --Devotus (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It will be consistent with Watt's words and the Encyclopedia of Islam. Accredited (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It is consistent with those works which you don't have. --Devotus (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Your version is referenced to the above two but goes far beyond. This is unacceptable. Accredited ( talk) 08:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to provide reference to those works you claim that your version is based on. Accredited ( talk) 13:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
After long and useless discussions as above and elsewhere, and the fact that Accredited does not seem to try to state a neutral and referenced fact but rather to push through is own POV I end this discussion. To state the facts for the last time:
Note to Accredited: The websites you mentioned seem to be a mirror image of old versions of the wikipedia articles; they are not Muslim websites. Lastly, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for itself.-- Be happy!! ( talk) 22:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Devotus does not seem to try to state a neutral and referenced fact but rather to push through his own POV.
1. It is high time that you substantiate or retract the statement that Banu Nadir "had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench."
2. It reads that Akhtab and his son were killed alongside the men of Banu Qurayza they tried to recruit to join the battle. By insisting to delete this it is clear to me that Devotus has some ideological motivation for participating in Wikipedia - I do not tolerate such conduct.
3. Neither the Encyclopaedia of Islam nor Watt had said that they had "participated in attacking the Muslim community."
4. Devotus claims that his version is consistent with those works which I don't have but he failed to provide any reference.
Note to Aminz: The websites I mentioned are indeed Muslim websites. The name "Islam Pakistanway" speaks for itself. The Wikipedia text was comprehensive, balanced and of long standing until your colleague embarked on rewriting history. Accredited ( talk) 09:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing biased by "Islam Pakistanway" to state the fact that only Akhtab and his son rather than the whole Banu Nadir tribe, joined the siege of Medina.
Here is what Devotus had to say:
see above. it doesn't say hat they joined the siege, it sais they had participated in attacking the Muslims; there's a difference. --Devotus (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
How would the Banu Nadir participate in attacking the Muslims if they did not join the siege? Accredited (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not here to give you private lessons. End of discussion. --Devotus (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The question remains unanswered. Accredited ( talk) 08:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Accredited, please do not continue this. Here is yet another quote for you (The New Encyclopedia of Islam, p.81):
In 5/627 the Meccan Quraysh prepared to attack the Muslims in a massed battle with an army, called afterwards the "Confederates". The Quraysh had made an alliance with certain desert tribes, the Banu Ghaftan, and Jews of the Banu Nadir who had emigrated from Medina to Khaybar.
The Meccan army was made up of 4000 from Mecca and 5000 or more from the allies, with a total of 1000 cavalry. The Medinans numbered 3000.
According to Ḥizb article from Encyclopedia of Islam
Sūra al-Aḥzāb, deals with the siege of Medina by the Jewish tribes allied with those of Mecca , Nad̲j̲d and Tihāma
-- Be happy!! ( talk) 10:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Another quote: "In 5/627, the Meccans, accompanied by tribal allies among whom were the exiled Jews of the B. al-Naḍīr, again appeared with an army before Medina." F. Donner: Muhammad's Political Consolidation in Arabia up to the Conquest of Mecca in The Muslim World 69 (1979), p.233. As far as I know, any academic who writes about this topic confirms this fact. -- Devotus ( talk) 12:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an affront to human decency. You may quote the actual words and provide the reference. The only Banu Nadir members who joined the siege were Akhtab and his son. An authoritative breakdown of the 10,000 who participated in the attack makes no mention of the Banu Nadir tribe. Accredited ( talk) 17:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Accredited: what books (academic literatur that is) have you read to be able to state this, contrary to all references given by Aminz and me? -- Devotus ( talk) 19:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The detailed composition of the armies is explicitly stated in the Battle of the Trench along with the appropriate references. Accredited ( talk) 10:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
So none. Then it's settled: the statements are sourced and in accordance to the references given. -- Devotus ( talk) 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The Banu Nadir tribe did not participate in the siege of Medina as evidenced by the references including Ibn Hisham. Accredited ( talk) 10:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
At least now we're not only sure that you're using your IP as a sockpuppet, but can also prove it. [19] References have been provided in amounts, primary sources are not to be used here. To participate in attacking someone does not necessarily include sending an army, there are also other ways, as in the case of Nadir, who among other things send their chieftain to persuade quraiza to fight against the Muslims. -- Devotus ( talk) 11:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. -- Devotus ( talk) 12:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to add that "they had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench" lest it be interpreted that they had sent an army.
However, it should be mentioned that their chieftain not only tried to induce the neighboring Arabs but he also joined the siege and attempted to recruit Banu Qurayza to join the battle. Accredited ( talk) 13:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
To participate in attacking does not necessarily mean that they sent troops, there are many ways to do that. -- Devotus ( talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is quite misleading. People can't read your mind. One has to be more precise.
After their expulsion from Medina, the chieftains of Banu Nadir, along with the chieftains of other Jews living in Khaybar tried to induce the neighbouring Arabs and especially the strong tribe of Ghatafan to participate in attacking the Muslim community. [1] [2] The Nadir chief Huyayy ibn Akhtab together with his son had furthermore joined the Meccans and Bedouins besieging Medina during the Battle of the Trench. According to Watt, "this was a straightforward reason for attacking Khaybar." [3] However, modern scholars agree that one reason for attacking Khaybar was to raise Muhammad's prestige among his followers by making booty. [4] Huyayy ibn Akhtab unsuccessfully attempted to recruit the Banu Qurayza within Medina to join the fight against the Muslims. After the battle, the Muslims besieged the Banu Qurayza until they surrendered, and both Huyayy and his son were killed by order of Muhammad alongside all the men of the Banu Qurayza whose women and children were enslaved. [5] Accredited ( talk) 08:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
After weeks now, I for myself have certainly said enough. Stating that they participated has a wide range of possible meanings, so there's nothing misleading here. the "However" is POV. The Qurayza-incident has no relation to the conquest of Khaybar. -- Devotus ( talk) 09:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it preferable to say it in precise words with clear meaning? To say that "they participated in attacking" is certainly misleading. You may delete the "However" and the Banu Qurayza if that would make you feel better. Accredited ( talk) 09:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't have anything to do with feelings. If we would be precise we would exactly state how they participated, because senidng ibn Akhtab was only a part of it. Besides: who sais they didn't send troops (no OR)? The correct way is to state it they way it's stated in academic circles. -- Devotus ( talk) 09:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Accredited, please find an academic source that supports your claim that only ibn Akhtab was present; clearly and not ambiguously just as Devotus and I did in substantiating our claim. Your personal view is not sufficient. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 09:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The statement that Banu Nadir "had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench" indicates that they sent their own troops. Who said that? Quite the contrary, the Islamic sources including Ibn Hisham and Halabi on the detailed composition of the armies at the Battle of the Trench are unequivocal. Accredited ( talk) 13:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The above in no way indicates that there were any Banu Nadir troops in the army.
Here is the detailed composition of the armies of the confederates at the Battle of Trench.
The bulk of the Confederate armies were gathered by the pagan Quraysh of Mecca, led by Abu Sufyan, who fielded 4,000 foot soldiers, 300 horsemen, and 1,000-1,500 men on camels. [6]
Banu Nadir began rousing up the nomads of Najd. They bribed the Banu Ghatafan with half their harvest. [7] [8] This contingent, the second largest, added a strength of about 2,000 men 300 horsemen led by Unaina bin Hasan Fazari. Bani Asad also agreed to join them led by Tuleha Asadi. [6] From the Banu Sulaym, the Nadir secured 700 men, though it would have been much larger had some of its leaders not been sympathetic towards Islam. The Bani Amir, who had a pact with Muhammad, refused to join. [9]
Other tribes included the Banu Murra with 400 men led by Hars bin Auf Murri; Banu Shuja with 700 men led by Sufyanbin Abdu-Shams. In total, the strength of the Confederate armies, though not agreed upon by scholars, is estimated around 10,000. [6] Accredited ( talk) 08:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have been blocked for days from responding to you on the references on the article talk page.
Here are the pertinent references on the armies composition in the Battle of the Trench.
7. ^ a b c d Lings, Muhammad: his life based on the earliest sources, p. 215-6.
8. ^ a b c al-Halabi, Sirat-i-Halbiyyah (Vol. II, part 12), p. 19.
Furthermore, the long standing text since June 14, 2006, that you deleted is sourced and referenced to Stillman (1979), p. 17 in which he states: "The Jews of this rich oasis must have clearly understood the danger they were in. Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the battle of the Trench." Apparently, they were the exiled Banu Nadir Jews who again appeared with an army before Medina since no source makes mention of any Banu Nadir troops in the army. Your statement that indicates that Watt had said and modern scholars also agree that Muhammad attacked Khaybar because the Jews had furthermore "participated in attacking the Muslims" is false. Accredited ( talk) 14:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
1. The Wikipedia article on the Battle of the Trench quoted above explicitly states which part is derived from Lings and which part of the composition of the armies is derived from al-Halabi. Neither makes mention of any Banu Nadir troops.
2. Stillman is clearly speaking about all the Jews in Khaybar including the exiled Banu Nadir when he mentions that "Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina." This is precisely the same as your quote "the exiled Jews of the B. al-Naḍīr, again appeared with an army before Medina." Accredited ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.5.214 ( talk) 13:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Although your attention was repeatedly drawn that there were no Jewish troops in the army you keep charging that "they had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community". According to all sources, the army was actually composed of Meccan and Bedouin forces.
Watt never said such a thing much less claim that this is the reason for attacking Khaybar.
Who said that modern scholars agree not only with Watt's view that it had to do with the intrigue with Arab neighbors but also with Devotus's version on participation in the attack? Accredited ( talk) 62.90.5.215 ( talk) 08:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It is most appropriate to restore the long standing text since June 14, 2006 which is sourced and adopted by Islam Pakistanway. There was no justification for deleting it in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Banu_Nadir&diff=200321436&oldid=200294428 http://islam.pakistanway.com/showtopic.aspx?topicid=258&typeid=25 Accredited ( talk) 13:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Here we go again. Your repetitious deletion of the long standing sourced text in order to force your erroneous version is in flagrant violation of the rules and not suitable. Accredited ( talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you can show me scholars who maintain that...
The fate of the Qurayza has no connection to the battle of Khaybar; there is no need to mention it here, except you want to establish your own theory.-- Devotus ( talk) 20:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The long standing text since June 14, 2006, that you keep deleting is sourced and referenced to Stillman (1979), p. 17 in which he states: "The Jews of this rich oasis must have clearly understood the danger they were in. Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the battle of the Trench." Apparently, they were the exiled Banu Nadir Jews among the Meccans, accompanied by tribal allies who again appeared with an army before Medina since no source makes mention of any Banu Nadir troops in the army. Your statement that indicates that Watt had said and modern scholars also agree that Muhammad attacked Khaybar because the Jews had furthermore "participated in attacking the Muslims" is false.
I had repeatedly deleted the obvious that the Jews were afraid of being attacked by Muhammad and that Akhtab was killed alongside the men of Banu Qurayza he unsuccessfully attempted to recruit to join the fight but you still were not satisfied. If you insist on inserting your unfounded assertion "they had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community" in the middle of Watt's words "to induce the neighbouring Arabs to take up arms against the Muslims. This was a straightforward reason for attacking Khaybar." we'll have to submit it for moderation to make an appropriate decision. Accredited ( talk) 10:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Just answer the questions: provide refs for those suggestions. Stillman isn't enough when Watt in his standard work, the EI (outlining the current state of research) and other refs, as Aminz and me have already provided are opposing him.-- Devotus ( talk) 13:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You may quote Watt all you want. Just don't put words in his mouth. Accredited ( talk) 16:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Stillman's assertion that "Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina" stands. Neither Watt nor any other scholar has said that there were any Banu Nadir troops in the army that participated in attacking the Muslim community. Quite the contrary, all sources on the detailed composition of the allied army at the Battle of the Trench confirm the absence of any Banu Nadir combatants. Accredited ( talk) 08:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article is currently claimed by some to violate the Neutral Point of View policy.
There is currently a dispute over the accuracy of some statements in the article.
Discussion follows.
Need to see the sources of this story...first time hearing this! At least google it! can't believe this was featured on the main page. Do you have sources for this?
why cant we believe it..we dont need any sources to believe in the glorific(read horrific) exploits of mohammed.just a look at any islamic country of the intolerance of muslims in general might say what their revealed prophet might have been like....
I'm no expert but this doesn't seem to be very subjective.
people seem to get too confused with these two words.....no offence at non english speaking people or anyone else...
Looks like you've got two bad links there - might want to investigate them. Interesting article, though. Tony Fox (speak) 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
"Jewess" isn't an anti-Semitic term. At most it might be considered sexist, as explained at dictionary.com, but then why isn't "Latina" considered offensive? — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-16 17:16
There's a couple of sentances in brackets that need to be expanded on, and moved into the main body of the section, or removed. Mr Minchin 17:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Brian, are you by any chance a Jew? Maybe not. Doesn't really matter, as falsehood is false even if spoken by an honest man, and truth is truth, even if it is spoken by a liar. Which are you? I believe the former. This article, I'm afraid, mixes fact with opinion, blurring the line between truth and falsehood. I like the fact that you quote alot of Arabic sources, translated by one Mr Stillman. Have you read the original Arabic sources, or relied purely on the translation of one man who seems to have an agenda. The article, I'm afraid is flawed. It is not written in an objective manner at all. It's an article that should not be read seriously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redahmeid ( talk • contribs).
This article - and the first paragraph in particular - appears to have been written in order to deliberately display the Prophet of Islam in a negative light.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SafetyFirst ( talk • contribs) .
If we could find a middle ground between this article and the first part of [1], I'd be satisfied. BhaiSaab talk 18:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
changes have been made to the question now.
Ok, here's ny neutral view, if any would care to hear it: the article, as a whole, seems put into a negative fashion. Ill start adding them slowly to the talk page. BUT, the article can easily be simply toned down a bit and you can take only the info thats included in the POV sources and the NPOV sources.-- AeomMai 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, it is possible that Norman Stillman has a biased POV. Most of the negative parts came from his worls. It might be good to use info that eceryone agrees is fact, since no one can go back to 622 and say that he saw the looting. The killings during war are obvious. Is it true that ALL the men were killed?Even the old men? Bit of a surprise, seems a bit harsh. You guys vcan discuss the rest.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AeomMai ( talk • contribs).
I thought I may contribute some opinions -
Replies:
here are some reasons why i feel that this article is not of NPOV status
therefore, he himself violated the pact (conditions of which are highlighted in ar-raheeq al-makhtoom), to which he was also required to adhere to, and thus his killing was due to his incitement of war, as well as his insulting. stillman opines that it was merely a matter of honour.
"Addressing them, he said: "O Jews! Become Muslims before what befell the Quraysh befalls you." They said: "O Muhammad, you seem to think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you vanquished a contingent of Quraysh having no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for, by God, if we fight you, you will find that we are real men, and that you have not met the like of us". Their answer clearly contained a challenge and a threat, despite the fact that they had accepted his leadership according to the terms of the treaty. This report comes through Ibn Ishaq[2]. Ibn Hajar said that it was hasan.[3] But the isnad includes Muhammad ibn Muhammad, the freedman of Zayd ibn Thabit, whom Ibn Hajar himself said was majhul (unknown).[4]
Even if we accept Ibn Hajar?s suggestion that the report is hasan, that does not mean that the reason for the expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa was their refusal to accept Islam, because at that stage Islam still allowed the Muslims to live in peace with them, and the Prophet did not make entering Islam a condition for any one of the Jews to stay in Madinah. Rather, the Document[5] ensured the religious freedom of the Jews. The reason for their expulsion was the aggression which they showed. This resulted in a breach of the internal security of Madinah." end quote.
these are a few of the concerns i have highlighted with this article. unfortunately many of the articles concerning early islamic history seem to be a bit misrepresented (i.e. marriage to safiyya, expulsion of qurayza) also, perhaps muslims can spend more time dispelling speculation, POV and factually incorrect material? i propose the language used in this article is reviewed and expressed with neutrality, highlighting stillman's perspective as opinion and not fact. Itaqallah 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Muhammad took a share of the booty -first paragraph! This article is heavily bias and definitely uncited and lacks credibility. How it is featured on the main page is suspect. Wow..this is the biggest dent Wikipedia has put in its credibility in my eyes, outrageous. - Sohailstyle 2006-06-16 21:43 (UTC)
Okay so let us see. It is an article written about the history of Islam and Mohammad (PBUH) and the resources quoted include Bearman (who is Jewish) and Stillman (who is also Jewish). Arabic sources that are "translated" by Stillman (Jewish). Very nice! History of Islam written by Jews.
Oh and one more thing, the external resources cited, in fact, seem to give us another POV. This is quoted from http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml which is listed as an external resource.
"At Muhammad's insistence, Medina's pagan, Muslim and Jewish clans signed a pact to protect each other, but achieving this new social order was difficult. Certain individual pagans and recent Medinan converts to Islam tried to thwart the new arrangement in various ways, and some of the Jewish clans were uneasy with the threatened demise of the old alliances. At least three times in five years, Jewish leaders, uncomfortable with the changing political situation in Medina, went against Muhammad, hoping to restore the tense, sometimes bloody-but predictable-balance of power among the tribes.
According to most sources, individuals from among these clans plotted to take his life at least twice, and once they came within a bite of poisoning him. Two of the tribes--the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qaynuqa--were eventually exiled for falling short on their agreed upon commitments and for the consequent danger they posed to the nascent Muslim community."
The other site quoted, managed by Ali Sina who has made it his life's mission to "help muslims leave Islam". http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/b_nadir.htm
The third site http://www.shodalap.com/Jews_in_Madina.htm#_ftnref4 quoted says, "The Jews were NOT innocent at all. The punishment they got was an inevitable outcome of their horrendous and heinous crime. The crime was not ‘rejecting Islam’, but something more fatal, homicidal, and severely atrocious. It’s very absurd to claim that the prophet (peace be upon him) maltreated them; rather, the prophet (peace be upon him) was maltreated by the Jews in every step of his life in Medina."
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, now it should make any intelligent human think that first of all the article is written using the words of Jews. One of the external links is managed by a guy who has made it his life's goal to "help muslims leave Islam." The other two sites CLEARLY tell us another point of view. Mohammad(PBUH) was the one whose life was endanger and Jews were the ones who tried to kill him several times even after he gave them a fair chance.
And just because he took a wife, doesn't say ANYTHING about him exterminating Jews. What kind of logic is that? I take a wife who is "not my kind" and all of a sudden everybody thinks I am trying to exterminate her entire clan. I'll tell you what kind of logic is that. It is called twisted logic, biased logic, more like propaganda. If anything, by taking a Jewish wife, Mohammad (PBUH) was trying to patch things up. He was trying for peace.
Its pretty funny how from literally thousands of books, journals, articles, and various publications (may they be online or on paper), the author of THIS article chose to cite things written by Jews and a guy who has made it his goal to "help muslims leave Islam". The other two don't even belong here as external resources.
Oh and I almost forgot. You don't need to "brag" about those 13 references that are listed. If it is only the number of references that matters, I will provide you with hundreds, if not thousands, references from published works that say otherwise. I know, as impossible as it may sound, there just might be a Jew or two who might agree with me. So tell me, will you be willing to edit this page then???????? 137.78.140.190 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Ali —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.78.140.190 ( talk • contribs)
Uhhhhhhhhh, have you read the Quran? Quran is not a history book and it is most certainly not a book about Jews. How very typical of an arrogant Jew to assume that Quran is about Jews. Notice how both of these reponses seem to focus on my attacking the merit of Jewish scholars. No one bothered discussing the issue of the resources and external links provided. How ridiculuous is that! The links provided as resources, themselves tell another story than what is mentioned here. And you know what, if anybody attacks Mohammad(PBUH) claiming to do so for the sake of academics, I am going to attack HIS academic integrity. 137.78.140.190 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Ali
Dear anon,
Cheers, Tom e r talk 23:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately Gren, you are right. Scholars are often attacked for their religion rather than for their merit and for a good reason. Usually works are biased even if scholars don't intend do, religion is just so deep and such a sensitive issue within us that it is extremely difficult to stay objective. There is a saying which we have that it takes two hands to clap. I will never believe a Jewish scholar and a Jew will never believe a Muslim Scholar. Jewish scholars give a distorted view of history (in their favor of course) and Muslim scholars do the same. There are very few exceptions. I am a man of science and I try to keep religion and science seperate because they do often conflict BUT I am also a Muslim (alhamudulillah) and I WILL react if there is a pathetic attempt to defame Muslims all over because I am one of them and everything I hold dear is at stake here. But you know what, this battle is an old one. It is at least as old as Islam itself. If anything, history (depends which one) bears witness that Muslims actually treated Jews better than the Europeans/Christians did. We don't even need to go far back. One can just look at World War II. Hitler tried to wipe out the scum of Germany and England tried to throw them into a wasteland of Africa by relocating them there and "finding them a home" which ended up being Israel. Two-for-one...let's take care of Jews and Muslims in one strike and let's get rid of both our problems by making them kill each other and hence the infernal struggle of Palestine vs. Israel was born. 137.78.140.190 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Ali
A perfect Wikipedia article... is completely neutral and unbiased; has a totally neutral point of view; presents competing views on any controversies logically and fairly, pointing out all sides without favoring any particular ideal or viewpoint. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views given a somewhat lesser priority, while at the same time giving enough information and references for the reader to find out more about any particular view.
One aspect of a Neutral point of view is Fairness and sympathetic tone.
If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.119.55 ( talk • contribs)
The previously mentioned [2] says Muhammad arrived in Medina in 622 believing the Jewish tribes would welcome him. Contrary to expectation, his relations with several of the Jewish tribes in Medina were uneasy almost from the start. This was probably largely a matter of local politics. Medina was not so much a city as a fractious agricultural settlement dotted by fortresses and strongholds, and all relations in the oasis were uneasy. In fact, Muhammad had been invited there to arbitrate a bloody civil war between the Khazraj and the Aws Allah, in which the Jewish clans, being their clients, were embroiled.
Does anyone believe the article sympathetically presents this complex clan-based characterization of the situation in Medina?
Does anyone believe that the pbs page doesn't have a dramatically more NPV than the current article?
Does anyone believe the article currently meets the sympathetic tone standard? And thus the NPV standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.119.55 ( talk • contribs)
This was recently done. And then someone else removed it. In light of the current discussion, can we agree on some flag to inform readers there is a large divergence of opinion on the quality of the article? Some believing the article is just fine, and others believing it a disaster?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.119.55 ( talk • contribs) .
The front page is wikipedia's showcase. Where we show the best we have to offer. The Did you know guidelines explicitly emphasize NPOV. Beyond that normally expected of just any article. It is the second test mentioned, after only new-ness.
Does anyone argue that the article currently meets this stringent test?
If not, should it not be removed from the front page as being currently inappropriate for DYN?
As mentioned elsewhere, a totallydisputed tag was added, and then removed by someone else.
Accuracy dispute says
Does anyone believe a dispute has not arisen?
Does anyone believe a disputed tag is not thus now appropriate?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.119.55 ( talk • contribs) .
I don't understand how an article that clearly doesn't meet Wiki standards was not only placed on the DYK page, but also as positioned as the first article.
I think there are some accuracy issues here with not only the sources, but with the verbiage in the article. Someone who unfortunately sounded somewhat anti-semitic made the point that most of the sources stem from Jewish writers, and while he went off on a belligerent tangent, this is a point that should be taken into consideration.
The Jewish scholars may not have an agenda or be any less than fine academic scholars, but consider a juxtaposition of a similar religious tension: Would Wiki allow a series of Irish Catholic scholars to make up the bulk of citations in an article written about Irish Protestants? The fact that PBS, a relatively reputable source, had a completely different take on the same series of events should have resulted in an immediate removal of this article from the DYK page.
Pretty alarming, if you ask me. ----—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benplln ( talk • contribs) .
Ok, but there still weren't several thousand other articles that had comparable pictures of which content wasn't being disputed? I don't think it should be left up, especially in the midst of all of this debate. I think it's been shown that the article is less than objective in some areas, and there are immediate contradictions within it. ---- Ben
What a sad time in history, and the beginning of all the problems we have today regarding jihad. Monty2 06:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
This was the last version which didn't have absurd bias from loaded phrases. "Booty," my ass. All the academic references in the world aren't going to make up for writing in a style which ascribes all bad acts to only one side in an ongoing tit-for-tat conflict. All you apologists of this article's current state should be ashamed of yourselves. Publicola 06:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can specify the problems with this article, from this source:
The fact that that entire prelude (which I remember similarly from a different authoritative source which is currently inaccessible to me) was omitted from this otherwise very detailed and apparently carefully sourced article makes me suspicious.
I need to check the edit history -- back in May, this article, although much shorter, made it perfectly clear that the source of the dispute was controversial, with the truth of the matter essentially lost to history. The fact is that the conflict stemmed from a single disputed murder accusation.
This current article, in the "Arrival of Muhammad" section, completely omits these details, making it seem like the Muslims acted unilaterally, without provocation. I don't think it was a good idea to link this from the Main Page in this state at all. Publicola 06:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
When everybody agreed with the changes, especially made by "Publicola", then why things are changed back. I think prejudice should not be entertained on this encyclopedia. If someone is not ready to understand the fact that how the spoils were treated, how they were managed in the society in the times when human slaves were used to be considered worse than animals, then it is their problem and it is not history's problem. I would recommend that article be restored back to [4] ( 19:49, 17 June 2006 Publicola) SS
i thought that those who believe that changes are required in the article could contribute here so we can come to an agreement of what would be acceptable in terms of fact as well as NPOV (in the light of the above extract from POV dispute.
as opposed to the current paragraph on the arrival of Muhammad (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) in Medinah, i propose something like the following (which i have compiled):
"In September 622, Muhammad arrived at Medinah with a group of his followers, who were given shelter by members of the indigenous community known as the Ansar. Amongst his first actions was the construction of the first Mosque in Medinah, as well as obtaining residence with Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, Vol II, p.279). He then set about the establishment of a pact between the Muslims and the various Jewish tribes of Medinah(Ibn Hisham, Vol. I, p.501), which was to regulate the matters of governance of the city, as well as the extent and nature of inter-community relations. Conditions of the pact included boycotting Quraysh "commercially" as well as abstinence from "extending any support to them", assistance of one another if attacked by a third party, as well as "defending Madinah, in case of a foreign attack".(Al-Raheeq Al-Makhtoom, Saif-ur-Rahman Mubarakfuri; Ibn Hisham Vol. II, pp. 147-150; Ibn Ishaq pp. 231-235). It was later that certain tribes would be claimed to have violated this pact due to supporting enemy forces, such as the Quraysh, against the Muslims."
please discuss the viability (or not) of these alterations. if it lacks NPOV or factuality, please state where and how. i felt it necessary to mention more conditions of the pact relevant to the latter events. Itaqallah 14:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
i would also suggest that another section is added after the above which expounds upon the increasing tensions between certain tribes of the jews (not all, i.e. banu 'awf). this is important as opposed to jumping straight from the arrival of Muhammad to the expulsion of banu qaynuqa as the latter does not sufficiently contextualise the event and take into consideration the increasing hostility and emnity between the two parties. Itaqallah 14:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
as opposed to the current paragraph regarding banu qaynuqa, of which i have already previously highlighted certain problematic statements, i propose something similar to this:
"It was after the Battle of Badr that Muhammad decided to approach Banu Qaynuqa (the allies of the Khazraj tribe), in the light of previous hostilities, gathering them in the market place and addressing them as follows:
"O assembly of Jews, beware that something from Allah befalls you similar to the curse that descended upon Quraysh, and enter into Islam, for you have known that I am a Prophet that has been sent, due to what you find in your Book and the covenant of Allah to you"
They replied: "O Muhammad, you seem to think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you vanquished a contingent of Quraysh having no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for, by God, if we fight you, you will find that we are real men, and that you have not met the like of us" (declared by Ibn Hajar to be Hasan - Fath al-Baari 7/332; also in sunan abi da'wood 3/402).
It was this exchange which resulted in what is known as the seige of Banu Qaynuqa (al-maghazee lil-waaqidee, vol.1, chapter of ghazwat qaynuqa, al-waaqidee; as-seerat an-nabaweeyat, vol. 2, under chapter of "'amr banu qaynuqa" - arabic version, ibn hisham; ar-raheeq al-makhtoom, saif-ur-rahman mubarakfuri), which lasted for fourteen to fifteen days, after which the tribe surrendered unconditionally. Muhammad consented to the Banu Qaynuqa being expelled when Abdallah ibn Ubayy, the chief of the Khazraj, pleaded before Muhammad on their behalf. The Banu Nadir remained passive during the whole Banu Qaynuqa episode."
please excuse the current messy presentation of references. one may argue that mentioning the narration is original research. to this i disagree and say that i have provided the references in the books of historians who not only document this incident but relate it directly concerning the justification of the expulsion of banu qaynuqa. this is why i have provided the majority of references after the comment following the quote because the references used this narration in explaining the expulsion of banu qaynuqa. i ommitted the last part of the final sentence (of the original article) due to the previous discussion where i opined that it is neither NPOV nor a verifiable claim.
please also note that the first part of the exchange has been taken from ibn hisham. the version present in al-waaqidee is:
"O assembly of Jews! Enter into Islam, for by Allah you know that I am the Messenger of Allah, before there comes to you from Allah the like of what came to Quraysh"
please discuss the viability (or not) of this proposal. if it lacks NPOV or factuality, please state where and how, and propose the relevant amendments. ITAQALLAH 17:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
At least two people have reverted back huge amounts of very biased language while claiming to revert because of sources. This is unacceptable.
However, it matters not because I have found the following sources which agree on the genesis of the tit-for-tat dispute:
and:
and:
Therfore, I will be citing the contested statement with those three sources. In the future, if you feel you must revert unsourced statements, please do not also replace biased language such as I worked so hard to eliminate from the intro and the middle sections. Publicola 20:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I vandalised the article unintentionally, see my explanation here. -- tickle me 22:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Of those of you who have been reverting, would you please stop? I am certain that you do not believe that you object to the whole set of changes, because you are also reverting ovbious mistakes, text supported by reliable secondary sources, and re-introducing language claiming, for example, "[Muhammad's] first actions [included] the promulgation of a document known as the Constitution of Medina." -- which clearly implies that the Constitution was imposed without consent, when it was in fact a negotiated mutual-defense treaty. This is inexcusable.
If there is a reason that such reversions are intended to correct some error, instead of maintain an anti-Muslim bias, I can not see it. Please enlighten me. Publicola 19:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is an incomplete list of mistakes replaced by reverts:
"My version doesn't remove the Jewish point of view...": A historian's assessment who happens to be of Jewish descent or a even practicising Jew isn't the Jewish POV, at least not by academic or WP standards. "...it adds the Muslim point of view": We're to add notable POVs, a POV being regarded "Muslim" by some wikipedian is not notable by itself. "My goal here, has been an experiment": Please stop it. "Are modern-day Islamic scholars not authoritative Muslim historians?": Find those regarded authoritative by their peers in academia and use them to back up your edits. -- tickle me 17:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
"Muhammad took a share of the spoils, and took a captive Jewish woman as his wife."
This sets out to portray The Prophet as a warmonger. Reading this first paragraph, one could draw similarities between him and Genghis Khan.
The paragraph also sets out none of the intrigues and machinations of the Jewish tribe, making them out to be an innocent party —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.218.39 ( talk • contribs) .
It would be interesting to know that how these other sources knew exactly what Muhammad wanted, and are the bible on feelings of Muhammad!!!! From a Muslim perspective, nothing happened against the Constitution of Medina. The killings that followed this incident, were not normal killings. These were the same killings as what Moses asked his followers to kill all those who worshiped Golden Calf, when he was away for forty days. As the bible says, kill your brother, friend, and neighbor (Exodus Chapter 32 verse 27) or with the principle by which Solomon conquered so much land. Muslims believe that this responsibility of spreading the religion was now unto Ishmaelites, rather than Israelites. Once people, deny Messengers, there is no otherway to deal with them unless they are killed. Examples from Quran and Bible are numerous, like Nation of Noah, Nation of Lot and finally Jewish miseries after denial of Jesus. The most official document for Muslims is Quran itself, which says, recall that Abraham was put to the test by his Lord, through certain commands, and he fulfilled them. (God) said, "I am appointing you a leader for the people." He said, "and also my descendants?" He said, "my covenant does not include the transgressors" (2:124), you shall strive for the cause of GOD as you should strive for His cause. He has chosen you and has placed no hardship on you in practicing your religion - the religion of your father Abraham (22:78), We thus made you an impartial community, that you may serve as witnesses among the people, and the messenger serves as a witness among you (2:143), and numerous others. When people challenge the Messenger (by not obeying) and hence challenge the authority of God, they are punished by a natural disaster or by the followers of the Messenger. But the general principle in Islam still follows, as written in Quran, ... that whoever took a life, unless it be for murder or for spreading disorder on earth, it would be as if he killed all mankind; and whoever saved a life, it would be as if he saved all mankind (5:32) and And he who kills a believer intentionally, his reward is Hell; he shall remain therein forever... (4:93). The punishment for taking an innocent life is eternal hell, this can be read at numerous places in Quran. So the killing of Jews and others was a special case and is no more applicable. A very good article to understand this point of view is http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mar_d2y2.html and http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mapred97.html . Here I would suggest again, what Muslims believe, may not be fact to others, but should be present on the page as their opinion. A novice reader has the right to know the story from both sides. SS
I believe that once opinions of both sides are included, the article should be protected from editing until disputes have been resolved in talk page. And I believe that http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Banu_Nadir&oldid=59433750 is the proper version of article that contains balanced opinions. Only giving one party to explain an event is not a very good practice in Encyclopedic articles. SS 14:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that the article should be protected, but it will be protected forever. These two sides will never agree.-- AeomMai 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have requested mediation for this disputed article and Banu Qaynuqa. Publicola 16:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Since the section these came from is getting way too long, and because it might help with mediation, I am listing these points as questions:
As it appears there are now no pending requests for mediation prior to this one, I have requested unprotection. Publicola 02:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Good news, everyone! Mediation has been accepted by mediator User:Geo.plrd. Publicola 07:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
In order to help identify which problems exist and which are non-problems, I am offering this table so that those who have been reverting the disputed sections can answer the above questions, which I have lettered (A) through (O) and answered to start out. I hope I listed all the anti-Islamists who have been reverting, and I assume that the pro-Islamists agree with me, but if I missed anyone, then please add your own column.
Furthermore, I have indicated the correspondence between almost all of my fifteen questions (note there are still more questions about the remainder of the article) and ExLibrisCupertino's review of the cited Stillman source book below.
Question | Publicola | Pecher | Tickle me | Timothy Usher | Briangotts |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(A) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(B) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(C) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(D) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(E) | Yes | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(F) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(G) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(H) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(I) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(J) | Yes | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(K) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(L) | Yes | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(M) | No | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(N) | Yes | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
(O) | Yes | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
Publicola 08:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Geo. 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC) - I reviewed the reason for protection. IMO it is legitimately protected, please reword your opinion and post it here. To the side using Jewish sources please do the same. Then we can work them together and get a mutually acceptable version at which time I will ask Pschemp to unprotect the article. This is my proposed solution. Please go to the mediation page and approve it. Geo. 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Posted here on the talk page at the request of the mediator per above and
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-19 Banu Nadir#Proposed solution:
Actually posting the article here on the talk page in full is completely unworkable. Please see the proposed alternative (which has been further refined since the first proposed alternative was posted here in full) at Banu Nadir/mpov. Publicola 01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the request for unprotection was denied, I have placed my preferred version at Banu Nadir/mpov and encourage those on both sides of this debate to edit that to achieve a compromise consensus version. Publicola 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I just found a copy of Stillman's The Jews of Arab Lands, and I can see why there are complaints about it being used as a source in this article. For example:
No further mention is made in the chapter of any of the tribes referred to in this article. ExLibrisCupertino 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Good stuff. Do you think the way the book is used in the article can be attributed to good faith error, or intentional misrepresentation? His Excellency... 21:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
THANK YOU -- I was going to do that. Publicola 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
"If you can't figure them out", "there are certainly a number of clear inconsistencies": this doesn't warrant reaction, you're not to have other editors guessing. -- tickle me 23:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In light of this new information, I would like to retract what I have said about Non-Muslim sources in general and Stillman in particular (reminding everyone that I made it repeatedly clear that I was only complaining about Stillman if his work actually supported the statements attributed to him.) Since it now seems very clear that Stillman's book does not support any but a few of the potential bias problems which I identified, I would like to re-direct my criticism to whoever introduced the identified and confirmed bias in this article in Stillman's name. I have not yet studied the edit history to see who that is, but I intend to do so. Publicola 00:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Question (C): What is the source of the phrase, "widow of the tribe's slain treasurer"? Publicola 17:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Questions (D) and (E): Who are the "academic historians" who believe the Banu Nadir "to be an ethnically Jewish tribe connected with the Khaybar Jews"? Publicola 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Question (F): Is it reasonable to claim that the constitution was "promulgated" after it was reached through an agreement of the signing tribes, after had been "clear to all that eventually the Jews would have to go?" Publicola 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Bernard Lewis in his book "The Jews of Islam" (1984) page 10 writes that only Banu Qurayza were given the choice between conversion and death. Lewis talks about the Jews of Khaybar but only states they were capitulated to Muhammad. No mention of any massacre. -- Aminz 19:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think writing in the article that Muhammad got share from spoils without telling the fact that his property was actually state's property and was never divided amongst his heirs. If such details are missed out, then the article under discussion will not present the actual picture. See for yourself in Bukhari 5:59:368. Some serious overhauling of this article is needed. SaadSaleem 10:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Citing Bukhari and inferring on it is OR. The link is fit to illustrate a scholar's assessment, should he adhere to a literal understanding and a uncritical interpretation of sources. -- tickle me 01:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually that's not necessarily true. WP:RS : In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections.
The volumes of Hadith are published. Nothing in WP:RS characterizes the use of such primary sources as being "Original Research", so you're misinforming people with this statement. Additionally the original traditions themselves, reported by the many many sources cited in Sahih Al Bukhari would have been primary sources UNTIL they were compiled by Imam Bukhari and made into volumes. Thus, Sahih Al Bukhari is a secondary source which hosts the many hadiths, each which were primary sources before Bukhari collected and sorted them. His Excellency... 02:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Scholars make conclusions as to policy and traditions based on the Hadith, not what the Hadith stated to have happened. For example, whether or not it's haraam to engage in a certain practice or deal with a person a certain way. Since we're not formulating policy based on the Hadith, but merely documenting events, for our purposes "Sahih al Bukhari" and "Sahih Al Muslim" are secondary sources. This is beyond the point that WP:RS does in fact allow the use of primary sources if they have been published. You still haven't addressed the issue of how quoting a primary source constitutes OR. His Excellency... 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Who wrote this biased original research?
Article:
C'mon, the style, the tone, the accuracy, its all a total dissgrace! -- Striver 00:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Article:
Omg, is this for real? -- Striver 00:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, I'm somewhat confused by your intransigence with regards to edits on this article. Do you honestly believe that this article as it stands is unbiased and neutral? Or do you believe there may be some bias, but you're unwilling to change it without reference to reliable sources?
From a personal standpoint, speaking as a Muslim, I don't care whether source material comes from a Christian, a Hindu, a Jewish, an atheist, or a Muslim source, my only interest is in accuracy. I belive the article currently underplays the importance of the Banu Nadir's alliance with the Quraish at the Battle of the Trench as a precursor to the massacre and seems to ascribe devious motives to Muhammad (notably the "convenient pretext" line).
What are your thoughts? Stile4aly 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
This has been protected for a while and there seems to be little substantive discussion. Unprotecting. -- Tony Sidaway 20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to the latest burst of editing, the article says now: "Arabic language is capable of exercising over the minds of its users such irresistible influence". Unbelievable. Pecher Talk 16:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Where there are legitimate disputes, showing multiple points of view is the only way to attain neutrality. I'm not the only one who says so:
I note that those who are complaining about the version copied from Banu Nadir/mpov didn't lift a finger to edit it for the whole month it's existed, most of which we have been in mediation. It's not too late. Publicola 12:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
All of the problems mentioned above in this section (POV tag, "Arabic language is capable of exercising over the minds of its users such irresistible influence", the capitalization of "Jewish" and "Muslim") as well as colonized categories, are now fixed in Banu Nadir/mpov, so I suggest copying again from there into the protected version, and encouraging further edits there per mediator instructions. Publicola 12:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I am requesting that a totallydisputed tag is added to this article. The current version is blatantly POV and inaccurate (see some examples above), and it's obvious that there is a dispute here. Pecher Talk 20:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Unless "MPOV" is adopted as WP policy I request admins who tolerate it to state the obvious at least. "I note that those who are complaining about the version copied from Banu Nadir/mpov didn't lift a finger to edit it for the whole month it's existed": mocking WP on a subpage is frivolous, demanding others to participate is worse. -- tickle me 00:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
i would agree that certain statements may seem problematic unless sourced. i would appeal to the opposing party to amiably participate in mediation instead of edit wars (as also seen on Banu Qaynuqa) as this seems to be the only way to achieve a consensus article and consequently lay the issue down to rest. in this way we can work with eachother instead of against.
regarding "MPOV", then part of it is already catered for by WP:NPOV in that all significant views merit mention without giving undue weight as long as they qualify under WP:RS, and when we state analysis that may be disputed then we say that "X says/claims/documents/opines.." instead of expressing X's words as fact. i have not yet properly studied what "MPOV" entails, but any participation in mediation would naturally not include involvement of such a policy. the article under the "mpov" dir is not being edited with MPOV policy in mind (well at least not in my case) in that wikipedians do not have to follow a non-wiki policy in order to edit, and so nothing stops editors from making edits in accordance with the existing wiki policies. furthermore, anything within the article conforming to what is perceived as "MPOV" but in contradiction with current wiki policy (although MPOV on the face of it seems to just be a re-expression of WP:NPOV in order to achieve the same goal of attaining neutrality without contravention of currently existing WP policy) would not be able to defend itself against removal, were we to engage in the mediation process. ITAQALLAH 01:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I note it has been more than a month now since the mediator asked the opposing sides to participate in mediation. All of those with whom I agree in this dispute have accepted mediation and followed the mediator's instructions. None of those on the other side have. I would like to take another opportunity to urge participation in mediation. Thank you. Publicola 09:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I take it, then, that no proponent of the original article consents to mediation? Publicola 07:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
What is the reason for writing the following sentence: "Huyayy ibn Akhtab attempted to recruit Banu Qurayza within Medina to fight against the Muslims" Also what is the source for the reason Muhammad married the wife of the man he tortured. Arrow740 06:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The above quote has to be edited since it dose not describe muhamed correctly even according to his own followers:
Asma said: “You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men, is there no honor among you?”Upon hearing those lines Mohammad said, “Will no one rid me of this woman?” Umayr, a zealous muslim, decided to execute the prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Mohammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, “You have helped Allah and his apostle” . Umayr said, “She had five sons, should I feel guilty?” “No, “ the prophet answered, “killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.”
Ishaq 676
The prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fireon Kinanah’s chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinahah was near death. Then the messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him.
Tabari VIII:122
MDG Nov. 19 2006
Originally this article was biased against Muhammad. Now it is biased towards the Muslim POV that Muhammad was a great man who was provoked, not a man who committed genocide. This needs to be fixed. Titanium Dragon 22:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Use secondary sources. And don't use The Sealed Nonsense. Arrow740 05:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
There are several things that keep being changed back and forth which should be resolved. For starters, saying they were not allied with the Muslims under the Constitution of Medina after being expelled from Medina (because they were before) I think is better than saying they were afraid of being attacked so they encouraged others to raise arms against the Muslims, that was one POV of Stillman on why they did what they did. Next, I read Stillman and even he doesn't explicitly state that the men of Banu Nadir were executed, just not given quarter. On Kinana, the agreement they made did say that they had to hand over their properties and treasures otherwise there would be no quarter and according to the page on Kinana, they did find a good amount of treasure. I'm saying prisoners because slavery isn't exactly the same concept in Islam as it is considered in modern times and so it might imply something different. Finally, When he is said to have been eating the poisoned meat, he was eating with many companions and not just one and only one died so I was correcting that sentence for that reason. Jedi Master MIK 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
1. The Jews will profess their religion, and the Muslims theirs. 2. The Jews shall be responsible for their expenditure, and the Muslims for theirs. 3. If attacked by a third party, each shall come to the assistance of the other. 4. Each party shall hold counsel with the other. Mutual relation shall be founded on righteousness; sin is totally excluded. 5. Neither shall commit sins to the prejudice of the other. 6. The wronged party shall be aided. 7. The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers. 8. Medina shall remain sacred and inviolable for all that join this treaty. Should any disagreement arise between the signatories to this treaty, then Muhammad shall settle the dispute. 9. The signatories to this treaty shall boycott Quraish commercially; they shall also abstain from extending any support to them. 10. Each shall contribute to defending Medina, in case of a foreign attack, in its respective area. 11. This treaty shall not hinder either party from seeking their lawful retaliation.
[15]"The apostle occupied the Jewish forts one after the other, taking prisoners as he went. Among these were Safiya, the wife of Kinana, the Khaybar chief, and two female cousins; the apostle chose Safiya for himself. The other prisoners were distributed among the Muslims. Bilal brought Safiya to the apostle, and they passed the bodies of several Jews on the way. Safiya's female companions lamented and strewed dust on their heads. When the apostle of Allah observed this scene, he said, 'Remove these she‑devils from me� But he ordered Safiya to remain, and threw his reda [cloak] over her. So the Muslims knew he had reserved her for his own."
Bless sins, you have once again substantially misrepresented Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham's narrative. [16] You wrote:
You are well aware that Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham says nothing at all about al-Rabi's being killed for breaking any treaty, but merely states that he was killed for having concealed its location. You are also well-aware that the torture is presented not as a punishment, but to extract information. I know you are aware of this because we've discussed it before at some length. Do not misrepresent sources, Bless sins. I cannot emphasize that enough. Proabivouac 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot be more Muslim than the Islamic websites by presenting theories as facts to justify the expulsion of Banu-Nadir from their Medina mansions. How can one reconcile this story of a Jewish invitation to discuss religion with the widely known account of Muhammads's request for a contribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
We can't deal with speculation. We would have heard about it if there was any substance to the contradictory story. 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 09:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You have failed to substantiate the story that contradicts all the Muslim websites. 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 10:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
For over 1,300 years, the world has not heard such a story. You and your colleagues have had ample time but failed to substantiate it. Not a single Muslim website makes any mention of it. 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 10:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Your response defies logic just as the unreliable account that you keep reposting which is unfounded in the whole history of Islam. All the Muslim websites speak of Muhammad's requested contribution but make no mention of the alleged invitation to discuss religion. 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
February 2008 (UTC)
It is you who needs to substantiate an account you keep reposting that the Muslim historians such as Muhammad Ibn Ishaq make no mention of it. 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You and your colleagues have failed to produce or quote al-Halabi's exact words or to reconcile his alleged account with the historical account.
Ibn Ishaq and the other Muslim historians undoubtedly would not have refrained from mentioning it if the story is real. 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 18:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Just popping my head in to state that Mik is correct on this. The account about the attempted assassination is a standard one and should definitely be included. Str1977 (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You may quote the exact words of the book on the alleged Jewish invitation to discuss religion. It sounds a lot like the Muslim invitation to Banu Nadir's Usayr ibn Zarim who was slaughtered on the way to the debate along with his delegation of thirty men except one who fled.
I wonder why no Islamic website makes any mention of this story. Perhaps because it contradicts the widely known account of Muhammad's request for a contribution. 80.179.192.75 ( talk) 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The conflicting accounts indicate that they are based on mere speculation, which raises serious doubts on the authenticity of the alleged assassination attempt as a whole. Accredited ( talk) 10:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
How can one reconciliate the requested contribution with the debate invitation? Why did Muhammad's biographer Ibn Ishaq, make no mention of the latter account? Accredited ( talk) 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the oldest biographer makes no mention of it, indicates that it is based on mere speculation. Accredited ( talk) 07:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have put a 31 hour protection on this page from edits. It was a close decision versus blocking Accredited and Devotus for edit warring. Accredited seems to have gone over 3RR too.
Please use this period of page protection to discuss changes here properly. It looks to me like the current locked version matches the version which was discussed by a number of editors in the past. Accredited, you have come in and kept trying to change it. Please explain here clearly and briefly what the problem you have with this version is and then consider people's replies to your comment before trying to edit the article. -- BozMo talk 12:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The previous text is one of long standing on Wikipedia and on Muslim Websites. It is therefore unwarranted to erase the whole account and replace it with an unfounded allegation. Accredited ( talk) 13:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Banu_Nadir&diff=200321436&oldid=200294428 http://islam.pakistanway.com/showtopic.aspx?topicid=258&typeid=25 http://islam.pakistanway.com/showtopic.aspx?topicid=267&typeid=25
The above does not say that Banu Nadir "had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench."
I have no objection to quote the actual words without adding a false interpretation. Accredited ( talk) 10:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[17] and [18] is no academic source and does not state the current state of knowledge. We don't quote everything 1:1, we state the meaning with our own words. and since you do not have the references shown above I doubt you can check the correctness of the statements in the text independently. there are also other problems with your version which ahve already been discussed. -- Devotus ( talk) 12:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the record of our last discussion on the matter.
Islamic sources mention that only Akhtab and his son rather than the whole Banu Nadir tribe, joined the siege of Medina. It should also be mentioned that they bribed Ghatafan and tried to recruit Banu Qurayza. Accredited (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Watt's theory is generally accepted in scholarship. That the Nadir joined the siege is also a fact that any recognized scholar accepts as such. "From Khaybar, the exiles planned with the Quraysh the siege of Medina..." EI2, s.v. Nadir. "Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in Khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood... The sources give support to the view of Montgomery Watt, showing that the Jews, already responsible for the coalition which had laid siege to Medina in 5 A.H. and worried by the growing power of the Prophet, continued to stir up the Arabs against him..." s.v. Khaybar. Primary sources are not to be used in Wikipedia. End of Discussion. --Devotus (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
If this is Watt's theory it should read according to Watt. No scholar has said that the Nadir joined the siege. You may quote Watt or any other scholar on the matter. Accredited (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
see above. it doesn't say hat they joined the siege, it sais they had participated in attacking the Muslims; there's a difference. --Devotus (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither Watt nor any other scholar has said that the Banu Nadir participated in attacking the Muslims. Accredited (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
See quotes above. You don't seem to have any academic work, neither Watt nor anyone else, so I doubt you could know that. --Devotus (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
How would the Banu Nadir participate in attacking the Muslims if they did not join the siege? Accredited (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not here to give you private lessons. End of discussion. --Devotus (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It will be consistent with Watt's words and the Encyclopedia of Islam. Accredited (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It is consistent with those works which you don't have. --Devotus (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Your version is referenced to the above two but goes far beyond. This is unacceptable. Accredited ( talk) 08:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to provide reference to those works you claim that your version is based on. Accredited ( talk) 13:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
After long and useless discussions as above and elsewhere, and the fact that Accredited does not seem to try to state a neutral and referenced fact but rather to push through is own POV I end this discussion. To state the facts for the last time:
Note to Accredited: The websites you mentioned seem to be a mirror image of old versions of the wikipedia articles; they are not Muslim websites. Lastly, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for itself.-- Be happy!! ( talk) 22:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Devotus does not seem to try to state a neutral and referenced fact but rather to push through his own POV.
1. It is high time that you substantiate or retract the statement that Banu Nadir "had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench."
2. It reads that Akhtab and his son were killed alongside the men of Banu Qurayza they tried to recruit to join the battle. By insisting to delete this it is clear to me that Devotus has some ideological motivation for participating in Wikipedia - I do not tolerate such conduct.
3. Neither the Encyclopaedia of Islam nor Watt had said that they had "participated in attacking the Muslim community."
4. Devotus claims that his version is consistent with those works which I don't have but he failed to provide any reference.
Note to Aminz: The websites I mentioned are indeed Muslim websites. The name "Islam Pakistanway" speaks for itself. The Wikipedia text was comprehensive, balanced and of long standing until your colleague embarked on rewriting history. Accredited ( talk) 09:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing biased by "Islam Pakistanway" to state the fact that only Akhtab and his son rather than the whole Banu Nadir tribe, joined the siege of Medina.
Here is what Devotus had to say:
see above. it doesn't say hat they joined the siege, it sais they had participated in attacking the Muslims; there's a difference. --Devotus (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
How would the Banu Nadir participate in attacking the Muslims if they did not join the siege? Accredited (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not here to give you private lessons. End of discussion. --Devotus (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The question remains unanswered. Accredited ( talk) 08:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Accredited, please do not continue this. Here is yet another quote for you (The New Encyclopedia of Islam, p.81):
In 5/627 the Meccan Quraysh prepared to attack the Muslims in a massed battle with an army, called afterwards the "Confederates". The Quraysh had made an alliance with certain desert tribes, the Banu Ghaftan, and Jews of the Banu Nadir who had emigrated from Medina to Khaybar.
The Meccan army was made up of 4000 from Mecca and 5000 or more from the allies, with a total of 1000 cavalry. The Medinans numbered 3000.
According to Ḥizb article from Encyclopedia of Islam
Sūra al-Aḥzāb, deals with the siege of Medina by the Jewish tribes allied with those of Mecca , Nad̲j̲d and Tihāma
-- Be happy!! ( talk) 10:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Another quote: "In 5/627, the Meccans, accompanied by tribal allies among whom were the exiled Jews of the B. al-Naḍīr, again appeared with an army before Medina." F. Donner: Muhammad's Political Consolidation in Arabia up to the Conquest of Mecca in The Muslim World 69 (1979), p.233. As far as I know, any academic who writes about this topic confirms this fact. -- Devotus ( talk) 12:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an affront to human decency. You may quote the actual words and provide the reference. The only Banu Nadir members who joined the siege were Akhtab and his son. An authoritative breakdown of the 10,000 who participated in the attack makes no mention of the Banu Nadir tribe. Accredited ( talk) 17:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Accredited: what books (academic literatur that is) have you read to be able to state this, contrary to all references given by Aminz and me? -- Devotus ( talk) 19:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The detailed composition of the armies is explicitly stated in the Battle of the Trench along with the appropriate references. Accredited ( talk) 10:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
So none. Then it's settled: the statements are sourced and in accordance to the references given. -- Devotus ( talk) 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The Banu Nadir tribe did not participate in the siege of Medina as evidenced by the references including Ibn Hisham. Accredited ( talk) 10:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
At least now we're not only sure that you're using your IP as a sockpuppet, but can also prove it. [19] References have been provided in amounts, primary sources are not to be used here. To participate in attacking someone does not necessarily include sending an army, there are also other ways, as in the case of Nadir, who among other things send their chieftain to persuade quraiza to fight against the Muslims. -- Devotus ( talk) 11:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. -- Devotus ( talk) 12:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to add that "they had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench" lest it be interpreted that they had sent an army.
However, it should be mentioned that their chieftain not only tried to induce the neighboring Arabs but he also joined the siege and attempted to recruit Banu Qurayza to join the battle. Accredited ( talk) 13:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
To participate in attacking does not necessarily mean that they sent troops, there are many ways to do that. -- Devotus ( talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is quite misleading. People can't read your mind. One has to be more precise.
After their expulsion from Medina, the chieftains of Banu Nadir, along with the chieftains of other Jews living in Khaybar tried to induce the neighbouring Arabs and especially the strong tribe of Ghatafan to participate in attacking the Muslim community. [1] [2] The Nadir chief Huyayy ibn Akhtab together with his son had furthermore joined the Meccans and Bedouins besieging Medina during the Battle of the Trench. According to Watt, "this was a straightforward reason for attacking Khaybar." [3] However, modern scholars agree that one reason for attacking Khaybar was to raise Muhammad's prestige among his followers by making booty. [4] Huyayy ibn Akhtab unsuccessfully attempted to recruit the Banu Qurayza within Medina to join the fight against the Muslims. After the battle, the Muslims besieged the Banu Qurayza until they surrendered, and both Huyayy and his son were killed by order of Muhammad alongside all the men of the Banu Qurayza whose women and children were enslaved. [5] Accredited ( talk) 08:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
After weeks now, I for myself have certainly said enough. Stating that they participated has a wide range of possible meanings, so there's nothing misleading here. the "However" is POV. The Qurayza-incident has no relation to the conquest of Khaybar. -- Devotus ( talk) 09:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it preferable to say it in precise words with clear meaning? To say that "they participated in attacking" is certainly misleading. You may delete the "However" and the Banu Qurayza if that would make you feel better. Accredited ( talk) 09:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't have anything to do with feelings. If we would be precise we would exactly state how they participated, because senidng ibn Akhtab was only a part of it. Besides: who sais they didn't send troops (no OR)? The correct way is to state it they way it's stated in academic circles. -- Devotus ( talk) 09:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Accredited, please find an academic source that supports your claim that only ibn Akhtab was present; clearly and not ambiguously just as Devotus and I did in substantiating our claim. Your personal view is not sufficient. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 09:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The statement that Banu Nadir "had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community in the Battle of the Trench" indicates that they sent their own troops. Who said that? Quite the contrary, the Islamic sources including Ibn Hisham and Halabi on the detailed composition of the armies at the Battle of the Trench are unequivocal. Accredited ( talk) 13:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The above in no way indicates that there were any Banu Nadir troops in the army.
Here is the detailed composition of the armies of the confederates at the Battle of Trench.
The bulk of the Confederate armies were gathered by the pagan Quraysh of Mecca, led by Abu Sufyan, who fielded 4,000 foot soldiers, 300 horsemen, and 1,000-1,500 men on camels. [6]
Banu Nadir began rousing up the nomads of Najd. They bribed the Banu Ghatafan with half their harvest. [7] [8] This contingent, the second largest, added a strength of about 2,000 men 300 horsemen led by Unaina bin Hasan Fazari. Bani Asad also agreed to join them led by Tuleha Asadi. [6] From the Banu Sulaym, the Nadir secured 700 men, though it would have been much larger had some of its leaders not been sympathetic towards Islam. The Bani Amir, who had a pact with Muhammad, refused to join. [9]
Other tribes included the Banu Murra with 400 men led by Hars bin Auf Murri; Banu Shuja with 700 men led by Sufyanbin Abdu-Shams. In total, the strength of the Confederate armies, though not agreed upon by scholars, is estimated around 10,000. [6] Accredited ( talk) 08:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have been blocked for days from responding to you on the references on the article talk page.
Here are the pertinent references on the armies composition in the Battle of the Trench.
7. ^ a b c d Lings, Muhammad: his life based on the earliest sources, p. 215-6.
8. ^ a b c al-Halabi, Sirat-i-Halbiyyah (Vol. II, part 12), p. 19.
Furthermore, the long standing text since June 14, 2006, that you deleted is sourced and referenced to Stillman (1979), p. 17 in which he states: "The Jews of this rich oasis must have clearly understood the danger they were in. Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the battle of the Trench." Apparently, they were the exiled Banu Nadir Jews who again appeared with an army before Medina since no source makes mention of any Banu Nadir troops in the army. Your statement that indicates that Watt had said and modern scholars also agree that Muhammad attacked Khaybar because the Jews had furthermore "participated in attacking the Muslims" is false. Accredited ( talk) 14:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
1. The Wikipedia article on the Battle of the Trench quoted above explicitly states which part is derived from Lings and which part of the composition of the armies is derived from al-Halabi. Neither makes mention of any Banu Nadir troops.
2. Stillman is clearly speaking about all the Jews in Khaybar including the exiled Banu Nadir when he mentions that "Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina." This is precisely the same as your quote "the exiled Jews of the B. al-Naḍīr, again appeared with an army before Medina." Accredited ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.5.214 ( talk) 13:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Although your attention was repeatedly drawn that there were no Jewish troops in the army you keep charging that "they had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community". According to all sources, the army was actually composed of Meccan and Bedouin forces.
Watt never said such a thing much less claim that this is the reason for attacking Khaybar.
Who said that modern scholars agree not only with Watt's view that it had to do with the intrigue with Arab neighbors but also with Devotus's version on participation in the attack? Accredited ( talk) 62.90.5.215 ( talk) 08:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It is most appropriate to restore the long standing text since June 14, 2006 which is sourced and adopted by Islam Pakistanway. There was no justification for deleting it in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Banu_Nadir&diff=200321436&oldid=200294428 http://islam.pakistanway.com/showtopic.aspx?topicid=258&typeid=25 Accredited ( talk) 13:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Here we go again. Your repetitious deletion of the long standing sourced text in order to force your erroneous version is in flagrant violation of the rules and not suitable. Accredited ( talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you can show me scholars who maintain that...
The fate of the Qurayza has no connection to the battle of Khaybar; there is no need to mention it here, except you want to establish your own theory.-- Devotus ( talk) 20:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The long standing text since June 14, 2006, that you keep deleting is sourced and referenced to Stillman (1979), p. 17 in which he states: "The Jews of this rich oasis must have clearly understood the danger they were in. Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the battle of the Trench." Apparently, they were the exiled Banu Nadir Jews among the Meccans, accompanied by tribal allies who again appeared with an army before Medina since no source makes mention of any Banu Nadir troops in the army. Your statement that indicates that Watt had said and modern scholars also agree that Muhammad attacked Khaybar because the Jews had furthermore "participated in attacking the Muslims" is false.
I had repeatedly deleted the obvious that the Jews were afraid of being attacked by Muhammad and that Akhtab was killed alongside the men of Banu Qurayza he unsuccessfully attempted to recruit to join the fight but you still were not satisfied. If you insist on inserting your unfounded assertion "they had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community" in the middle of Watt's words "to induce the neighbouring Arabs to take up arms against the Muslims. This was a straightforward reason for attacking Khaybar." we'll have to submit it for moderation to make an appropriate decision. Accredited ( talk) 10:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Just answer the questions: provide refs for those suggestions. Stillman isn't enough when Watt in his standard work, the EI (outlining the current state of research) and other refs, as Aminz and me have already provided are opposing him.-- Devotus ( talk) 13:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You may quote Watt all you want. Just don't put words in his mouth. Accredited ( talk) 16:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Stillman's assertion that "Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina" stands. Neither Watt nor any other scholar has said that there were any Banu Nadir troops in the army that participated in attacking the Muslim community. Quite the contrary, all sources on the detailed composition of the allied army at the Battle of the Trench confirm the absence of any Banu Nadir combatants. Accredited ( talk) 08:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)