This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The discussion of the dispute surrounding this article is taking place, at Talk:Banu Nadir. Please see. Publicola 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at the repeated insertions here, and found the what Publicola is inserting has partly been taken word for word from [1]. This is in violation of US copyright law. Due to this, the legal implications of it and the constant edit warring, I have protected the page. All involved editors, please work out an acceptable, non copyvio version here, and come to consensus. After that, the protection will be lifted. pschemp | talk 18:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I understand that the original is in public domain. However, no article here links to the original, or uses the publication information of the original for a reference. Instead, they all link to jewishencyclopdia.com, which notes in its terms of use, "3.2 You may search, retrieve, display, download, and print content from the Service solely for your personal, internal use, and shall make no other use of the content without the express written permission of JE.com and the copyright owner (or its authorized agent) of such content." My point is that while a reference to the orginal publication information is ok, using the website as the only one is not, as they have made a claim of copyright. Its a technical legal thing and easily fixed if someone digs up the orginal publication information and refers to that instead. (HINT - I just told you how to fix this). pschemp | talk 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that the original publication info should be used, the website has no claim of copyright over the text of the article. JE.com's "terms of use" have no legal force vis a vis the text of various articles, over which they are barred by copyright law from claiming any rights. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Mediation is in progress at Talk:Banu Nadir and the mediation page.
I have placed my preferred version at Banu Qaynuqa/mpov (m=multiple; see my userpage for details) in hopes that others will edit it to achieve a compromise mediation version while this article is protected. Publicola 22:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
This came up in discussion with another user concerning the debate around the Banu Qaynuqa's war, which was really the first time Jews and Muslims ever fought, isn't it? If you accept the story about the war escalating from the stripped naked woman in the jewlery store:
As an agnostic non-Muslim, non-Jew, I hope that God is the sort that would keep a nice, friendly universe around along with our drama-filled one for strictly experimental purposes, and judges us all by how well we can calm things down. I sure have a long way to go! Publicola 10:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I just read the article, and its just horribly anti-islamic pov. This version needs to get back as soon as possible. -- Striver 22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This was blocked weeks ago and there is no discussion here, but I understand that it may be the subject of mediation. Is there a general feeling that this article must still be protected, or should I release protection to see what happens? -- Tony Sidaway 22:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the current version is pretty well balanced. I wish I could look up those online Islam encyclopedia articles. Publicola 12:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I've gone through the whole thing and removed unnecessary "the"s. "Banu" is translated into "the sons/daughters of", one of the two plural forms of "bin" (the other form being "Bani"). For the sake of consistency, we'll keep them all as "Banu". My logic: adding another "the" would translate to "the the sons/daughters of". A logical change, yes? An obvious exception to having an additional "the" would be something like "the Banu Qaynuqa tribe", since 'the' in this case refers to the tribe, and reads (grammatically/syntactically) smoothly (....the...tribe...). The same change has been applied previously to Banu Nadir/mpov. Cheers. -- How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 13:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently somebody went back in time and interviewed each of the converts as to the reasons behind their individual conversions. Without really saying much more, I'd simply like to get supporting documentation on this, that's all. -- How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 14:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, and with all due respect...do you honestly believe that you or anyone has the authority to factually ascertain the motivations behind the conversion of some of the tribe's members, or for that matter even any motivations of Muhammad or anyone else? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim...so at the risk of starting another revert/edit-war, I still maintain that this assertion is highly dubious. Make the reversion if you must...just prove it...is that too much to ask? -- How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The Sealed Nectar is definitely a reliable source. The biography was written by a scholar and then awarded first prize by Muslim World League, which means that the biography must have been reviwed by scholars of the organization and these scholars must have overwhelmingly agreed with the content. Bless sins 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, please don't remove longstanding material without achieving concensus on talk page. Bless sins 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Conditions of the pact, according to traditional sources, included boycotting Quraysh, abstinence from "extending any support to them", assistance of one another if attacked by a third party, as well as "defending Medina, in case of a foreign attack".
It's a shame that an anon is being used for revert-warring. It's really strange the way that Muslims on wikipedia quote Ibn Hisham for good things about Muhammad, but start complaining when he's used for bad things. A little self-reflection might be in order. "An intellectual is a mind that watches itself." Arrow740 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the second anon that has edited without using the page. The factually accuracy is disputed because the scholarly consensus on the constitution is that there is no consensus, and so what we have is not neutral because it is presenting dubious positive information about Muhammad. Arrow740 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Wensinck says: "The Banu Kaynuka a did not, however, emigrate to the last man. A few members of the tribe embraced Islam, perhaps more from opportunism than from conviction, and these could remain at Medina. lbn Hishãm /lbn Ishaq gives a list of 30 Kaynuka adversaries of the Prophet (351 f.). This may refer to the time before the expulsion, but five or six of the names in the list reappear in Waqidi’s report on Ibn Ubayy’s funeral (in 9/631) among those hypocrites “from Banu Kaynuka and others” who pressed forward to the bier."
retaining their belongings may have been one incentive, but the oppurtunism that Wensinck points to can connote various things (some of which more apparent than retaining possessions), which is why i suggest we stick to that wording instead of original deductions. ITAQALLAH 07:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, Abd-allah was called a hypocrite beause he was a Muslim (obviously). Also, don't ever use the intentionally obfuscatory passive voice in articles. Scholarship after Watt has cast serious doubt on the "negotiations" described in Ibn Hisham. The Wensick quote already indicated the doubt placed Ibn Hisham's backdated justifications for ethnic cleansing. Arrow740 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This was made by me. Apologies for not signing. Bless sins 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the reason for presenting so prominently in the article the view by Shibli Nomani that the Qaynuqa's response to Muhammad was "a declaration of war"? Beit Or 20:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The article claims with reference to Ibn Ishaq that "Traditional Muslim sources view these episodes as a violation of the Constitution of Medina." However, Ibn Ishaq says something entirely different: "Asim b. Umar b. Qatada said that the B. Qaynuqa were the first of the Jews to break their agreement with the apostle and to go to war, between Badr and Uhud..." A claim made by one non-notable man (a grandson of a companion of Muhammad) is extrapolated to all traditional Muslim sources. Beit Or 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
<reset>1) the narrative of Asim mentions the breaking of the agreement (i.e. the Constitution of Medina) by Qaynuqa; 2) can we conclude that it is Asim's personal view? certainly not according to Ibn Ishaq, who merely attributes the statement to Asim. 3) Asim's statement has been represented in Ibn Ishaq and Tabari. of course, they may not endorse Asim's statement (esp. in the case of Tabari); however, as i pointed out earlier, almost all of the narrative relating to these events is seemingly based upon the words of Asim b. Umar b. Qatada, including the interecession of Ibn Ubayy and Muhammad's reported irritation (which has been cited to Guillame's translation and assumedly Stillman's translation of the same passage). assuming that you want the attribution to "traditional Muslim sources" scaled down to Asim himself (correct me if i'm wrong on that assumption), would you also agree to employ the same attribution to other aspects of the narratives resting upon the words of Asim? in the meantime, i will look through other Islamic works of sira which should be sufficient as representation of "traditional Muslim sources." ITAQALLAH 18:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
What Beit Or added [2] is basically analysis of facts (or alleged facts). actualy, we can even call this "speculation". I don't really have a problem when notable scholars add analysis. But others shouldn't either. For example if I add Maududi's analysis to an article it shoudln't be attacked and removed. Bless sins 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or also added: "Donner argues that Muhammad turned against the Qaynuqa because as artisans and traders, the latter were in close contact with Meccan merchants against whom Muhammad had already commenced hostilities". I'm pretty sure that violates the Constitution of Medina, which included the boycott of Quraysh. Let me check. Bless sins 23:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740 reverted my edits and re-added "...Meccan merchants against whom Muhammad had already commenced hostilities". If this is indeed Donner's view, then I'll find plently of scholars who outright disagree with him. It is well-established that the Quraysh began persecuting Muslims, tortured them, trying to exterminate them, attacked Medina etc. Muhammad didn't "commence hositilities" with the Quraysh as Donner would have us believe. Bless sins 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"Modern historians, however, do not find credence in these narratives" - makes perfect sense. it means that they do not find the narratives to be credible, or that they don't accept them as accurate. furthermore, and it goes without saying, what it replaced was totally misleading. Beit Or, if you have no further qualms, i request you self rv. ITAQALLAH 19:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
re [3], the reason for mentioning Stillman is to attribute the claim that ibn Ubayy was called a munafiq "for this interference" (emphasis mine). ITAQALLAH 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"...do not find in these events the exact circumstances surrounding Muhammad's attack " is better than saying "underlying reason". This is because the discussion is mainly about the events not about resons.
Thus it is reasonable to use the words "exact circumstances surrounding Muhammad's attack", as that is truer to the arguments and more NPOV. Bless sins 04:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, your partial quote reads: "...Muhammad regarded that as casus belli, and collected a force to beseige the clan. There were doubtless some negotiations..." Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be on Google books, so I cannot check the context. It would be nice if, as on Banu Qurayza, you would share the entire passage. Judging from this excerpt alone, I do not believe it is justified to rephrase this as, "It was certain, according to Watt, that the siege must have been preceded by some sort of negotiations." While it's true that "doubtless" has the same "literal" import as "It is certain," in practice the latter is far stronger than the former, which in context suggests inference rather then verified truth. Proabivouac 22:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The words "In the Muslim tradition" are absolutely necessary in the sentence about Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy being chracterized as a hypocrite. A munafiq is a Muslim term; it makes no sense outside the Muslim tradition. Watt may not say so outright, but he clearly implies that, and Stillman, for example, does add these words. Scholars do not qualify every statement by saying it's only true from the Muslim viewpoint. For example, EoI and many other works on Islam call Muhammad "the Prophet"; however, it would be totally wrong to infer that scholars indeed believe Muhammad was a prophet. Beit Or 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or, would you please explain why you removed Watt's view here [4]? Watt says Muhammad was insisting that the Qaynuqa must leave but was prepared to be linient about other conditions (not that they should be killed). -- Aminz 21:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I am okay with summerizing Ibn Ishaq's quote as long as we keep all the main points: 1. Why Ibn Ubay defended them. 2. Why Muhammad was irritated. 3. How did the story end.
In any case, the interpretations of the text by Cook and Watt should be kept. -- Aminz 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It was written on this article (before I edited it) that the cause of the invasion was that a muslim woman got her clothes pinned and assaulted by the Jews. And it was stated that the sources were Guillaume 363, Stillman 122, ibn Kathir 2
But "Guillaume" which means Ibn Ishaq's work he translated, doesn't contain anything at all of the aforementioned story on its page 363.
You can check it here:
https://archive.org/details/GuillaumeATheLifeOfMuhammad
Instead the page only talk about Muhammad after raiding many tribes, went back to Medina and gathered the jews in their marketplace and started inviting them to islam with threats and bad talks. Which in turn provoked the jews to retort, and a dispute arose, with a verse revealed to Muhammad from God that the jews would be defeated.
This raises my suspicion that the other 2 sources could be false as well.
So if anyone insists that the sources are true, they could bring screenshots or photos of the claimed sources to prove the story.
Arief1982 ( talk) 18:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Which resulted in the jews getting angry and declaring war as they said they would deat the muskims unlike the quraysh who couldnt
Muhammad, do you think that we are like your people? Do not be deluded by the fact that you met a people with no knowledge of war and that you made good use of your opportunity. By God, if you fight us you will know that we are real men!
Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.40.187.18 (
talk) 2:39, 22 Aug 2021 (UTC)
On one hand, it is true, that Ibn Kathir is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Yet, this story of the assault on the Muslim lady is found in secondary sources ( this book, page 33). Arief1982, I do not find your edits to be helpful and will revert them. Can you discuss your changes here first? VR talk 14:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The discussion of the dispute surrounding this article is taking place, at Talk:Banu Nadir. Please see. Publicola 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at the repeated insertions here, and found the what Publicola is inserting has partly been taken word for word from [1]. This is in violation of US copyright law. Due to this, the legal implications of it and the constant edit warring, I have protected the page. All involved editors, please work out an acceptable, non copyvio version here, and come to consensus. After that, the protection will be lifted. pschemp | talk 18:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I understand that the original is in public domain. However, no article here links to the original, or uses the publication information of the original for a reference. Instead, they all link to jewishencyclopdia.com, which notes in its terms of use, "3.2 You may search, retrieve, display, download, and print content from the Service solely for your personal, internal use, and shall make no other use of the content without the express written permission of JE.com and the copyright owner (or its authorized agent) of such content." My point is that while a reference to the orginal publication information is ok, using the website as the only one is not, as they have made a claim of copyright. Its a technical legal thing and easily fixed if someone digs up the orginal publication information and refers to that instead. (HINT - I just told you how to fix this). pschemp | talk 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that the original publication info should be used, the website has no claim of copyright over the text of the article. JE.com's "terms of use" have no legal force vis a vis the text of various articles, over which they are barred by copyright law from claiming any rights. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Mediation is in progress at Talk:Banu Nadir and the mediation page.
I have placed my preferred version at Banu Qaynuqa/mpov (m=multiple; see my userpage for details) in hopes that others will edit it to achieve a compromise mediation version while this article is protected. Publicola 22:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
This came up in discussion with another user concerning the debate around the Banu Qaynuqa's war, which was really the first time Jews and Muslims ever fought, isn't it? If you accept the story about the war escalating from the stripped naked woman in the jewlery store:
As an agnostic non-Muslim, non-Jew, I hope that God is the sort that would keep a nice, friendly universe around along with our drama-filled one for strictly experimental purposes, and judges us all by how well we can calm things down. I sure have a long way to go! Publicola 10:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I just read the article, and its just horribly anti-islamic pov. This version needs to get back as soon as possible. -- Striver 22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This was blocked weeks ago and there is no discussion here, but I understand that it may be the subject of mediation. Is there a general feeling that this article must still be protected, or should I release protection to see what happens? -- Tony Sidaway 22:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the current version is pretty well balanced. I wish I could look up those online Islam encyclopedia articles. Publicola 12:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I've gone through the whole thing and removed unnecessary "the"s. "Banu" is translated into "the sons/daughters of", one of the two plural forms of "bin" (the other form being "Bani"). For the sake of consistency, we'll keep them all as "Banu". My logic: adding another "the" would translate to "the the sons/daughters of". A logical change, yes? An obvious exception to having an additional "the" would be something like "the Banu Qaynuqa tribe", since 'the' in this case refers to the tribe, and reads (grammatically/syntactically) smoothly (....the...tribe...). The same change has been applied previously to Banu Nadir/mpov. Cheers. -- How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 13:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently somebody went back in time and interviewed each of the converts as to the reasons behind their individual conversions. Without really saying much more, I'd simply like to get supporting documentation on this, that's all. -- How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 14:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, and with all due respect...do you honestly believe that you or anyone has the authority to factually ascertain the motivations behind the conversion of some of the tribe's members, or for that matter even any motivations of Muhammad or anyone else? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim...so at the risk of starting another revert/edit-war, I still maintain that this assertion is highly dubious. Make the reversion if you must...just prove it...is that too much to ask? -- How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The Sealed Nectar is definitely a reliable source. The biography was written by a scholar and then awarded first prize by Muslim World League, which means that the biography must have been reviwed by scholars of the organization and these scholars must have overwhelmingly agreed with the content. Bless sins 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, please don't remove longstanding material without achieving concensus on talk page. Bless sins 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Conditions of the pact, according to traditional sources, included boycotting Quraysh, abstinence from "extending any support to them", assistance of one another if attacked by a third party, as well as "defending Medina, in case of a foreign attack".
It's a shame that an anon is being used for revert-warring. It's really strange the way that Muslims on wikipedia quote Ibn Hisham for good things about Muhammad, but start complaining when he's used for bad things. A little self-reflection might be in order. "An intellectual is a mind that watches itself." Arrow740 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the second anon that has edited without using the page. The factually accuracy is disputed because the scholarly consensus on the constitution is that there is no consensus, and so what we have is not neutral because it is presenting dubious positive information about Muhammad. Arrow740 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Wensinck says: "The Banu Kaynuka a did not, however, emigrate to the last man. A few members of the tribe embraced Islam, perhaps more from opportunism than from conviction, and these could remain at Medina. lbn Hishãm /lbn Ishaq gives a list of 30 Kaynuka adversaries of the Prophet (351 f.). This may refer to the time before the expulsion, but five or six of the names in the list reappear in Waqidi’s report on Ibn Ubayy’s funeral (in 9/631) among those hypocrites “from Banu Kaynuka and others” who pressed forward to the bier."
retaining their belongings may have been one incentive, but the oppurtunism that Wensinck points to can connote various things (some of which more apparent than retaining possessions), which is why i suggest we stick to that wording instead of original deductions. ITAQALLAH 07:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, Abd-allah was called a hypocrite beause he was a Muslim (obviously). Also, don't ever use the intentionally obfuscatory passive voice in articles. Scholarship after Watt has cast serious doubt on the "negotiations" described in Ibn Hisham. The Wensick quote already indicated the doubt placed Ibn Hisham's backdated justifications for ethnic cleansing. Arrow740 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This was made by me. Apologies for not signing. Bless sins 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the reason for presenting so prominently in the article the view by Shibli Nomani that the Qaynuqa's response to Muhammad was "a declaration of war"? Beit Or 20:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The article claims with reference to Ibn Ishaq that "Traditional Muslim sources view these episodes as a violation of the Constitution of Medina." However, Ibn Ishaq says something entirely different: "Asim b. Umar b. Qatada said that the B. Qaynuqa were the first of the Jews to break their agreement with the apostle and to go to war, between Badr and Uhud..." A claim made by one non-notable man (a grandson of a companion of Muhammad) is extrapolated to all traditional Muslim sources. Beit Or 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
<reset>1) the narrative of Asim mentions the breaking of the agreement (i.e. the Constitution of Medina) by Qaynuqa; 2) can we conclude that it is Asim's personal view? certainly not according to Ibn Ishaq, who merely attributes the statement to Asim. 3) Asim's statement has been represented in Ibn Ishaq and Tabari. of course, they may not endorse Asim's statement (esp. in the case of Tabari); however, as i pointed out earlier, almost all of the narrative relating to these events is seemingly based upon the words of Asim b. Umar b. Qatada, including the interecession of Ibn Ubayy and Muhammad's reported irritation (which has been cited to Guillame's translation and assumedly Stillman's translation of the same passage). assuming that you want the attribution to "traditional Muslim sources" scaled down to Asim himself (correct me if i'm wrong on that assumption), would you also agree to employ the same attribution to other aspects of the narratives resting upon the words of Asim? in the meantime, i will look through other Islamic works of sira which should be sufficient as representation of "traditional Muslim sources." ITAQALLAH 18:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
What Beit Or added [2] is basically analysis of facts (or alleged facts). actualy, we can even call this "speculation". I don't really have a problem when notable scholars add analysis. But others shouldn't either. For example if I add Maududi's analysis to an article it shoudln't be attacked and removed. Bless sins 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or also added: "Donner argues that Muhammad turned against the Qaynuqa because as artisans and traders, the latter were in close contact with Meccan merchants against whom Muhammad had already commenced hostilities". I'm pretty sure that violates the Constitution of Medina, which included the boycott of Quraysh. Let me check. Bless sins 23:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740 reverted my edits and re-added "...Meccan merchants against whom Muhammad had already commenced hostilities". If this is indeed Donner's view, then I'll find plently of scholars who outright disagree with him. It is well-established that the Quraysh began persecuting Muslims, tortured them, trying to exterminate them, attacked Medina etc. Muhammad didn't "commence hositilities" with the Quraysh as Donner would have us believe. Bless sins 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"Modern historians, however, do not find credence in these narratives" - makes perfect sense. it means that they do not find the narratives to be credible, or that they don't accept them as accurate. furthermore, and it goes without saying, what it replaced was totally misleading. Beit Or, if you have no further qualms, i request you self rv. ITAQALLAH 19:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
re [3], the reason for mentioning Stillman is to attribute the claim that ibn Ubayy was called a munafiq "for this interference" (emphasis mine). ITAQALLAH 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"...do not find in these events the exact circumstances surrounding Muhammad's attack " is better than saying "underlying reason". This is because the discussion is mainly about the events not about resons.
Thus it is reasonable to use the words "exact circumstances surrounding Muhammad's attack", as that is truer to the arguments and more NPOV. Bless sins 04:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, your partial quote reads: "...Muhammad regarded that as casus belli, and collected a force to beseige the clan. There were doubtless some negotiations..." Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be on Google books, so I cannot check the context. It would be nice if, as on Banu Qurayza, you would share the entire passage. Judging from this excerpt alone, I do not believe it is justified to rephrase this as, "It was certain, according to Watt, that the siege must have been preceded by some sort of negotiations." While it's true that "doubtless" has the same "literal" import as "It is certain," in practice the latter is far stronger than the former, which in context suggests inference rather then verified truth. Proabivouac 22:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The words "In the Muslim tradition" are absolutely necessary in the sentence about Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy being chracterized as a hypocrite. A munafiq is a Muslim term; it makes no sense outside the Muslim tradition. Watt may not say so outright, but he clearly implies that, and Stillman, for example, does add these words. Scholars do not qualify every statement by saying it's only true from the Muslim viewpoint. For example, EoI and many other works on Islam call Muhammad "the Prophet"; however, it would be totally wrong to infer that scholars indeed believe Muhammad was a prophet. Beit Or 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or, would you please explain why you removed Watt's view here [4]? Watt says Muhammad was insisting that the Qaynuqa must leave but was prepared to be linient about other conditions (not that they should be killed). -- Aminz 21:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I am okay with summerizing Ibn Ishaq's quote as long as we keep all the main points: 1. Why Ibn Ubay defended them. 2. Why Muhammad was irritated. 3. How did the story end.
In any case, the interpretations of the text by Cook and Watt should be kept. -- Aminz 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It was written on this article (before I edited it) that the cause of the invasion was that a muslim woman got her clothes pinned and assaulted by the Jews. And it was stated that the sources were Guillaume 363, Stillman 122, ibn Kathir 2
But "Guillaume" which means Ibn Ishaq's work he translated, doesn't contain anything at all of the aforementioned story on its page 363.
You can check it here:
https://archive.org/details/GuillaumeATheLifeOfMuhammad
Instead the page only talk about Muhammad after raiding many tribes, went back to Medina and gathered the jews in their marketplace and started inviting them to islam with threats and bad talks. Which in turn provoked the jews to retort, and a dispute arose, with a verse revealed to Muhammad from God that the jews would be defeated.
This raises my suspicion that the other 2 sources could be false as well.
So if anyone insists that the sources are true, they could bring screenshots or photos of the claimed sources to prove the story.
Arief1982 ( talk) 18:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Which resulted in the jews getting angry and declaring war as they said they would deat the muskims unlike the quraysh who couldnt
Muhammad, do you think that we are like your people? Do not be deluded by the fact that you met a people with no knowledge of war and that you made good use of your opportunity. By God, if you fight us you will know that we are real men!
Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.40.187.18 (
talk) 2:39, 22 Aug 2021 (UTC)
On one hand, it is true, that Ibn Kathir is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Yet, this story of the assault on the Muslim lady is found in secondary sources ( this book, page 33). Arief1982, I do not find your edits to be helpful and will revert them. Can you discuss your changes here first? VR talk 14:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)