![]() | This page 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. |
Most of this article is snipped from this site whose google cache page has been given cuz the site is down. If the article is not removed of the plagiarized version, I'm afraid it has to be tagged as copyvio in a day or two.
Words like "(may Allah bless him and grant him peace)" after the Prophet were obvious giveaways since this is the tone used by non-secular editors. Idleguy 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is neutral, for example it doesn't say anything about the tax the jews had to pay.
This article is ridiculous, it blames the entire battle on the Jews even though most neutral historians consider it a battle of conquest against a weaker tribe. I'm deleting everything besides the infobox until somone can rewrite it with a NPOV.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This last version is even more ridiculous than the regular telling. Timothy Usher 21:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Timothy Usher, if u disagree with the way i described the battle of Khaybar, then you are free like a bird to make corrections but please don't erase the whole article. If you want, you can create a section within the article about the battle from the Jews point of view. OKAy! Salman Shah
Thats funny, "a section in the article from the Jews point of view", how about an actual article written in a neutral pov. The reason the written part of the article need to be deleted as it currently stands is becasue it is written with an extreme pov in its entirety, deleting a few passages won't help.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Further, it is totally unsourced. Can we start by asking where you are getting all this information?
p.s. as for "violating the women", Muhammad himself violated a woman named Safiyah after torturing her husband and beheading him. Oh, excuse me, married her. No doubt voluntary, eh? Nothing like beheading a woman's husband to get her in the mood. Nor is this the "Jews' point of view", but the Muslims' own records. Only God knows what the victims themselves would have added. Timothy Usher 02:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Then why don't you wirite the article and i will add things. Its better then leaving the article blank. OKAY! Salman Shah
Salman01, what's up with blanking the talk page?
Timothy Usher 21:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not know enough about the battle to rewrite it myself, so until someone more knowledgebale than me can write a neutral article, the present version is just not aceptable. It is the most bias and un-neutral article I have seen on wikipedia, a POV tag is just not enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I concur.
Timothy Usher 00:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Then it is your job to find out a "more knowledgeable" person than yourself, until then leave the article alone. I have also contacted all of people to some and solve this problem. So just wait till you find your knowledgeable people and the people that will help me solve this problem. OK!!!! Salman Shah
Actually your wrong, it is not "our job". Our job is to make the article the best it can be, so were not going to just leave the article like it is, that is completley ridiculous.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Then instaed of deleting the whole article, edit it! Salman Shah
I think what he is saying is that that's his edit. Why don't we try to build this up from an uncontroversial stub instead? I'll see if I can come up with something. Copying and pasting some outrageously biased, unsourced retelling of events is not the way to go. Timothy Usher 00:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I would venture to say that every single noun and adjective in the article is unacceptable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
To say nothing of the verbs. Even the definite articles are on the strident side. As for the stub idea, it seems Salman has already done it. Great. Now we can start anew. Timothy Usher 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Salman01, "the Muslims" is not specific. Which Muslims? You? The Ottoman Empire? That is why I wrote, "Muhammad and his followers." The link brings one to the page of the prophet in case anyone is confused. This is similarly why "The Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza" is preferable to "the Jews." Please do not revert without joining discussion. Timothy Usher 01:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Plus they weren't exactly "Muslims" yet. We don't refer to the followers of Jesus during his life time as "Christians".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
No guys!! Each and every person who was fighting the war from the side of Prophet Muhammad was Muslim. Because once you say the Qalma you become a muslim, there is nothing in between! Each and every person who fought the war from the muslim side said the Qalma and therefore was a muslim. Salman Shah
Each and every one? Wow. you must know all the people who fought! Can you list them here I think that would be interesting. when we have the total list of every single person who was there then we can checkl just to make super sure everyone said the qalma. Thats the there is no god but God and muhamed is His prophet thing right? I just said it, can i be a muslim now? AgreeToBe
I do bro but they keep on erasing it. Not on this page but on some other page! Salman Shah
You may call them muslims, but it is really anachronistic. Really they were proto-muslims, because the religion hadn't been completley developed yet. Like in christianity people think that Jesus had preached evey single aspect of christianity during his lifetime, but really Jesus had created very little of what we know as christianity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Like just to give one example of what i think youre talking about and im sure there are probablyy a bunch more like this but,suppose you were there when muhammed said that al-Lat,al-'Uzza and Manat were high-flying cranes whose intercession was desirable, before this was taken back. you were a follower of muhammed but were you a muslim yet? does that mnake any sense? AgreeToBe
What are you talking about bro Al-Lat and Al-Uzza were worshiped by the Maccans. Who ever believed in the ideology was not a Muslims. After the people said Qalma, they never worshiped idols; which shows that people that were with Prophet Muhammad were true Muslims and after converting to Islam they never worshiped Idols. Thank You Salman Shah
Wait a minute...I thought there was something funny about this, and there is: the Jews of Khaybar are not the Bani Qurayza. This was confusing me. They were their own tribe. The Bani Qurayza were famously beheaded. Only some of the Khaybar were. Timothy Usher 05:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yea I was wondering why it was the same tribe in this battle.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
+++ All that aside, would someone with knowledge of the legends of the region's Jews please rewrite the legend presented at the end of the article for intelligibility?
Cy
This article is nowhere near new! I've worked on this months back and this article is so last year. Please check the dates before posting in the front page as a new article (DYK entries have to be no more than 5 days old). This article was created in 2005. please check the dates to avoid such a happenning in the future. Thanx. Idleguy 02:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
re: "Muhammad moved to attack Khaybar in order to raise his prestige among his followers, as well as to capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests.[citation needed] The battle ended with Muhammad's victory which allowed him to gain sufficient money, weapons, and support from local tribes to capture Mecca just 18 months after Khaybar."
Who says this? It needs to be quoted. We can not say these as facts in the article. -- Aminz 03:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
This article is very POV and biased. It may be right, but it mis-represents Muslims, and make them appear war-mongering, and only out for booty. Muslims claim they were fighting not for money, but for neturalizing the Jews who they thought were out to get them. The article is good, but it just needs a Muslim POV added in. And Aminz is right, we need some sources to prove the above statements or it has to be taken out.--Silent
This page was gamed onto the DYK list; reverting to keep the notice up is a farce, and will not be tolerated. — JEREMY 09:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean, it was gamed? There doesn't seem to be much more to it than simply posting it. If there were some sinister mechanations behind the scenes, I've not been made aware of them.
To depersonalize this [1], why is it important to revert the talk page? What are we trying to accomplish? Timothy Usher 09:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking through these excerpt of Ibn Ishaq [2], there's a lot here, about Safiya and her poor husband that might be added. Timothy Usher 09:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone (an admin, perhaps) explain to me why the edit history of this article looks (in part) like this:
I know admins can delete selected edits from an article's history, but how have these gotten shuffled? — JEREMY 10:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
<<The battle ended with Muhammad's victory; increased prestige, authority, local support, and supplies no doubt contributed to his ability to capture Mecca just 18 months after Khaybar>> -
why the fact tag? the same thing is stated more forcefully in After the battle - Strengthening of Muhammed, and there it is not in question. The sentence does not say that Kahaybar is why it only took 18 months more, it states that the listed items where likely contributory factors, which is almost a motherhood statement - is the argument that these things did not contribute? or that he did not gain these things from Khaybar? even if that was not the intent, that was almost certainly the result - no one can argue that the success at Khaybar had implications for rep, auth, support, etc etc.. Bridesmill 22:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please specify what is not neutral & accurate about this article? Bridesmill 02:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are getting at - sort of - but what is wrong with 'capture Mecca'? I'm not sure how this article represents Muslims as war-mongering - you'd have to be pretty sensitive to read the article in that light. One needs to remember context too - we are talking about society a long time ago in a very different world - can't be totally 'sugar-coated'. Bridesmill 04:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
First, let's specify that we're not talking about "Muslims" generally, only Muhammad and his followers. The vast majority of Muslims lead much more peacable and law-abiding lives than did these men.
Second, divying up booty is a salient theme in Islamic scripture, and in the early history. It is well-known that Muhammad & Co. attacked caravans for the immediate purpose of obtaining booty.
Regarding the Meccans, it was said these followers were owed money for their confiscated properties. How true this was, how much money was actually involved, we can't know, because we only one side of the story survives. Similarly, if the Jews of Khaybar were out to get them.
However, attainment of booty is a known and admitted goal, just as its division was a admitted (and probably constant) problem. Doesn't the Sunni-Shi'a split have its roots in a dispute between Muhammad's heirs over his portion of what was taken in this very campaign?
That doesn't necessarily say it was the only goal. Timothy Usher 05:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree up to the point that Fadak was an important dispute but not the most significant ones. Let me write a bit about Ali of whom your theory is that Fadak was his main motivation:
-- Aminz 07:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
While Fadak may have been a contributory factor, it was by no means either a motivating or central factor. Methinks this aspect of discussion righfully belongs elsewhere; point here is that economics played a role, almost by definition - it takes resources to conduct a military campaign. Bridesmill 12:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Timothy, but your logic appears flawed. Just because they argued about money 'after' the fact, does not mean it was a proximate cause; if anything, had money been a serious, primary objective, it could be argued that serious thought would have been given to future disposition, voiding later quarrels. In any case, I think we are agreed that economics played 'a' role, but was not necesarrily 'the' role. Bridesmill 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bridesmill. While it is unknown wheter Muslims were truly afraid of the Jews or not, that is what the Muslim biographies say. Some Muslims may object to this article, though if only because it make it seem, rightly or wrongly, that Muhammed fought the battle primarly for economic gain, and it ignores how Muhammed justified his invasion, that is, this fear of Jews (Timothy, many Mulisms venerate Muhammed, and see any attack on Muhammed as an attack on themselves). In other words, it does not reflect the Muslim POV, and hence this tag. I would like to suggest prehaps a sentence that could be added that prevents the article from looking wishy-washy, but still presents that other view, and can hopefully get that NPOV tag away. I post it here, so you can say if it is okay, or not.
"While Muslim scholars believe the invasion of Khaybar was due to a fear of an Jewish invasion of Medina, most Non-Muslim scholars agree that Khaybar was attacked for economic gain, as an example of one large tribe attacking a weaker tribe."
Still, I really did like the article. I learned a lot, and I would like to thank all who edited it to make it this way.-Silent
Eek - I didn't intend it to come across that 'economic gain' was the reason; rather, that it was one of many reasons. In terms of fear of Jewish invasion; I know that's the story told, but I have yet to figure out why this would have been feared at the time. There needs to be some expression of this though if it is a seriously held belief - there must be something written in a credible source??? Bridesmill 02:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, Usher. Thank for the Quranic quotes. I don't think Muslims would object to the divisions of spoils of war, but rather, that the war was fought mostly for said spoils. Also, several Muslims, trying to modernize their religion and protray it as peaceful, claim that Muhammed did not fight unless being fought first...in other words, all his wars were in self-defense.
Bridesmill, I know little about the Muslim viewpoint as well, other than this fear of a Jewish invasion. I also got no credible sources, expect prehaps a Muslim biography "The Sealed Nectar", and a couple of textbooks (which I hope can be considered credible). From what I read, the Muslims and the Jewish tribes did not have very good relations to begin with, with the Muhammed kicking out or killing the tribes for different reasons. On this current article, it says that Huyayy ibn Akhtab, a Jew from the Banu Nadir tribe that was exiled from Medina, helped out the Meccans during the Battle of the Ditch, which I am sure made the Muslims a little angry. Prehaps this is what led to the Battle of Khaybar? After all, the Jews helped the Meccans beseige Medina...surely, the Jews can lead another assualt?
In the article, it suggests the Jews were fearful of an invasion by Muslims, while the Muslims, in thier POV, claim they were being afraid the Jews were out to get them. I could just mark it down as a bad case of paranoia on both sides, though both people had reasons to be scared. (After all, the Jewish tribes were rich. If the Muslims didn't steal the money, then the Jewish tribes might use it against them...) Maybe it is just a whitewash attempt. Still, there has to be some way to reflect this POV.-- SilentScope 02:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
's not easy. Agreed. My take is that article is reasonably neutral as it stands if you accept that in those days, what the article says Muhammed did was perfectly reasonable & everybody did that. Nowadays, that type of behaviour is not exactly the most humanitarian, diplomatic way of solving conflicts, so yes, it does make Muhammed in a modern context come across as a little warlike. But this is about the old context; so I agree that all it needs is somewhere to state what the Muslim scholarly perception of cause was - a decent text, hadith, whatever, which can be used as a bit of a counterpoint - note that Badr is an FA {and a good example of good refs}, while this place is an argument; there must be a reasonable solution - your input is good food for thought. Anyone with decent Islamic sources out there? Bridesmill 02:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
These verses show that the taking of booty was a main goal of battle: [ Quran 48:15 Timothy Usher 04:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have gathered the relevant verses:
48:10 Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to Allah: the Hand of Allah is over their hands: then any one who violates his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul, and any one who fulfils what he has covenanted with Allah,- Allah will soon grant him a great Reward.
48:11 "The desert Arabs who lagged behind will say to thee: "We were engaged in (looking after) our flocks and herds, and our families: do thou then ask forgiveness for us." They say with their tongues what is not in their hearts. Say: "Who then has any power at all (to intervene) on your behalf with Allah, if His Will is to give you some loss or to give you some profit? But Allah is well acquainted with all that ye do"
48:12 "Nay, ye thought that the Messenger and the Believers would never return to their families; this seemed pleasing in your hearts, and ye conceived an evil thought, for ye are a people lost (in wickedness)."
48:13 "And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!"
48:15 "Those who lagged behind (will say), when ye (are free to) march and take booty (in war): "Permit us to follow you." They wish to change Allah's decree: Say: "Not thus will ye follow us: Allah has already declared (this) beforehand": then they will say, "But ye are jealous of us." Nay, but little do they understand (such things).
48:16 "Say to the desert Arabs who lagged behind: "Ye shall be summoned (to fight) against a people given to vehement war: then shall ye fight, or they shall submit. Then if ye show obedience, Allah will grant you a goodly reward, but if ye turn back as ye did before, He will punish you with a grievous Penalty."
Here is my understanding: Some people had oaths with Muhammad. They didn't join Muhammad when they were called for the war they didn't come thinking that Muhammad and his followers would never return to their families. By breaking their oath, according to Qur'an, they sinned to God. They came to Muhammad asking him to ask God's forgiveness for them but only by the motivation of having a share in the booty. The Qur'an tells that disobeying Muhammad will result in punishment (blazing fire in hereafter) and obeying him will result in goodly rewards (that includes both worldly and heavenly rewards but mainly worldly rewards here + avoiding heavenly/worldly punishments).
I see that the bootie is proposed as a reward for obeying God. I have no doubt that Muslims were happy of the booty and viewed it as God's reward. I believe that when God in Qur'an talks about punishments/rewards, it considers both worldly and heavenly punishments/rewards. Frightening of punishment and promising rewards is a general theme in Qur’an and not specific to here. Timothy, I think your argument is that viewing booties as a reward for obeying God will imply that in fact taking booties was "the goal". It may have been the motivation for many and I have no doubt that this verse encourages people to follow God by promising rewards (which are again not specific to here). But I am afraid I can not agree with you that “the above verses” show that Muhammad and all of his follower’s initial motivation has been taking the booty rather than obeying God. -- Aminz 05:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, can you please explain your current edits? -- Aminz 06:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thus, while my first point is a good one, it doesn't necessarily apply, as I've not read the sources Pecher used, I can't characterize them.
The edit you were actually asking about - again shame on me - was based on the assumption that the Madinan sura was addressing the Khaybar incident. Perhaps that's incorrect? Timothy Usher 06:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Timothy,
let's assume that you are right (the above arguments are trying to prove this I understand). Muhammad had really two motivations: 1. raise his prestige among his followers 2. capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests.
My question to you is that: Is this the Muslim POV? Does writing "X is so" allows Muslims to come and insert their own POV. Unless one writes "Y says X is so", Muslims can not come and present their POV as "W says X is so". The Encyclopedia of Islam is not written by Muslims. It is not Muslim POV. I think Wikipedia is a place that all views can be reported even if they are false. Please correct me if it is otherwise. Muslim POV is that Muhammad's motivations were not summarized in the above two points and you do not believe in it based on some reasons. Timothy, I have my own reasons. Everybody thinks he is right. I still can not agree with your last edits and I have had this issue with Pecher as well. Maybe I am wrong and I am so off that I don't understand what I say. -- Aminz 06:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, Let's assume that you do a research and end up with Muhammad being a liar and a false prophet. This will mean that those two statements are true for sure. My argument is that even in that case, we should not write in wikipedia that Muhammad had only these two motivations (even if Gabriel tells us it is so). Muslims have their own POV. There are Muslim scholars who say Muhammad was obeying God. I think we should not write "X is so" unless it is the view shared by all POVs. Please let me know what is wrong with this argument. -- Aminz 07:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Timothy for adding the sources back. Could you please answer to the above question. Thanks ( i need to go now but will be back soon) -- Aminz 07:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, I'll write about your last point but my point was that: assume tonight Gabriel told you or you discovered an ancient manuscript in your house yard saying that Muhammad had only two motivations there. My argument is that even in that case, we should not write in wikipedia that Muhammad had only these two motivations. Muslims have their own POV. There are Muslim scholars who say Muhammad was obeying God. I think we should not write "X is so" unless it is the view shared by all POVs. Could you please let me know what your opinion.
As to your comment, I don't exactly know but one reason for it maybe the reason is that the Qur'an unlike the Bible always talks about the prophets very respectfully. For example, story of David and the story are Solomon:
21. Has the Story of the Disputants reached thee? Behold, they climbed over the wall of the private chamber;
22. When they entered the presence of David, and he was terrified of them, they said: "Fear not: we are two disputants, one of whom has wronged the other: Decide now between us with truth, and treat us not with injustice, but guide us to the even Path..
23. "This man is my brother: He has nine and ninety ewes, and I have (but) one: Yet he says, 'commit her to my care,' and is (moreover) harsh to me in speech."
24. (David) said: "He has undoubtedly wronged thee in demanding thy (single) ewe to be added to his (flock of) ewes: truly many are the partners (in business) who wrong each other: Not so do those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and how few are they?"...and David gathered that We had tried him: he asked forgiveness of his Lord, fell down, bowing (in prostration), and turned (to Allah in repentance).
25. So We forgave him this (lapse): he enjoyed, indeed, a Near Approach to Us, and a beautiful place of (Final) Return.
Solomon's story:
30. To David We gave Solomon (for a son),- How excellent in Our service! Ever did he turn (to Us)!
31. Behold, there were brought before him, at eventide coursers of the highest breeding, and swift of foot;
32. And he said, "Truly do I love the love of good, with a view to the glory of my Lord,"- until (the sun) was hidden in the veil (of night):
33. "Bring them back to me." then began he to pass his hand over (their) legs and their necks.
34. And We did try Solomon: We placed on his throne a body (without life); but he did turn (to Us in true devotion):
35. He said, "O my Lord! Forgive me, and grant me a kingdom which, (it may be), suits not another after me: for Thou art the Grantor of Bounties (without measure).
36. Then We subjected the wind to his power, to flow gently to his order, Whithersoever he willed,-
37. As also the evil ones, (including) every kind of builder and diver,-
38. As also others bound together in fetters.
39. "Such are Our Bounties: whether thou bestow them (on others) or withhold them, no account will be asked."
40. And he enjoyed, indeed, a Near Approach to Us, and a beautiful Place of (Final) Return.
These are the places that prophets made mistakes but the way they are explained are really positive. This may be a reason or may be not. -- Aminz 07:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting (and somewhat ironic) footnote to history, but not sure where in the page to put it. - just found out about fol book: (review from ebscohost) "The Turkish Battle at Khaybar. By Esref Kuscubasi. Trans. and ed. by Philip H. Stoddard and H. Basri Danisman. Arba Yayinlari, Istanbul, 1999. Pp. 296. Map. Illus. Notes. Appendices. Index. [Available in the Society's Library.] Esref Kuscubasi (1873-1964) was described by T E. Lawrence and by King Abdullah I of Jordan as in turn brigand, assassin, adventurer and revolutionary. He certainly had a chequered career in the last days of the Ottoman Empire, serving at different times both the Sultan Abdulhamid and the 'Young Turks'. In 1917 he was sent by War Minister Enver Pasha on a foolhardy mission to carry gold to the Ottoman troops beleaguered in Yemen by the Arab Revolt. Before even reaching its destination his small band was surprised by a much larger beduin force under Amir (later King) Abdullah. The ensuing battle at Khaybar in the Hejaz was a catastrophic rout from which Esref emerged bloody but unbowed. The gold was purloined." Bridesmill 02:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thoughts on how (or if) to insert this tidbit appreciated. Bridesmill 01:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Bridesmill, I think we can have another page with any title; not exactly the same but "Battle at Khaybar (?)" should be good. We can then add a disambiguation tag to the article ( Wikipedia:Disambiguation). -- Aminz 08:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Cite moved so that it no longer includes last sentence in the para. Although Stillman many have discussed concept of pogroms in this context, to use this line is cherry-picking and applying a very blatantly biased (if admittedly scholarly) POV. It is this type of rhetoric - equating or implying that it was all a big pogrom - that takes it out of historical context. It was a war fought 1000 years ago, when moralities and realities were different - to attempt to understand it in terms of modern theoretical constructs will result in nothing but strong antipathy, apologism, and strong reaction - in other words, this page will never achieve anything more than POV battleground. Let's all recall that this is about more than defending the faith - it is about objective recording and reporting of history, with the aim of developing understanding, whihc involves allowing each other to state our context ('X calls him a martyr' and 'Y calls him a criminal', rather than 'there is dispute over his status', which nobody learns from). And please don't play the
WP:NOR to this - synthesis of multiple bodies of work is not OR. Given the complexity of the conflict within which this tiny article conflict is taking place, a dose of realpolitik, pragmatism, humility, & submission by all is probably not misplaced. (except for me of course, I'm not biased) (kidding)
Bridesmill 01:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
WStillman or the Encyc of Islam - it is still a cherrypick which serves only one possible purpose: Since the birth of Islam, it has been all about killing Jews just for something to do, because they are subhuman. Muslims are inherrently evil. Is that what we want to say here? Because that is the subtle implication you are giving with that line. Perhaps in opposition we can put in some quotes from the 'Protocols of Zion'. Why can't we just tone done the BS & keep things in context??? Does WP have to be part of the greater dispute or can we try to rise above it?? Bridesmill 14:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The point is in perception of the word 'pogrom' - it just isn't needed and is out of context in any case - we are talking about a military campaign here which had economic facets (as all military campaigns do). So why the insistence on using emotionally charged words just because some scholar used it? Bridesmill 16:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere as close to pogrom - sorry, just looked at your user page - In Russian (and I assume Ukrainian) 'pogrom' is in many ways just a word, like persecution (which can be a bit sensitive); but in English it is a much, much more emotional word - as soon as you say it, anglophones have pictures of holocaust etc. I think we have a simple language 'connotation' misunderstanding here - I thought you were being harsh, judgemental and possibly racist, you thought it was just another word. Bridesmill 16:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Hm...we need to find some non-politically charged word. Or maybe we can add in that other people (mostly Muslims) disagree with the Encylopedia, and claim that the raids were all in self-defense, that the Jews attacked first. But more likely, we can just take that sentence out, and avoid the POV battleground. Different morals, differnet beliefs. If we lived in this time period, we would have done the same.-- SilentScope 17:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Standard were very different, value of 'the other' (in anthropological terms) was much different - look for instance at changing atitudes towards slavery, and being able to treat 'the other' as chattel goods. This is not a judgement - it is just an acknowledgement that things were different (sometimes in ways we do not clearly understand) I'm just saying that we should neither condemn those that far in the past, not try to be their apologists. A delicate balance. What is a 'little bit' more do-able though, is to be carteful not to use the actions of the past to substantiate (or legitimize) those of the present. Bridesmill 20:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes they are: when you compare these actions to pogroms, you are most definitely making judgements. Bridesmill 20:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, what is your reason for removing disputed tag from the article. Isn't the article disputed? -- Aminz 22:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, saying that "Muhammad had only those two motivations" is not a POV shared by Muslims. On that basis I included whose POV is that. I think instead of "According to .. and .." we can say "According to many scholars ..."; either way is accurate. -- Aminz 22:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you give me a citation for the Muslim theory on Muhammed's motivation? Hadith, later writing.... If required, I would use 'according to Islamic oral tradition', but that is not a very strong cite; I'm sure there is something out there. Bridesmill 22:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, who, if anyone, are Stillman and the Encyclopedia of Islam citing? As our knowledge here derives almost wholly from Muslim sources, I would be surprised if their opinions don't reflect those of Muslim sources at some point in the chain of scholarship.
Aminz, as with Najis, if you can provide a cite, you will be adding value to the article, and your skepticism will no longer be seen as arbitrary. Timothy Usher 22:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I finally had a look at the article. It is slanted towards an anti-Muslim POV. Timothy, you keep saying that contemporary scholars believe this or that, but you don't give any cites.
I've got Watt, and I've got Ibn Ishaq, and I will try to rewrite (perhaps Tuesday) to give a neutral account of "what happened", trying to leave aside all questions of motives and justification. (Darn, I wish I had Tabari.) Then we have the usual two sections, one for criticism of the attack, and one for justification. If editors are willing to give the other POV houseroom, this usually solves a conflict. Zora 01:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Quoted from the text: "The defeated Jews were killed, enslaved, or reduced to serfdom."
Here's a different statement:
So who says the Jews were killed and enslaved? Editorius 21:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but unfortunately these are not available to me. Do you have access to the online version of the Encyclopaedia of Islam: http://www.encislam.brill.nl/logincheck.asp ? Editorius 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You quote Stillman as follows: "Stillman (1979), pp. 14, 18/> Muhammad chose for himself Safiyya bint Huyayy, daughter of the killed Banu Nadir chief Huyayy ibn Akhtab and widow of Kinana ibn al-Rabi, the treasurer of Banu Nadir, whom Muhammad's followers first tortured, demanding to reveal the location of the hidden treasures of his tribe, and then killed."
Is it possible that you have misapprehended the phrase "the killed Banu Nadir chief"? It is to be read as "the [killed Banu Nadir chief]", not as "the [killed Banu Nadir] chief". The chief was killed, not all of his men! Editorius 14:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
While reading the Amazon excerpt of Stillman's book "Jews of Arab Lands: a History and Source Book", I just happened to notice that Stillmann himself counts the biographies by Buhl and Paret ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Massacre_in_Khaybar.3F), from which I quoted, "among the most signifiant" ones (p. 6: http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-0612643-5431868?%5Fencoding=UTF8&asin=0827601980#reader-link)! Editorius 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have no access at Amazon to the pages in question. But your quotation above confirms in no way that all Jewish men were killed! So please present other ones, which explicitly state that all Jewish men in Khaybar (including the men of Banu Nadir) were executed by the Muslims. And remember, I have already offered three weighty sources that explicitly say otherwise! Editorius 15:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Not even the Jewish Encyclopedia mentions any mass execution:
Editorius 16:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I am going to (provisionally) delete the section in question, because the statement that there was a massacre does not seem to be warranted. Editorius 16:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I just came across a hadith which states that the non-Muslim warriors in Khaibar (Khaybar) had not been spared their lives:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her 'Mahr'.
( http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.512)
So, it might have been the case that all but the active Jewish fighters, which of course were all male, were spared their lives. Editorius 19:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have added a mention of this possibility in the text. Editorius 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's hard to tell how reliable this hadith is. Editorius 19:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid we cannot simply ignore that such distinguished experts as Buhl and Paret, whose books are widely acknowledged by the scholars, explicitly state that the Jews were not killed. So we need to (provisionally) use a more neutral formulation. (And I'm still curious to learn what W.M. Watt writes in his Muhammad biography about the Khaidar case!) Editorius 23:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, we also still need a source confirming that the Jews were enslaved, as you claim. Editorius 23:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have just had the opportunity to read Watt's chapter on the conquest of Khaybar:
Not a single word about a mass execution or a massacre! Editorius 00:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It is true that Watt doesn't explicitly say that there was no massacre. But I am sure that he would have mentioned it, if he had known of any such thing. Of course, that Watt knows nothing of a massacre does not necessarily mean that there was no massacre. Prof. Stillman is an expert on Jewish and Islamic History and Culture ( http://www.ou.edu/cas/history/faculty_bio_stillman.html), and so I do take him seriously, thinking that he must have some objective reasons for his judgment that in Khaybar all men of Banu Nadir were killed by the Muslims. It is certainly thinkable that Muhammad had those men of Banu Nadir killed which had not already been killed during the fights, merely sparing the lives of the indigenous Jews -- But how does he know that this actually happened? Does Stillman present any further historical sources, on which his judgment is based? The only source (I know) that explicitly states that Muhammad had the Jewish warriors killed is the hadith quoted above. But there no distinction is made between the indigenous Jews and the ones that came from Medina. Editorius 12:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, dead men are rather inefficient workers. By the way, I just came across something:
Do you know whether Stillman elaborates on his judgement any further? Editorius 12:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Then how does he know that he's right? (Of course, you could ask Buhl, Paret, and any other historian the same.) Anyway, I do think you should tone down your formulation in the article, because, apparently, the issue is still too contentious. Editorius 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You could write an e-mail directly to Prof. Stillman and ask him how he knows that the Jews of Banu Nadir were killed after the conquest of Khaybar and what his main sources for his judgment are. (His e-mail address is on his homepage: http://www.ou.edu/cas/history/faculty_bio_stillman.html) Editorius 21:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, don't you have access to the entry in the Encyclopaedia of Islam you referred to? -- Aren't there any further sources listed? Editorius 21:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if Stillman provided us with some further information, that would be very helpful for us, wouldn't it?! Editorius 22:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Why not?—If he reveales his sources, we may certainly refer to them as well. Editorius 11:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
What I'd like to know is whether you have a complete copy of Stillman's book. Have you also read the chapter "Muhammad and the Jews of Khaybar" (p. 145+)? (If not, couldn't you read it online at Amazon.com?) Aren't any relevant sources given in the book? I'm asking all this because we still need an answer to the question how Stillman knows that the men of Banu Nadir were not spared their lives in Khaybar. Editorius 12:06, 24 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 19:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You forgot to add (PBUH) after "Muhammad" in your recent edits. The defeated Jews were not executed like the people of the Banu Quraish tribe but reduced to serfdom. Praise be to the humane and merciful Muhammad for not killing them all! Seriously, mentioning in the intro another Jewish tribe to show that the fate of the Jews of Khaybar was really great is completely ludicrous. Pecher Talk 13:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
???—Offensive to whom? Editorius 14:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let's include it in the text. But that's it. Editorius 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Most of this article is snipped from this site whose google cache page has been given cuz the site is down. If the article is not removed of the plagiarized version, I'm afraid it has to be tagged as copyvio in a day or two.
Words like "(may Allah bless him and grant him peace)" after the Prophet were obvious giveaways since this is the tone used by non-secular editors. Idleguy 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is neutral, for example it doesn't say anything about the tax the jews had to pay.
This article is ridiculous, it blames the entire battle on the Jews even though most neutral historians consider it a battle of conquest against a weaker tribe. I'm deleting everything besides the infobox until somone can rewrite it with a NPOV.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This last version is even more ridiculous than the regular telling. Timothy Usher 21:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Timothy Usher, if u disagree with the way i described the battle of Khaybar, then you are free like a bird to make corrections but please don't erase the whole article. If you want, you can create a section within the article about the battle from the Jews point of view. OKAy! Salman Shah
Thats funny, "a section in the article from the Jews point of view", how about an actual article written in a neutral pov. The reason the written part of the article need to be deleted as it currently stands is becasue it is written with an extreme pov in its entirety, deleting a few passages won't help.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Further, it is totally unsourced. Can we start by asking where you are getting all this information?
p.s. as for "violating the women", Muhammad himself violated a woman named Safiyah after torturing her husband and beheading him. Oh, excuse me, married her. No doubt voluntary, eh? Nothing like beheading a woman's husband to get her in the mood. Nor is this the "Jews' point of view", but the Muslims' own records. Only God knows what the victims themselves would have added. Timothy Usher 02:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Then why don't you wirite the article and i will add things. Its better then leaving the article blank. OKAY! Salman Shah
Salman01, what's up with blanking the talk page?
Timothy Usher 21:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not know enough about the battle to rewrite it myself, so until someone more knowledgebale than me can write a neutral article, the present version is just not aceptable. It is the most bias and un-neutral article I have seen on wikipedia, a POV tag is just not enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I concur.
Timothy Usher 00:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Then it is your job to find out a "more knowledgeable" person than yourself, until then leave the article alone. I have also contacted all of people to some and solve this problem. So just wait till you find your knowledgeable people and the people that will help me solve this problem. OK!!!! Salman Shah
Actually your wrong, it is not "our job". Our job is to make the article the best it can be, so were not going to just leave the article like it is, that is completley ridiculous.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Then instaed of deleting the whole article, edit it! Salman Shah
I think what he is saying is that that's his edit. Why don't we try to build this up from an uncontroversial stub instead? I'll see if I can come up with something. Copying and pasting some outrageously biased, unsourced retelling of events is not the way to go. Timothy Usher 00:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I would venture to say that every single noun and adjective in the article is unacceptable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
To say nothing of the verbs. Even the definite articles are on the strident side. As for the stub idea, it seems Salman has already done it. Great. Now we can start anew. Timothy Usher 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Salman01, "the Muslims" is not specific. Which Muslims? You? The Ottoman Empire? That is why I wrote, "Muhammad and his followers." The link brings one to the page of the prophet in case anyone is confused. This is similarly why "The Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza" is preferable to "the Jews." Please do not revert without joining discussion. Timothy Usher 01:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Plus they weren't exactly "Muslims" yet. We don't refer to the followers of Jesus during his life time as "Christians".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
No guys!! Each and every person who was fighting the war from the side of Prophet Muhammad was Muslim. Because once you say the Qalma you become a muslim, there is nothing in between! Each and every person who fought the war from the muslim side said the Qalma and therefore was a muslim. Salman Shah
Each and every one? Wow. you must know all the people who fought! Can you list them here I think that would be interesting. when we have the total list of every single person who was there then we can checkl just to make super sure everyone said the qalma. Thats the there is no god but God and muhamed is His prophet thing right? I just said it, can i be a muslim now? AgreeToBe
I do bro but they keep on erasing it. Not on this page but on some other page! Salman Shah
You may call them muslims, but it is really anachronistic. Really they were proto-muslims, because the religion hadn't been completley developed yet. Like in christianity people think that Jesus had preached evey single aspect of christianity during his lifetime, but really Jesus had created very little of what we know as christianity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Like just to give one example of what i think youre talking about and im sure there are probablyy a bunch more like this but,suppose you were there when muhammed said that al-Lat,al-'Uzza and Manat were high-flying cranes whose intercession was desirable, before this was taken back. you were a follower of muhammed but were you a muslim yet? does that mnake any sense? AgreeToBe
What are you talking about bro Al-Lat and Al-Uzza were worshiped by the Maccans. Who ever believed in the ideology was not a Muslims. After the people said Qalma, they never worshiped idols; which shows that people that were with Prophet Muhammad were true Muslims and after converting to Islam they never worshiped Idols. Thank You Salman Shah
Wait a minute...I thought there was something funny about this, and there is: the Jews of Khaybar are not the Bani Qurayza. This was confusing me. They were their own tribe. The Bani Qurayza were famously beheaded. Only some of the Khaybar were. Timothy Usher 05:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yea I was wondering why it was the same tribe in this battle.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
+++ All that aside, would someone with knowledge of the legends of the region's Jews please rewrite the legend presented at the end of the article for intelligibility?
Cy
This article is nowhere near new! I've worked on this months back and this article is so last year. Please check the dates before posting in the front page as a new article (DYK entries have to be no more than 5 days old). This article was created in 2005. please check the dates to avoid such a happenning in the future. Thanx. Idleguy 02:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
re: "Muhammad moved to attack Khaybar in order to raise his prestige among his followers, as well as to capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests.[citation needed] The battle ended with Muhammad's victory which allowed him to gain sufficient money, weapons, and support from local tribes to capture Mecca just 18 months after Khaybar."
Who says this? It needs to be quoted. We can not say these as facts in the article. -- Aminz 03:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
This article is very POV and biased. It may be right, but it mis-represents Muslims, and make them appear war-mongering, and only out for booty. Muslims claim they were fighting not for money, but for neturalizing the Jews who they thought were out to get them. The article is good, but it just needs a Muslim POV added in. And Aminz is right, we need some sources to prove the above statements or it has to be taken out.--Silent
This page was gamed onto the DYK list; reverting to keep the notice up is a farce, and will not be tolerated. — JEREMY 09:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean, it was gamed? There doesn't seem to be much more to it than simply posting it. If there were some sinister mechanations behind the scenes, I've not been made aware of them.
To depersonalize this [1], why is it important to revert the talk page? What are we trying to accomplish? Timothy Usher 09:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking through these excerpt of Ibn Ishaq [2], there's a lot here, about Safiya and her poor husband that might be added. Timothy Usher 09:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone (an admin, perhaps) explain to me why the edit history of this article looks (in part) like this:
I know admins can delete selected edits from an article's history, but how have these gotten shuffled? — JEREMY 10:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
<<The battle ended with Muhammad's victory; increased prestige, authority, local support, and supplies no doubt contributed to his ability to capture Mecca just 18 months after Khaybar>> -
why the fact tag? the same thing is stated more forcefully in After the battle - Strengthening of Muhammed, and there it is not in question. The sentence does not say that Kahaybar is why it only took 18 months more, it states that the listed items where likely contributory factors, which is almost a motherhood statement - is the argument that these things did not contribute? or that he did not gain these things from Khaybar? even if that was not the intent, that was almost certainly the result - no one can argue that the success at Khaybar had implications for rep, auth, support, etc etc.. Bridesmill 22:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please specify what is not neutral & accurate about this article? Bridesmill 02:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are getting at - sort of - but what is wrong with 'capture Mecca'? I'm not sure how this article represents Muslims as war-mongering - you'd have to be pretty sensitive to read the article in that light. One needs to remember context too - we are talking about society a long time ago in a very different world - can't be totally 'sugar-coated'. Bridesmill 04:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
First, let's specify that we're not talking about "Muslims" generally, only Muhammad and his followers. The vast majority of Muslims lead much more peacable and law-abiding lives than did these men.
Second, divying up booty is a salient theme in Islamic scripture, and in the early history. It is well-known that Muhammad & Co. attacked caravans for the immediate purpose of obtaining booty.
Regarding the Meccans, it was said these followers were owed money for their confiscated properties. How true this was, how much money was actually involved, we can't know, because we only one side of the story survives. Similarly, if the Jews of Khaybar were out to get them.
However, attainment of booty is a known and admitted goal, just as its division was a admitted (and probably constant) problem. Doesn't the Sunni-Shi'a split have its roots in a dispute between Muhammad's heirs over his portion of what was taken in this very campaign?
That doesn't necessarily say it was the only goal. Timothy Usher 05:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree up to the point that Fadak was an important dispute but not the most significant ones. Let me write a bit about Ali of whom your theory is that Fadak was his main motivation:
-- Aminz 07:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
While Fadak may have been a contributory factor, it was by no means either a motivating or central factor. Methinks this aspect of discussion righfully belongs elsewhere; point here is that economics played a role, almost by definition - it takes resources to conduct a military campaign. Bridesmill 12:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Timothy, but your logic appears flawed. Just because they argued about money 'after' the fact, does not mean it was a proximate cause; if anything, had money been a serious, primary objective, it could be argued that serious thought would have been given to future disposition, voiding later quarrels. In any case, I think we are agreed that economics played 'a' role, but was not necesarrily 'the' role. Bridesmill 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bridesmill. While it is unknown wheter Muslims were truly afraid of the Jews or not, that is what the Muslim biographies say. Some Muslims may object to this article, though if only because it make it seem, rightly or wrongly, that Muhammed fought the battle primarly for economic gain, and it ignores how Muhammed justified his invasion, that is, this fear of Jews (Timothy, many Mulisms venerate Muhammed, and see any attack on Muhammed as an attack on themselves). In other words, it does not reflect the Muslim POV, and hence this tag. I would like to suggest prehaps a sentence that could be added that prevents the article from looking wishy-washy, but still presents that other view, and can hopefully get that NPOV tag away. I post it here, so you can say if it is okay, or not.
"While Muslim scholars believe the invasion of Khaybar was due to a fear of an Jewish invasion of Medina, most Non-Muslim scholars agree that Khaybar was attacked for economic gain, as an example of one large tribe attacking a weaker tribe."
Still, I really did like the article. I learned a lot, and I would like to thank all who edited it to make it this way.-Silent
Eek - I didn't intend it to come across that 'economic gain' was the reason; rather, that it was one of many reasons. In terms of fear of Jewish invasion; I know that's the story told, but I have yet to figure out why this would have been feared at the time. There needs to be some expression of this though if it is a seriously held belief - there must be something written in a credible source??? Bridesmill 02:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, Usher. Thank for the Quranic quotes. I don't think Muslims would object to the divisions of spoils of war, but rather, that the war was fought mostly for said spoils. Also, several Muslims, trying to modernize their religion and protray it as peaceful, claim that Muhammed did not fight unless being fought first...in other words, all his wars were in self-defense.
Bridesmill, I know little about the Muslim viewpoint as well, other than this fear of a Jewish invasion. I also got no credible sources, expect prehaps a Muslim biography "The Sealed Nectar", and a couple of textbooks (which I hope can be considered credible). From what I read, the Muslims and the Jewish tribes did not have very good relations to begin with, with the Muhammed kicking out or killing the tribes for different reasons. On this current article, it says that Huyayy ibn Akhtab, a Jew from the Banu Nadir tribe that was exiled from Medina, helped out the Meccans during the Battle of the Ditch, which I am sure made the Muslims a little angry. Prehaps this is what led to the Battle of Khaybar? After all, the Jews helped the Meccans beseige Medina...surely, the Jews can lead another assualt?
In the article, it suggests the Jews were fearful of an invasion by Muslims, while the Muslims, in thier POV, claim they were being afraid the Jews were out to get them. I could just mark it down as a bad case of paranoia on both sides, though both people had reasons to be scared. (After all, the Jewish tribes were rich. If the Muslims didn't steal the money, then the Jewish tribes might use it against them...) Maybe it is just a whitewash attempt. Still, there has to be some way to reflect this POV.-- SilentScope 02:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
's not easy. Agreed. My take is that article is reasonably neutral as it stands if you accept that in those days, what the article says Muhammed did was perfectly reasonable & everybody did that. Nowadays, that type of behaviour is not exactly the most humanitarian, diplomatic way of solving conflicts, so yes, it does make Muhammed in a modern context come across as a little warlike. But this is about the old context; so I agree that all it needs is somewhere to state what the Muslim scholarly perception of cause was - a decent text, hadith, whatever, which can be used as a bit of a counterpoint - note that Badr is an FA {and a good example of good refs}, while this place is an argument; there must be a reasonable solution - your input is good food for thought. Anyone with decent Islamic sources out there? Bridesmill 02:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
These verses show that the taking of booty was a main goal of battle: [ Quran 48:15 Timothy Usher 04:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have gathered the relevant verses:
48:10 Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to Allah: the Hand of Allah is over their hands: then any one who violates his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul, and any one who fulfils what he has covenanted with Allah,- Allah will soon grant him a great Reward.
48:11 "The desert Arabs who lagged behind will say to thee: "We were engaged in (looking after) our flocks and herds, and our families: do thou then ask forgiveness for us." They say with their tongues what is not in their hearts. Say: "Who then has any power at all (to intervene) on your behalf with Allah, if His Will is to give you some loss or to give you some profit? But Allah is well acquainted with all that ye do"
48:12 "Nay, ye thought that the Messenger and the Believers would never return to their families; this seemed pleasing in your hearts, and ye conceived an evil thought, for ye are a people lost (in wickedness)."
48:13 "And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!"
48:15 "Those who lagged behind (will say), when ye (are free to) march and take booty (in war): "Permit us to follow you." They wish to change Allah's decree: Say: "Not thus will ye follow us: Allah has already declared (this) beforehand": then they will say, "But ye are jealous of us." Nay, but little do they understand (such things).
48:16 "Say to the desert Arabs who lagged behind: "Ye shall be summoned (to fight) against a people given to vehement war: then shall ye fight, or they shall submit. Then if ye show obedience, Allah will grant you a goodly reward, but if ye turn back as ye did before, He will punish you with a grievous Penalty."
Here is my understanding: Some people had oaths with Muhammad. They didn't join Muhammad when they were called for the war they didn't come thinking that Muhammad and his followers would never return to their families. By breaking their oath, according to Qur'an, they sinned to God. They came to Muhammad asking him to ask God's forgiveness for them but only by the motivation of having a share in the booty. The Qur'an tells that disobeying Muhammad will result in punishment (blazing fire in hereafter) and obeying him will result in goodly rewards (that includes both worldly and heavenly rewards but mainly worldly rewards here + avoiding heavenly/worldly punishments).
I see that the bootie is proposed as a reward for obeying God. I have no doubt that Muslims were happy of the booty and viewed it as God's reward. I believe that when God in Qur'an talks about punishments/rewards, it considers both worldly and heavenly punishments/rewards. Frightening of punishment and promising rewards is a general theme in Qur’an and not specific to here. Timothy, I think your argument is that viewing booties as a reward for obeying God will imply that in fact taking booties was "the goal". It may have been the motivation for many and I have no doubt that this verse encourages people to follow God by promising rewards (which are again not specific to here). But I am afraid I can not agree with you that “the above verses” show that Muhammad and all of his follower’s initial motivation has been taking the booty rather than obeying God. -- Aminz 05:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, can you please explain your current edits? -- Aminz 06:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thus, while my first point is a good one, it doesn't necessarily apply, as I've not read the sources Pecher used, I can't characterize them.
The edit you were actually asking about - again shame on me - was based on the assumption that the Madinan sura was addressing the Khaybar incident. Perhaps that's incorrect? Timothy Usher 06:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Timothy,
let's assume that you are right (the above arguments are trying to prove this I understand). Muhammad had really two motivations: 1. raise his prestige among his followers 2. capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests.
My question to you is that: Is this the Muslim POV? Does writing "X is so" allows Muslims to come and insert their own POV. Unless one writes "Y says X is so", Muslims can not come and present their POV as "W says X is so". The Encyclopedia of Islam is not written by Muslims. It is not Muslim POV. I think Wikipedia is a place that all views can be reported even if they are false. Please correct me if it is otherwise. Muslim POV is that Muhammad's motivations were not summarized in the above two points and you do not believe in it based on some reasons. Timothy, I have my own reasons. Everybody thinks he is right. I still can not agree with your last edits and I have had this issue with Pecher as well. Maybe I am wrong and I am so off that I don't understand what I say. -- Aminz 06:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, Let's assume that you do a research and end up with Muhammad being a liar and a false prophet. This will mean that those two statements are true for sure. My argument is that even in that case, we should not write in wikipedia that Muhammad had only these two motivations (even if Gabriel tells us it is so). Muslims have their own POV. There are Muslim scholars who say Muhammad was obeying God. I think we should not write "X is so" unless it is the view shared by all POVs. Please let me know what is wrong with this argument. -- Aminz 07:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Timothy for adding the sources back. Could you please answer to the above question. Thanks ( i need to go now but will be back soon) -- Aminz 07:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, I'll write about your last point but my point was that: assume tonight Gabriel told you or you discovered an ancient manuscript in your house yard saying that Muhammad had only two motivations there. My argument is that even in that case, we should not write in wikipedia that Muhammad had only these two motivations. Muslims have their own POV. There are Muslim scholars who say Muhammad was obeying God. I think we should not write "X is so" unless it is the view shared by all POVs. Could you please let me know what your opinion.
As to your comment, I don't exactly know but one reason for it maybe the reason is that the Qur'an unlike the Bible always talks about the prophets very respectfully. For example, story of David and the story are Solomon:
21. Has the Story of the Disputants reached thee? Behold, they climbed over the wall of the private chamber;
22. When they entered the presence of David, and he was terrified of them, they said: "Fear not: we are two disputants, one of whom has wronged the other: Decide now between us with truth, and treat us not with injustice, but guide us to the even Path..
23. "This man is my brother: He has nine and ninety ewes, and I have (but) one: Yet he says, 'commit her to my care,' and is (moreover) harsh to me in speech."
24. (David) said: "He has undoubtedly wronged thee in demanding thy (single) ewe to be added to his (flock of) ewes: truly many are the partners (in business) who wrong each other: Not so do those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and how few are they?"...and David gathered that We had tried him: he asked forgiveness of his Lord, fell down, bowing (in prostration), and turned (to Allah in repentance).
25. So We forgave him this (lapse): he enjoyed, indeed, a Near Approach to Us, and a beautiful place of (Final) Return.
Solomon's story:
30. To David We gave Solomon (for a son),- How excellent in Our service! Ever did he turn (to Us)!
31. Behold, there were brought before him, at eventide coursers of the highest breeding, and swift of foot;
32. And he said, "Truly do I love the love of good, with a view to the glory of my Lord,"- until (the sun) was hidden in the veil (of night):
33. "Bring them back to me." then began he to pass his hand over (their) legs and their necks.
34. And We did try Solomon: We placed on his throne a body (without life); but he did turn (to Us in true devotion):
35. He said, "O my Lord! Forgive me, and grant me a kingdom which, (it may be), suits not another after me: for Thou art the Grantor of Bounties (without measure).
36. Then We subjected the wind to his power, to flow gently to his order, Whithersoever he willed,-
37. As also the evil ones, (including) every kind of builder and diver,-
38. As also others bound together in fetters.
39. "Such are Our Bounties: whether thou bestow them (on others) or withhold them, no account will be asked."
40. And he enjoyed, indeed, a Near Approach to Us, and a beautiful Place of (Final) Return.
These are the places that prophets made mistakes but the way they are explained are really positive. This may be a reason or may be not. -- Aminz 07:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting (and somewhat ironic) footnote to history, but not sure where in the page to put it. - just found out about fol book: (review from ebscohost) "The Turkish Battle at Khaybar. By Esref Kuscubasi. Trans. and ed. by Philip H. Stoddard and H. Basri Danisman. Arba Yayinlari, Istanbul, 1999. Pp. 296. Map. Illus. Notes. Appendices. Index. [Available in the Society's Library.] Esref Kuscubasi (1873-1964) was described by T E. Lawrence and by King Abdullah I of Jordan as in turn brigand, assassin, adventurer and revolutionary. He certainly had a chequered career in the last days of the Ottoman Empire, serving at different times both the Sultan Abdulhamid and the 'Young Turks'. In 1917 he was sent by War Minister Enver Pasha on a foolhardy mission to carry gold to the Ottoman troops beleaguered in Yemen by the Arab Revolt. Before even reaching its destination his small band was surprised by a much larger beduin force under Amir (later King) Abdullah. The ensuing battle at Khaybar in the Hejaz was a catastrophic rout from which Esref emerged bloody but unbowed. The gold was purloined." Bridesmill 02:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thoughts on how (or if) to insert this tidbit appreciated. Bridesmill 01:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Bridesmill, I think we can have another page with any title; not exactly the same but "Battle at Khaybar (?)" should be good. We can then add a disambiguation tag to the article ( Wikipedia:Disambiguation). -- Aminz 08:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Cite moved so that it no longer includes last sentence in the para. Although Stillman many have discussed concept of pogroms in this context, to use this line is cherry-picking and applying a very blatantly biased (if admittedly scholarly) POV. It is this type of rhetoric - equating or implying that it was all a big pogrom - that takes it out of historical context. It was a war fought 1000 years ago, when moralities and realities were different - to attempt to understand it in terms of modern theoretical constructs will result in nothing but strong antipathy, apologism, and strong reaction - in other words, this page will never achieve anything more than POV battleground. Let's all recall that this is about more than defending the faith - it is about objective recording and reporting of history, with the aim of developing understanding, whihc involves allowing each other to state our context ('X calls him a martyr' and 'Y calls him a criminal', rather than 'there is dispute over his status', which nobody learns from). And please don't play the
WP:NOR to this - synthesis of multiple bodies of work is not OR. Given the complexity of the conflict within which this tiny article conflict is taking place, a dose of realpolitik, pragmatism, humility, & submission by all is probably not misplaced. (except for me of course, I'm not biased) (kidding)
Bridesmill 01:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
WStillman or the Encyc of Islam - it is still a cherrypick which serves only one possible purpose: Since the birth of Islam, it has been all about killing Jews just for something to do, because they are subhuman. Muslims are inherrently evil. Is that what we want to say here? Because that is the subtle implication you are giving with that line. Perhaps in opposition we can put in some quotes from the 'Protocols of Zion'. Why can't we just tone done the BS & keep things in context??? Does WP have to be part of the greater dispute or can we try to rise above it?? Bridesmill 14:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The point is in perception of the word 'pogrom' - it just isn't needed and is out of context in any case - we are talking about a military campaign here which had economic facets (as all military campaigns do). So why the insistence on using emotionally charged words just because some scholar used it? Bridesmill 16:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere as close to pogrom - sorry, just looked at your user page - In Russian (and I assume Ukrainian) 'pogrom' is in many ways just a word, like persecution (which can be a bit sensitive); but in English it is a much, much more emotional word - as soon as you say it, anglophones have pictures of holocaust etc. I think we have a simple language 'connotation' misunderstanding here - I thought you were being harsh, judgemental and possibly racist, you thought it was just another word. Bridesmill 16:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Hm...we need to find some non-politically charged word. Or maybe we can add in that other people (mostly Muslims) disagree with the Encylopedia, and claim that the raids were all in self-defense, that the Jews attacked first. But more likely, we can just take that sentence out, and avoid the POV battleground. Different morals, differnet beliefs. If we lived in this time period, we would have done the same.-- SilentScope 17:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Standard were very different, value of 'the other' (in anthropological terms) was much different - look for instance at changing atitudes towards slavery, and being able to treat 'the other' as chattel goods. This is not a judgement - it is just an acknowledgement that things were different (sometimes in ways we do not clearly understand) I'm just saying that we should neither condemn those that far in the past, not try to be their apologists. A delicate balance. What is a 'little bit' more do-able though, is to be carteful not to use the actions of the past to substantiate (or legitimize) those of the present. Bridesmill 20:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes they are: when you compare these actions to pogroms, you are most definitely making judgements. Bridesmill 20:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, what is your reason for removing disputed tag from the article. Isn't the article disputed? -- Aminz 22:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, saying that "Muhammad had only those two motivations" is not a POV shared by Muslims. On that basis I included whose POV is that. I think instead of "According to .. and .." we can say "According to many scholars ..."; either way is accurate. -- Aminz 22:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you give me a citation for the Muslim theory on Muhammed's motivation? Hadith, later writing.... If required, I would use 'according to Islamic oral tradition', but that is not a very strong cite; I'm sure there is something out there. Bridesmill 22:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, who, if anyone, are Stillman and the Encyclopedia of Islam citing? As our knowledge here derives almost wholly from Muslim sources, I would be surprised if their opinions don't reflect those of Muslim sources at some point in the chain of scholarship.
Aminz, as with Najis, if you can provide a cite, you will be adding value to the article, and your skepticism will no longer be seen as arbitrary. Timothy Usher 22:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I finally had a look at the article. It is slanted towards an anti-Muslim POV. Timothy, you keep saying that contemporary scholars believe this or that, but you don't give any cites.
I've got Watt, and I've got Ibn Ishaq, and I will try to rewrite (perhaps Tuesday) to give a neutral account of "what happened", trying to leave aside all questions of motives and justification. (Darn, I wish I had Tabari.) Then we have the usual two sections, one for criticism of the attack, and one for justification. If editors are willing to give the other POV houseroom, this usually solves a conflict. Zora 01:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Quoted from the text: "The defeated Jews were killed, enslaved, or reduced to serfdom."
Here's a different statement:
So who says the Jews were killed and enslaved? Editorius 21:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but unfortunately these are not available to me. Do you have access to the online version of the Encyclopaedia of Islam: http://www.encislam.brill.nl/logincheck.asp ? Editorius 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You quote Stillman as follows: "Stillman (1979), pp. 14, 18/> Muhammad chose for himself Safiyya bint Huyayy, daughter of the killed Banu Nadir chief Huyayy ibn Akhtab and widow of Kinana ibn al-Rabi, the treasurer of Banu Nadir, whom Muhammad's followers first tortured, demanding to reveal the location of the hidden treasures of his tribe, and then killed."
Is it possible that you have misapprehended the phrase "the killed Banu Nadir chief"? It is to be read as "the [killed Banu Nadir chief]", not as "the [killed Banu Nadir] chief". The chief was killed, not all of his men! Editorius 14:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
While reading the Amazon excerpt of Stillman's book "Jews of Arab Lands: a History and Source Book", I just happened to notice that Stillmann himself counts the biographies by Buhl and Paret ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Massacre_in_Khaybar.3F), from which I quoted, "among the most signifiant" ones (p. 6: http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-0612643-5431868?%5Fencoding=UTF8&asin=0827601980#reader-link)! Editorius 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have no access at Amazon to the pages in question. But your quotation above confirms in no way that all Jewish men were killed! So please present other ones, which explicitly state that all Jewish men in Khaybar (including the men of Banu Nadir) were executed by the Muslims. And remember, I have already offered three weighty sources that explicitly say otherwise! Editorius 15:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Not even the Jewish Encyclopedia mentions any mass execution:
Editorius 16:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I am going to (provisionally) delete the section in question, because the statement that there was a massacre does not seem to be warranted. Editorius 16:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I just came across a hadith which states that the non-Muslim warriors in Khaibar (Khaybar) had not been spared their lives:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her 'Mahr'.
( http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.512)
So, it might have been the case that all but the active Jewish fighters, which of course were all male, were spared their lives. Editorius 19:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have added a mention of this possibility in the text. Editorius 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's hard to tell how reliable this hadith is. Editorius 19:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid we cannot simply ignore that such distinguished experts as Buhl and Paret, whose books are widely acknowledged by the scholars, explicitly state that the Jews were not killed. So we need to (provisionally) use a more neutral formulation. (And I'm still curious to learn what W.M. Watt writes in his Muhammad biography about the Khaidar case!) Editorius 23:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, we also still need a source confirming that the Jews were enslaved, as you claim. Editorius 23:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have just had the opportunity to read Watt's chapter on the conquest of Khaybar:
Not a single word about a mass execution or a massacre! Editorius 00:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It is true that Watt doesn't explicitly say that there was no massacre. But I am sure that he would have mentioned it, if he had known of any such thing. Of course, that Watt knows nothing of a massacre does not necessarily mean that there was no massacre. Prof. Stillman is an expert on Jewish and Islamic History and Culture ( http://www.ou.edu/cas/history/faculty_bio_stillman.html), and so I do take him seriously, thinking that he must have some objective reasons for his judgment that in Khaybar all men of Banu Nadir were killed by the Muslims. It is certainly thinkable that Muhammad had those men of Banu Nadir killed which had not already been killed during the fights, merely sparing the lives of the indigenous Jews -- But how does he know that this actually happened? Does Stillman present any further historical sources, on which his judgment is based? The only source (I know) that explicitly states that Muhammad had the Jewish warriors killed is the hadith quoted above. But there no distinction is made between the indigenous Jews and the ones that came from Medina. Editorius 12:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, dead men are rather inefficient workers. By the way, I just came across something:
Do you know whether Stillman elaborates on his judgement any further? Editorius 12:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Then how does he know that he's right? (Of course, you could ask Buhl, Paret, and any other historian the same.) Anyway, I do think you should tone down your formulation in the article, because, apparently, the issue is still too contentious. Editorius 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You could write an e-mail directly to Prof. Stillman and ask him how he knows that the Jews of Banu Nadir were killed after the conquest of Khaybar and what his main sources for his judgment are. (His e-mail address is on his homepage: http://www.ou.edu/cas/history/faculty_bio_stillman.html) Editorius 21:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, don't you have access to the entry in the Encyclopaedia of Islam you referred to? -- Aren't there any further sources listed? Editorius 21:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if Stillman provided us with some further information, that would be very helpful for us, wouldn't it?! Editorius 22:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Why not?—If he reveales his sources, we may certainly refer to them as well. Editorius 11:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
What I'd like to know is whether you have a complete copy of Stillman's book. Have you also read the chapter "Muhammad and the Jews of Khaybar" (p. 145+)? (If not, couldn't you read it online at Amazon.com?) Aren't any relevant sources given in the book? I'm asking all this because we still need an answer to the question how Stillman knows that the men of Banu Nadir were not spared their lives in Khaybar. Editorius 12:06, 24 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 19:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You forgot to add (PBUH) after "Muhammad" in your recent edits. The defeated Jews were not executed like the people of the Banu Quraish tribe but reduced to serfdom. Praise be to the humane and merciful Muhammad for not killing them all! Seriously, mentioning in the intro another Jewish tribe to show that the fate of the Jews of Khaybar was really great is completely ludicrous. Pecher Talk 13:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
???—Offensive to whom? Editorius 14:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let's include it in the text. But that's it. Editorius 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)