This article was nominated for deletion on 24 July 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I reviewed this article for DYK, so I'll copy my comments here:
-- Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
...that according to Islamic tradition, the invasion of the Banu Nadir tribe was ordered because the Angel ::::Gabriel told Muhammad that some members of the tribe were plotting to assassinate him
@Roscelese, i have fixed the url error. Please tell me a hook which you would approve of?-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 22:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You invade a place, not a tribe. This should be renamed to "Campaign against the Banu Nadir" or "Expulsion of Banu Nadir from Yathrib", or similar. Chesdovi ( talk) 11:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a WP:POVFORK. Rather than building the article based on the existing content from the main article Banu Nadir#Expulsion from Medina, Misconceptions2 set out to write his own version of the event. The issues are a repeat of the mishandling and distortion of sources and POV pushing shown in another article, to list a few:
[1] Misconceptions2 wrote: "Watt also doubts wether the Banu Nadir wanted to assassinate Muhammad". That's not accurate as Watt states in the same source: "Again, while it is possible that some men of al-Nadir really planned to drop a stone on Muhammad and kill him, it is also possible that the allegation was no more than an excuse to justify the attack. Even if there is some truth in the story, however, the incident was only the occasion for the attack, not the fundamental reason".
[2] Misconceptions2's version states that Muhammad learned of the assasination attempt through revelation, while the main Banu Nadir article states that he "learned this either through revelation or Muhammad ibn Maslama".
[3] Al-Tabari's quote "Hearts have changed, and Islam has wiped out the old covenants". Apart from the fact that this is WP:OR, it was quoted dishonestly for two reasons: Misonceptions2 first distorts Al-Tabari's report (which I own a copy of btw) that attributes the statement to Abu Salamah regarding a pre-Islamic covenant between Abu Salamah's tribe and Banu Nadir (Misonceptions2 wording however, implies that the statement was said with regards to a previous treaty between Muhammad and Banu Nadir). The second distortion, is that Misonception2's statement of Abu Salamah is presented as if it was said on behalf on Muhammad, a claim that the source doesn't state, as clear in the context stated above.
[4] Misconceptions2 claims that the Quranic verse "there is no compulsion in religion" was in regards to Ansar women forcing their children into Judaism. This is misleading and it doesn't look like he understood the hadith quoted from Sunan Abu Dawud: The verse was revealed in response to those Muslim Ansar men who initially expressed refusal to allow their children (who were raised among Banu al-Nadir and eventually followed Judaism) to leave with Banu al-Nadir and remain Jewish. So the verse here means that whoever wants to leave with Banu al-Nadir and remain Jewish then let it be.
[5] Finally: the use of "Invasion" when the literature refers to the event as "Expulsion of Banu Nadir" and "Battle of Banu Nadir". Given the above, the content of the current article as it stands is extremely misleading. Instead, I suggest that this article be speedily deleted or moved to someone's userspace for other editors to rewrite, correct, and review its contents before it is reinstated. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 23:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
[1] So your saying that the above represents what watt said? What in the world, how in anyway does the quote you gave above from the Banu Nadir article (WHICH DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A SOURCE), match the quote from watt you gave 6 lines above?-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 11:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
[2] This claim is denied, no source says that Maslamah confirmed the plot, and is mere speculation-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 11:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
[3] OR is not when you quote from a primary source, the jizyah article quotes a lot of primary sources. I did say the quote is from Abu Salamh. You falsely accuse of of trying to mislead people to think its a quote from Muhammad. Anyone who reads the part your taalking about in the article, will surely agree with me.-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
[4]its funny that you know the true interpretation. anyway, i gave a source for my claim.-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
[5] Actually i gave a source for my decision to name it that-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand Al-A's argument, starting with item [1]. What Al-A lists there appears to demonstrate that this article is correct in expressing Watts views, and the main article is wrong. Specifically, if Watt states in the same source: "Again, while it is possible that some men of al-Nadir really planned to drop a stone on Muhammad and kill him, it is also possible that the allegation was no more than an excuse to justify the attack. Even if there is some truth in the story, however, the incident was only the occasion for the attack, not the fundamental reason". is indeed correct, then "Watt also doubts wether the Banu Nadir wanted to assassinate Muhammad" is correct William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Remove tags, issue is same as Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa, needs article of its own as they were invovled in more than 1 military expedition. The Banu Nadir article is about the tribe. While this article is about the expedition against them. -- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 00:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Remove tags, issue is same as Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa, needs article of its own as they were invovled in more than 1 military expedition. The Banu Nadir article is about the tribe. While this article is about the expedition against them.-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 00:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion, but I replaced the speedy deletion tag with an AfD tag, and I created a deletion discussion page here. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 05:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
He has not explained why this should be there. Can you please explain? Does this page violate any wikipedia policy-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
"Please help to ensure that disputed facts are reliably sourced."I don't understand why this tag is even necessary. Firstly, The article contains quotes mostly from canonical hadiths, eminent muslim scholars.
Secondly, al-Mubarakpuri is a reliable Islamic author who has received accolades for his work in the past and arabic version of " The sealed nectar" (quoted in the article) has received the first prize from the Muslim World League, at the first Islamic Conference on Seerah, following an open competition for a book on the life of Muhammad in 1979 (1399 AH). The publisher's note says here
"No doubt The Sealed Nectar (Ar-Raheeq AI-Makhturn) is a book of great value and praiseworthy work on the life of Muhammad. This book has been written by the Eminent Shaikh Safiur-Rahman Mubarakpuri of Jamiah Salafiyah, Banaras (India). The first Islamic Conference on Seerah (biography of the Prophet) was held in 1976 in Pakistan sponsored by the Muslim World League. The League announced a world contest for writing a book on the life of the Prophet. One hundred fifty thousand Saudi Riyals (SR 150,000) (forty thousand U.S. Dollars) was the grand prize for the best five books."
--
Barry
(Why don't we talk?) 06:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I was asked to take a look at this article. I don't see any specific rationale for the tag here. Keeping WP:DRIVEBY in mind, can someone succinctly state the reason it has been placed here? Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 July 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I reviewed this article for DYK, so I'll copy my comments here:
-- Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
...that according to Islamic tradition, the invasion of the Banu Nadir tribe was ordered because the Angel ::::Gabriel told Muhammad that some members of the tribe were plotting to assassinate him
@Roscelese, i have fixed the url error. Please tell me a hook which you would approve of?-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 22:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You invade a place, not a tribe. This should be renamed to "Campaign against the Banu Nadir" or "Expulsion of Banu Nadir from Yathrib", or similar. Chesdovi ( talk) 11:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a WP:POVFORK. Rather than building the article based on the existing content from the main article Banu Nadir#Expulsion from Medina, Misconceptions2 set out to write his own version of the event. The issues are a repeat of the mishandling and distortion of sources and POV pushing shown in another article, to list a few:
[1] Misconceptions2 wrote: "Watt also doubts wether the Banu Nadir wanted to assassinate Muhammad". That's not accurate as Watt states in the same source: "Again, while it is possible that some men of al-Nadir really planned to drop a stone on Muhammad and kill him, it is also possible that the allegation was no more than an excuse to justify the attack. Even if there is some truth in the story, however, the incident was only the occasion for the attack, not the fundamental reason".
[2] Misconceptions2's version states that Muhammad learned of the assasination attempt through revelation, while the main Banu Nadir article states that he "learned this either through revelation or Muhammad ibn Maslama".
[3] Al-Tabari's quote "Hearts have changed, and Islam has wiped out the old covenants". Apart from the fact that this is WP:OR, it was quoted dishonestly for two reasons: Misonceptions2 first distorts Al-Tabari's report (which I own a copy of btw) that attributes the statement to Abu Salamah regarding a pre-Islamic covenant between Abu Salamah's tribe and Banu Nadir (Misonceptions2 wording however, implies that the statement was said with regards to a previous treaty between Muhammad and Banu Nadir). The second distortion, is that Misonception2's statement of Abu Salamah is presented as if it was said on behalf on Muhammad, a claim that the source doesn't state, as clear in the context stated above.
[4] Misconceptions2 claims that the Quranic verse "there is no compulsion in religion" was in regards to Ansar women forcing their children into Judaism. This is misleading and it doesn't look like he understood the hadith quoted from Sunan Abu Dawud: The verse was revealed in response to those Muslim Ansar men who initially expressed refusal to allow their children (who were raised among Banu al-Nadir and eventually followed Judaism) to leave with Banu al-Nadir and remain Jewish. So the verse here means that whoever wants to leave with Banu al-Nadir and remain Jewish then let it be.
[5] Finally: the use of "Invasion" when the literature refers to the event as "Expulsion of Banu Nadir" and "Battle of Banu Nadir". Given the above, the content of the current article as it stands is extremely misleading. Instead, I suggest that this article be speedily deleted or moved to someone's userspace for other editors to rewrite, correct, and review its contents before it is reinstated. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 23:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
[1] So your saying that the above represents what watt said? What in the world, how in anyway does the quote you gave above from the Banu Nadir article (WHICH DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A SOURCE), match the quote from watt you gave 6 lines above?-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 11:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
[2] This claim is denied, no source says that Maslamah confirmed the plot, and is mere speculation-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 11:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
[3] OR is not when you quote from a primary source, the jizyah article quotes a lot of primary sources. I did say the quote is from Abu Salamh. You falsely accuse of of trying to mislead people to think its a quote from Muhammad. Anyone who reads the part your taalking about in the article, will surely agree with me.-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
[4]its funny that you know the true interpretation. anyway, i gave a source for my claim.-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
[5] Actually i gave a source for my decision to name it that-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand Al-A's argument, starting with item [1]. What Al-A lists there appears to demonstrate that this article is correct in expressing Watts views, and the main article is wrong. Specifically, if Watt states in the same source: "Again, while it is possible that some men of al-Nadir really planned to drop a stone on Muhammad and kill him, it is also possible that the allegation was no more than an excuse to justify the attack. Even if there is some truth in the story, however, the incident was only the occasion for the attack, not the fundamental reason". is indeed correct, then "Watt also doubts wether the Banu Nadir wanted to assassinate Muhammad" is correct William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Remove tags, issue is same as Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa, needs article of its own as they were invovled in more than 1 military expedition. The Banu Nadir article is about the tribe. While this article is about the expedition against them. -- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 00:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Remove tags, issue is same as Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa, needs article of its own as they were invovled in more than 1 military expedition. The Banu Nadir article is about the tribe. While this article is about the expedition against them.-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 00:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion, but I replaced the speedy deletion tag with an AfD tag, and I created a deletion discussion page here. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 05:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
He has not explained why this should be there. Can you please explain? Does this page violate any wikipedia policy-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
"Please help to ensure that disputed facts are reliably sourced."I don't understand why this tag is even necessary. Firstly, The article contains quotes mostly from canonical hadiths, eminent muslim scholars.
Secondly, al-Mubarakpuri is a reliable Islamic author who has received accolades for his work in the past and arabic version of " The sealed nectar" (quoted in the article) has received the first prize from the Muslim World League, at the first Islamic Conference on Seerah, following an open competition for a book on the life of Muhammad in 1979 (1399 AH). The publisher's note says here
"No doubt The Sealed Nectar (Ar-Raheeq AI-Makhturn) is a book of great value and praiseworthy work on the life of Muhammad. This book has been written by the Eminent Shaikh Safiur-Rahman Mubarakpuri of Jamiah Salafiyah, Banaras (India). The first Islamic Conference on Seerah (biography of the Prophet) was held in 1976 in Pakistan sponsored by the Muslim World League. The League announced a world contest for writing a book on the life of the Prophet. One hundred fifty thousand Saudi Riyals (SR 150,000) (forty thousand U.S. Dollars) was the grand prize for the best five books."
--
Barry
(Why don't we talk?) 06:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I was asked to take a look at this article. I don't see any specific rationale for the tag here. Keeping WP:DRIVEBY in mind, can someone succinctly state the reason it has been placed here? Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)