Talk:Banu Qurayza

Archives

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

Stillman inference

a paragraph in the article, citing pp 14-16 of Stillman's 1979 work, reads as follows:

According to Stillman, Muhammad chose Sa'd ibn Mua'dh so as not to pronounce the judgment himself and avoid being accused of double standards given the precedents he had set with the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir. Furthermore, Stillman infers from Abu Lubaba's gesture that Muhammad had decided the fate of the Qurayza even before their surrender.

however, the only relevant discussion i found was this (p.15):

When all hope was gone they [i.e. Qurayza] sought to surrender on the same terms as had the Naḍīr. This time the Prophet intended to make an example of them. He still could not act with complete disregard of public opinion. The degree of the Qurayẓa's treason was by no means clear. Muhammad had previously spared the Banū Qaynuqā c at the request of their former allies the Khazraj. Many Awsites were now pleading that their former confederates be shown mercy. Always the master politician, Muhammad stepped aside and appointed Sa`d b. Mu`ādh to pass judgment upon them. Sa`d was a devout Muslim and a chieftain of the Aws, who was dying of wounds received during the siege against the Qurayza. Sa`d took the hint and condemned the adult males to death and the hapless women and children to slavery. Muhammad then declared that this was none other than Allah's decision. Actually, it is clear from the Muslim sources that the Qurayza's fate had been decided even before their surrender. One of Muhammad's emissaries, Abū Lubāba, who had advised the Qurayẓa to give up, had to perform penance for hinting to the Jews what their real fate would be.

Stillman doesn't state or imply that Muhammad deferred judgement to Sa'd in order to avoid accusations of double standards (especially when he openly endorsed the decision), so i believe this is original research. what seems more apparent is that, because of the Awsites protesting, it was Sa'd (Aws chieftain) who was chosen to pronounce the judgement, as they may have been more accepting of the decree if it came from their tribal leader.again, with the second sentence in the article, i do not see how the solitary sentence discussing Abu Lubaba substantiates what has been written, or where Stillman is making any "infer[ences]" that Banu Qurayza's fate had already been decided by Muhammad before their surrender. ITAQALLAH 11:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is clear from the last two sentences of the excerpt. The first sentence states the conclusion; the second contains the premise. Beit Or 12:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

could you also address the first point? ITAQALLAH 14:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is clear from the following setences:

This time the Prophet intended to make an example of them. He still could not act with complete disregard of public opinion. The degree of the Qurayẓa's treason was by no means clear. Muhammad had previously spared the Banū Qaynuqā at the request of their former allies the Khazraj. Many Awsites were now pleading that their former confederates be shown mercy. Always the master politician, Muhammad stepped aside and appointed Sa`d b. Mu`ādh to pass judgment upon them. Sa`d was a devout Muslim and a chieftain of the Aws, who was dying of wounds received during the siege against the Qurayza. Sa`d took the hint and condemned the adult males to death and the hapless women and children to slavery.

Beit Or 14:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

i have provided that extract above, and commented on it: Stillman doesn't state or imply that Muhammad deferred judgement to Sa'd in order to avoid accusations of double standards (especially when he openly endorsed the decision), so i believe this is original research. what seems more apparent is that, because of the Awsites protesting, it was Sa'd (Aws chieftain) who was chosen to pronounce the judgement, as they may have been more accepting of the decree if it came from their tribal leader. ITAQALLAH 14:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's exactly what Stillman is talking about. Muhammad "could not act with complete disregard of public opinion", and since he "had previously spared the Banū Qaynuqā at the request of their former allies the Khazraj", the Aws were expecting the same treatment of the Qurayza. So Muhammad appointed Sa'd whose judgment on the Qurayza was predictable. Unsurprisingly, Sa'd "took the hint". Muhammad deferred judgment to Sa'd so as to prevent the Aws from complaining that he massacred their allies, but had only expelled the allies of the Khazraj; this is the only possible reading of the passage. Beit Or 14:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad chose Sa'd to issue the decree as it would be more widely accepted amongst the Aws, who were "now pleading that their former confederates be shown mercy" because the previous tribes had been spared. had Muhammad issued it himself it would not have been received as well, as he "could not act with complete disregard of public opinion" yet. Muhammad did not defer judgement to Sa'd to avoid accusations of double standards, for then he would not have endorsed it as he did, declaring that "that this was none other than Allah's decision." what is clear from the text is that he wanted to announce their execution, but as per Sa'd's greater sway over the pleading Awsites (which Muhammad did not yet have) due to his position as a Aws chieftain, he let Sa'd do it instead. ITAQALLAH 15:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your contention that Muhammad wouldn't have endorsed Sa'd's decision, had he feared an accusation of double standards is purely speculative and not based on any part of Stillman's text. He delegated to Sa'd the right to decide the fate of the Qurayza, and the Aws consented to that. Thus not endorsing Sa'd's decision was not an opition, especially because it suited Muhammad perfectly. Muhammad left the decision to Sa'd because he was bound by the precedent of the Qaynuqa to which the Aws were appealing, while Sa'd was free to make any ruling he thought necessary. Beit Or 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

my contention is that Muhammad did not defer judgement to Sa'd for fear of being accused of double standards- this is a novel interpretation not substantiated by the text. we know why the Aws were pleading- because of the previous precedent. Muhammad, to whom the Aws would not have completely conceded, deferred the judgement to the more authoritative Awsite chieftain, whose judgement would be accepted. Sa'd, according to Stillman, took the hint: he knew the decree Muhammad wanted enforced. that's what is apparent from the text. it's got nothing to do with avoiding accusations of double-standards; it pertains to the fact that, as Stillman says, Muhammad did not yet wield complete authority over the various tribes. ITAQALLAH 20:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not comment on the Qaynuqa precedent. Beit Or 19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

the Qaynuqa precedent is the reason for the Awsite pleas. ITAQALLAH 01:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The passage in the article is completely contained in and based on the Stillman passage above. Thanks for highlighting this, Itaqallah. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad did not defer judgement to Sa'd for fear of being accused of double standards, and neither does Stillman say that. ITAQALLAH 15:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As Str1977 has pointed out, there is no basis for such reading of Stillman. Beit Or 07:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

i know there is no basis for such reading of Stillman, that's why i have taken issue with the passage. you haven't demonstrated where Stillman speculates about Muhammad consciously wanting to evade accusations of double standards: this is your own interpretation, which is as unsound as it is unsubstantiated. ITAQALLAH 13:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, personal comments like "this is your own interpretation, which is as unsound as it is unsubstantiated" will not help your argument. "Double standards" are a good and appropriate summary of the argument Stillman makes. Beit Or 20:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Stillman makes no such explicit argument: that is your own interpretation of the text. Stillman nowhere speculates on the intentions of Muhammad of wanting to avoid certain accusations, and neither should the article. ITAQALLAH 21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

<reset>It is stated implicitly. Do you deny that? He doesn't use the exact words that we do, but that is clearly part of the import of this passage. Arrow740 23:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The word "Double Standard" is incorrect since the two situations were different from the perspective of Muhammad. What is the reason to oppose Itaqallah's suggestion? [1]--Aminz 02:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

yes Arrow, i do deny that Stillman is implying anything of the sort. ITAQALLAH 12:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Both versions strike me as unduly interpretive of the excerpted text, which is less clear than we should like it to be. We see that 1) Muhammad's reasoning was political, and 2) that he was concerned with public opinion, and 3) that the Aws excpected that the Banu Qurayza would be spared, as were the Banu Qaynuqa and 4) that the choice of Sa'd was meant to solve these problems. but it does not overtly specify how the choice of Sa'd was to solve these problems. Both inferences are reasonable, and perhaps are both true, but neither is indisuptably supportable based on this passage alone.Proabivouac 03:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

is there an alternative you could try to come up with Proabivouac? ITAQALLAH 12:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it might not be right away.Proabivouac 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

After some consideration, I am leaning somewhat towards Itaqallah's interpretation, with the caveat that it doens't seem justified to guage Muhammad's degree of "influence" over the Aws. What is at clear is that Stillman asserts that the choice of Sa'd was meant to shore up the authority of the judgment among the Aws ("public opinion"), while allowing Muhammad to avoid direct responsibility. As Itaqallah wrote above, "what seems more apparent is that, because of the Awsites protesting, it was Sa'd (Aws chieftain) who was chosen to pronounce the judgement, as they may have been more accepting of the decree if it came from their tribal leader." The charge of double-standards, if made, would presumably be levelled by the Aws (unless there were other known advocates of the Qurayza?) and does not contradict this. The text does suggest this to be likely, however we accomplish this just as clearly when we write "....asked Muhammad to treat the Qurayza leniently as he had previously treated the Qaynuqa for the sake of Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy. "

A few other points: 1) the third paragraph of the subsection is a "views" paragraph which I believe should be merged with the chronological narrative of the previous two 2) the parenthesized observation "(Arab custom required support of an ally, independent of the ally's conduct to a third party.)" is unnecessary and argumentative, as well as poor style 3) "(the Sabbath, when by mutual understanding no fighting would take place)." as a parenthesized phrase, is poor style, and should be merged with the text. 4) "…he appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh…to decide the fate of the Jewish tribe." contradicts Stillman's (and Ibn Ishaq's, actually, this is indisputably implicit) observation that their fate had already been decided. 5) "because being close to death and concerned with his afterlife, he put what he considered "his duty to God and the "Muslim community" before tribal allegiance" can evoke only skeptical snickers as written.Proabivouac 07:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the allegation of double standards is clearly present in Stillman's text in the sense that Muhammad feared the Aws would accuse him of double standards if he pronounced a death sentence on the BQ.

Another thing, since some editors have revived this in this context: Do NOT use the term "former allies" as this is pushing a Muslim POV. We have discussed this before. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, one may also consult the primary source material Stillman provides on pages 140 and 141 from Ibn Ishaq, which appears to reinforce the notion that Muhammad deferred to Sa'd because of the authority Sa'd wielded over the Aws:

Then the Aws jumped up and pleaded, "O Apostle of Allah, these are our clients, not those of the Khazraj, and you know well how you recently treated our brethren's clients." Now the Apostle of Allah--may Allah bless him and grant him peace--prior to the campaign against the Banū Qurayẓa had besieged the Banū Qaynuqā c, who were allies of the Khazraj. 7 When they had surrendered to his judgment, c Abd Allāh b. Ubayy b. Salul asked him for them, and he gave them over to him. Therefore, when the Aws pleaded with him, he said, "Would you be satisfied, o People of Aws, if one of your own men were to pass judgment on them?"; "Certainly," they replied. The Apostle of Allah--may Allah bless him and grant him peace-said, "Then it shall be left to Sa`d b. Mu`ādh"...

...When Sa`d reached the Apostle of Allah--may Allah bless him and grant him peace--the Apostle said, "Rise to greet your leader." The Emigrants of Quraysh said to themselves that the Apostle must be referring to the Helpers. The Helpers, on the other hand, thought the Apostle was including everyone, and so they got up and said, "O Abū cAmr, the Apostle has appointed you arbiter over the fate of your clients so that you may pass judgment upon them."

"Will you accept as binding, by Allah's covenant and His Pact, the judgment upon them once I have given it?" They replied that they would. "And will it be binding upon one who is here," he said turning toward the Apostle, not mentioning him by name out of respect. The Apostle of Allah--may Allah bless him and grant him peace--answered yes. Sacd said, "My judgment is that the men be executed, their property divided, and the women and children made captives.

-- ITAQALLAH 20:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As above, I agree with that. Additionally, this excerpt:

O Apostle of Allah, these are our clients, not those of the Khazraj, and you know well how you recently treated our brethren's clients.

supports the double standards language.Proabivouac 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

that was the reason for their plea, not necessarily for the deferrence of Muhammad to Sa'd. ITAQALLAH 21:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

I think a request for medition is a better direction to proceed than nominating this article for GA. --Aminz 04:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What would we be mediating?Proabivouac 05:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Over 1. This section [2] 2. addition of category of Historical persecution by Muslims to "see also" by Karl and Arrow 3. Other disputes pointed out here and there. --Aminz 05:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the category, there's no reason for moral judgements here. However, the "assessment of the incident" section is really unnecessary. Are there other good or featured articles with similar sections?Proabivouac 05:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We have many prestigous academic sources that mention this. In fact, this forms a notable part of the academic literature. I have not seen any wikipedia policy that opposes addition of such material. And lastly, I disagree with the category not because it may come from a moral standpoint but because it is a biased conclusion. I have been recently reading about morality in general. Philosophers have treated it as seriously as many other topics. --Aminz 06:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy which opposes it: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't typically do that. I've looked through a number of articles about very controversial topics, the moral dimensions of which have been very extensively discussed in the literature, yet none that I reviewed have this kind of section.Proabivouac 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please source your statement ("and encyclopedias don't typically do that"). The Qurayza article on Encyclopedia of Islam says: "The question of an agreement affects the moral judgement on Muhammad's treatment of Qurayza." I can also provide quotes from The Cambridge History of Islam, another tertiary source. --Aminz 07:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, don't be tiresome; we are not required to source (or outsource) our editorial considerations. "Can you point to a policy which says that we need such a section?" You see how silly that sounds.Proabivouac 07:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So, let's agree to disagree at this point. That's why we need mediation. --Aminz 07:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Show me other well-regarded Wikipedia articles with analogous sections. Short of that, there is only one thing that can convince me to drop it: a clear consensus to include this material. Instead I see a consensus that it is unnecessary. I would agree to mediation if you agree to respect the results and stop subjecting this article to what has become an endless stream of objections.Proabivouac 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What we need is not meditation, but some respect for WP:CONSENSUS on part of Aminz. This discussion has led nowhere, so will any mediation. Beit Or 07:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If the main argument is WP:Consensus, I don't think such a "consensus" exists nor convincing arguments have been provided for exclusion of those material but rather they have been excluded through edit-warring. Would you like me to find other editors who agree with such addition? --Aminz 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How have they been included, through the purity of the driven snow?

If outside input is desired, let's try the military history Wikiproject or something similar, people who we can agree are not caught up in the religious dimensions which make an appropriately detached perspective so difficult.Proabivouac 08:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what that consensus was. I am reading the intro of Wikipedia:Consensus over and over again but fail to see anything like that has been achieved here. I'd rather to continue this through Mediation. --Aminz 08:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The intro

Beit Or, please source "of treachery for not aiding the Muslims during the Battle of the Trench."; also please explain this edit of yours [3]. --Aminz 07:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether you have read the article. "[A]ccused of treachery for not aiding the Muslims during the Battle of the Trench" is a summary of the section on the Battle of the Trench. Beit Or 07:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read the article. It says Muslim accused them of breaking their treaty and siding with their enemies. --Aminz 07:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please explain your other edit. --Aminz 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So? Please comment on this Beit Or. --Aminz 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Another controversy, another misrepresentation of a source by Aminz: [4]. From now on please only use verbatim quotes, Aminz. Arrow740 22:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Who is Colin Turner, by the way? Why should we use him when he contradicts more prominent scholars with more intelligent description of the events? Arrow740 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, Your ambigious sentences are incomprehensible for me. The source (Routledge press) says: "The most significant clash came during the Battle of the Ditch, when the Jewish clan of Banu Qurayza collaborated with the Quraysh in an attempt to break the siege". What's your point? --Aminz 02:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That your sentence is not supported by the text. Who is this guy? Why should we take his glib statements when we have better sources? Arrow740 02:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What statement is not supported by what text? --Aminz 02:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence we're arguing over and the text we're talking about, obviously. Don't bring Karen Armstrong-type material, it will only provoke conflict here. Arrow740 03:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that. Be specific please. The source says: ""The most significant clash came during the Battle of the Ditch, when the Jewish clan of Banu Qurayza collaborated with the Quraysh in an attempt to break the siege... This open act of treachery was a clear violation not only of the Pact of Medina ..."

What is in what I have written that is not supported by the source? --Aminz 03:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please look at what I have written again. There is additional information in my edit summaries. Arrow740 03:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The accusation clearly was that the BQ had made an agreement with the besiegers, not that they did not aid the Muslimsother Yathribis. In fact, they did aid the other Yathribis in the working of the ditch. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Or with whom"

[5] Arrow740 23:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The font is very small. Can you please read it for us? --Aminz 02:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

to base "or with whom" over details concerning with which of the Jews the agreement was made is a terrible overstatement. all sources are in agreement that the constitution was formed in general between the Jews (regardless of which specific tribes), pagans, and Muslims (see e.g Firestone p. 119): there is no need to exaggerate the scope of the dispute. ITAQALLAH 12:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, which Jewish tribes were party to the agreement is a very important issue, and here the opinions of scholars diverge. You know, it's one thing when all the three major tribes signed it; it's quite another when only some small clans did so. Beit Or 21:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

we can be specific about the nature of the dispute instead of vague. ITAQALLAH 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

if you're referring to the theory of a post-Qurayza agreement with Jewish remnants, this doesn't appear to be more than a minority view (i recalled you mentioned Gil as a proponent). there is little reason to doubt that agreements were made with the major Jewish clans, and even those who dispute its chronology (Watt, Serjeant, Peters) don't appear to doubt that. ITAQALLAH 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a debate better held on Talk:Constitution of Medina. The current language of the article is appropriate given its topic; it's unnecessary to delve into the specifics of the academic debate on the Constitution of Medina. Beit Or 21:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

unfortunately, the phrase "or with whom" is a substantial overstatement of the nature of the dispute. ITAQALLAH 21:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that issues about the Constitution should be left to the article on it, unless there is a huge disagreement over things that directly affect our article here. I also agree with Beit Or that the fact which tribes were included is important. There did not exist an entity called "the Jews" at that time and place but only several Jewish and non-Jewish tribes. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. How could one postulate the existence of such an entity? Arrow740 00:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Reasons for verdict and suggestions: The nomination has been placed on hold. On the whole, this article is written well, is well referenced and I believe that it is written from an NPOV, however, I have one major criticism that will temporarily stop this article from getting a GA tag:

• Section 5 - This article is in no way stable. I decided not to quick-fail the article as most of the edits have been discussed and there is reasoning for many of the changes. However, I cannot approve the article as a GA unless it is stable, as at the rate this article is changed, the reviewed version would be different by tomorrow. You need to settle on a version of events. Although I didn't quick-fail the article, I would not be so lenient next time.
• Section 1b - Nothing major, but a few errors are present, for example, there should be a space after the citation and the mention of William Montgomery Watt.

As with all GANs placed on hold, you have a minimum of 2 days and a maximum of 7 days to address the issues. Should they have been addressed, the article will pass, otherwise, it will fail. I will re-review in 5 to 7 days. On a separate note, I recommend you archive some of the discussion on this talk page. Good luck and happy editing! Mouse Nightshirt | talk 13:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but this article is not neutral and there are active edit dispute. This article is not netural and it can not pass GA nomination. Please see Talk:Banu_Qurayza#GA_nomination. --Aminz 19:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I must admit that I am skeptical that you would want this to be acknowledged as a good article under any conditions: the most "controversial" things here are the undisputed facts, not the various details over which we've been bickering to keep the dispute alive.Proabivouac 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that will reduce your skepticism. Why don't you first remove the POV "Historical persecutions by Muslims" from the "see also", add the section (that was removed), fixed the intro and then I would be more than happy to support GA nomination. Sounds good? --Aminz 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you say you will stop disrupting this article when you have it your way? This is blackmail. Beit Or 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a quite an inappropriate move on your behalf to nominate this for GA when you very well knew that there are active disputes. I'd rather not to comment on your uncivil language.--Aminz 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Our reviewer did not complain about the lack of a "moral judgments" section, but only that the article is unstable.Proabivouac 02:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

General agreements - tribal customs

Beit Or, this information that you've removed [6] is not about the constitution of Medina. It is about the general agreements (aside from the constitution or special pacts) that were between Muhammad and the Qurayza; the second part of the quote is about the implicit points derived from the customs regarding alliance of groups together. Again it is not related to the constitution of Medina. --Aminz 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He is talking about the constitution, but anyway we already have one sentence for his opinions on those matters and that's enough. The Arab tribes stuff is completely unrelated to Banu Qurayza. Beit Or 21:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the full quote.

It is reported that at the Hid̲j̲ra, Kaʿb b. Asad, acting on behalf of Ḳurayẓa, made an agreement ( ʿahd ) with Muḥammad, and that later during the siege of Medina (the Ḵh̲andaḳ) he was persuaded by Ḥuyayy b. Ak̲h̲ṭab of al-Naḍīr to break it, and the actual document was torn up by Ḥuyayy (Ibn His̲h̲ām, 352, 674; al-Wāḳidī, 456). This report is open to grave doubt, however. Ibn Isḥāḳ does not name his sources. Al-Wāḳidī has two: one is a grandson of Kaʿb b. Mālik of Salima, a clan hostile to the Jews; and the other is Muhammad b. Kaʿb (d. 117-20/735-8), the son of a boy of Ḳurayẓa, who was sold as a slave when they surrendered and later became a Muslim. Both these sources may be suspected of bias against Qurayza; and it is therefore probable that there was no special agreement between Muhammad and Qurayza. It is virtually certain, however, that Muhammad had a general agreement with the Jews that they were not to support an enemy against him (al-Wāḳidī, 176); and something like this was probably implicit in his alliance with the Arab clans of Medina, since the Jewish clans were allied to one or other of the Arab clans. The Constitution of Medina as given by Ibn His̲h̲ām (341-4) does not mention Ḳurayẓa or al-Naḍīr or Qaynuḳāʿ by name; but its present form almost certainly dates from after the execution of the men of Ḳurayẓa, and these Jewish groups were probably mentioned in an earlier version.

It first talks about an specific agreements, then says that it is virtually certain that there were general agreements. And then says that probably an earlier version of Constitution of Medina mentioned Qurayza by name. --Aminz 01:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image caption

I would like to add to the caption, "Muhammad and Ali are shown as flames, with Muhammad seated above, and Ali in the center wielding a sword." This is easily observed; however I don't have a source offhand, which is a problem.Proabivouac 10:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

More sources found for massacre of Banu Qurayza

Here are two sources I found for this article, but I only found the titles:

• M. Kister, 'The Massacre of the Banu Qurayza', Jerusalem Studies of Arabic and Islam, 8 (1986), pp. 61-96
• M. Lecker, “On Arabs of the Banu Kilab executed together with the jewish Banu Qurayza”, JSAI 19, 1995.

These were both published in JSAI, as you can see. I couldnt find much information on Kister but Lecker is a professor in Jerusalem. I would have added information from these sources if I had found them. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination failed

As per my previous review, issues of stability have not been solved, and therefore, this article has been failed under category five of WP:WIAGA. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The issues under dispute are very minor, particularly the hair-splitting about Stillman material. In truth, the article has been remarkably stable for quite some time - compare Islam, which got rapidly GA's and then FA'd despite substantial changes and periods of serious disruption. In any event, we should have another day, shouldn't we? I was supposed to help broker a compromise on the Stillman details, and unfortunately got caught up in other things, so I'm feeling somewhat responsible.Proabivouac 23:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It can be anywhere between 2 and 7 days - I decided that one day wasn't going to sort out the issues; there are too many people with too many hugely differing opinions who are too willing to change back things. If you do feel I've been unfair, you may take this case to Articles for review. Don't see the fail as a personal thing - this article does have promise if you can all settle and prove to any reviewer that the article isn't going to have large edits to facts over the course of a few days. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 13:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the stability criterion implies that the article must be completely frozen for days or weeks. Compare the current version with the a month-old one[7]: you're not going to see many significant changes. In fact, the bulk of the article has remained intact for months. This is my understanding of stability. There are a couple of editors here who are struggling to push their POV; their reverts and complaints have accelerated after the GA nominations. Sadly, the failure of this nominations in the absence of any significant objections to the article's content tells them that they can successfully keep this article hostage. Beit Or 21:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several disputes in this article and a few of them were the reasons for the recent unstability and some unresolved ones were the reasons for previous unstabilities. I don't think the article passes GA criteria. --Aminz 00:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, re your summary, are you going to withdraw your objections if this material is allowed to stay?Proabivouac 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as me "allowing" something or not. It is a question of whether the article passes the requirements or not. There are unresolved disputes that should be taken to a Mediation page and discussed once and forever. --Aminz 01:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To wit, I don't find this material particularly useful, and I see no purpose for its inclusion other than as a compromise which stabilizes the article.Proabivouac 02:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam template

Reccently, some have placed Template:Criticism of Islam on this article. This article is about the history of Arabian Jews and of early Islam, not criticism of anything…though of course, were we to add a huge section exploring contemporary moral judgments of the events described, as has been suggested, then the template might be appropriate.Proabivouac 23:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No, thanks. Arrow740 23:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, let's leave criticism to the criticism article. Beit Or 11:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Arafat and Ahmed

Dispute

Addition of "W. N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad have disputed the historicity of the incident.Ahmad argues that only the leaders of the tribe were killed. Arafat argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who embellished or manufactured the details of the incident."

(Arafat's article can be found at "Arafat, Walid N. New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 100-107.")

Since this discussion was archived, I'll provide a summary of arguments for inclusion of the above passage at the end of the article:

Quotes:

Hugh Goddard, a Professor of Christian-Muslim Relations says(cf. p.12 Published by Routledge 1995):

There has been a considerable amount of recent scholarly discussion concerning Muhammad's treatment of the Jews, and especially concerning the historicity or otherwise of the massacre of Banu Qurayza. See W.N. Arafat "New light on the story of Banu..."

Josef W. Meri says (Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia By Josef W. Meri, p.754, Published 2005, Routledge):

"On the other hand, significant Muslim scholars, such as W. N. Arafat, have objected to the notorious tales concerning the expulsion and execution of the Jews of Medina that form an integral part of the Maghazi as "unislamic".

William Montgomery Watt in Encyclopedia of Islam says:

"Recently, W. N. Arafat in JRAS[1976], 100-7, has maintained that by no means all the adult males were killed, but his argument is not entirely convincing

"The Oxford Handbook of Jewish history" (p.198) says:

"In recent decades there has been considerable discussion, on both sides of the larger debate, around the issue of Muhammad's own policy toward the Jews of Medina (e.g. Gil 1974; Arafat 1976; Ahmad 1979; Rubin 1985; Kister 1986)".

Jamal Badawi says:

"A scholarly article by W. N. Arafat questions the exaggerated estimate of the number of fighting men who were punished, which is found even in some biographies about the Prophet’s life, like that of Ibn Ishaq. His argument is compelling and well researched."

Previous discussions

In the previous discussion, myself, Str1977, Merzbow, Proabivouac, Bless sins, Itaqallah agreed with addition of Arafat and Ahmad's view. It was there for awhile until User:Arrow740 re-started removing that. --Aminz 07:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

None of those people endorse it. It is an extreme minority view. Do you deny it? Yes or no. Arrow740 08:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is hard for me to understand why you ask the same question you were asking way back. It's minority-held, but has been widely discussed, which contributes to its notability. --Aminz 09:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

i believe the consensus was to contain a brief word about it. ITAQALLAH 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Massacre vs. excecution

Still fighting over this, we are. I'll reiterate what I said earlier, since that's what we tend to do on this talk page: "massacre," "execution" and "beheading" are each accurate in their own way. I don't see that or why we need to use the same word each time. This is a classic example of POV-fighting for every last crumb, and a slow-edit war, which will continue until someone gets sick of Wikipedia (likely) or is run over by a bus. Perhaps the right solution is to split the difference. Besides that true but perhaps unhelpful observation, I have only one thing to add: the section title cannot be, "==Siege and execution==", because the natural reading of that phrase is, "Siege and how it was done." If someone is going to change all the words in question to "execution," please leave that iteration out of it.Proabivouac 04:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see the double meaning. In future I'll keep that in mind.Bless sins 04:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The best solution is "Siege and aftermath". This is because "Siege and massacre/killing" omits the part about their surrender and the judgment by Sa'ad. It also assumes that all of the Qurayza were killed, whereas the women and children were captured and not killed.Bless sins 05:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a summary of the last discussion:

• KirbyTime opposed massacre, but accepted "killing".

• Proabivouac didn't like "massacre", opposed the term "punishment", but conceded that "killing" was NPOV, albiet not very informative. Proabivouac was also inclined towards "beheaded", though with reservations.

• Merzbow suggested "beheaded".

• Matt57 opposed "killing", and supported "massacre".

• I rejected both "massacre" and "punishment" in favor of "killing" or "execution".

• Str1977 opposed both "execution" and "punishment".

Bless sins 04:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is best to report facts. Different authors use different terms "execution", "massacre", etc etc. "beheaded" and "killed" once accompanied with the statistical data are more neutral than either of "massacre", "execution", or "punishment". --Aminz 12:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing non-neutral about the word "massacre". See, for example, List of massacres. Beit Or 19:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see [8] --Aminz 19:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So? Beit Or 19:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't read it, it says "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly". That the execution was "cruel" is a POV.Bless sins 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As I have pointed out above, the word "massacre" is widely accepted on Wikipedia for description of wanton killings, like this one. Unless the word is included in WP:WTA, there is no good reason to avoid it. Beit Or 19:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wanton killing"? This was certainly not one. All scholars I've read agree that, even if not justified, Muhammad was eliminating a very real threat. the more you respond, the more it becomes evident that the word "massacre" is being used for a POV purpose.Bless sins 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And here is wanton [9]. --Aminz 00:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a completely pointless discussion. As explained, the word "massacre" is common on Wikipedia. This issue was discussed previously and resolved, so please stop beating this dead horse, hoping to derail the GA nomination. Beit Or 07:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how previous usage in wikipedia can be used as an argument. Because one may ask how this was justified in its first usage. If it was justified at that point, we can justify it now. If the first usage wasn't justified, then it can not serve as an justification for the next usages.

You said that it was resolved previously. Bless sins has provided a summary of previous discussion, providing a summary of various views in that discussion. I can't see an agreement? --Aminz 07:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to use the GA nomination as an excuse for not addressing this issue. I will bring up this issue until resolved, GA nomination or not.Bless sins 05:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the issue needs to be discussed whether or not there is a GA nomination. --Aminz 03:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Though I've no special attachment to the word "massacre," some of the changes here go far beyond an attempt to avoid emotive wording into the realm of conspicuous avoidance:

• "W. N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad have disputed the historicity of the incident."

• Which incident? There are many discussed in this article. On the one hand, it was very very important to include Arafat's objection; on the other, we're obscuring what he's actually saying, which disputes only one particular incident, which he rejects exactly because it seems to him "un-Islamic" and barbarous.

• "The story of the Banu Qurayza became the subject of Shaul Tchernichovsky's Hebrew poem…"

• Is the poem in fact, about the entire story of the Qurayza, or just about the massacre?

• "Siege and aftermath"

• "Aftermath" is uninformative, and falsely suggests what follows the siege to be secondary or anticlimactic, when it is arguably more salient than the siege itself - and isn't that exactly why you care?

• Meanwhile, this passage, "It is unclear whether or not the Qurayza's treaty with Muhammad required them to help him defend Medina or merely remain neutral. Qurayza, however, tried to have remained neutral," has not added any information, but only a weaselly suggestion and an argument ("however.")Proabivouac 04:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly,

Arafat and Ahmad explicitely deny the historicity of the massacre (as they think it unislamic), not of a conflict between Muhammad and the BQ.

I was hoping to find a contribution here by BS, who repeatedly called me to talk (even going so far as to post on my talk page) but I see nothing.

The problem with your "Watt" addition is that it is weasily and clearly pushing a point, even if Watt said something about this. And his (if this is his) opinion that the BQ did not help is contradicted by others who relate that they furnished weapons and also that they were involved in digging the trench. Why weasily? Well, we have "Practically all of Medina's inhabitants defended the city" - what does "practically all" mean? That there were other who didn't fight either? Of course, this would contradict the intended implication that the BQ somehow were special and had it coming.

I agree with Pro on your other addition.

Finally, could you please adopt proper English grammar. It is "the (Banu) Qurayza" not just "Qurayza". Str1977 ^(talk) 07:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, and Str1977: you know the issue here is not grammar but rather the POV intended. The word "Aftermath" is much better than "massacre"/"execution". As you very well know, more than half the tribe (i.e. women and children) were not subject "massacre"/"execution" but rather were sold as slaves. A few others converted. If you really want we can change it to "Siege and outcome". If we can't come up with a better word, then we can simple stick with "Siege".

Watt's argument does add something to the article. Firstly, it puts the Qurayza's neutrality in context of other Medinan tribe. Secondly, it talks about what their obligations (possibly) were under the their treaty with Muhammad. "Practically all" is the term Watt himself has used. That the Qurayza supplied Muslims with "implements for digging" has been taken into account by Watt.Bless sins 18:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So half of them *were* killed, and you don't think this rises to the level of a "massacre"? What *would* you consider a massacre? Let's all take a step back and try to stay focused on the meaning of the word massacre. Unless I'm mistaken, it means "killing a lot of people". And in the incident we're discussing, a lot of people were killed, right? There is nothing "POV" about using this word unless you are trying to obscure the fact that a lot of people were killed, which, Bless Sins, you are. I submit that the English word that most accurately describes the incident is massacre, not aftermath, and I further submit that anyone who doesn't agree with this characterization is grinding an axe and should recuse him- or herself from editing this article. Alexwoods 22:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re Proab's comment re Arafat: "he rejects exactly because it seems to him "un-Islamic" and barbarous." exactly because?? Maybe Proab can explain the exactly because bit based on the excerpts from the paper? --Aminz 05:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, please stop vandalizing this article. Alexwoods 19:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I can not see any vandalism. Str has not discussed his mass edit on the talk page. --Aminz 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? What about the number of times that Bless sins has removed any reference to a massacre in an edit titled "you removed a lot of reliable sources", without discussing the change on the talk page? Does he think no one is going to notice that, in addition to eviscerating the references, he is also changing the tone of the article to accord to his beliefs? He has not replied to my comment re: the definition of 'massacre' above but he keeps making the change. That is vandalism and edit warring. Alexwoods 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And what, specifically, is POV about this article? State it clearly, please, or I'll remove the tag after a couple of days. Alexwoods 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex, Str was the one who made a mass edit. On article such as this one, it is very likely that mass edits would result in content disputes. As was the case here. So, there was no vandalism on Bless sins's part.

Aside from the recent edit by Str, the choice of the words "massacre" is POV; please read from the beginning of the section. --Aminz 20:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree on both points. Str was simply reverting Bless Sins's vandalism, and, as stated above, "massacre" is an accurate description of the event. Just saying it's POV without saying why is not getting us anywhere, so why don't you tell us why it wasn't a massacre. Alexwoods 20:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "Massacre" refers to The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly. It implies a moral judgment regarding whether the killing was justified or not. Similarly, "execution" implies that the killing was justified. Killing is neutral. --Aminz 20:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Massacre" is commonly used in the English language, and in this encyclopedia, to mean the killing of a large number of unarmed civilians. It does not mean "cruelly", although I'm sure you could find someone who could argue that killing unarmed civilians is intrinsically cruel. Our little debate over the meaning of massacre, and your position in that debate, which I think is clearly wrong and very possibly calculated, does not excuse Bless Sins's repeated unilateral removal of the term from the article. Alexwoods 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex, here is a dictionary on term "Massacre" [10] re common usage. The term originally comes from the Old French macecle, macecre meaning butchery, shambles.

So, usage of the term carries a POV. But this was the second point. --Aminz 21:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. wrong, 2. irrelevant. Alexwoods 21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been explained ad nauseam here that the word "massacre" is not considered POV on Wikipedia, according to the consensus of editors. Those who think otherwise must bring up their issues at WP:WTA or suggest deleting/renaming List of massacres. Beit Or 19:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, I already replied to this. I can't see how previous usage in wikipedia can be used as an argument. Because one may ask how this was justified in its first usage. If it was justified at that point, we can justify it now. If the first usage wasn't justified, then it can not serve as an justification for the next usages.

We should relate the facts. The words killing + the number that were killed conveys it all. Nothing but POV can be added to this by using emotionally charged words. --Aminz 02:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing you're forgetting is that they didn't kill "civilians" but all men of fighting age who participated in the siege on the side of the Banu Qurayza. They were unarmed b/c they became POWs of the Muslims. Therefore something more neutral and correct would be "execution" though "killing" would work too. Jedi Master MIK 00:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Beit or, the use of the word "massacre" depends on the situation. Consider the following:

• École Polytechnique massacre - only 6 killed, but still called a massacre.
• Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 90,000 to 140,000 killed but most sources don't summarize the incident with the word "massacre".Bless sins 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, Alexwoods has accused me of "vandalism". Alexwoods can you please quote the part(s) of Wikipedia:Vandalism that you have used in order to give my edits that title? If you don't then I'll simply assume that your accusations are completely baseless.Bless sins 00:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You can assume whatever you want (thought I note en passant that I stated above why I thought your changes were vandalism, and you didn't reply), but I would be careful about drawing attention to your edit record, which taken as a whole probably does constitute vandalism or at the very least extreme POV pushing. Cheers. Alexwoods 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we use the following more specific tag (instead of the general POV tag) re dispute about "(Massacre) vs (Killing + statistical information)".

The neutrality of the wording of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

--Aminz 00:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The existence of List of massacres and the presence of this incident on that list convinces me that "massacre" is accepted usage on this encyclopedia for these types of incidents. - Merzbow 18:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, The general meaning of the term can be found in dictionaries(Beit Or translated it as "Wanton killing"). I don't think wikipedia itself can make a precedent for itself for the following reason: One may ask how this was justified in its first usage. If it was justified at that point, we can justify it now. If the first usage wasn't justified, then it can not serve as an justification for the next usages.

Merzbow, who put this incident on List of massacres? A wikipedian like you and me. Do you believe that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information for itself? --Aminz 00:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We should use the word reliable sources used. Above Matt57 posted some examples that used "massacre". - Merzbow 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the author (e.g. Watt, "Muhammad prophet and statesman" in page 171 uses "execution"). I don't think the usage of this loaded term adds any information to the article.

Merzbow, I think we should use reliable sources for facts, not for the linguistic terms. Also, various reliable sources have different biases. Though not always clear but many academic sources justify events based on economic/social motivations. Religious ones based on spirituality, emotions etc etc. Given that our information of the past is so limited, the reconstructed images will always be impure. The scholars add something from themselves and their cultural make up in their research. This reconstructed image affects the terminology that the scholars use in their writings. If one aims to model what Muhammad did in terms of economic/social motivations, he would use terms suggesting that Muhammad wrote the Qur'an implicit if not explicit. Similarly if one assumes that God revealed it, the writing style changes and Gabriel shows up for every now and then. Both are fine for the purposes they are supposed to serve. In Wikipedia however, I believe, we should come down to the basic underlying *facts* and avoid the linguistic styles associated with those models.

Lastly, please also take a look at [11]. "If there is no common name, the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "Battle of X" or "Siege of Y" (where X and Y are the locations of the operations). Non-neutral terms such as "attack", "slaughter", "massacre", or "raid" should be used with care". Please see also [12] (point number 3) --Aminz 14:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that avoiding the clear term substracts valid information from the article.

I agree that "various reliable sources have different biases", Watt in particular. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain the valid information that are avoided? Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions says that we should avoid "massacre" (part 3). --Aminz 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions says this:

If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.

If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.

and this:

My Lai massacre: This is a common name, and scholars generally agree that a massacre took place. Rule #1 applies, and rule #2 would give the same result.

This is getting old, folks. It's sophistry to say that this wasn't a massacre, and it is clearly commonly referred to as such. I would start looking for other battles to fight if I were you. Alexwoods 21:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It says: If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. There is no common name for this incident. Also, please see this: A generally accepted word on how to describe the event means there is consensus on the applicability of the word amongst scholars in the real world.[13] This is not the case here. There are also editors who hold that "Codifying the existing practice is a good idea, and so is avoiding unnecessary extra terms and loaded words. Use "battle" or "attack" rather than "massacre" and such." (User:Radiant! at 11:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC) same page). --Aminz 21:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Battle" or "attack" might accurately describe the Battle of the Trench itself, but would be highly misleading if applied to the massacre that happened afterwards, for which, I submit, the most appropriate term is "massacre". Alexwoods 21:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That was Radiant's general comment on the guildline. As I said before this If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. applies here because one can easily find examples of usage like "execution", and even "punishment". Words like these (and also massacre) are non-neutral loaded terms. And per that statement can not be used because massacre is not a "common name" for the incident. There is no common name for the incident.--Aminz 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no opinion on this particular debate - and I'm going to stay out of it, for my health - but I was involved in a recent [discussion about the use of the word 'massacre', so this caught my eye. I would love there to be centralised policy on this thing, especially at WP:WTA; the beginnings of consensus have emerged in the past. Hornplease 00:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Watt also uses the word "punishment", and so does Nomani. But Aminz and I have shown courtesy (and willingness to compromise) by not inserting a word that would carry POV applications. It is time Merzbow, you too compromised and used a more neutral word.Bless sins 13:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Massacre is a perfectly neutral word given the event described. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The definition of massacre is here.[14] As we can see the definition characterizes the act as "barbarous". Saying that something is barbarous is definitely POV.Bless sins 18:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Just to summarize here are the reasons why we should not use the word "massacre" but rather we should use killing + the number that were killed.

• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions provides a guildline for usage of terms like "massacre": "the use of strong words such as "massacre" can be a focus of heated debate". In part 3 it says: "If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications." This is further explain here: A generally accepted word on how to describe the event means there is consensus on the applicability of the word amongst scholars in the real world.[15] This is not the case here. This incident has no common name and depending on the author, the reliable sources use terms like execution, punishment and massacre. All of the terms like "execution", "punishment" and "massacre" imply legitimacy or illegitimacy. The neutral word to use is "killing"

• The common meanings of the term "massacre" and its connotations imply illegitimacy. One can find the meaning of the term here [16]: "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly" - The term originally comes from the Old French macecle, macecre meaning butchery, shambles.

• Usage of this loaded term adds no information to the article.

--Aminz 04:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So in your view it was a legitimate mass killing? Arrow740 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Aminz 04:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume that this opinion about slaughtering hundreds of Jewish POWs, including young boys, is rather extreme, and not something we should turn this article into a soapbox for. -- Karl Meier 06:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is sometimes a good thing for wikipedians that their comments are made anonymously. Arrow740 05:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Aminz or anyone thinks it legitimate or why and whether that view is extreme or not. A massacre is a massacre even when it is legitimate. Contrary to his claims, Aminz' quote above doesn't even touch upon the issue of legitimacy but only says "a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly" - and this certainly applies: the Muslims didn't discriminate among the male Qurayza, killing some (guilty ones) and letting others live. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Massacre: killing "a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly". This is exactly what Aminz and I are talking about. To pass the judgment that Muslims are/were "cruel" is to imply a POV.

Secondly, the killing was not "indiscriminate". Women and children were not killed. Even to that, there was an exception - a woman, responsible for the death of someone, was killed. Among the men, those who converted were not killed. Further, the killing was not limited to Qurayza, Akhtab, the leader of Nadir was also killed. But other Medinan Jews, not affiliated with the Qurayza, were not killed. Clearly there was lots of discrimination.

Just as the word "massacre" implies illegitimacy, punishment implies "legitimacy". But neither of us are pushing for that word. Why can't you guys come to a reasonable compromise with us.Bless sins 20:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, or anyone else, do you have anything further to say?Bless sins 18:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ma malakat aymanakum

Would you please explain on the talk page what this dispute is about? Thanks --Aminz 08:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, several users consider "right hand possess"="concubine"; however, I disagree that this is not the case. Even the wiki page regarding "right hand possess" does not say that a female "right hand possess" implies/defines as "concubine" nor does it give a definite opinion on whether such action is even allowed in Islam. On why I picked "right hand possess" aside from the above is b/c I think something like "slave" would also not fit the understanding and would imply the western concept of the idea. However, "slave" or something like "captive" would be preferable to what it keeps being changed back to and if what Arrow740 says is really a problem, that saying "right hand possess" is too complicated or takes long for the person to search up, then I'd be alright with something like what I suggested that does go better with whats the case. Jedi Master MIK 04:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

She was a slave and a concubine. Arrow740 05:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The first, so to speak. The second, not stated in any account. Jedi Master MIK 06:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Jedi Master, I see your point. I'd guess if you mention the term "slave" here, it would become more acceptable. The concern of some people here was that the meaning of the expression "right hand possess" is not directly clear. --Aminz 06:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"So to speak"! Yes, so to speak. Rodinson states on page 213: "The Prophet took a concubine for himself, the lovely Rayhana, the widow of one of those who had been executed." Arrow740 06:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah that carries such a NPOV tone to it >_>;. Jedi Master MIK 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Arrow740 01:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant that with a sarcastic note/tone. Jedi Master MIK 04:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rodinson stated facts. Don't blame him for what happened that day. Arrow740 04:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? All I see stated is his personal interpretation of what Ma malakat aymanukum translates straight into, there is nothing you've brought up from him that backs up the word concubine however. Jedi Master MIK 04:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The term Rodinson is using doesn't matter. If Jedi can provide a more accurate term with a clear meaning, we can replace it. --Aminz 08:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely clear that Rayhana was either his wife or one of his "Ma malakat aymanakum". Those are the only two categories, there is no third one. What we can do is write: she became one of Muhammad's "Ma malakat aymanakum" (a category similar to handmaidens). The reason I find "slave" not a good substitute is because the category contains males as well. But, as we should all know, Ma malakat aymanakum are females only.Bless sins 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, no it isn't just females; if you think it is then I suggest you re-read the article: Ma malakat aymanukum. Jedi Master MIK 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, please check out Rayhana. There are difference of opinion whether she was his wife or his handmaiden or did not have any relationship with him at all.Bless sins 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq's is a standard biography of Muhammad; the others are not. Also, notice that the statement on Rayhana comes from a reliable secondary source: William Montgomery Watt in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Beit Or 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think concubine is accurate enough. Disputes about this should not be waged here. This about the BQ for goodness sake. Of course, I do not reject a more accurate term as long as it is common in English. This is the English Wikipedia. (Ah, and "right hand possess" is not English either.) Str1977 ^(talk) 19:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet they are shown on the BQ page hence that is where the dispute needs to be resolved. You wouldn't solve the problem where it isn't occuring. Jedi Master MIK 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Str. Let's try not to use any terms that the average English speaker is going to have to look up. Concubine or wife is fine. Alexwoods 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The first, theirs a reason this is an encyclopedia, so if a person doesn't know what something is, he can look it up. The second, slave/captive would fit better than concubine, that I know for sure, and wife is disputed but could be added as a small side note.

Yes, "concubine" is just fine and had been there for a long time until the article was nominated for GA when all of a sudden even the most straightforward wordings proved "controversial". Beit Or 19:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Since when did change or challenging what is considered right to be possibly wrong? Jedi Master MIK 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We can always link to the Arab term but I oppose cluttering up articles with too much of that language or with pseudo-English that is ungrammatical or simply sounds awful, which happens to be the tendency of some editors (I am not speaking about you, Master Jedi, as I have had no encounter with you before.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Str1977 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What a ridiculous debate. Arrow740 21:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to stick around. Jedi Master MIK 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

True. Arrow740 01:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So don't, stop changing the wording even after I worded it to be better defined and easily understandable. Jedi Master MIK 04:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources say concubine, because that's what she became. Arrow740 04:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq gives no such indication and as far as I can tell/know, neither do any of the other sources cited besides their own POV that Ma malakat aymanukum translates into concubine. Jedi Master MIK 04:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of any particular term the 3 revert rule applies to all. This is not about dealing with vandalism, but with a content dispute, JediMaster - Could I therefore warn all concerned to stop reverting this and find a sensible formulation which encapsulates the conflict?

FWIW from superficial reading both the term concubine and the term handmaiden are wrong - former implies that there was sex, latter implies that if there was sex it was illicit. As former is not known and latter would not hav ebeen true according to relevant Islamic law as detailed in the other article a termphrase should be found which encapsulates at least the fact that the status is something worth enquiring more into - rather than blithely assuming concubine or not-sex-handmaiden. Absence of anything like in JediMaster's last reverts is not particularly useful either, is it? These are some thoughts only, I do not wish to become embroiled in an edit war, so I leave it to you to sort, but I will keep an eye on further revert warringRefdoc 10:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right and I do apologize for never suggesting something else in my edits even though people had problem with it as well for being too technical. However I did suggest in my last one or 2 posts one alternative, that instead of using the word "concubine" we use "part of his share of captives". When the Muslims took prisoners and spoils of war, they would divide them and the spoils up amongst the Muslims who fought and if we recall correctly, Muhammad received 1/5 of that and so thats why I suggested this instead. We could also use slaves instead of captives too if that is more preferrable to some here even though IMO that would also not be a fitting word regarding the differences of understanding in it between Islamic and western usage of it; nevertheless the dispute would be more easily resolved. Jedi Master MIK 15:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately we do not have to rely upon wikipedians for their opinions, but instead on reliable sources like Maxime Rodinson. Arrow740 04:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I could gather from other wiki articles about usage of his source he does not look at all like a NPOV. Even here it seems clear he freely just uses the term concubine without giving any backing to support the use of the word. And again, the wiki article which defines POWs gives no solid indication that is what the purpose of female POWs was nor that concubine would be a fitting translation of "what your right hand possess". So please consider the alternative instead, his share of captives/slaves. Jedi Master MIK 15:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; [Qur'an 33:50]

A prisoner of the right hand IS a concubine- there is no other word in english for it except perhaps "rape victim". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with that. I don't think we are going to get a less contentious translation than "concubine", and clearly we could use other terms that are arguably more accurate but that will inflame people even more. I wouldn't be opposed to a little parenthetical explaining the person's status a bit more clearly, but not using the term "concubine" is beating around the bush. Alexwoods 18:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest then that you read the whole verse:

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

It also states a number of close relatives as being lawful but it doesn't mean they would be concubines too. If you read the verse before and also analyze this verse more closely and in its entirety, the topic being discussed is that of marriage and whom was lawful for Muhammad to take in marriage and have relations with. There's a distinction between his wives and the slaves probably regards that marriage and hence freedom of the woman substitutes as a fitting dowry. So again I suggest the alternatives I gave above would be a better substitute. Jedi Master MIK 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

She was a slave Muhammad had sex with. Why are we being blamed for this? Arrow740 05:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Briangotts comment (18:07, 20 September 2007) demonstrates exactly why concubine is an incorrect term. It is clear that his/her intention behind the use of "concubine" is to portray Rayhana as a "rape victim". In any case, "Ma malakat aymanakum" comes the closest to describing Rayhana's status. I don't understand why we would use not use something that is factually more accurate. Bless sins 17:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreover Arrow, there is no evidence stated anywhere to indicate she was a sex slave implicit or explicit and I'm not blaming anyone for anything, I'm telling you to stop these baseless assertions according to personal POV's of some of what words they think in English are synonymous with describing institutions in Islam yet aren't. I'm also asking not that you replace it with anything complex but instead say what she really was, "part of his share of the captives/slaves". I've given more detail to make clear my argument above so if you want to understand/discuss what I'm saying, please bring those up instead of just constantly asserting one item as if it will of its own accord turn true. Jedi Master MIK 04:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a reliable source using the term concubine (and, Master Jedi, it is circular reasoning to call a source unreliable for its employment of the term when the term is issue in question). Furthermore, there is no serious disagreement among reliable sources as to the usage of the term. Of course, concubine and the Arab term are not identical but terms never are. But concubine is the closest we get with an English term. Whether this makes that woman a rape victim is beside the point (and I don't it makes her one). Finally, the issue is completely irrelevant to this article, so please stop it. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And we have a reliable source that calls the "massacre" of the Qurayzah "punishment" (see Watt's Muhammad in Medina). Shall we use that word? The point is to make something as NPOV as possible. "Concubine" has negative connotations. I may have approved the use of that word, if we were going to use it 20 times in the article. But we are only using it once, and I don't see the harm of using the actual word ("Ma malakat aymanakum").Bless sins 20:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But we have no reliable source that denies the status of the event as a massacre. Watt, in all his bending over backwards, doesn't do that, he simply avoids the other term.

Also, it is simply not true that "concubine" has negative connotations. It is a neutral term referring to a female sexual partner outside of marriage. And no, using the Arabic in the text is out of the question. If you want to write arabic go to this page. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that this article shoudl deny a massacre, we are simply saying the term be avoided, like it is by other reliable sources.

The term concubine does have negative connotations attached to it. Also is the use of Arabic text really "out of question". Perhaps we should delete the word "Yathrib". We should also remove Hebrew words ("kohanim" and "Ha-aharon li-Venei Kuraita").Bless sins 02:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It has the negative connotation in maybe thats not a very accurate term to define the Arabic word and actually POV of what some say it means. Even the admin comments that it can hold negative connotation and a user above who quoted a verse in one fashion also made point of the possible negative connotation. For further point I gave, refer to a few of my previous posts. Jedi Master MIK 19:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not true. It is negative to call someone a concubine who is actually a wife but that's about it. A lack of accuracy is not a negative connotation and is not a POV problem. I agree that there is probably a certain lack of accuracy but "concubine" is as accurate as it gets within the English language. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a negative connotation b/c Muhammad did not make concubines of any female captives he ever kept.

Its POV problem on the part of Rodinson b/c he states that she became a concubine though there is no evidence of it explicit or implicit.

And once again, the terms "slave" or "captive" would be far more accurate yet you insist over and over on ignoring them, even when I revised the whole sentance in question. Why? Also, please respond to my most recent post. Jedi Master MIK 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Concubine does not necessarily imply rape. Perhaps Jedi is confused about that. Arrow740 23:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And maybe your confused about her not having sex with Muhammad, most especially not outside marriage. Also, please respond to my most recent posts. Jedi Master MIK 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I didn't call it unreliable, at least not for using the word concubine; I said he gives no support, evidence, or understanding to this word being the proper word for usage and only employs it b/c of his POV on what it means. If you think I said otherwise then you either actually haven't read what I've been presenting on this issue or haven't read it closely enough. And yes its true theres probably no word that identical to "what your right hand possess" but there are words that are far more accurate than concubine as I have suggested in my most recent posts such ascaptive or even slave, neither of which has been addressed by any of the people who want to use concubine. Finally, as Bless sins explains better, this isn't an irrelevant dispute. Jedi Master MIK 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that you are right that you didn't call Rodinson unreliable because he used the word. I misunderstood your comment. However, you do call him unreliable.

Your alternative does not work as the phrase in question reads "As part of his share of the booty, Muhammad selected one of the women, Rayhana, and took her as a concubine". It already introduced Rayhana as M's spoil.

Also, "What your right hand possess" is still not English. Please educate yourself about this before trying to edit the English Wikipedia.

Finally, yes, the debate is irrelevant. This article is protected and the page cluttered up not for any issue regarding the BQ (remember, the article's topic) but because that wording squibble. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I judge his reliability from citations I've seen of him on other pages which appeared very POV, more so than even this.

Saying "captives" or "slaves" does work b/c booty is referring to the general spoils of war so there is no harm in saying specifically after that he took her as part of his share of captives/slaves. IF it still perturbs you, it can just as easily be written "Muhammad took a woman of the tribe, Rayhana, as part of his share of the booty/captives/slaves."

And once again, the term concubine is not an accurate term to use and it is less to nill akin to the original phrase so that alone should hint that we shouldn't use it.

Whats really irrelevant is this point b/c I've already stopped pushing for it a long while ago b/c I understood that indeed that exact phrase might be confusing to some, it is Bless sins who just brought it back up again.

One, an administrator had to come and respond to this particular discussion and gave no indication of it being irrelevant so again, no it isn't. Two, the article is protected b/c there's several unresolved disputes including this one that were causing revert wars and the person who protected it was hoping that in the time this article stays protected, we could reach a peaceful resolution. Three, AFAIK the choice between using the word "concubine" and "slave" or "captive" is in the category of "wording". Please educate yourself first. Jedi Master MIK 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Could we finish this? All it is doing now is being swapped back and forth. When it is changed, there is no comment on the talk, just an insufficient edit summary that if it brings points only brings back whats been stated and addressed in the discussion. If there is only this and another change made, this change isn't addressed at all in the edit summary or talk page. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

Hello,

I'm undertaking the Good Article review for this article. At this time, I am quick failing this article. Please note, a full review has not been undertaken at this time, and it has simply been failed on the basis of a quick scan of the article during which I have determined that the article is not stable, and currently has neutrality disputes.

When these issues with the article have been resolved and the article has remained stable for a period of time, feel free to re-list this article for nomination again. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any concerns. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 05:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, I'd suggest leaving it around four weeks from the time you get it stable. It certainly is unlikely to pass now that an apparent edit war has just started. As a third party, I'd suggest that the reversions cease until you can reach some form of consensus, otherwise the article will end up protected. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 06:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content

Secondly, reliable content is bieng removed in edits such as these.[17], [18]. Can someone give an explanation?Bless sins 13:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Re the first diff, I see no removal, only a different way of including the info. A neutral way, I might add, as your version describes as fact what is one authors interpretation - and as the other version puts the information in the context it is given and explains how the author came to his interpretation from the reported facts.

The second diff shows the removal of a POV pushing presentation, going beyond the facts. Abu Luhaba later regretted his action but it was not an "insinuation", as the course of events clearly showed, but an accurate statement. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you need to observe more carefully, because content certainly is being removed. For example:

• "However, Watt maintains that it is "virtually certain" that the Qurayza had an agreement with Muhammad that they were not to support an enemy against Muhammad."
• "Practically all of Medina's inhabitants oppose the enormous Quraysh forces besieging the city, except the Banu Qurayza."

There are some other examples of content being removed. Also the "a different way of including the info" is incorrect. Muhammad's revised assessment of Qurayza's blood money, happened early and certainly before his conflict with the Nadir. Yet the above edits place it after, which is not correct.Bless sins 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is rather you who should read more carefully, as I was talking about removal of content, not of words. Sure words are removed, others added and still others are changed or moved around. What is changed or removed is the POV portion of the passage, e.g. your singeling out of the BQ.

Or the blood money: that is a fact. How this is interpreted is not - and we should not confuse the two. And if our sources put the change in the context of the Nadir conflict it belongs there. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To Str1977, I'm here to look at the issue in general not get caught up in little technicalities. It is clear that content is being removed. (Obviously all content is made of words, which in turn are made of letters. If I blanked the entire article, I would be removing "words" - a lot of them, in fact. So you can go ahead and call the removal of content as "removal of words", or as "removal of letters", and you are 100% correct, but that is beside the point).

Whether Watt is "singeling out of the BQ" is not my problem. Sourced content about the Qurayza belongs in the article, whether you find it offensive or not. Besides the example I gave you there is other sourced content (which is ofcourse made of words, letters and symbols) being removed.

"And if our sources put the change in the context of the Nadir conflict it belongs there." Do they? Did you even look at the sources? I did. One source doesn't' specify, and another source seems put this much earlier.Bless sins 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

BS, don't try to confuse. Of course, removing content is also removing letters etc. but in our case, two items were brought up: one was not removing content at all but only including it in another way. And the other was removing content off topic to this article. I didn't say no more above. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is you who is confusing things. Above, I have given you two clear examples of content being removed. Now can you please explain why this content should be removed? You said that it is "off topic to this article". How so? Is it not relating to Banu Qurayzah?Bless sins 12:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained the changes. And, though will not understand it, BS, the first change still was not content removed but content covered differently. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it removed content. I'll again point out the content it removed:

• "However, Watt maintains that it is "virtually certain" that the Qurayza had an agreement with Muhammad that they were not to support an enemy against Muhammad."
• "Practically all of Medina's inhabitants oppose the enormous Quraysh forces besieging the city, except the Banu Qurayza."

The above two statements appear in my version[19], but not in the other version.[20]

Note there is also other content that was removed. Furthermore, content was misplaced (e.g. Muhammad's re-evaluation of the Nadir's blood money).Bless sins 18:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 you have not yet justified the removal of above mentioned content. Can you please do that below before reverting again.Bless sins 00:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A note to you: Watt is not "revelation". We need not include anything he says, especially when doing so hurts the article's neutrality.

Let's have a look at item number 2: That practically all but the BQ helped in the defensive effort is

a) not born out by the sources (who do not give a comprehensive view of who helped and didn't) - actually the passage doesn't even claim that much but talk about "practically all"

b) pushing a "the BQ are traitors" POV by singeling them out. This is reflected by the "practically all". The BQ are unduly focused upon when there arguably were others that did not participate (as implied by "practically") but were not massacred.

c) Watt's claim is contradicted by the sources (who tell us that the BQ initially helped in the digging of the trench)

So the mistake lies with Watt who in his Islamophilia villifies the BQ. We should not follow him in this.

And item number 1: This statement is not needed as we already covered the general agreements ("after Muhammad arrived in Medina in 622, he established a compact...") before we moved on to the supposed special agreement ("Aside from the general agreements ... Muhammad signed a special treaty with the Qurayza chief ..."). Including the Watt quote only repeats in a very onesided way (agreements were mutual) what the preceding paragraph already stated.

Also, I think it disingenuous that you use my alleged no having given reasons for your comprehensivre reverts when these include also issues that have long been argued (such as the blood money passage, the Abulubuhu issue, the word execution, the concubine issue). Str1977 ^(talk) 09:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough! If Watt is a reliable source then you have no right to challenge his claims (other scholars do, however). I have posted a general discussion regarding Watt's reliability here:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Watt_and_Oxford_University_Press.

"The BQ are unduly focused upon" Umm what did you expect? An article about the Banu Qurayza will obviously focus on the Banu Qurayza!

Regarding "item number 1". None of the statements you provided cover the claim that the agreement covered not supporting an enemy against each other.

Finally, there are other issues, such as the disruption of chronological order.Bless sins 06:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I as an editor of this article have every right to comment on the make up of this article. I reject the hadithisation of Wikipedia by which I mean turning it into a quotefarm. We can and should report on all notable voices including Watt but we shouldn't copy unbalanced wordings.

>>"The BQ are unduly focused upon" Umm what did you expect? An article about the Banu Qurayza will obviously focus on the Banu Qurayza!<<

I was not speaking about this article here but about what Watt wrote. Sure, this article focuses on the BQ (something that some people forget when it comes to Abuluhaba). Sure this article should say this and that about the BQ. But the Watt passage is different as it also talks about others in a blantantly POV pushing way. That might be okay for Watt but not for Wiki. "Practically all but" is weasily. Also, what about the support for digging the trench?

Regarding item number 1: sure if a community is formed by general agreements (as by the Constitution of Medina) it is understood that those entering an agreement with each other should be faithful to each other which means at least not attack each other or join in attacks against each other. If it makes you happy, we can make that explicit.

"The disruption of chronological order" ... I see no disruption as the item IMHO best fits into the place my version put it, i.e. the conflict between Muhammad and the Nadir, not in some "pre-islamic" fairy land.

Str1977 ^(talk) 07:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether your allegations against Watt are reasonable enough to disqualify him will be determined by community consensus. I want a decision on this issue once and for all, so that no one may doubt the reliability of Watt.

What do you mean by "pre-islamic fairy land". Are you saying the Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadir didn't exist before Islam? It is stated by sources that Muhammad elevated their status upon arrival not upon expulsion of Banu Nadir. Why can't you accept the chronological order?Bless sins 14:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to disqualify Watt. But we cannot blindly include anything he ever said verbatim.

By pre-Islamic fairy land I referred to the separation of anything into pre-Islamic and Islamic. We should avoid such simplistic categorisations when they are not needed. What we know is that at one point in time the BQ blood money was raised to the level of the BN by Muhammad. We have nothing about status (which is constantly sneaked in), nothing about whether the BN had always received a highter blood money (which is what pre-Islamic implies), when exactly M. made this decision (Islamic times commonly beging with the Hedjra to Yathrib - he surely didn't make this decision on arrival which makes pre-Islamic inaccurate) only that it was before the conflict with the Nadir broke out - which is exactly why we report it then and there. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If Watt is going to be disputed, it certainly won't be on the basis of your original research. If a scholar of equivalent reliability disputes it then you arguments would seem valid. According to the current discussion Watt's book is a reliable source. I believe there is consensus.

"Pre-Islamic" means before the changes brought about by prophet Muhammad, "Islamic" means during or after. The raising of Nadir's blood money was brought about by the prophet. Yes, the source does say that he did this soon after he came to Yathrib. Please read it.Bless sins 02:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have raised this as you now use it to feign cooperation. There are much larger problems around. However, note that replacing "pre-Islamic" with "before Muhammad's arrival" solves none of my concerns. No, the source does not say that he did this immediately after his arrival but at some point between his arrival and the Nadir affair. There we report, there it will stay. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the source? I have. If you haven't read the source you can't possibly know what it says. Why do you want to go against the source? Do you think your original research is more reliable than the statements made by scholars? Think again. Your concern was that the term "pre-Islamic" was a "fantasy". Is the "arrival of Muhammad" also a fantasy? Did that not occur?Bless sins 00:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I haven't read THE SOURCE but I have read a couple of sources. And I have read about this event here, even though you do not specify it. Anyway, what makes you think I haven't read it. Another bad faith comment by you. But anyway "pre-Islamic" is a minute wording issue that cannot be solved by looking into "the source". I have already explained what I meant by "fantasy". Str1977 ^(talk) 10:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction to item number 1: it is already explicit. To illustrate this, I have temporarily moved the passage the absence of which you decry into the general agreements paragraph - you can see clearly how one and the same setence appear side by side. [21]:

"Watt holds that the Qurayza and Nadir were probably mentioned in an earlier version of the Constitution requiring 'the parties not to support an enemy against each other.However, Watt maintains that it is "virtually certain" that the Qurayza had an agreement with Muhammad that they were not to support an enemy against Muhammad.

The only difference is that the last sentence focuses on BQ and M. It is clearly based on the same sentence from Watt's short encyclopedic entry in the EoI. This should settle at least this issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference here is that the former sentence says "probably", while the latter says "virtually certain". Another difference is that the first sentence is made in the Constitution of Medina (which included most if not all tribes of Medina), while the latter sentence is made in the context of Banu Qurayza's special treaty with Muhammad.Bless sins 14:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WHat does Watt say in his article? The two sentence clearly refer to one and the same sentence. Does he say "probably" or "virtually certain"? Str1977 ^(talk) 21:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two agreements in question here. In one agreement there was "probably" a clause to not aid Muslim enemies, while in the other agreement the existence of such a clause is "virtually certain". The latter agreement is prophet Muhammad's special agreement with Qurayza, in which the Banu Nadir would obviously not be included.Bless sins 02:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Quote the article. I can't find it right now.

Ah, and please do not issue fake claims about "agreement" and consider orthography. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find the article that's your problem. Unless you have reason to beleive that I am lying (and have read the source) I won't bother to repeatedly look up the source. 'Fake claims about "agreement"'? Are you saying that COM was "fake", and the prophet's special agreement with Qurayza was also "fake"? Go do some research.Bless sins 00:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

BS,

Fake claims about agreement referred to one of your edit summaries ("restore sourced content per talk, also we now have consensus that Watt is a reliable source"). I should have been clearer given that other agreements were involved too. The fake thing about it is that you claim consensus has been reached on Watt (when I never disputed that he is one - but just one - RS) and use this as a justification to rollback to your cherished POV version, on which there has never been any agreement whatsover.

Now, of course it is your problem if you parrot a "source" without wanting to look at it. But I have looked it up again and can only come to the conclusion that you haven't done so yourself in a while. Here is a lengthy excerpt (leaving out diacritic symbols)

It is reported that at the Hidjra, Ka'b b. Asad, acting on behalf of the Kurayza, made and agreement ('ahd) with Muhammad, and that later during the siege of Medina (the Khandak) he was persuaded by Huyayy b. Akhttab of al-Nadir to break it, and the actual document was torn up by Huyayy (Ibn Hisham, 352, 674, al-Wakidi, 456). This report is open to grave doubt, however. Ibn Ishak does not name his sources. Al-Wakidi has two: one is a grandson of Ka'b b. Malik of Salima, a clan hostile to the Jews; and the pother is Muhammad b. Ka'b (d. 117-20/735-8), the son of a boy of Kurayza, who was sold as a slave when they surrendered and later became a Muslim. Both these sources may be suspected of bias against Kurayza; and it is therefore probable that there was no special agreement between Muhammad and Kurayza. It is virtually certain however that Muhammad had a general agreement with the Jews that they were not to support an enemy against him (al-Wakidi, 176); and something like this was probably implicit in his alliance with the Arab clans of Medina, since the Jewish clans were allied to one or other of the Arab clans. The Constitution of Medina as given by Ibn Hisham (341-4) does not mention Kurayza ir al-Nadir or Kaynuka' by name; but its present form almost certainly dates from after the execution of the men of Kurayza, and these Jewish groups were probably mentioned in an earlier version.

Browsing through this reveals how you mispresented Watt. It also gives me an idea how to include your cherished phrase into the article.

The article does contain another interesting passage relevant to a recent debate here. After the massacre, Watt notes that

As part of his share of the booty, Muhammad received one of the women, Raybana, and married her as a concubine, though she is said to have become a Muslim.

I guess all you Wattites will now finally accept this a fact. Watt said it, it must be true. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How did I misinterpret Watt? In any case, Watt says it is "virtually certain", not "probable", that the Qurayza had such agreement with Muhammad.Bless sins 16:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I doesn't matter whether Watt says "virtually certain". We need not parrot any sillable from that man. Neither do I say "probable" - Taking it out makes the statement even stronger, BTW. Ah and thanks for reverting under false edit summaries again (you were not accomdating my POV but rather reverting back to your POV). Str1977 ^(talk) 18:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. We don't need to parrot from Watt. Infact, too much parroting causes copyright infringements. So instead of "virtually certain" how about "absolutely clear" or "certain without a shadow of doubt"?Bless sins 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need to include such qualifications at all. Watt clearly believes that only a general agreement exists. We report this as such: Watt says that it is so. Why isn't that enough when anything else would be less? Str1977 ^(talk) 01:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Watt not only believes he is absolutely certain. I don't understand why you would oppose such qualifiers. And I don't understand why you continue to remove Watt from the article especially after there has been consensus that he is a reliable source.Bless sins 02:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Considering Watt a reliable source (under the terms of Wikipedia) doesn't make his views "the truth", nor does it require us to parrot any syllable he ever uttered (though I recognize that you and your friends like to indulge in Watt-quoting - of course unless he happens to say, hm, "concubine".
2. Watt, in his EoI article is not "absolutely certain" but relates the doubts in quite a toned-down manner and then states his view that the non-existence of a special agreement is "probable" and the general agreement's term "virtually certain". In English, "Virtually certain" does not equal "absolutely certain" but only almost. In this article he says "virtually", though he possibly made stronger statements when he is writing an encyclopedia article (which calls for some restraint, if you can grasp this).
3. But all your vitriol is ill-spent as my version includes Watt's view without any qualifications, hence making it even stronger than "virtually" or even "absolutely certain". I do this because I think the degree of certainty in Watt's mind is absolutely of no interest to anyone. In any case it is Watt's view (representative of one opinion in academia) and we report it as such. There is no relevant bit left out.
4. Oh and BTW, I actually agree with Watt on this so don't try to insinuate that I want to gloss over this view.

Str1977 ^(talk) 10:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

1. But on wikipedia we care not about "the truth" but about verifiability (see WP:V). Regarding "concubine": here on wikipedia, we always expand as much as possible. So even though sources summarize events as BQ betraying Muhammad, we are going to write in detail what exactly the BQ did. Similarly Watt is summarizing her status, but we should give more details.

2. So if you don't like "absolutely certain", we can go back to "virtually certain" and put that in quotes indicating its Watt's opinion.

3. "Vitriol"? Can you be civil please? I see no reason for excluding the qualifier.

4. I'm talking about your removal of content from Battle of the Trench section. I'm also objecting to your disruption of chronological order, despite the fact that sources put it much earlier that you put it (though this has nothing to do with Watt).Bless sins 11:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

BS,

1.I know that you don't care about the truth. However, it was you that is constantly acting as if Watt is "the truth" and that we should quote him verbatim as often as possible. Only in the case of "concubine" do make an exception. Well, I have no problem with linking to your Arabic language article but that issue is so much irrelevant to this article here that we cannot cover it here.

2. We can also go back to just report him without parroting him. Don't try to fool around with the alternative of either agreeing with you or agreeing with you. I take neither.

3. Can you be civil please? I see no reason for including the qualifier. Can we treat Watt as we would treat any scholar?

4. Oh, my your supposed chronological order again. Well, "the source" doesn't actually say that Muhammad went to Yathrib and elevated the BQ's blood money (and nothing about status at all) - this is best reported when it becomes relevant during the Nadir affaire. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad didn't initiate that (please see the qur'anic verse revealed in this incident [22]). Qurayza took the advantage of the arrival of Muhammad in Medina and challenged the other Jewish tribe to aske for Muhammad's judgment. This apparently happened in the early Medinain years. --Aminz 09:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify what "that" you are talking about? There was more than one issue raised above (due to the BS blanket reverting.) I assume (but am not clear) that it is the blood money issue.

How is this not OR. The occasions of surahs are often disputed. Where are you taking from that this about the BQ or blood money.

Here is the surah you linked to:

YUSUFALI: But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) law before them?- therein is the (plain) command of Allah; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) People of Faith.

PICKTHAL: How come they unto thee for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered judgment (for them)? Yet even after that they turn away. Such (folk) are not believers.

SHAKIR: And how do they make you a judge and they have the Taurat wherein is Allah's judgment? Yet they turn back after that, and these are not the believers.

This doesn't seem to be relevant at all. It talks about Jews in general. To bring this up seems strange to me.

Thus far, this event is first reported during the conflict of Muhammad and Nadir. Sure it happened earlier but we do not know when. So it is best to report it there.

But please tell me if you were talking about something else. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about the same issue. Please take a look at this text here [23].

I also read the same story from another Tafsir and it mentioned only one account there. The first verses talk about an adultery dispute(5:41-5:43) and the later ones on the law of retaliation (5:43-5:45).--Aminz 10:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will have a look later. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read it now and see that this puts the actual dispute not between full and half blood-money but between bloodmoney and the death penalty, between unbiblical and biblical punishment, and gives no information about whether Muhammad actually decided and what the outcome was. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'anic verses of course don't mention all the details. The law of retaliation is covered here (5:43-5:45) and for more the details, one can refer to the occasion for its revelation.--Aminz 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I took retaliation to mean "life for life". I am afraid I cannot (without OR) put the issue together from the linked article, especially if the beginning of the chapter is missing, but the title implies that it is mostly about the punishment of adultery, not homicide. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The version you prefer mentions that "the Banu Qurayza had been on bad terms with the Banu Nadir and Muhammad had secured the former tribe's support by increasing the blood-money paid for a slain man of the Qurayza to the sum paid for a slain man of the Nadir"

For a detailed account of the story please refer to the occasion for revelation of the above-mentioned verses for example from Tafsir al-Mizan (the one I use). Regards, --Aminz 09:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that doesn't help. Please provide me with links to articles that clearly relate the sequence of events (or quote passages). Also, we must note that this tafsir is only one and there may be others. Also, is it accepted by Sunnis as well or only by Shia? Please help as I am quite open to changes on this issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The sequence of events are documented by multiple sources (e.g. Nomani). Also Str1977, you don't really have a reason to oppose this sequence unless another scholar disputes it. Bless sins 22:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thus far I haven't seen this sequence laid out. I think Aminz is on a good track to providing something that will justify another way of including this.

You are mistaken with your idea that I need a scholar. We as editors organize this article as we think it best. No scholar can help us in this. No one disputes that the decision of M. between the two tribes happened some time between the Hidjra and the Nadir affaire. Before M. wasn't there, after wards the Nadir weren't there. The question is not so much when this happened but how to best organize the information. As information is growing, this event gets a life of its own aside from the Nadir affaire.

What is still unclear to me is what M. decided, given the links and explanations that Aminz posted.

Maybe you can help by quoting passages from Nomani? Str1977 ^(talk) 22:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Nomani it happened right after the Hijra. "What is still unclear to me is what M. decided" From all sources it is clear that prophet Muhammad decided that the Qurayza's blood money should be equal to the Nadir's.Bless sins 23:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you actually reply to my question and quote Nomani. BTW, who is Nomani. What is his book about.

No, not "from all sources." The book linked to by Aminz seems to differ. 07:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have his book on me. Nomani is a late Indian professor at the Aligarh University. His works have been praised, and he is regarded as one of the leading historians of his day. His book is on the life of the prophet.Bless sins 01:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But not enough for inclusion as long as we do not know exactly what he is saying. I am, if you pardon my French, not prepared to take the cate in the bag, especially if that book is not indispensible. I can't see that we cannot do without it, at least right now. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 since when is me quoting every scholar a criteria for inclusion? I could do the same and ask you to quote the exact words of all the scholars or else start removing them. If you want to know more, then go to a library and get the book, borrow it, view it online, or purchase it.Bless sins 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a dispute about it and therefore it is first and foremost your obligation to provide the quote. I have more important things to do than to look for hoards of backwater writers. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Likewise I should dispute much of the article making your first and foremost obligation to run to the library and find the book for me, while I don't even have to lift a finger (figuratively)? Look, I will provide you with the quote if you have a reason to dispute it (i.e. you checked out the book and found that it doesn't say what I think it says). But since you haven't read the book, you have no reason to suggest that what I'm reporting is false.Bless sins 16:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are not talking about hosts of books but a book - Ramadan - which you added in such a way that it creates offense. Since you provided the book, you are likely the one who has it handy, so it is most easy for you to access it and provide the quote so that others can contribute to wording this in a proper way. You are free to return the favour for any reference I provide and I will not complain but as quickly as possible provide the quote. You obviously still think that I disputed your sincerity - never that, it was the wording you included I took issue with. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes but your logic can be applied to a host of books. Anyways, I provided Ramadan for you, only (as you say) since it was "easy" for me to access.Bless sins 04:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And I asked you for it because it was easy for you to access. You could have done this in the first place, sparing us countless arguments. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Abu Lubaba

Str, Have you ever read Guillaume's translation? I actually gave a sort of lightened version of the words that Abu Lubaba said. In the account, he makes the gestures as stated in the article but then its stated by Abu Lubaba in the Sirat that when he was about to walk away, he stated the following: "My feet had not moved away from the spot before I knew I had been false to God and His Apostle". It further goes on to state that he ran to the mosque in Medina and further stated: "I will not leave this place until God forgives me for what I have done".

BTW, just an FYI from the article and source but Abu Lubaba made the gesture regarding the inquiry of the Banu Qurayza about the Prophet making a decision on their fate, not an arbiter from an allied tribe which is what it turned out to be. If there is any POV pushing, it is probably more so the opinion of Stillman which disregards any of these details, particularly those of the full record of Abu Lubaba's meeting with Banu Qurayza. Jedi Master MIK 21:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's all beside the point. The word "insinuation" is not fitting here as it suggests that something was inaccurate about the information he gave. Well, it was not inaccurate but exactly the fate that awaited the BQ. Even if one does not believe that delegating the judgement to Sad was a fix, this holds true, as M. did not firstly intend to delegate it - he did so when pressured by the several of the Banu Aus. Before that, he might as well have wanted the BQ dead and Abu Luhaba is a witness that he did.

That Abu Luhaba regretted telling the BQ about it is beside the point.

Also, the entire phrase is totally off topic as this article is about the BQ not about what AL regretted or not. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I think you should review the word insinuation b/c you seem to think it insinuates something else >_>. The gesture he made was an insinuation by definition of the word, what happened after for whatever theorized reason by whoever is irrelevant to this p. The gesture insinuated that death was the outcome of Muhammad making the decision.

I further suggest you review Guillaume's translation b/c Muhammad originally was going to make the decision himself but, contrary to how the article words it, the Aws got up and asked that since they were allied to them, they wanted them to be treated like Banu Qanayqu was and so Muhammad asked if they wanted one of their people to do it so they did.

I also suggest that you reread the bolded citation of Abu Lubaba's testimony if you think it supports Muhammad wanting Banu Qurayza dead b/c its actually the opposite. In it he says clearly that he acted falsely towards Muhammad and Allah when he was asked what decision he would've made; this statement insinuates that had Muhammad made the decision, he knew that he might have been lenient. Jedi Master MIK 15:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In any case, Abu Luhaba is not the topic of this article. What he regretted or not is none of our business. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the business of those who would like to try and understand history fully themselves with all the information and not just conspiracy theories offered by other authors. He regretted it b/c he says he was dishonest.

In any case, it isn't as if I'm putting his whole story up which is longer than this (involves him punishing himself and being forgiven after sometime); I've only added the part of the account which is directly pertinent and happened at the incident of Banu Qurayza. Jedi Master MIK 18:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's always easier to label someone else with epithets than to engange in arguments, Master Jedi, right?

"He regretted it b/c he says he was dishonest." - says who? the source? Or someone trying to explain away M's responsibility for the massacre? Str1977 ^(talk) 10:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made my arguments in previous posts already, I only just named his explanation as such. And if you haven't figured out the 2nd part already, then you haven't really been reading my posts b/c I bolded clearly the exact account from Guillaume's translation which supports what I said, should I ALL CAPS it too?

"MY FEET HAD NOT MOVED AWAY FROM THE SPOT BEFORE I KNEW I HAD BEEN FALSE TO GOD AND HIS APOSTLE" Jedi Master MIK 11:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The second change removed off topic material - off topic because the conscience of Abu Lahuba is not subject of this article. Your claim that his "insinuation" was false was not in the removed text (apart from the word insinuation) - it only came up now (proving my objection to the "i" word correct) and if you want to state this it has to be in proper NPOV fashion based on a reference. You have not provided one thus far. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing it proves is that I shouldn't have been too lazy to go look up the exact statement and quote it instead of trying to summarize it as I did. As for references, aside from the fact that I've given the reference a number of times already (Guillaume's translation of Life of Muhammad), the direct reference was already given in the article b/c part of the account was already given: Guillaume, p. 461-463; Peters, p. 222-223; Stillman, p. 137-140. Now please explain to us why this subject of reference only came up now. Jedi Master MIK 16:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of "insinuation" we can say "false statement"? After all Abu Lubaba himself says "false".Bless sins 18:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not quite as Str has shown that can be misinterpreted and people will say it wasn't false. You could put quotes around "false statement" but that might give it a look of POV. How about you direct quote the whole phrase like the one before it like "false statement against Allah and His Apostle" to show Abu Lubaba said it but the quotes don't look imply anything of themselves. The alternative I think would work is you could quote the whole small section from the biography starting from the Banu Qurayza asking his advice to Abu Lubaba giving this statement. Jedi Master MIK 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No no no! "False statement" is exactly the insinuation in "insinuation" I object to. The account does not say that his state was "false" - it says that AL considered his behaviour as "false". Of course, giving away Muhammad's intention to the BQ was false to Muhammad, regardless of whether the statement was accurate or not (of course more so if M. did not want to kill the Jews).

If, as this last proposal seems to suggest, want to say that AL's statement was false then this a) must be put in NPOV fashion by being b) attributed to some one who argues this. If you can provide this, bring it on. If not, leave it. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Expressing frustration isn't gonna get us anywhere.
• False by definition means untruth, lie, incorrect, etc.
• In no way does interpreting what he said as his behavior towards Allah and His Apostle was a lie make any sense whatsoever.
• Him suggesting one thing about someone but then insinuating something bad about that person afterwards and then saying he was false to that person clearly gives indication he lied about his latter action.
• If he said he was disloyal, unfaithful, possibly even wrongful, that would make more sense with what you said but it doesn't and is translated clearly w/o ambiguity.
• Putting in what I said will make it NPOV b/c it will contrast Stillman's theory. Jedi Master MIK 04:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you are not grasping what the text produced by you says.

I repeat that at least this translation does not say in any way that AL lied. What it says is "My feet had not moved away from the spot before I knew I had been false to God and His Apostle" - he has been false to God and Muhammad, not that he has been false to the BQ. If he had lied to them, he would have been false to them. You should educate yourself, Master Jedi, about what the term "to be false to someone means" - it means "to betray someone", which may include lying about him but it doesn't necessarily mean that.

Consider this example: "Mr J., a big entrepreneur, trusted his secretary Miss S. with all his business secrets but she secretly cooperated with his rival, Mr A. and revealed all the secrets to him." The secretary is being false to J. but she is no way lying to Mr A. It is her telling the truth that constitutes her falsehood towards her boss.

I also repeat my request to you to produce an actual reference for your claim that AL was lying. If you don't come up with one, I assume that you are engaging in OR. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We both think the other is not grasping the text correctly, I however will go the extra step and suggest you're not grasping my posts either.

• False means to lie and be untruthful, we got that. With that in mind, the usage of the word false in such a sense makes no sense whatsoever and I've never heard it used in this way either.
• As for your example, it holds no relevance or similarity to this situation. He didn't give away war secrets or something not of his duty to give, he lied that if Muhammad decided their fate, his intention would be for them to be slaughtered.
• The whole point of this debate is to show that this statement shows he lied, I don't ever recall us debating about any other source besides you stating that I didn't provide a source for this statement which I already made clear was not the case.
• The article makes clear that the tribe allied to BQ asked to give verdict on BQ themselves and Muhammad suggesting their chief Sad and them all agreeing that his judgment be final.
• If you want something extended, I can relate that this kind of incident never has happened before or after this incident with any other tribe when Muhammad decided their fates.

Finally, I ask you to stop talking condescendingly to me about my education. Jedi Master MIK 02:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Master Jedi,

• you are still engaging in a special way of OR. You are placing something in the article which a) either had no relevance to the article, or b) wants to insinuate something (that Abu Luhabu lied) that is born out by the referenced.
• You fail to grasp the meaning of the word "false" - it doesn't necessarily mean to lie - it can also mean to betray trust. To just claim that he lied but you don't give any evidence for that. If you can provide a scholar that interprets it your way then I am all for including it in a NPOV manner. But I am not prepared to let it stand based on a narrow reading of the word "false" nor in a manner that proclaims or insinuates it as fact that AbuLuhabu "lied".

09:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Str.

• There is no OR, I only gave the reference and nothing more; no commentary or OR as to what it may or may not mean. I even left Stillman's POV on the whole account up. By your thinking one can say the whole account of his meeting is OR b/c it insinuates a POV of its own. And whatever is insinuated or not by the reference I have no control over, just what the reader interprets.
• Once again, even if it does also mean to be treacherous to someone, the same implication can be made about the interpretation I gave, that he was treacherous in saying Muhammad would've killed them if he made the decision. The one you offer however has no grounds as, assuming Muhammad's intention was to slaughter the Banu Qurayza, Muhammad sent AL to the BQ to tell them the whole situation and give them all the truth; there is no indication or account b4 this account that he told AL to not tell them he had any violent demise set for BQ, explicit and implict.
• An author's POV on interpreting a situation is still a POV as the above should show. And reading Stillman, I see now why you've been pushing specifically for the definition of betrayal for false ;-). Nevertheless, consider what I've said above. Jedi Master MIK 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Master Jedi,

• If there is no OR and you only want to include this fact that AL regreted what he did (which I donÄt dispute), if you do not want to insinuate anything by including it (I wonder how this can be squared with your later statement that Al lied), then I want to ask you how this is relevant to this here article. It is quite relevant to an article on AL.
• You fail to grasp that the fact that your interpretation (which may well be true) is not the only possible one makes my case. You say AL lied. I say he considered his act as being false and that can be constituted by telling the BQ no matter whether it was a lie or the truth. We have to possibilities here. It is not up to us to decide. If you can come up with a scholar who makes the "AL lied" case, bring it on.
• An author's POV is still POV and I never pushed for one POV to be endorsed. I only say when we have to possibilities we cannot endorse one by including this passage which, apart from assuming the verity of one POV, is not relevant to this article. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Str

• I suppose if I told you that Rodinson and Stillman found it relevant enough to put it in their texts you'd find it relevant, am I correct? B/C thats what they did. However, since we seem to be using Ibn Ishaq as the main source for this info and he included it in his description of BQ, what Rodinson/Stillman did (which is true mind you) is irrelevant.
• What I think is what I think and so is whatever the reader gets from what he reads, I haven't included what I think though. This quote like I said is printed in the other author's books too but they go an extra step and choose to promote their POV and understanding about whats insinuated.
• I thought wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV encyclopedia.
• I haven't pushed the alternative POV in the article past putting up the quote which again I say other authors have included in their texts as relevant. Jedi Master MIK 14:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Master Jedi, I am beginning to get the impression that a serious discussion is not possible. Please prove me wrong.

• First item: did Rodinson and Stillman write an encyclopedic (hence short) article on the BQ? Or did they write books (long) on Muhammad or early Islamic history (both much wider topics)? It is certainly relevant to that but it is not relevant here. Ibn Ishaq wrote a biography on Muhammad, not an article on the BQ. Anyway, he wrote a thousand years ago - hardly useful as a standard here.
• Second item: I frankly don't care what you think. What I care about regarding this article is the reasoning for including this information and my conclusion is that it either saves no relevant purpose (as it only talks about AbuLuhabu's psyche) or it is POV pushing via the implication that AL was lying (i.e. that Muhammad didn't want to kill them).
• Third item: exactly - and that is why I am opposing you!
• Fourth item: again, either you want to include this for any actual reason or you want to include it so that the insinuation that the massacre wasn't Muhammad's fault remains. And this cannot stand as an insinuation. It could only stand if it is clearly spelled out and then only in an NPOV way, attributed to a scholar.

Str1977 ^(talk) 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Str, this is a pretty serious discussion, its just not going anywhere. There's a difference.

• S and R wrote chapters/parts dedicated solely to BQ which utilized the quoted when they got to the part about AL. In fact, every book relating the incident I looked through today related that quote with the part about AL, I was kind of surprised.
• Yet all the authors used here as far as I can see use him as a source in their work, not to mention much of the sourced material here uses Ibn Ishaq too, the Guillaume version at least.
• You say that yet you keep bringing up the assumption/accusation that I will further my POV from putting this quote in though the cited authors use the quote to present their POV.
• Funny though you don't consider an author saying his POV regarding the same quote and account to be POV pushing while all I added was just the quote to finish an account which many works keep in but is rv on wiki by you b/c of your cynicism about my irrelevant intentions which you say you don't care about but keep bringing back up.
• Well we finally agree on something I guess ;-).
• I want to include the quote so the account given is complete. If you bring back again of what I think AL was thinking, then I will assume you do care about what I think. Jedi Master MIK 01:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, please see WP:NOTPAPER regarding your "an encyclopedic (hence short) article on the BQ" argument. If an event is proven notable (and in this case it is), then it belongs. Also, why must this be attributed to a scholar? It is an undisputed fact covered both my medieval and modern sources.Bless sins 17:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, if an event has no bearing on the topic (and in this case it hasn't) it doesn't belong. My request for a scholarly reference is for your claim that AbuLahubu lied. So far it is OR based on your (IMHO faulty) reading of a primary source. Bring on one scholar who argues your point and I would be content to report his view in the manner of "However, scholar X argues that the fact that AL afterwards regretted his remark indicates that he was not telling the truth." But we need that scholar first as Jedi Masters are not considered reliable sources on WP. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I haven't verified the sources, I assume Jedi Master is speaking the truth when he says this has been stated by Stilliman and Rodinson. Do you not consider Stillman to be a scholar?

And the discussion moved away from "lying" some time ago. The current statement in dispute is "The account says that he later related that after giving his advice, "My feet had not moved away from the spot before I knew I had been false to God and His Apostle"."Bless sins 01:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Str, you do care about what I in my head personally think for some reason. If anyone is making this a non-serious debate, tis you sir by not letting something go to which we both agreed is not valid. I've given pretty much every alternative reason to why just the quote should be placed up anyways even citing that it was used by S and R as support for their arguments that are listed in the article yet you still refuse to listen to that and just keep returning to my opinion and feelings which again have been overshadowed by above stated reasons. Jedi Master MIK 02:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

BS, do Stillman and Rodinson say that AbuLuhubu is lying? If so, you or Master Jedi are welcome to produce the relevant passages here.

And of course you are mistaken: the issue is and always will be his alleged lying as without this assumotion the contents of Abulabuhu's conscience is totally irrelevant to an article on the BQ.

Master Jedi, I don't see any valid reasons given by you. If you think S and R justify inclusion, please cite them here. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Str:

• My goodness, has this debate been going on b/c you have been thinking I was trying prove they support my POV??? I have said nothing of the kind if you had thoroughly examined what I've been saying. I said they use it to prove their POV's which is the one stated most clearly in the article and the one you were trying to prove to me.
• Once again, not according to S and R and every other author I've read who've written about the BQ incident, both those who give interpretation like S and R and also those who don't say anything.
• You were able to miss one thing I've said, its very possible you've missed a lot more than that. Jedi Master MIK 16:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite apart from your endorsing reverting of BS's POV pushing, I will say it to you once again what is needed: Go and produce here on talk a scholar who argues from AL's repetence that AL lied. Until you produce that scholar that point will not stay in the article. Not your take on the primary source take, not your inference from some scholar's silence but someone who clearly makes your case. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again Str1977, no one is inserting content that Abu Lubaba is "lying". If you read carefully the point being inserted is 'The account says that he later related that after giving his advice, "My feet had not moved away from the spot before I knew I had been false to God and His Apostle".'

I just wanted to clear this up. Jedi Master MIK, can you please give me the page number of the Stillman and Rodinson source, so that I can verify this?

Str1977, you have yet to justify your removal of sourced content, and disruption of chronological order in the article.Bless sins 17:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

BS, once again: unless you provide references that scholars argue that AL is lying or that the passage is any other way relevant to the content of the article the passage has no place in the article. (And you can ask MIK for reference for the mere passage day in and out, it will not change this.)

The other changes (which you chose to blindly revert to) were already amply argued against. You know that there is no consensus against these. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, for the last time: when did I (or anyone else) insert in the article that Abu Lubaba is "lying"? Why are you asking us to justify something we are not even inserting? To prove the passage's relevance we merely have to show that it is stated by a secondary and reliable sources (Stillman for example) in the context of Banu Qurayza and it will be quite relevant.

Regarding the other changes: no you have not justified why you are removing Watt, and messing up the chronological order of the article.Bless sins 19:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Bless, I think the citations are there already b/c part of the accounts have already been given, it was just the quoted part thats left out.

Str, it is mind boggling to see you are still stuck on the same irrelevant allegation for the basis of this now ludicrous argument. I might just stop now and leave the floor for Bless b/c you say its hard to keep this a serious discussion, its probably b/c your not letting it be one and I'm running out of ways on how to make myself anymore clearer to you.

You keep alleging over and over and over and over again that I'm trying put a quote up b/c I have such and such opinion and I gain to insinuate that opinion yet not only have I never put up any physical comments in the article purporting the POV that AL was lying b/c thats what really matters but I have shown over and over and over and over again that I have abandoned that impetus/support for putting up the quote and instead have given every other reason for keeping it. That includes scholars like Stillman and Rodinson who use this quote to both support their POVs which are NOT that AL lied and also to show the whole account in its entirety. I really don't know what else you need from me to show support of this quote being there. Jedi Master MIK 06:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Mik, for the final time:

• I actually do not care what your opinion on this is as long as it does not pertain to this article.
• But I do wonder how the inclusion of this tidbit can be justified. Thus far, I could come up with only one explanation: the insinuation that Abulahabu was lying and hence Muhammad not bent on massacre.
• This happens to be what you argued above, that the source clearly relates that Abuluhabu was lying. Well, the source does do no such thing. But if you no longer believe it, fine.
• Once again my request: provide a reasoning for why this passage should be included. And provide references for your reasoning as merely your reading of the (primary) source is not enough. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1977, for the second final time:

• Stop bringing up my opinion as excuse to remove something if you REALLY don't care about it as the article doesn't care either nor have I ever even put my opinion in the article in any way shape or form.
• Actually read what I've been saying and I don't mean from a long time ago, I mean from the more recent batch and then at the same time actually think about whats being said. Finally, think about the insinuation that Y0U were able to come up of the quote long before you heard my opinion and fit the pieces of the puzzle together.
• I thought my opinion didn't matter to you, please stop leading us in circles. And if the source does no such thing but in fact does something totally different, then there is absolutely no harm in putting it there now is there?
• First, remember how you interpreted the quote when you argued with me. Then IMMEDIATELY afterwards, read Stillman and Rodinson when they cite this passage. Then put 2 and 2 together, its not that difficult. Jedi Master MIK 16:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

K (I take the liberty of addressing you by a random part of your user name as you did the same to me),

So once again: please explain why this passage should be included. I will be making no more assumptions. Please tell me plain and simple. I will look at the reasoning and consider it. Depending on the reasoning, I may enquire a scholarly reference.

I don't think it is my job to find a reasoning for the inclusion. You want it included, you give a reason. I will not go an read these books on your behalf. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the reasoning:

• The passage is relevant to the event. After all we are mentioning Abu Lubaba council ad implicit messages. It's wrong to give only one half of the story.
• It is notable enough to be sourced by Stillman and Rodinson (based on Jedi Master's word).Bless sins 14:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have modified it (not the account itself but something else) and hopefully this will be more agreeable. Jedi Master MIK 00:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not relevant. We give half the story is countless occasions if the other half is not relevant to the topic. Abuluhubu's conscience is not relevant to an article on the Qurayza.

That Stillman and Rodinson include it doesn't make it notable to this article here. S and R didn't write an article on the BQ but comprehensive books. But sure, the gesture is relevant as it was adressed to the BQ. But his regret afterwards is not relevant. At least thus far you haven't shown us how it is relevant.

The recent addition that S and R infered from the gesture and repentence that Muhammad had already decided on the massacre is nonsensical: the gesture is used for this inference, not the repentence.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case half the story is relevant since it is directly connected to Abu Lubaba's signals sent to the Qurayza. It is, ofcourse clearly notable. Else, Stillman, Rodinson, and Montgomery Watt would not have mentioned it.Bless sins 03:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. His regret has not been shown to have any bearing on the gesture. S, R and W mention it because the relate the entire account. We however do write an article about the BQ. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only are you too presumptuous about what either author wrote but you contradict your own belief stated earlier on this matter:

• If you think Rodinson and Stillman don't use it to prove their interpretation, I suggest you actually read their works if you haven't already or review them in detail b/c they do use this part of the account to their advantage.
• Its funny you call this interpretation nonsensical you yourself proposed first in this talk page discussion as interpretation for this part of the account. Jedi Master MIK 16:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is nonsensical. The obvious argument is that because Abuluhu revealed to the BQ that their fate would be "slaughter" (an interesting alternative for massacre) that Muhammad had exactly that in mind before ever Sad arrived on the scene. Abuluhu's repetence has nothing to do with it.

I did not propose this interpretation at all. What I did was consider the possibilities of what he regretted. Either he was telling the truth and therefore regretted giving his master's intention away, thereby being false to him (which is the clear meaning of the passage). Or he was lying (as you claim with not basis in literature or proper English) thereby slandering his master. I no way does Abulhuhu's repetence has a bearing on Muhammad's intention.

It is (quite independently from the other inclusion issue) wrongly placed and also not written in proper English. Quite frankly, if you can write sentences like "Furthermore, Stillman infers from Abu Lubaba's gesture and account of regret afterwards to making it' that Muhammad probably had this judgment in mind even before the tribe surrendered." you probably shouldn't be editing WP at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Your saying thats the clear meaning of the passage yet your saying AT THE SAME TIME its nonsensical. Are you on purposely trying to lead me in circles here???

What you think is obvious and whats not is a totally irrelevant issue in this argument, thats your own POV. What historians and/or theologians give as interpretation is whats the matter right now and they say this part of the account is important.

Once again, if you think Stillman and Rodinson don't use the passage to prove their interpretation, I suggest you actually read their works instead of arguing with me here and making assumptions.

One last time, stop talking condescendingly to other users. I didn't mean for it to be a final edit but I hoped you would accept it and would fix any grammar problems with it, not use them to your advantage to attack me and totally ignore what the message of it was.

Besides, considering the number of spelling mistakes I've counted in your posts so far in your posts, I don't think you should be talking about whether other people should or should not be editing b/c of making some grammatical mistakes. Jedi Master MIK 18:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaah, if you can't understand English, why don't you just go away? I was not saying that the clear meaning is nonsensical: the clear meaning is that Abuluhu gave Muhamad's intention away, thus being false to his master. What is nonsensical is to say that Abuluhu's repetence afterwards has any bearing on the matter.

"What you think is obvious and whats not is a totally irrelevant issue in this argument, thats your own POV." That's a strange statement from someone who began by asserting that Abuluhu's repentance indicated that he had been lying."

I do not say that R and S do not use the passage. Of course they do. But they do not use the repentance of Abuluhu.

Finally, we are not talking about spelling mistakes but about sentences that are plainly not English. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Though you definitely do not deserve it and I insist on my argument above, I have a possible compromise.
"When they asked him if they should surrender to Muhammad, Abu Lubaba answered affirmatively, but, as Ibn Ishaq puts it, Abu Lubaba "made a sign with his hand toward his throat, indicating that it would be slaughter", a gesture we would later regret."
I could accept this brief wording but no more. What do you think? Str1977 ^(talk) 08:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

We are quoting the primary sources re the remark he made. The reader can make up his mind as to this was regret, mistake, repentance, saying his personal opinion, etc etc... --Aminz 09:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

But here we're hoping that the reader arrives at what we all know to be the wrong impression.Proabivouac 09:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Who decides what is right and what is wrong impression? If there is any other facts that can help the reader we can mention it of course. But we should not add our own conclusions. --Aminz 09:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that you, Aminz, who once wanted to remove anything but UP-published academic sources? And now you want to quote the primary source and let the (uninformed) reader make up his mind.

Let me repeat the issue again:

• What AL regretted or not is actually totally irrelevant to the article. No one pushing for the inclusion has made any argument how it is relevant.
• The only possible argument I can think of is the implication that AL lied to the BQ. We know (yes, Aminz, through our knowledge of the English language we know - not just believe - we know) that this does not follow from the quote. Those pushing for inclusion cannot provide even one scholar using the quote in that way. Not even one from the university of Maaadinaaa.

• The best argument they come up with is that it is part of the episode. Well, my compromise is moving towards this. If this is part of the episode we can briefly refer to it. However, anything more would be undue weight.
• "who decides what is right and what is wrong impression?" Well, ideally we do not give impressions at all. We report what is relevant and we refer to published research. I said it time and again, if there is a scholar making such a conclusion we openly report him, neither endorsing nor denigrating him. (But it appears there is none.) We do not leave things to impressions by reporting off-topic material.

Leaving it to impressions is the tool of prejudice. Let me illustrate via the following example (which, please note that, I do not endorse, I merely want to illustrate how things work:)

• Muhammd killed 600 members of the BQ.
• On September 11, 2001 Muslims killed 3,000 Americans.
• Let the reader draw his own conclusions.

Well, you don't like it when someone now claims that Muslim are habitually engage in mass-killings, do you? And you would be right in disliking it. But that's what happens if you leave things to impressions.

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Str, I have added everything that Ibn Ishaq says regarding AL (that these are in the primary sources is a fact but the conclusions drawn from them are opinions). Yes, opinions do need to come from reliable sources and we do include them after mentioning the facts (in this case we have quote Stillman). --Aminz 10:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. No, we do not want to include everything AL said because this is not about him. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Aminz.

Proab: But here we're hoping that the reader arrives at what we all know to be the wrong impression.; Str has already come to the conclusion that what I hope or think is irrelevant and only what historians interpret matters so as I've told Str already many times before, I've checked with the authors already cited and they use this account to prove the interpretation that Str gave as the clear meaning of the passage, the right impression. Therefore, I added to the article to mention that as well.

Str I'm still not quite why you insist I am talking in something other than the English language. AFAIK, the last time I used something other than English was when I said Ma malakat aymanakum and even then I explained its meaning.

And while you were busy being confused about whatever is so apparently confusing about my very blunt points, I have become confused by one of your own points.

You say this: The only possible argument I can think of is the implication that AL lied to the BQ. yet at the same time you say this: the clear meaning is that Abuluhu gave Muhamad's intention away, thus being false to his master. So excuse for not understanding where you stand on this issue when you say that it obviously means one thing but in reality it clearly means something else...

You further lose me when you continue to claim that S and R do not use his account of repentance to their interpretations advantage when I've read in their works that they have. FOR HOPEFULLY THE LAST TIME, would you like QUOTES???

The best argument they come up with is that it is part of the episode.; more like the only one you've somehow managed to listen to and vaguely at that. If you haven't figured it out already, I got the hint that I need a source to back up my POV back when you stated it the first time and I had abandoned that endeavor long ago there and then. However, I decided to include the quote anyways at first just b/c of its importance as being part of the whole account. Later however, I also decided to keep it b/c the interpretation that is sourced on the article right now, the clear meaning as you put it, uses the whole account in the books of the authors as the above point illustrates so I won't reiterate. Jedi Master MIK 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

1. So what you are telling us is that Stillman argues because AL regretted this afterwards means ... Well what? It means that he regretted being false. Why? Because he said something he shouldn't have said. That is the plain meaning of the text.

2. Where do I say taht you are not talking English. I comment on the poor quality of one passage but otherwise I only talked about what the source passage says in plan English.

3. Let's look at your confusion: I shouldn't have said the clear meaning in this instance as the clear meaning is only that AL regretted that he had said something he shouldn't have said. Why is open to speculation BUT my take that he gave Muhammad's intention away is much much much more in line with the text than, well, I can't say yours as I don't want to speculate on what actualyl your view is by now.

4. Yes, provide the quotes. Full quotes. That's better than the constant beating around the bush.

5. "I got the hint that I need a source to back up my POV back when you stated it the first time and I had abandoned that endeavor long ago there and then." That's dishonest. You didn't abandon it. Only instead of including it explicitly you now want to include the irrelevant quote to imply your POV - which makes matters even worse.

But instead of talking about the past I wanted your comment on my proposal. This is the best I can do for you. Nothing more will be acceptable. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Time to stop this. This article is about Banu Qurayza, not Abu Lubaba, his feet, or his regret. Beit Or 09:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The remark is closely related to the article. Even in the version you are reverting to the opinion of Stillman regarding AL's remark. The Ibn Ishaq account of the remark simply provides the reader with the original text that Stillman is using to make up his opinion. --Aminz 10:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not relevant to the article at all, certainly not at this point. Mik has yet to provide the passages for his claim that Stillman and Rodinson use AL's regret for their point. If they do we may include it (properly worded of course) - but regardless of that, it is irrelevant to actual narrative. Still, I offered to include a note about the regret but the entire quote with all its poetry cannot possibly be included. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, this article isn't about Abu Lubaba's neck either.Bless sins 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the above discussion I have come up with more and more sources that talk about Abu Lubaba's regrets in the context of the Banu Qurayza. Basically it is scholarly sourcea vs. your original research at this point.Bless sins 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So far we have seen nothing about these "more and more sources that talk about..." Anyway, it doesn't matter how many "sources" talk about his neck but whether it is relevant to this article. Nothing has been provided thus far. But let's see what Mik comes up with right now. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(To Str, not you Bless)

1. ...Ya, you want quotes I think: Actually, it is clear from the Muslim sources that the Qurayza's fate had been decided even before their surrender. One of Muhammad's emissaries, Abu Lubaba, who advised the Qurayza to give up, had to perform penance for hinting to the Jews what their real fate would be (Stillman, p. 15-16)...The Qurayza hesitated. Muhammad allowed them to consult with one of their Aws allies, Abu Lubaba, who, questioned as to the Prophet's intentions, touched his throat, indicating that it would be a massacre. He regretted this indiscretion at once, and went bound himself to one of the pillars of the Mosque by way of punishment. (Rodinson p. 212). As even a blind man will see, they use his actions from regret as support along with the first piece of evidence of the gesture.
2. It is (quite independently from the other inclusion issue) wrongly placed and also not written in proper English...Aaaaaah, if you can't understand English, why don't you just go away?...Finally, we are not talking about spelling mistakes but about sentences that are plainly not English.
3. I can't say yours as I don't want to speculate on what actualyl your view is by now. *SMASHES HEAD THROUGH TABLE* Why...do...you...have...the...idea...that...I'm...changing...my...opinion...or...even...that... I'm...trying...to...push...for...it...w/o...a...source???... Why...aren't...you...seeing...that...I'm...just...pushing...for...what...is...already...sourced...and... keeping...my...opinion...to...myself...till...I...can...get...a... separate...source...for...it???
4. See #1.
5. One, that is what one call a conspiracy theory, something of which I'm sure is not basis for removing sourced material on wikipedia. Two, you keep saying your not sure what my opinion on this matter is yet not only state here that you do know what my opinion is but your opinion on this is even more confusing as you claim that the obvious meaning to this quote that anyone can see is that he betrayed Muhammad but at the same time say that is implying my opinion and so cannot be put in even though according to you it clearly actually says something else.
6. Your proposal changes, to be blunt, diddley squat. I'm running out of ways to make my proposals and intentions any more clearer than they already are so I can wait for what you think next. Jedi Master MIK 02:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't know whether your blind man isn't really blind but Rodinson does not really use the regret as part of the argument.

As for the rest, it hardly merits a reply. You obviously either do not see the purpose of an enyclopedia or you feign ignorance in this to sleaze in your POV by implication, thinking (via linguistic incapacity) that the source (OR!) confirms your POV when in fact it does not. In any case parroting the quote is not justified in any case.

Not speaking about that I tried a compromise which thus far you and your fellows have chosen to ignore. Well, why compromise when you can always mass revert based on flimsy grounds (just as the "people of the gospel" issue - if you would care to actually look up what surah 5, 47 says!) 07:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I see you haven't responded to the quote by Stillman, can you warrant a reply to that? As for what you said about Rodinson, he calls it an indiscretion implying even more clearly than AL's own words that he betrayed Muhammad so it is still a support in his interpretation of treachery occurring. Even still, he considers it important enough to attach to make his point.
2. See number 2 in previous reply.
3. See number 2 in previous reply.
4. See number 2 in previous reply.
5. See number 2 in previous reply.
6. I wouldn't have had to repeat number 2 for a blind man over, and over, and over in every post in every way that a person could imagine to make something any clearer.
7. Ever since I started editing on this article, I don't think I've ever seen anyone cite any Quranic verse, let lone 5:47, and the record is still going. If you'd like to show otherwise from the past few days, please put aside any theories you have as to why I do whatever and cite where this verse was put b/c I didn't see it in your mass revert. Jedi Master MIK 23:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

1.#I missed the distinction of the quotes. Stillman supports your claims even less than Rodinson does.

2.-6. "See number 2 in previous reply. ..." Again, totally superfluous.

7. What are you talkin about. Some editor included links to two Quranic surahs in the article. The first is linked to the topic, though it would need much explaining, while the other talks about Christians. Therefore I removed the link to the latter verse and YOU used this removal as a justification for reverting not my revert but everything I wrote. Your denial now constitutes an act of bad faith. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1. The distinction is Stillman shows Muhammad punishing AL instead of it being a self-punishment. And on the contrary, S is more convincing than R b/c S implies that Muhammad found out that AL was giving away his plans and so punished him for it. And again, they both consider an important enough support to keep in the account however vague they left it.

2-6. Apparently not if you are still confused about my intentions.

7. No it just means I should read the article more closely and be less presumptuous in my own regards. At least however I admit being wrong when I am wrongly presumptuous. Jedi Master MIK 19:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell me again, why do you think this quote should not be in this article?

1. You say that I have a hidden agenda, I said I don't nor can I fathom how I would by just citing an account in history relating to this event.
2. You say it has no relevance here, I say this article isn't only to post the details that are used by different authors' arguments but to give all of the details to this particular event.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Mik, are you addressing me?

I think this is not needed because it is of no consequence to the BQ.

I do not say you have a hidden agenda. I only used to speculate what reason there could be for including this.

I say this article is to present all that's relevant to this particular topic. Note we also do not go into details about the battle of the trench. If we wrote a narrative on these event I of course would include it.

I have offered a compromise of the maximum I am willing to include into the article. It is the "invisible text" you have deleted today. If you could accept this, the whole issue would be solved. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the purpose to the invisible text or how it compromised anything, thats why I deleted that. If theres some special wiki function that made it do something I don't know of, that would be something nice to know about.

As for dropping it, alright, I'll accept that for now. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the invisible function does not make it anything except making it invisible. I added it this way because I was tired of trying to work out compromise wordings that go ignored by Bless Sins. My impression is that in such cases he simply took for granted what I gave and moved on without acknowledging it, still pushing for more. It was an attempt to make him accept it before I entered it into the article. Unfortunately, he ignored that too. My point is, if you can accept the wording that was invisible as a proper summary, I would not object including this. 19:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Str1977 (talk • contribs)

King of Himyar

Currently the account of the King of Himyar is simply mentioned. Is there any scholarly commentary on this? Str1977 ^(talk) 08:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence for execution

The reason why "massacre" should be avoided has been justified (because it is a POV term). A summary is here: Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Summary.

Below is evidence for the use of the term "execution"/"executed" to refer to the event. As you can see all are highly scholarly and very reliable sources. I believe the sources below establish that "execution" is the term of choice in the scholarly community, though scholars may use other neutral words as well (e.g. "killing").Bless sins 03:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Donner, Fred M. (1999). The Oxford History of Islam. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 9–10. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Donner is professor of Near Eastern history in the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Esposito is professor of religion and international affairs and founding director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the Emund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.

2. Ernst, Carl, W. (2003). Following Muhammad. University of North Carolina Press. p. 90.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Ernst, among numerous other things, is the Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations at the University of North Carolina. The above mentioned book won the 2004 Bashrahil Prize for Outstanding Cultural Achievement. See http://www.unc.edu/~cernst/ for more info.

3. Lecker, Michael (1995). Muslims, Jews and Pagans: Studies on Early Islamic Medina. Leiden: Brill. p. 45.

Michael Lecker is the Professor of Arabic Language and Literature at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The book is praised by Gordon D. Newby of Emory University (source: The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 86, No. 3/4. (Jan. - Apr., 1996), pp. 477-479).

4. Watt, William Montgomery (1995). A Short History of Islam. Oxford: Oneworld. p. 32.

Watt is Professor Emeritus of the Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Edinburgh.

5. Nigosian, S. A. (2004). Islam. Its History, Teaching, and Practices. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. p. 11.

While Nigosian, the author, is "a historian of religion", the reliability rests on the publisher, which is Indiana University's press.

6. Watt, William Montgomery (1961). Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 171, 173, 176.

Watt is Professor Emeritus of the Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Edinburgh.

7. Kennedy, Hugh (2004). The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. Longman. p. 40.

Hugh Kennedy is Professor of Middle Eastern History at the University of St Andrews.

8. Watt, William Montgomery. "Kurayza, Banu". Encyclopaedia of Islam.

Encyclopaedia of Islam is considered scholarly and authoritative. (Sources: [24], [25])

9. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. "Muhammad". Encyclopædia Britannica. pp. 11 of the article. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Britannica is widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopaedias. (Sources: [26], [27])

10. Faizer, Rizwi S. (1996). "Muhammad and the Medinan Jews: A Comparison of the Texts of Ibn Ishaq's Kitab Sirat Rasul Allah with al-Waqidi's Kitab al-Maghazi". International Journal of Middle East Studies. 28 (4). Cambridge University Press: 478, 482.

International Journal of Middle East Studies is an academic journal recognized by JSTOR.

Cambridge University Press is a prestigious publishing house (if you need more details ask, but I assume you all agree with me on this).

11. Winder, R. B. "Al-Madinah". Encyclopaedia of Islam.

Encyclopaedia of Islam is considered scholarly and authoritative. (Sources: [28], [29])

Bless sins 03:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

12.Muhammad, By Cook, Oxford University Press.

13.Muhammad’s Jewish Wives, Ronen Yitzhak, Journal of religion and society

14.Daily Life in the Medieval Islamic World, By James E. Lindsay, Greenwood Press, p.62

--Aminz 07:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

15.Peterson, Daniel C., Muhammad: the prophet of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2007. p. 127

Daniel C. Peterson is professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

The book has been reviewed (and endorsed) by professor Khaleel Mohammed of San Diego University.

16.Ramadan, Tariq, In the Footsteps of the Prophet. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. p. 146

Tariq Ramadan was a lecturer in Religion and Philosophy at the University of Fribourg and the College de Saussure, Geneva, Switzerland; he is currently teaching at St Antony's College at the University of Oxford.

Oxford University Press is a prestigious publishing house (if you need more details ask, but I assume you all agree with me on this).

Bless sins 02:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

17. Fouracre, Paul. The New Cambridge Medieval History, 2005 Cambridge University Press. p. 334

Paul Fouracre is the professor of Medieval History, Programme Director MA History, and MA Medieval History at the University of Manchester.

18. Lapidus, Ira Marvin (2002). A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge University Press. p. 27.

Professor Emeritus of History at the University of California, Berkeley.

Bless sins 18:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

19. Langer, William L. (2001). The Encyclopedia of World History. Houghton Mifflin Books. p. 108. ISBN 0395652375. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

William L. Langer has held many academic posts. Amongst the most relevant is that he was Assistant Professor at Harvard University, dealing with Near Eastern studies. In 1954 he also helped found the center for Middle Eastern Studies at the university.

Bless sins (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

This posting was totally superfluous as I am certain that anyone could provide such a list endorsing "massacre" or worse. The fact of the matter is that massacre is not POV but a neutral description of what happened. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously easier said than done. Not only is "execution" NPOV (how can you argue that calling Muslims "cruel" and "barbaric" is NPOV?), it is also widely used by scholars.Bless sins 23:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions says that "Article names for current and historical events are often controversial. In particular, the use of strong words such as "massacre" can be a focus of heated debate...If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications." There is no common name for this incident. I'd like to add some more sources that use the term "Execution"

• Muhammad, By Cook, Oxford University Press
• Muhammad’s Jewish Wives, Ronen Yitzhak, Journal of religion and society
• Daily Life in the Medieval Islamic World, By James E. Lindsay, Greenwood Press, p.62

Clearly the usage of this loaded term adds no information to the article once we mention all the details. We should simply let the reader decide whether it was cruel or not (please see the definition of massacre above). --Aminz 07:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

BS,

>>how can you argue that calling Muslims "cruel" and "barbaric" is NPOV<<

Well, I don't.

I am not saying that Muslims are cruel and barbaric per se but neither am I declaring that it is impossible for them to be cruel and barbaric (as there are many many examples to the contrary). Your posting implies this and this is indeed most telling.

Actually, I was not talking at all about Muslims but about one specific event.

Actually, I was not talking about "cruel" and "barbaric" at all. Only you raise these words.

I was talking about the word massacre which does not necessarily denote being cruel or barbaric but is actually a perfectly descriptive word for such an event.

Aminz,

your posting has no relevance whatsoever as a) we are not talking about naming an article, b) we are not talking about naming the event "the massacre of the BQ" (though I think this is a neutral and actually common name for what happened), c) it doesn't say that "massacre" is POV - only that it can be controversial.

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A dictionary's definition of massacre included cruel. Str, would you please let me know what type of information would be added to this article if we use the term "massacre" instead of "killing"+details? Of course, nobody wants to cover up any facts here. Also, why you think the usage of the term "massacre" can be controversial in some cases? I think that guild line aims to use the neutrality policies of wikipedia to come up with a convention of naming the articles. We,too, want to apply the same principles here. Cheers, --Aminz 09:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the event clearly was a massacre which is mass killing. And 600+ deaths is a mass killing. The important thing is that it is a mass. Whether one thinks the event or massacres crule depends on one idea of cruelty. Of course, I think massacres are cruel but I don't think that this is a POV inherent in the definition. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The word "massacre" implies "cruelty" and "barbarous". Check out the definition if you don't believe me.[30] It is very POV for you to claim that Muslims of 7-th century Medina were "cruel" and "barbarous". It is especially inappropriate given that the scholarly community uses the word "execution".Bless sins 16:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A massacre is a massacre, regardless of what I think of 7th century muslims, especially given that the scholarly community uses massacre as well. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, you are quite right when you say the word massacre can be loaded at times, intentionally or otherwise. i have seen both descriptions, among others, used in the texts. your research, which is certainly welcome, shows a strong precedent for using the word execution, which i was unaware of when i had first proposed that wording several months ago. execution does not carry the baggage of other words like 'massacre', and i don't see any reason why it shouldn't be used. ITAQALLAH 19:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Execution carries even more baggage (that of a lawful judgement) apart from being undescriptive. Strictly speaking, any punishment is exectuted so even if one has to only pay a fine it is, strictly speaking, an execution. However, punishment is exactly the problem: most of the BQ did not do any wrong, so what are they punished for? Str1977 ^(talk) 01:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Execution doesn't imply that someone did something wrong. Please note there is such a thing as wrongful execution. Consider Category:People_executed_for_heresy. Having beliefs that are different from orthodoxy is not a crime, and I hope you agree. A more ridiculous type of execution is Category:People_executed_for_witchcraft. Witchcraft is not only not a crime its a myth. And besides the use of the term "execution" to describe the incident is prevalent amongst scholars. So unless you question the reliability of these scholarly sources, I don't see what's the problem.Bless sins 02:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course "execution" implies that there has been a trial for a crime. There was no trial in the BQ's case. Your comments about heresy are deluded as under the premises of the time heresy indeed was a crime - and it certainly isn't "the plain truth" that there is nothing wrong with it. Witchcraft again was a crime punishable under secular law at the time and was punished as such - that there was no truth behind it is another matter (making your point nonsense: if maleficum were real it would rightly be a crime) but at least everyone got their own (often sham) trial. The BQ never got that. The men were just killed en mass, the women and children enslaved en masse - in other words the men were massacred.

What I question it not these scholars "reliability" (though guys like Esposito certainly do not deserve respect) but I see that you are cherrypicking scholars for execution, trying to whitewash the word you don't like. You don't like it because it reflects badly on your prophet. Well, it is not mine or anyone else's mistake that Muhammad committed massacre, assassinations and all sorts of other bad things. We cannot whitewash this here because you don't like it. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

execution does not imply the presence of a trial- people may be executed without trial - execution here refers to the fact of an adjudication by the ruling Medinan authority. whitewashing accusations, while cute, work both ways just fine, so we don't need to go down that avenue and speculate on peoples' intentions. execution does not imply fault of the BQ, so the discussion on punishment isn't directly relevant here. your other concern is that execution is too vague, and you provide an example of that. the primary meaning of execution does refer to capital punishment. if one says "he was executed", it certainly won't mean that he was slapped with a parking ticket, it will mean his head rolled. "execution" is clearly less POV and emotive than "massacre", and we can see an established precedent for using the word execution, so what's the point in prolonging the dispute? ITAQALLAH 10:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Itaqallah. The term "killing" is also neutral. Maybe we can use that. --Aminz 10:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Execution doesn't necessarily imply a trial. Check out Summary execution. In the case of BQ there was arbitration (namely by Sa'ad) instead of a trial. If heresy was a crime some time ago, then BQ's negotiating with the besiegers, especially since the BQ were in agreement not to help any enemy, to attack Muhammad can also be considered a crime. You also can't consider 7th century Arabia with Europe. They had their own methods of judging people. And a judgment by one's own ally was considered sufficient, by standards of that time.

"Cherrypicking"? I have found these sources, whether I had to pick them like cherries or gather them like grain, is none of your concern. Are the sources not sufficient?

"You don't like it because it reflects badly on your prophet." Finally you admit that the purpose of "massacre" is to make the prophet Muhammad look bad.

"Muhammad committed massacre, assassinations and all sorts of other bad things." Kindly keep your POVs to yourself. And that includes the POV that the prophet Muhammad's actions were "cruel" and "barbarous" since that is how the term "massacre" is defined.Bless sins 10:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Execution requires a verdict as that is what is actually executed. A verdict requires a trial to ascertain a person's guilt. In this case no such trial took place. No one ever ascertained that individual BQ, apart from their chief, was guilty of anything. Hence execution and punishment are POV. So yes the charge was a violation of agreements BUT there was no trial that ascertained that anyone did it. Muhammad claimed to have seen Gabriel and just went ahead, besieged and then killed them. Arbitration clearly shows that there was no trial to ascertain the guilt as it was a military act, Muhammad defeated the BQ and had their lives in his hand and delegated the death sentence to another man under pressure. Nowhere is there any talk of guilt. Your endorsement of this act is disgusting.

"Finally you admit that the purpose of "massacre" is to make the prophet Muhammad look bad." Obviously you can only see things in terms of apologetics for your prophet. I don't care whether he looks bad, I only care that all is properly covered without white- nor blackwashing. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Kindly keep your POVs to yourself." I certainly will not be told by you what to do. BTW, these are not POVs but historical facts. And yes, I thinks such acts are cruel. But then again, anybody can disagree and say: "no, massacre is not cruel" (basically you are saying this but want to avoid the term to make your prophet look better). Again this is none of my concern. I only want to get the facts straight. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

you're right when you say an execution requires a verdict/judgement froman authority (as specified in most dicdefs). a judgement, however, does not require a trial proper, nor does the word execution impute guilt upon the BQ. the matter of who was or wasn't guilty isn't of relevance here. ITAQALLAH 17:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

also, some of the rhetoric here is getting out of hand. please, let's stick to keeping the discussion civil and focused. ITAQALLAH 17:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right in so far as "execution" is only the execution of a certain intention, synonymous to implemention. Or compare the executive branch of government. However, in the context of execution a verdict it implies a judicial procedure. No such thing happened here. "Summary execution" doesn't work either there was no trial on the entire tribe (unless one wants to consider the battle as "God's judgement"). Str1977 ^(talk) 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, I don't know why you choose to apply the law of European civilization in the context the 7th century tribal Arabia. "No massacre is not cruel" Certainly the dictionary disagree with you.[31] In anycase, here is the bottom line: the word "execution" is supported by the scholarly community.Bless sins 17:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

BS, why are you constantly infering incorrect things about me? I am not "apply[ing] the law of European civilization in the context [of] the 7th century tribal Arabia", certainly not in my article edits. Of course, I do have my own personal ethical considerations but I do not include them in the article. Indeed I think such a massacre cruel BUT I wrote above (which you happened to misunderstand) that anyone can disagree.

And again, your scholarly community is just a fraction of scholars you cherrypicked to enforce your POV on the article. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

an execution (here meaning capital punishment) requires 1) a binding judgement by 2) an authority- that is all. executions have occured for as long as living memory, many of which have been without trial, jury, or a codified judicial procedure. an appointed judge (possessing the relevant authority) making a judgement of capital punishment is all that would be required for it to be termed 'execution'. in this case, Sa'd was the appointed judge, and indeed BQ accepted that his decision would be binding. the usage of execution in this case is accurate, which i assume is why its usage can be found in scholarly literature. massacre too has been used in literature (after all, they don't have to comply with WP:NPOV) - but the contention here is that 'massacre' is more loaded and morally judgemental than 'execution'. ITAQALLAH 18:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first definition and never demanded the trial to be in a specific form. But a judgement is only a judgement if it says "X (which may be a group) is guilty of Y and is punished by Z", Z in this case being death.

That's not what Sad did. He was appointed by Muhammad as the Banu Aus wanted to spare the BQ's life. No issue of guilt or crime was involved but the one of how to treat those that had submitted themselves to Muhammad's treaty.

Furthermore, it is wrong that the BQ actively accepted Sad as "judge". They only accepted him in such way as they did not and actually could not rise up against the procedures. They had submitted by laying down their arms and had no further say in the matter. The agreement was made by the Banu Aus that agreed with Muhammad that one out of their midst should be made arbitrator (between Muhammad and the Aus, not between Muhammad and the BQ) - he was then chosen by Muhammad.

Surely there are scholars that use execution but as you correctly say, the do not have to abide by NPOV. And "execution", implying guilt, crime, trial, punishment, justice (if ever so wrongfully applied), violates NPOV. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason no issue of "crime" was involved is because everyone knew exactly what the BQ's crime was (and wasn't). What they had done was known perfectly well by all parties. With regards to Sa'ad. I can provide you with several sources that suggest the BQ themselves thought of Sa'ad as an acceptable arbitrator. But like Itaqallah says, Sa'ad was an authority acknowledged both by the prophet Muhammad (who considered himself injured party in this case) and the Banu Aws who were the allies of Banu Qurayza.

"And "execution", implying guilt, crime, trial, punishment, justice (if ever so wrongfully applied)," Why don't we let the dictionary decide that?

Execution means "the act of executing something". Execute means "carry out a sentence of death on (a condemned person)".Oxford dictionary

The BQ were put to death in accordance with Sa'ad's sentence of death (no doubt about that).

Another definition of "execute" is "to put to death, especially by carrying out a lawful sentence".American Heritage

Again, you can't deny that the BQ men were put to death. The putting to death was also "lawful". Lawful simply means "allowed by law". And the killing was no doubt allowed by the law of prophet Muhammad (you must agree to that as well). It is also argued, by many scholars, that it was also in accordance with Jewish and Arab laws. It is therefore not surprising that so many reliable sources use the term "execution".Bless sins 20:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So everyone knew? Quite brilliant! I am afraid that's not enough.

Let's have a look at your dictionary. I am afraid your cherished Sad did not issue "a lawful sentence" as he was acting according to any law but as an abitrator between the BA. and M.

"allowed by the law of prophet Muhammad (you must agree to that as well)"

Actually, I need not and must not agree with that at all. As Muhammad has not any law-giving authority beyond the Muslim community. The BQ were not Muslims and hence your argument falls apart. It also shows your circular reasoning and your apologetic bent as you apparently believes that Muhammad can do no wrong - well, he is the law, isn't he?

Also it not argued by "many scholars" but by a few fringies (which I would have included) that the massacre was according to Jewish law. Also, massacres where not common in Arab society before Muhammad arrived on the scene.

No matter how you turn it, execution is a POV term. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

you've stated that "execution" is a POV term, yet surely you can concede that "massacre" is more obviously (if not greater) emotive and POV? you say execution is more POV because it implies the following things:

trial - as stated above, not necessarily. not all executions are preceded by trials or court appearances.

guilt, crime - not all of those who are executed are guilty of committing the crime in question, and the term execution does not automatically impute guilt onto the executed party. on this basis the association of 'punishment' with execution may also be rejected. likewise, execution does not imply justice on the part of the authority.

these are all rather weak associations as compared to the plainly obvious POV connotations behind the term massacre (is elaboration necessary?), which most dictionary definitions will reveal. disputing the factuality of the description of 'execution' (i.e. by saying it's whitewashing, inaccurate, or w/e) is to dispute the accuracy of the numerous scholarly sources above that use this term, so that's not within the scope of this discussion. it's irrelevant to discuss which description is more factual (both are verified descriptions, which is what matters here, not "truth" per se)- the issue is which term is more POV, and thus, less suitable for use in the article. i believe 'execution' is more appropriate here as it carries less POV and charged rhetoric than 'massacre.' if no agreement can be reached, i would assume RfC would be the next step (assuming this issue hasn't had a RfC before). ITAQALLAH 21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So if both are verified, why do you insist on pushin the POV one that implies a collective guilt on the BQ's part?

You say these associations are rather weak when compared to "massacre". Well, "massacre" doesn't sound nice - I agree - but this is because the thing it describes is not nice. We cannot use sanitizing language just because someone wants to hide that a horrid thing happened. That's like military newspeak such as collateral damage. But all this doesn't make massacre POV. It just accurately describes what happened. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Itaqallah. Str1977 has only attempted to argue that "execution" is factually inaccurate, but not that "execution" is POV. Str1977's allegation of factual inaccuracy goes out the window since reliable sources have used the word. Remember a reliable source may present a particular POV, but will rarely lie. The question indeed here which is less biased and more neutral. Also please note that the above sources are all non-Muslim sources. So unless you are arguing that the above sources are biased against Muslims, I don't see any other type of bias.Bless sins 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

BS, you are only seeing what you want to see. I have already explained why execution is POV - it implies that the BQ received the death sentence for a crime they committed (either individually or collectively). As this is not the case (maybe the leaders were guilty but not the entire tribe, men, women and children - the Muslims didn't bother to find out), this is POV pushing. There is no distinction between the two arguments. As you say, RS (though whether all these cherrypicked books are RS is another matter) may have a POV and so do these books (or they are just careless). Remember that we are not merely parroting books here. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"As this is not the case" Thus you are saying that the statement is factually inaccurate. You are accusing reliable sources of distorting the facts. This behavior has got to stop. When I disapproved of "massacre", I didn't dispute its accuracy. I know a lot of people were killed, and I don't challenge that. I only challenged the POV judgment that it was "cruel" and "barbarous". If you feel we are inserting a religious, or some other bias by "execution" then say so. Otherwise don't accuse the reliable sources of factually inaccurate.Bless sins 10:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that these books are either use the word carelessly or they are pushing the POV that this was a judicial killing. That is a POV and WP adheres to NPOV.

What I am also saying is that "cruel" and "barbarous" is not a necessary ingredient to a massacre. I might think it cruel but others may disagree. This doesn't make it any less a massacre. It is not my POV judgement included into the article (which is the only place a POV matters) but your attribution to the neutral word of these qualities. At least, that's what you are saying.

Furthermore, I am not saying that we need to use "massacre" all the time. What I am saying is that a) "execution" is unacceptable for the various reasons I outlined, b) "massacre" is a neutral term. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"these books are either use the word carelessly" To accuse scholars who have spent their lives studying this (probably far more than you and I) is not appropriate. "or they are pushing the POV" SO basically you admit that the word "execution" is factually accurate, and only implies a certain perspective? I need an answer to this question before I can proceed.

The most scholarly definitions of "massacre" include words like "cruel" and "barbarous" which are simply perspectives.Bless sins 03:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaah!!!

Frankly I do not care what you consider "not appropriate". I may very well make up my mind about these books and about the words they use. I guess you think so to regarding various authors? Consider Bat Yeor or Robert Spencer? "careless" wording is nothing special in this world, consider the way Saddam's verdict was translated ("sentenced by execution", what a nonsense phrase).

I no way am I admitting that the word execution is factually accurate. Stop your insinuations about what I am thinking or not. You cannot clearly distinguish factual accuracy and POV - my view is that it is not accurate - obviously these authors, apart from acting carelessly, have a different view on this and thus are indulging in a POV. That is their right but WP must not endorse it by using the contentious wording.

Your definition is not accurate and elevates elements that are sometimes present to the core of the term, where they never belong

Massacre most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing where the victims have no reasonable means of defense and pose no immediate physical threat to the assailants. If performed by members of the military or other government agents during a time of war, the action may qualify as a war crime. The deliberate mass killing of prisoners of war or civilians is often considered a massacre, however the term does not typically apply to the killing of armed combatants (except figuratively). Occasionally the term is also used to refer to the acts of a single individual rather than a group, such as the occasional labelling of school shootings as massacres. The term arose with the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in France in 1572 and the word only acquired a general meaning latterly.

I have put the elements perfectly fitting our case in bold print. Note that the legal and ethical considerations are not part of the definition - a massacre is a massacre even if you think it good or justified. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also wrong of you to capprice yourself on one dictionary, when there are other definition around: http://dict.die.net/massacre/

Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

massacre

n : the wanton killing of many people [syn: mass murder]

v : kill a large number of people indiscriminately; "The Hutus massacred the Tutsis in Rwanda" [syn: slaughter, mow down]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Massacre \Mas"sa*cre\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Massacred; p. pr. & vb. n. Massacring.] [Cf. F. massacrer. See Massacre, n.]

To kill in considerable numbers where much resistance can not be made; to kill with indiscriminate violence, without necessity, and contrary to the usages of nations; to butcher; to slaughter; -- limited to the killing of human beings.'

If James should be pleased to massacre them all, as Maximian had massacred the Theban legion. --Macaulay.

Only the third cited definition includes cruelty etc. at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And it is also acting in bad faith to ignore to entire previous discussion on this. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and BTW, http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=banu+qurayza+massacre Str1977 ^(talk) 08:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The key point here is that the term "massacre" is widely accepted on Wikipedia, even if some editors here consider it "POV". There are even featured articles with this word, such as Katyn massacre, another instance of mass murder of prisoners of war. Beit Or 09:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The term massacre is accepted whenever it is accepted by the scholarly community. in this case scholars clearly favor execution.Bless sins 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

THere is no evidence that "scholars clearly favor execution". Beit Or 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also this event is commonly known as "the massacre of the BQ", as evidenced by the title of the pitcture above. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you know that "liquidiation" is the language of thugs and genocides? Str1977 ^(talk) 22:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It was an arbitrary word I used without giving much thought. Next time I won't use it.Bless sins 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But it's telling that you did. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, it works both ways: http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=banu+qurayza+execution&btnG=Search+Books. Jedi Master MIK 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct. And I believe there is some policy that discourages relying solely on search engine tests?Bless sins 01:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Does it get any lower than this. I never disputed that there are books that use that term. However, there are scholarly books around that use the term massacre. It is an acceptable NPOV term on WP and the most fitting. Still, I have tried to compromise and avoid it where possible. But you and BS of course must have it all and eliminate anywhere so that no one can ever question your wonderful prophet.

BS, some policy discourages whitewashing too. I am not basing myself on parroting sources but make my case independent of it. You however seem to think: well Watt and Esposito and a couple of others don't say massacre and so we shouldn't use it.

At the same time you add this horrendous "blame the victims" paragraph. Which reminds me of how this dispute originally started by an editor who claimed that it was no massacre because the Jews had it coming. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

i don't see how it can be claimed that "massacre" is neutral whereas "execution" is not. the associations made with the word execution, the pretext upon which it has been rejected, are a tad unconvincing as discussed above. execution is an accurate term to describe the events, and is more neutral as it has less strong POV connotations than massacre. ITAQALLAH 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where you have found POV connotations in the word "massacre". On the other hand, "massacre" is preferable in part because it denotes a mass murder, while "execution" does not. Beit Or 15:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Itaq, the POV problem with "execution" is exactly its judicial and its sanitarian dimension. Sure "execution" sounds nicer than "massacre" and this is why it has been introduced here. But WP is not meant to be nice but accurate. And "massacre" fits the event perfectly. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Str, Wikipedia is also supposed to be neutral. execution is an accurate description too, that's why it's present in plenty of reliable sources.

Beit Or, most dictionaries will reveal the POV meanings associated with the word massacre.[32][33] your first and second sentences contradict eachother. you do seem to know that the word is quite substantially loaded- that is, after all, why you said it refers to mass "murder" (clearly POV in this context). i would say that execution is more preferable (or mass execution, if you wish to reflect the point of mass killing), as it denotes capital punishment preceded by a judgement by the authority in power. in the interests of compromise and saving needless dispute, i am happy to have 'killing' used in the prose, and an alternative to 'massacre' or 'execution' as the section title (what's wrong with 'aftermath', by the way?). ITAQALLAH 19:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Itaq, neutral. Massacre is neutral.

Beit Or obviously was speaking colloquially as massacre refers to mass killing (as evidenced by all the dictionary definitions linked to). What you think POV in the term "massacre" is either not an essential part of it or a matter of fact and not of views (what we think about these facts is another matrer). Execution is unacceptable in any form (except as in "the decision was duly executed"). It was not a judgment given by a legal authority in power, but the result of an arbitration agreed upon by two parties among the Ummah. The BQ had unconditionally surrendered to either Muhammad or the Ummah (doesn't matter which) who now held power over their lives and death. But that's not a judgment in the porper sense.

I am glad that you are willing to compromise but what do the others say. Also, it must be noted that "killing" doesn't work well as a noun. I have already strived to reducing massacre as much as possible. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's funny, Itaqallah, that your suggested "compromise" is even more sanitized than "execution". Mass killing of people who cannot resist, including prisoners of war, is a massacre. I still don't understand why this issue continues to be discussed. Beit Or 13:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Massacre is neutral". For the nth time, massacre implies cruelty as you have already admitted!! Sorry for losing my patience, but I'm getting tired of saying that alleging Muhammad of "cruelty" is quite biased.Bless sins 01:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have long grown tired of your antics as well. I have seriously attempted to reduce the M word to a minimum but you are only satisifed with the complete eradication of the word, as you want a sanitised, pasteurised version of reality.

"Cruelty" is not a necessary part of the definition of massacre. However, there can be no doubt that this particular massacre was cruel. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A question: There is much dispute over usage of "massacre", "execution" etc etc. Why not using "killing" and finish this dispute? What is important and we should spend our most energy on is to give the reader the facts, I believe. --Aminz 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In some case I have used "kill" but at least when we talk about the event itself, "massacre" is the natural word to use as it is a noun. Also, I see no reason to yield to whitewashin, as by now BS has made it clear where he's coming from (liquidation, blame the victims). Str1977 ^(talk) 07:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

When did I "blame the victims". Kill is a neutral word, but doesn't convey the meaning in the truest sense. I can agree to using kill as part of a compromise. But an explanation would have to be given is why we choose to avoid "execution" despite the reliable sources.Bless sins 14:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Killing" sounds ugly in English as part of a title. Beit Or 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

...and you're telling me that massacre is a beautiful word.Bless sins 01:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it is not a beautiful event that is talked about. Beit Or obviously referred to the way the word fits in grammatically. "Massacre" is an actual noun which can be used well when talking about the whole event (such as the section title) - "siege and killing" doesn't work, as this sounds like a like a siege involving skirmishes. However, as I already stated, I have already eliminated many occasions where "massacre" was not needed.

• Currently the word only appears in 5 instances (ref section excluded):
• In relation to the picture on top (Unavoidable as it is the title of the picture)
• Section title (see above for reasoning)
• In a quote from one of the BQ before his death. (unavoidable as it is a quote)
• Ahmad's and Arafat's doubt of the historicity (unavoidable as they doubt the massacre, not the entire event)
• In relation to the poem at the bottom.

Please stop your all-or-nothing attitude. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Once again you admit that "massacre" is being used to imply cruelty. Before that you admitted that the use of the "massacre" was intended to "reflect badly" on the prophet Muhammad, and to portray the event as a "bad thing". Beit or has already said the intention was to portray the event as "wanton killing". Is there any doubt that the word "massacre" is being used for biased purposes?Bless sins 12:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Blame the victims" was a shorthand for the paragraph from that most beautiful by Ramadan that you included, which said Muhammad's supposed clemency was weakness and madness and after being lenient time and again (where I would ask: he exiled two tribes - though he would have killed the first had he had his way - and had several assassinated. Muhammad had his clement moments, yes, e.g. when he conquered Mecca but that came only later.) That was the problem. It nothing to do with the word "killing". Killing is indeed neutral but it isn't a noun and therefore sits badly as the name of the event or a section title. I have no objection to using it in the text body and indeed I have included it several times. I for my part have tried to achieve a compromise - I cannot see the same on your side, BS. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What I say to Aminz as a friend is none of your business, please don't bring it up (and don't bring up my faith in the prophet Muhammad either). The paragraph is sourced to the Oxford University Press.Bless sins 01:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did I bring up your faith. I do not object. I only object when this affects your editing. Also, anything you write on WP is public so don't overreact and don't try to shift attention away from the passage. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You just did: "I only object when this [my faith] affects your editing". What affects my editing is none of your business. You got that? Previously you had also stated "your prophet" implying I'm somehow connected to the prophet Muhammad (whether I am is not you concern). Besides me, you have accused respected scholars of bias, and in the case of Watt community consensus turned out against you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bless sins (talk • contribs)

If we have to descend into this basement of incility: "Whatever I make my business is none of your business!" But actually I don't want to do this. What wrote above is clearly: I have no problem with your faith - I have a problem with your edits which are aiming at producing a sanitised version of your prophet (and yes, I insist that there is nothing problematic in that term). Str1977 ^(talk) 08:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You announce on your userpage that you are a Muslim, so Muhammad must be indeed "your prophet" unless you profess your unique version of Islam. Beit Or 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Killing is indeed neutral but it isn't a noun. Really? This is from dictionary.com:

kill·ing

–noun

1. the act of a person or thing that kills.

Jedi Master MIK 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You demonstrate your lack of knowledge: killing is indeed a particip, when looked at it diachronically. Sure, it is used today as a noun and therefore a synchronical dictionary classifies it as such. But it doesn't sound good in some cases, including this. A fully flegded noun such as massacre works better. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A full fledged and neutral noun such as execution works even better. Evidence? I've already shown you a number of scholars using it above.Bless sins 10:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What is a "full fledged" [sic] noun? As it has been demonstrated above, the appeal to the fact that scholars use a certain word is non sequitur; the word choice is the discretion of editors. The choice of "massacre" is consistent with the current Wikipedia practice. Beit Or 13:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops Beit. I wanted to say "a fully flegded noun" and by that I wanted to clarify what I meant by noun above. It certainly is no linguistic term. "Massacre" is a noun and always was a noun (though there has been a verb "to massacre" derived from it), while "killing" is originally the participle of "to kill" - and that is, I think the reason "killing" doesn't good to your ears and my ears. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Str: I really have no clue why you talking about chronology or how it has any importance to this debate. All I can say about it though is Wikipedia is to be update as possible and if the most synchronic classification of killing can be a noun, there is no problem in its use here or anywhere there is killing of any kind described. And saying something doesn't sound good is POV and irrelevant b/c not only can I say it sounds good just to rebut that but AFAIK it is correct english.

Beit: Whats a "full fledge" noun? I dunno, ask Str cause I have no clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedi Master MIK (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my last posting answered both of your question.

Mik, saying something doesn't sound good is not POV in the sense of WP policies. Sure it is a matter of opinion to a certain extent (though formed on the actual usage of the English language - if you wrote "Qurayza not knew what Sad had in store for them" this is not good English. But is that "opinion" a POV.) And "it sounds better" is of course only a reason to chose between two otherwise acceptable alternatives. But then it is valid. All your quoting Watt and Esposito etc. will not help you in this, especially since none of these apparently say "the killing of the BQ". Finally, it is you and others that are trying to purge this article from a word, while I (and I think Beit Or agrees with me) have actually tried to avoid it where possible. You are the maximalist, the one not open to compromise. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again I'll reiterate my argument that hasn't been answered: You admit that "massacre" is being used to imply cruelty. Before that you admitted that the use of the "massacre" was intended to "reflect badly" on the prophet Muhammad, and to portray the event as a "bad thing". Beit or has already said the intention was to portray the event as "wanton killing". Is there any doubt that the word "massacre" is being used for biased purposes? (originally posted on 12:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)). Bless sins 04:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again you get it all wrong. "Massacre" is an accurate and neutral description of what happened. Cruelty is no necessary ingredient though it is often present. And as for "reflecting badly on Muhammad" - it makes no difference to this issue as if this is a massacre we are to call it such EVEN if it reflects badly on your prophet. It is not for us to whitewash his record. And anyone can still think thim justified in his actions. However, we report these actions accurately. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You yourself have admitted that you use massacre because you think the events were cruel. If you don't remember then I can quote your words. It does make a difference because you want to use massacre in order to "reflecting badly on Muhammad". That is a clearly biased motivation. And "execution" is no less accurate, but far more neutral.Bless sins 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

BS, stop misquoting me. I have said nothing of the kind. What I have said was that I use massacre because it is accurate and neutral and that any impact on Muhammad's reputation is not a reason to ommit it. Get it? Str1977 ^(talk) 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this is the last time I will explain this to you. This time I still consider you to be honestly mistaken about my statements but as this cleared up now, any further claim to the like I will consider a willful misreading, bad faith and a lie. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm done going around in circles with you as well. I've provided you with 16 scholarly sources. That you choose to ignore them because of your original research is totally inappropriate.Bless sins 19:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you seem to be unable to comprehend that just piling up scholars who use one term is not prejudicing the editorial choice of Wikipedia. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No the problem is that you think your original research is better than the research of 16 scholarly publications.Bless sins 00:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Suddenly you talk about research. You were not quoting research. You were merely saying "these say execution and so should we". Str1977 ^(talk) 10:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The publications are obviously based on research on the part of the scholars. And that is exactly what I quoted when I started this section.Bless sins 11:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your point was that these authors use execution. True, but that's no basis for dictating what word we should use. Massacre is accurate and neutral. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Massacre is accurate, but not neutral. Execution is accurate (because scholars say so) and neutral. "but that's no basis for dictating what word we should use" Ofcourse it is! We use the term that is commonly used by the scholarly community.Bless sins 11:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, in the section title "Siege and _____" the use of both words "execution" and "massacre" is inappropriate. This is because at least half of the tribe (i.e. women and children) were not killed rather taken captive. To focus only on the men, and to disregard the women can be considered as giving certain parts of the incident too much weight. Thus "aftermath", or something similar, is a better title.Bless sins 11:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But "massacre" is neutral. Also, there is absolutely no basis for you to dictate the article wording. The scholarly does not commonly use "execution" - you haven't shown that - but "massacre" IS the common term, see the picture title.

"Aftermath" is unacceptable as it reads awkward and is clearly a whitewashing term. That's like "Deportation and aftermath". "Execution" does not work, I grant you that - "Massacre" is a bit better as there certainly was a massacre, notwithstanding that there also was enslavement. We could also separate it into a distinct section called "Massacre and enslavement" or "Demise of the BQ". But no sanitising of grizzly facts. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

<sigh>No massacre is neither neutral nor commonly used (by scholars). This is because massacre implies cruelty, as shown by many definitions.

"Aftermath" is perfectly neutral. "Siege and execution/massacre and enslavement" is too long. "Demise" is weird, because the Qurayza continued to live on. (You may argue that bloodlines continue only through women, contrary to the fact that Jews are Jews because of their mothers, but many Qurayza men (boys) did survive).Bless sins 17:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

<sigh>Massacre is neutral. Any cruelty you decry (and I am not saying that it is a necessary part of the definition) is not a matter of neutrality but of accuracy.

"Aftermath" is sanitizing and whiteashing to the extreme.

Of course, I meant one section "siege" describing the siege, and a section covering the "massacre and enslavement".

I am not so sure about the "demise" - did the tribe live on? If so, why does our article's narrative end with this? I don't think it lived on. You only cite on half of Jewish law: a Jew is someone born of a Jewish mother but tribal identity is transferred via the father. The women anyway entered Muslim households and vanished as BQ. And anyway, "demise" does not imply annihalation. But I do not want to press "demise" ... maybe someone comes up with a better idea. Until then, "massacre" is the best choice.

PS. As for the indent: I replied to two of your postings and hence they should not be separated. Since you objected to the "new" one being moved to the back, I moved the old one to the front. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cruelty" is a matter of POV. One man may think that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was bad, cruel etc., another guy won't. Same goes with the Qurayza incident. "Aftermath" is a neutral word. Doesn't imply any POV, but says that this happened after the siege, and as a consequence of it.

The women were bought and sold by other Jews, and the men (who were children at the time of execution) lived on, and probably married and formed families.Bless sins 02:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your identification of "cruel" and "bad". I take it that you think massacres cruel, cruelty bad and Muhammad good. That's your problem how to combine these and your solution is to dispute the nature of the massacre as a massacre. But that's not good enough for WP and certainly not neutral.

Aftermath is not neutral as it hides an important fact. Aftermath would be okay if after the siege Muhammad and the Qurayza would have taken tea in Yathrib square. Well, they did quite different things.

The women were first given as slaves to Muslims - whether they were then sold to Jews is another matter. We report this but it is not directly relevant to our discussion. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"I take it that you think massacres cruel, cruelty bad and Muhammad good." I'm not alone in thinking massacre implies cruelty, brutality, barbarousness, viciousness etc. Consider Oxford dictionary, American Heritage dictionary, Merriam-Webster dictionary, Chambers reference, Dictionary at Encarta. Regarding cruelty, whether "bad" or not it is a POV judgment. Our job here is to be neutral.

Aftermath certainly is neutral. It implies events that happened as a consequence of another one. It doesn't favor any side. Finally whatever happened to the women, the men certainly continued to live on. Thus members of the tribe continued to exist.Bless sins 17:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should also remove all mentioning of the word treason, traitor etc. in regards to the the BQ - diplomatic dealings is certainly neutral after all? Would you consent? I don't think so! Why - then you have the answer why "aftermath" is problematic.

"the men certainly continued to live on" - no, they certainly were killed. The boys were spared and they boys grew into men. There is absolutely no indication (apart from the claims by Arafat) that men survived. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Would you consent? I don't think so!" I'm more fair minded than you think. If you can come up with a lot of sources that consistently use the word "diplomatic dealings" then yes we would be forced use that more neutral term. But the sources seem to use "treachery" far more often than "diplomatic dealings". Perhaps you have a stash of sources, written by professors and scholars, and published by university and academic presses that use this term?

On a side note, Str1977 can you stop removing the "discussion" subsection? If you don't I cut and paste the sources to another section. Thanks.Bless sins 18:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And I would consent if "massacre" were not a) perfectly accurate, b) perfectly neutral, c) the standard term used for the entire event (in its nominal form).

All right, though I do not think it appropriate that you try to split the beginning of this section off. Because I am tired of this and because I think there are more important things. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a) since some reliable sources use it. I disagree with b) since "cruelty" is a POV judgment. I have provided you with ample sources that say massacre implies cruelty. As regards to c) the standard term is "execution" as the number of sources provided show.Bless sins 04:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"I have provided you with ample sources that say massacre implies cruelty" - you have done nothing of the kind. You provided me with ample sources that use the word "execution" - proving a point that was never disputed. Your load of books doesn't however make it the standard term. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"you have done nothing of the kind" Maybe you should learn to read my comments more carefully. I'll copy and paste the sources I provided on (17:01, 5 November 2007): "Consider Oxford dictionary, American Heritage dictionary, Merriam-Webster dictionary, Chambers reference, Dictionary at Encarta". Actually the loads of books does make it standard. If 17 sources use a term, it is probably a standard one.Bless sins 20:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you are so into arithmetics, let me state that 4 ≠ ample. It is your failure in calculating, not my in raedign.

No, the load of books does not make "the standard" just that it is "a standard term", though it is open how these books use it (again I am AGF that they all use it). I have not checked because it is of no importance to OUR article. Massacre is much more accurate, less POV and also the primary term when talking about the event, as evidenced, among other things, by the picture title. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"let me state that 4 ≠ ample" Really? I didn't know "ample" had a universally accepted numerical value applicable to all cases. Whether or not the amount of sources is "ample" the sources are reliable and multiple (the word multiple means >1). The only way of determining the standard is by referring back to reliable and scholarly sources. "Massacre is much more accurate" 17 scholarly sources don't think so, "less POV" apparently in your mind to accuse someone of being "cruel" is neutral. "by the picture title" So now painters are a reliable source? Puh-lease.Bless sins 01:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, four occurance are not many, and hence not ample.

No, 17 scholars have used the term "execution" (or is it the whole word family) in this context (whether they used it exactly as you would have it is another, to me irrelevant matter). You cannot use these scholars as a basis that "massacre" is not accurate. They simply preferred the other term for reasons of their own.

Again, you are assuming that "cruel" is part of the definition of a massacre. But even if it were, if someone commits a cruel act it is not POV to say so.

No, not painters necessarily. But that the picture is titled "massacre ..." (by a scholars - RS! - who edited and published the work the picture is included in) shows that the most common term is massacre.

Please, restrict yourself to English. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Four definitions, appearing in reliable sources, are enough yo say the word implies a certain level of cruelty. To make the judgment of "cruelty" is POV. It represents one perspective. There are certainly those who don't think the execution was cruel.

I never said "massacre" is not accurate. I said "execution" is the standard term, because it is used by most RS.

Also which scholar are you referring to in the context of the picture. "But that the picture is titled "massacre ..." shows that the most common term is massacre." Like your image example, I have provided 17 counter examples.Bless sins (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

BS, I am not obliged to reply to your posts, especially if they contain nothing new. But I do so now:

Be that as it may, "cruelty" is a) not a necessary part of the definition, though it is often associated with a massacre because of modern sentiments. b) "cruelty" is not a POV term when it comes to massacres. I wouldn't know of any that explicitely denied the cruelty of the act - I only know those that think the Jews had it coming or that it never happened.

You have not established that it is the standard term. It is at best an acceptable term, though I do not know how many of your 17 books actually refer to the whole event as the "execution of the BQ" or whether they just say "were executed".

The picture is a reliably sourced picture. It was published with the help of competent scholars. They used the common term to designate it and the event depicted just as a scholar on the French revolution would use "storming of the bastille", despite the fact that the bastille was not stormed but handed over by its defenders. Note that in our case no such discrepancy is established. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"I am not obliged to reply to your posts," You're not obliged to insert POV language either. But when you do, and it is disputed, then you should respond back on talk.

""cruelty" is a) not a necessary part of the definition," Did I not provide you 'four definitions that say it (or an equally POV word) is? Do you dispute they are reliable sources?

"cruelty" is not a POV term" Yes it is! Otherwise, I can argue that a term like "clemency" isn't POV either, and should be used without attribution.

"You have not established that it is the standard term." Usually if something is sourced to 17 scholarly sources it is considered to be suitable for usage on wikipedia.

To whom is the image reliably sourced? Name the scholar and his/her credentials.Bless sins (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute overview

This is getting cluttered up, so I will here once again list the various point of dispute:

1. Do we need to parrot Watt's every word ("virtually certain") or is it enough to state his view.
2. Placement of the blood money decision
3. New, confusing (and totally superfluous): Moving Serjeant (affirming the special agreement) between Watt (denying it) and Stillman (denying it)
4. Do we need to parrot rhetorical statements ("Practically all..") or should we restrict ourselves to facts.
5. Inclusion of poetic quotes from the AL narrative or merely reporting his regret or rstricting ourselves to what relevant to the BQ
6. Massacre vs. Execution vs. alternatives
7. Concubine
8. Detail of Arafat POV
9. issues of language and grammar: we should write proper English sentences instead of cluttering things up by piling addition upon addition

Str1977 ^(talk) 11:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are the two biggest problems I find:

• Continued removal (at this point it seems more like censorship) of sourced content.
• Distortion of what the authors are actually saying. (for example, in his/her last edit, Beit Or uses the word "massacre" despite the fact that Michael Lecker is using the word "execution"[34])

Until this stops, there is no point in going into trivial matters (like use of the word concubine).Bless sins 23:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is funny that you talk about censorship. WP is not about parroting "sources" Str1977 ^(talk) 07:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please respond back. Censorship refers to deliberately removing sentences and entire paragraphs, despite their relevance and their reliability.Bless sins 14:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Censorship means hiding unpleasant things, such as that Muhammed instigated a massacre and the possibly unpleasant thing that he had concubines. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not using the word "massacre" is not censorship. Many publications have come up with more neutral words, such as the Oxford University Press, as well as professors and scholars from diverse background. On the other hand, you are removing sentences and entire paragraphs unjustifiably. Bless sins 01:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite repeated claims that the word "massacre" is not neutral, neither you, BS, nor anybody else here has demonstrated why it is so. And I am already tired of repeating that the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that the word "massacre" is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. Beit Or 20:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Despite repeated claims that the word "massacre" is not neutral, neither you, BS, nor anybody else here has demonstrated why it is so." -- you simply haven't read the previous discussion closely enough then. ITAQALLAH 20:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. Will you be courteous enough to repeat the arguments for me? And you still have to answer the argument regarding the existing consensus on Wikipedia. Beit Or 20:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

as explained above,[35] the contention is that massacre in this context is loaded, and is generally associated with cruelty, brutality, murder, and so on. of course, massacre is a verifiable descriptor as per its usage in reliable sources- and if there was unanimity amongst sources in calling it a 'massacre' only, as is likely the case with numerous incidents you may cite as evidence of accepted usage on Wikipedia- then there would be no issue. the fact remains, however, that sources vary in how they describe this incident - a number of sources favour describing it as an execution among other things. thus, we have [at least] two verified descriptions, and we are currently disputing over which is the more neutral. you did say that 'massacre' depicted mass killing whereas 'execution' did not, what do you think about using 'mass execution'? ITAQALLAH 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mass execution" sounds awkward in English. The scholars' word choice is irrelevant here, since there is no way of proving that a scholar who wrote "execution" was choosing between this word and "massacre" and consciously preferred the former option. That's too much of psychoanalysis. Comparisons of the frequency with wich alternative names are used in sources are alright in discussions of article titles, but in the article text, the choice of words rests with editors. "Massacre" may indeed be associated with cruelty, but any mass murder is cruel by definition, even if no unusual punishments are involved. Probably for this reason, "massacre" is Wikipedia's usual, maybe even prefered term for acts of mass murder. Beit Or 21:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

i don't think there's any psychoanalysis going on here. the presumption is merely that Islamic studies scholars have enough competency over the English lanaguage to be able to use the most fitting words in their works. you again concede the blatant POV inherent in the word massacre by using it interchangably with 'mass murder'. ITAQALLAH 16:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

At least one editor here infered (baselessly) from some authors using one word that they actively, conciously preferred it over another. Note that many others scholars do use the word massacre, quite apart from the fact that the event in question is called massacre as per the picture. Even if Beit Or is writing carelessly, I do not concede anything of the kind. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing awkward about "mass execution", it explains the incident just fine. However, it is unnecessary if we use "execution" instead of "massacre" b/c we'd say the men were executed, saying mass executed would be redundant. I suppose in the title of the section though "mass execution" would be fine though.

And are you now implying that this was an incident of mass murder or that massacre is indeed synonymous with that? In that case, then massacre is an even more POV word and shouldn't be used b/c if you don't remember, some people, including some of the secondary sources cited in the article, will say that they were killed for collaboration during wartime and so they weren't "murdered" which implies something different. Jedi Master MIK 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

1. You are still ignoring the POV problems with "execution", which are not removed by "mass execution". "mass executed" however is not a word.

2. No one talked about "murdered" in the current sense of the term. You are also forgetting that various "sources" also dispute your emphasis on treachery. You want the article to endorse the accusations and the legitimacy of the massacre through the back door. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Its more NPOV than massacre considering the views that exist. And nobody said mass executed is a word, I said that when "executed" is used, theres no need to say "mass" b/c a plural noun will negate the need for that emphasis.

2. Current sense??? I don't think I quite follow. And once again, stop with the presumptions, especially the overly cynical ones. Most sources including those of Stillman and Watt as far as I've noticed endorse there was some sort of agreement made between the Meccans and BQ during the battle but that it eventually broke b/c of disagreements or couldn't be carried out in time or something of the mix. And the other point is that there ARE sources that support that BQ were allied with the Muslims at least loosely, whether it was a personal separate one or not is disputed though. So even in a small sense it is seen as treachery. Jedi Master MIK 19:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1. No it's not. See, I can contradict too.

2. Who is being cynical here? The one that once upon a time started this discussion expressly by saying that this can't be a massacre as the Jews had it coming (before you shout, that was Kirby)? The ones that want to sanitise the article by removing any occurence of that word?

"Most sources including those of Stillman and Watt as far as I've noticed endorse there was some sort of agreement ... treachery." - Only this is totally irrelevant on the matter a) because the wording issue doesn't hinge on this, b) because it would still be POV. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you still haven't responded as to why you are censoring Watt.Bless sins 11:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Because I am not. Stop insulting me. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edits speak to the contrary. In addition to removing Gerald R. Hawting, Abdul-Kader A. Shareef, Nomani, Peterson, Ramadan, Abu-Nimer, you are also removing Watt, despite the community consensus that he is a reliable source. If you consider censorship "insulting" behavior perhaps you should stop it.Bless sins 12:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that has been removed has any encyclopedic value. Beit Or 13:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In the version I prefer, Watt appears seven times in the text and six times in footnotes. I wouldn't call that "removing Watt". Ramadan is also present in one occasion, while regarding the other I have stated that he could be included in a neutral way. Peterson also appears. Hawting/Sharif are gone but not because of me - I would like to included them if I only had a clear insight into the bloodmoney issue - you have done nothing to help in this. Nomani's book is unclear and appeared only in an Arab version. And added nothing useful.

As for "insulting" - you may say "removed" any time of the year but calling my or Beit's actions "censorship" is indeed insulting. And it is hypocritical given your insistence on removing any appearence of the M-word. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Watt appears seven times in the text and six times in footnotes." Ofcourse, where Watt says something you want him to say why would you remove him? The fact is you are removing content sourced to him from the "Battle of the trench" section. "Ramadan is also present in one occasion...Peterson also appears." Same comment: keeping one instance of a scholar while removing all other content sourced to him/her (esp. the content you find offensive) can be considered censorship. "Nomani's book is unclear and appeared only in an Arab version" How exactly is Nomani's book unclear? And I doubt there is a policy against using "Arab version" sources.

Why should I say "removed" when it is clear you are trying to censor these scholars? You (and Beit Or) have already stated that you are "removing" them because you find their views "bigoted", "Islamophilic", "antisemitic" etc.Bless sins 09:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should you? Try AGF? Try civility?

As for Watt: what content am I removing/censoring? All I did was concerned with wording and how to include him. An encyclopedia is no quote farm. Also, in no way to I agree with all these utterances by Watt.

I explained the Ramadan issue to you in detail. I won't repeat myself. (BTW, the quote is in parts antisemtic - and as long as you can't distinguish the wheat from the chaff, it stays out.)

As for Peterson, I have no clue what you are up in arms about him.

Nomani's book is unclear because in no way have you explained 1. who Nomani is, 2. what kind of book it is, 3. what he is saying in context, etc. Also, this is the English WP so books should commonly be intelligible to non-Arab speakers. Note, I do not object to Arab works if they really contribute something that isn't already included, even if there is no translation. But note that en.WP prefers English-languge works. In any case, you should explain it to those that do not have the privilege of understanding Arabic. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Try AGF? Try civility? Accusing me of violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL for something you yourself do?[36] I smell double standards.

Regarding Watt. Check out what you are doing to "Battle of the Trench" in your edit.

Regarding Ramadan, you know what paragraph you're removing. Baseless accusations of antisemitism don't cut it. We know you don't like him, that is no reason to exclude him.

Peterson: you have been removing him from lead, and more recently you're removing him immediately after the content of Ramadan in question (Peterson concurs that Muslims wanted to put an end to facing threats from the same enemies repeatedly. He adds that severe punishment deterred future treachery).

Nomani: A professor and historian as I've explained elsewhere. His book is on the life of prophet Muhammad, much like the books written by Watt, Peterson, Peters and Ramadan. Nomani's works are famous enough to have an English translation. BTW, where did you get the idea that Nomani wrote in Arabic?Bless sins 03:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Double standards is indeed something that you are familiar with as you practiced them all along. Therefore any accusations against me are irrelevant. I agree that words like "censorship" are not very nice. I leave it to you to browse through the history to find out who used it first. Once you cease to accuse me of "censorship" I will not use the word myself.

2. I did nothing improper to Watt in that edit.

3. I asked you time and again to provide Ramadan so that we can work on it. What do I get - insults and evidence of your unwillingness or inability to cooperate with others. You can only talk maximalism. But others will not accept this.

4. And I replied to this elsewhere. I deduced the language from the title. If you have an English translation bring it on (there unto talk) and we will see what we can do. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. "Double standards is indeed something that you are familiar with" Bieng subject to them by you, unfortunately. 'I agree that words like "censorship" are not very nice.' That's an understatement, considering you said that it violates WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You said that, not me. And then you use that word against me. Thus when I say "censor" it is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, yet when you say it, its ok. Double standards.

2. ...except remove much of what he stated.

3. Again double standards. Your insults, that I have patiently bore, are far worse. I have only made comments about your editing, yet you make comments about my editing, my beliefs, my motivations etc. Other than that, you (and Beit Or) slander other scholars, while I have engaged in no such thing.

4. "I deduced the language from the title." Then you are probably wrong (though I'm not sure). I mean there may exist an Arabic version, but I certainly didn't read it in that language, rather English. The book, however, was not my personal copy and I don't have it on me. I guess this matter can be raised again when either of us finds Nomani, until then he stays (since you have no reason to dispute him).Bless sins 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. No, when I say "censor" it is uncivil too. But you complain about something you yourself egaged in. Can we agree that we both desist from the c-word and AGF that both of us are preferring our versions in good faith?

2. No, that's not what I did. I retained the whole substance of what he said.

3. Well, you engaged in insults both of persons and of their intelligence, justification of massacres. I have written about your beliefs but only in an attempt to understand what you do. Should I hide this?

4. It doesn't matter whether I or you are probably wrong. Nomani is another case where a book by a unknown (to us) was dumped into the article without any explanations. This is not good in an already contentious article. So until his content is properly explained here (regardless of who does it) he will not stay. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Good you admit that, and I never complained about your usage of "censorship" but your double standards. Str1977, there comes a time when good faith his hard to assume. Censorship is what I'm led to believe when you constantly and selectively content sourced to Watt.

2. You think I'm blind? Most if not all, of your reverts remove content sourced to Watt, including you last one.[37] An example of this is: "Practically all of Medina's inhabitants opposed the enormous Quraysh forces besieging the city, except the Banu Qurayza." Look at your edits carefully, adn you will more instances of Watt that you have removed.

3. Can you not drag people's beliefs in this discussion, neither mine nor Ramadan's? I have never brought your beliefs into this discussion, can you return the favor? This is a polite request, you can ignore it (like you ignored by request to stop referring to me as "BS" but to say "Bless sins"), or take heed. If you do ignore this, I'll take it to a higher level.

4. What explanation do you want about Nomani, that I've not given you? Whether his book was originally written in Arabic is quite irrelevant.Bless sins 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1. But double standards were what enraged me. If I am not mistaken you were the first to refer to my (and Beit's) changes as "censorship". I do not remove (I guess that's the verb you left out) content sources to Watt, neither constantly nor selectively. I included him in a manner different from the the manner you prefer that's all. I even reinstated some of Watt when Beit removed it.

2. I have answered that under item # 1. You may not be blind but you do not accept that there is an honest agreement. And you think you can dictate the article. I explained time and again why "practically all ... but" is not an acceptable wording.

3. I do not drag people's beliefs into the discussion. And I actually tried to refer to you by your full username (though I think it a failed joke) which did in no way greet with a civil manner of discussion. Thus I reverted back to the short form, which intends no offense.

4. Re Nomani, I want reason for including him. What is he saying that's not already included. Of course, I do not mind adding another reference to things already abundantly referenced. But I just don't see why we need another biography of Muhammad in the references when the topic is not Muhammad here. Especially if no one here has seen the book. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1. "you were the first" It's so childish to say "you started it!". "I do not remove (I guess that's the verb you left out) content sources to Watt". Its very difficult to discuss arithmetic with a person who doesn't agree with 2+2=4. I have repeatedly copied and pasted the information from Watt you are removing. I never knew you sink to a level so low as to deny your actions despite the evidence presented.

2 (not related to you #2) You are removing content sourced to Peterson.

3. Again you deny what you've done. I could pursue this further, but I don't want to cry over spilled milk. Just promise that you won't drag my beliefs into the discussion again.

4. Look at your edits more carefully. You are removing Nomani from the section in battle of the Trench. No the return of Huyayy into Medina, in the settlements of the Qurayza, has not been mentioned. "Especially if no one here has seen the book" What are you talking about? I've seen the book.Bless sins 04:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1. You think it childish. What I think childish is your attempt to hide behind your religion, trying to paint any opposition as a matter of "religious discrimination" as you did in your edit summary re Ramadan. Strictly speaking, this act of bad faith should disqualify from any further discussions. Still, I will reply to your points:

• "You were the first" - yes, you used censorship time and again and I complained until I gave way and sunk to your level. That was wrong of me but you are the last to complain.
• "Its very difficult to discuss arithmetic ..." - well, we are NOT discussing arithmetics. It speaks for itself that you think this a matter of arithmetics. 2+2=4 cannot be disputed. The content of your edits can be disputed. And I insist that I did not remove Watt content - I do admit that I removed Watt quotes, preferring indirect presentation. But you have stated before that you do not grasp the difference.

2. Sometimes things get lost in the muddle, escpecially if they are never explained. However, may I also point out that in the very same paragraph YOU are removing Watt. Why?

3. Merits no reply.

4. Let's look at this carefully.

You wrote:

"During the siege, the Qurayza allowed Huyayy ibn Akhtab (leader of the Banu Nadir) to return, whom Muhammad had exiled, and who had instigated the Meccan confederacy besieging Medina. Ibn Ishaq writes that Akhtab persuaded the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad to help the Meccans conquer Medina.",

whereas I wrote:

"Ibn Ishaq writes that during the siege Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the chief of the exiled Banu Nadir, came to the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad and persuaded him to help the Meccans conquer Medina."

I see no substantial difference between the two. Accidential differences are

• you mention separately that Huyayy was exiled by Muhammad - my version mentions that his tribe was exiled (which was also related before). I think my version is closer to the facts as Huyayy was exiled just as any Nadir was exiled.
• you mention that Huyayy "had instigated the Meccan confederacy besieging Medina" - I do not object at all to including this. I will restore it (if you insist with Nomani as a reference - though other books might do as well - in a proper form, no p.382 nonsense).
• you write that one Akhtab persuaded Kab. That person never appeared before and has no part at all in these events. But I guess you were only careless and misreferred to the father when you meant the son. That you never revisited this mistake in countless edits however speaks for itself.
• Just in case that you question this, there is no difference between "BQ allowed H to return" and "H came to the BQ", unless you want to imply (OR! and factually nonsense) that Huyayy wanted to settle down among the BQ. Or if you want to add another "crime" to the BQ's list because they allowed something instead of simply listening to an envoy, shifting the actor's role from Huyayy to the BQ.

Aside: "What are you talking about? I've seen the book." But above you seemed ignorant even of the language the book was in, including the title.

Str1977 ^(talk) 12:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1. "What I think childish is your attempt to hide behind your religion" Enough is enough. Stop - repeatedly - bringing my religion into this. "That was wrong of me" Good, we have agreement.

Just as 2+2=4, it is blatantly clear you are removing Watt. Click on this link, scroll down to the "Battle of the Trench" section, and check out all the text colored red. Now if you can't see that red text, then I suggest you use another computer.

2. Can you copy and paste the parts of Watt I'm removing? Can you please explain why you are removing Peterson?

4. If there is no substantial difference, then you have no reason to object to my version. Regarding '"BQ allowed H to return" and "H came to the BQ"', there's a difference: in one the action was sanctioned by the Qurayza, while in the other, the Qurayza had no control over what Huyayy chose to do. Huyayy could not have sought refuge in the Qurayza settlements without their approval.

Regarding the book: I'm still not sure of the language the original version was. Of course I've read much of the book in its English translation.Bless sins 20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Oh you easily-offended one. I did not bring YOUR religion into this. You posted an edit summary falsely claiming that I removed Ramandan because of his religion. His religion is Islam, which also happens to be your religion. That was my point. You are hiding behind it by falsely accusing me of discriminating against Ramadan based on his religion.

?. Nonsense. Also, you are "removing Watt" too, which leads to:

2. "Watt writes that the Banu Qurayza "seem to have tried to remain neutral" in the battle. < ref > Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 36.< / ref >

4. "If there is no substantial difference, then you have no reason to object to my version." Are you really that ... I could say the same thing to you. And of course, there are other concerns than mere content. Back to the text: indeed the BQ had no control over Huyayy coming to them - of course they could have turned him out right away - a very rude thing to do given Arab customs. "Huyayy could not have sought refuge in the Qurayza settlements without their approval." Now, that's utter nonsense. No one will deduce that from the text which clearly says that he came to see the BQ chief.

Regarding the book: can you tell what the title of the English translation is? If it is not: Sirat ... we should use the English title. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. I have now restore a bit from Watt that ties in well with Ramadan. I have put him between the Muslim scholars and Ramadan, which should alleviate your fears that anyone could - God forbid - classify Ramadan as a Muslim scholar. Right now it is still invisible as it awaits your approval. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

1. When you said "I think childish is your attempt to hide behind your religion" [emphasis added], I thought you were referring to me. I thought when you say "you", you mean "me", since the this discussion is largely between us two. But apparently - in this case only - its different. "which also happens to be your religion" No, please forget what my religion is. Just as you wouldn't bring my race into this, don't bring my religion either. I have never brought your religion into this (and frankly I don't care what your religion is), I ask you to return the favor.

2. And I replace it with "It is unclear whether or not the Qurayza's treaty with Muhammad required them to help him defend Medina or merely remain neutral. The Qurayza tried to choose the latter position." If you don't like this, I'll replace "tried to choose the latter position" with "tried to remain neutral". The reason I move it up, is that Watt mentions this very early on, certainly earlier that Huyayy's machinations.

I have repeatedly asked this: can you please explain why you are removing Peterson?

4. "I could say the same thing to you." Except I do think there is difference. To you apparently there is none, so should not matter. "BQ had no control over Huyayy coming to them" But letting him enter and stay was no doubt under their control. And yes they did give him refuge, that is why he was found amongst them at the end. " No one will deduce that from the text which clearly says that he came to see the BQ chief." Actually you are wrong. Consider the passage "But Abu Sufyan was unconvinced, and fearing for his life, Huyay left camp and made his way to the fortresses of Bani Qurayza." (Lings (1983), p. 226). Clearly "see[ing] the BQ chief" wasn't his only motivation. Finally, this fact has been considered notable by Nomani, a scholar, and that is why I insist on it.Bless sins 02:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1. How could I forget this in the face of all your POV pushing. Also, you ask me to return the favor while you constantly assume not bad faith but the baddest of faiths regarding my motives.

2. You are still under the false impression that Watt needs to dictate where we place information.

I am not removing Peterson, get it?

4. "To you apparently there is none" - there is no difference in substance (unless you want to imply the things I referred to) but my version is at least better written. Your point about the BQ having control implies that again you want to add another "crime" at the BQ's doorstep. And no, they didn't give him "refuge" because he was not fleeing from anyone. At least to my knowledge - if you now bring up a new book (Lings) this opens up a whole different ball game (and I wonder why you bring this up only now when in fact this book - clarify which one - seems much more important to the topic than an Nonanis of the world. That "this fact has been considered notable by Nomani, a scholar" is of no consequence because outside of Lings there is no "fact" - again and again you are creating "facts" out of thin air or, more precisely, out of differences in wording. Lings seems relevant so bring him on. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Just don't drag my religion into this ok?

2.You are still under the false impression that your original research is somehow more appropriate than Watt's research.

3.What I don't get is how you deny doing something you obviously are doing. You are removing a total of 4 separate instances sourced to Peterson. The following is an example: "Peterson concurs that Muslims wanted to put an end to facing threats from the same enemies repeatedly. He adds that severe punishment deterred future treachery." What appalls me is that you are not even aware of you own edits.

4. "there is no difference in substance" Again, if there is no difference then you have no serious reason of reverting me. "but my version is at least better written" Even if that's true, "better written" is the last thing that should concern anybody here, given there are much more significant issues: neutrality and factual accuracy. '"crime"' Did I ever say that allowing Huyay back was a 'crime'? If not why have you put it in quotation marks and attributed it to me?

Please note that the actions of Qurayza allowing Huyay back are referenced in Nomani who considers this action notable. Nomani considers this a fact, and because he is a reliable source, so should we. No, your original research does not matter. Regarding Lings, I only brought him up to show you that what Nomani is referring to is also mentioned by Lings. But Nomani himself alone is qualified enough here.Bless sins 01:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

2. I am not engaging in OR but in editing this article.

3. What INFORMATION am I removing? That is, apart from things in the lead (which should only contain things already present in the main body of the article), and the nonsense "judgement according to the Torah, which once was included in a broader fashion but was removed by consensus. If we (by consensus) want to reinclude the issue, we must include the whole issue and not just the parts you like. Doing it like this is dishonest and disgusting.

4. I can revert your version anyway I like within wiki-rules. There is no WP policy that says "repeat the great BS only if there a substantial difference". Sure, I would prefer a neutral and accurate version to one that is false, POV but better written. Only, in our case it is your version that is inferior linguistically and regards to NPOV and accuracy in general. I have explained the remaining problems with this passage in particular (where POV and accuracy problems with your version are admittedly few).

"Crime" - BS you should educate yourself about the English language and realise that the symbol " is not always a quotation mark - this was your misunderstanding with Ramadan before and it is the same here - I did not quote anyone. "..." can be used to distance oneself from a word, similarly to so-called.

Re Lings: if that is so, you haven't yet established this based on Nomani. If Nomani really says this about Huyayy's flight, provide the quote, and I am content with including it based on him. You never talked about this instance before your penultimate strings of postings (the one which first mentioned Lings). How can I know that behind your wording based on Nomani lies an actual important fact (and it seems quite important to me). That's a major problem: you dump badly written passages one after the other from a whole load of books where supposedly important facts become allusions and implications here. Most of my problems with you turn out to be language problems. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

2.Then stop using your OR as the basis for excluding content sourced to Watt.

3. "What INFORMATION am I removing?" I've already state it, but will state it again: you are removing, amongst other things, the statement "Peterson concurs that Muslims wanted to put an end to facing threats from the same enemies repeatedly. He adds that severe punishment deterred future treachery." You are also removing Peterson's observation that the judgment was in accordance with the Torah. "but was removed by consensus." I highly doubt that Peterson has ever even been in the article before (let alone talking about the Torah) because Peterson's book was released not too long ago. "Doing it like this is dishonest and disgusting." Everything that doesn't subscribe to your world view is dishonest and disgusting. Again, your using your own OR to remove Peterson's valid observation.

4. "I can revert your version anyway I like within wiki-rules." You can't censor out content you don't like. "inferior linguistically" Your arrogance.

5. So hold on: are you excluding Nomani on the basis you claim that I'm lying about what he wrote? What is your reason for arriving at such a conclusion? If you are not saying that I'm lying, (i.e. Nomani does say what I claim he says), then you have no reason for excluding him. BTW, I said that the fact Huyayy fled was in Lings, not in Nomani. Please don't confuse the two texts.Bless sins (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

2. I am not using any OR to exclude Watt.

3. a. I have included the deterrent thing in the passage that only awaits your approval. So it is wrong to suggest that I removed it.

3. b. I have already stated that the Torah issue is out of bounce. Whether we should include this or not is a separate issue and should be discussed elsewhere. If we do we may as well add the ref to Peterson there - but we may not add it against the consensus, especially not alone, as you did, and not in that pseudo-neutral fashion. "I highly doubt that Peterson has ever even been in the article before" - one more piece of your failing to grasp things. It is totally irrelevant whether Peterson was here before. I am talking about the issue, not the author. Consensus decided to leave out the Torah issue - only consensus can restore it.

4. "You can't censor out content you don't like." Well, I am not doing this. And again, you are reverting back to your bad faith censorship language. Telling! "Your arrogance." No, sad but true

5. "are you excluding Nomani on the basis you claim that I'm lying about what he wrote?" No, I am not. You are constantly flip-flopping, as you wrote: "Please note that the actions of Qurayza allowing Huyay back are referenced in Nomani ... Regarding Lings, I only brought him up to show you that what Nomani is referring to is also mentioned by Lings." This led me to suppose that Lings and Nomani said the same. I now see that your statements were unclear (Please don't confuse the two texts.) and that "Huyayy had to flee from Abu Sufyan" only appears in Lings. Well, that is - as I said - a notable fact which I think well worth including, both here and in other articles. Only you come up with it only now. But better late than never. Bring on the quote from Lings and I will include it. As for Nomani, I already stated that he is not adding anything. Sure we can add another reference to the already referenced statement. So, in the end I am not excluding him. But we need not use your preferred wording either.

Str1977 ^(talk) 18:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Yes you are. Look the point is: stop removing Watt!

3. If you make it invisible, the reader can't see it. Thus it is as good as invisible/removed.

"is out of bounce." What do mean by that? "Consensus decided to leave out the Torah issue" There was no consensus or discussion about Daniel Peterson's material (atleast you've provided no evidence).

4. Then why do you continue to remove Watt, Nomani, Peterson, Ramadan and Lings?

5. "Well, that is - as I said - a notable fact which I think well worth including, both here and in other articles." Yes but the discussion here is about including Nomani. What you said can be done - and you are free to do so. "As for Nomani, I already stated that he is not adding anything." I already stated he's adding the fact that Qurayza allowed Huyayy to return.Bless sins (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

2. and 4. are either bad faith accusations and merit no reply and anyway they have been levelled and answered countless times.

3. And so has the invisible thing. As for "out of bounce": I specifically said that this "removed material" would not count. If you will, I admit that I removed it but I do so for very legitimate reasons, namely that it has been removed by consensus. You are getting nonsensical with your "Peterson has not been removed by consensus" - it is the issue that counts, not some the authors you dug up.

5. "Yes but the discussion here is about including Nomani." Are you trying to drive me insance. YOU brought up Lings and I think him interesting and relevant. As for Nomani, if you want to restrict it to him, I say driver, he is not included (except as a ref) as he does not add anything to the article. Get it! Str1977 ^(talk) 19:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

2. and 4. Shying away from the truth reliably sourced content are we?

3. "this "removed material" would not count" Count towards what? "namely that it has been removed by consensus." Please give the link to the consensus that says Peterson's book X p. Y shall not be included on wikipedia?

5. "he does not add anything to the article." Sure he does: The Qurayza allowed Huyayy to return.Bless sins (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

2. and 4. Aren't you the one that always told me that WP is not about truth?!

3. You still don't get it that this is not about any odd book.

5. "The Qurayza allowed Huyayy to return." As if this was not already included. So, no, he does not add anything. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

<re-indent>2. and 4. My mistake. I have corrected it.

3. When did I say that this was about an "odd book"? I said it was about Peterson's book. You don't get that we can't insert anything without sources. You don't get that the policy on inclusion is "verifiability" (see WP:V), not rules that you make up.

5. No this is not included in you version. Copy and past where it says this.Bless sins (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Not an "odd book" but "any odd book". Please educate yourself about what this means. Stop lecturing me about things that are not disputed. No one talks about " insert(ing) anything without sources".

5. "Ibn Ishaq writes that during the siege Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the chief of the exiled Banu Nadir and the instigator of the alliance with the Quraysh and the Ghatafan[22], came to the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad and persuaded him to help the Meccans conquer Medina." That's all there is to it. If Huyayy was fleeing, as Lings supposedly says, this of course would change this but I am still waiting for the passage from Lings. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

2. and 4. You didn't respond to this.

3. I looked in the dictionary for "odd book", couldn't find it. Can you please use language that we can both understand? This way the discussion will move faster.

5. I see not mention of the Qurayza giving permission to Huyayy to enter and return. Why do you want to not mention that fact?Bless sins (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

BS,

2. I only reply to new things. I don't see why I should repeat myself to deaf ears.

3. You need not look for "odd book". First of all, the expression is "any odd book" (or whatever) and you can find it among the meanings of "odd", in this case it means "this or that book". I will continue to use proper English both on talk and in the article.

4. Because your "giving permission" is a unneeded detail if he only went on a diplomatic mission. Of course, they welcomed him. Why do you want to highlight this detail? What do you want to insinuate? Again, I will consider Lings only if you present him. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

2. "I don't see why I should repeat myself to deaf ears." Are you calling me "deaf". Ignoring the violation of WP:CIVIL, what does that have anything to do with this? I read your comments, I don't listen to them.

3. The book is a reliable source. Do you deny that?

4. I highlight that detail because Nomani thinks it is quite significant.Bless sins 15:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Ever heard of metaphors? Or are you trying to be funny.

3. You still do not understand what the phrase means.

4. Though I think you are overdoing it, I will accept such a wording. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

2. I've heard of metaphors, and enjoy them also - but not in confusing situations such as these. Things are already tangled up, and I will interpret all your comments literally. I am only concerned that comments should be direct and to the point.

3. And I won't until you point to a wikipolicy that outlaws "odd books" or discourages their use. If the concept of "odd books" has nothing to do with wiki policies (the only policies I'm interested in enforcing), then, chances are, this discussion is irrelevant.

4. Nothing further.Bless sins (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Or figures of speech? You may take it as literal as you want but you are obliged to AGF. Keep that in mind.

3. Well, I am not proposing outlawing "odd books". I never was. I am just saying that WP is about including topics and issues and from these we proceed to to sources for information. Hence, we have and article on the BQ or on Muhammad and not an article on a specific book on the BQ or Muhammad. Again, I never talked about "odd books" but about "any odd book". Peterson's (or whosever) book does not in itself warrant inclusion - it is only included if/since it has something to say on a topic we are addressing. All I am asking you is to proceed topic-wise, not author-wise. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite all these troubles, I now want to make a last attempt of getting your recognition for my version of including Ramadan. I have now made the invisible text visible, so you and everybody can read it. You only have to leave it as it is and I will take it as acceptance. However, if you chose to revert it, I will return to the "invisible stage". The choice is yours and I will not take any responsibility for the passage becoming invisible again. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That has to do only with Ramadan. You are still removing a lot of sourced content sourced to other scholars and also content source to Ramadan. But since I'm willing to compromise, I'll accept you extremely minimalist version of Ramadan if you can accept my version elsewhere.Bless sins 15:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We have to go bit by bit. We had a conflict on Ramadan. There's nothing wrong with starting with Ramadan. As for your "compromise", I will respond to this later, in a new section. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Once again I have had a go at making the references uniform. Since some people have chosen to include books in a different style, probably out of ignorance, I think it best to explain the principles I have applied:

• Monographies:
  • first appearance in footnotes: family name, title, vol. [if applicable], p. 123-456.
  • further appearances in footnotes: family name, title [if there is more than one work of this author], p. 123-456.
  • literature section: family name, first name [at least one name must be in full length], title, volume [if applicable]. Place: publisher [exception: Place University Press], year. ISBN [if avaiable]
• Articles:
  • in footnotes similar to monographies, only that "article title" replaces book title.
  • literature section:
    • article from a collection of essays: family name, first name [at least one name must be in full length], "article title", in: book, vol. [if applicable]. Place: publisher [exception: Place University Press], year. ISBN [if avaiable]
    • article from a journal: family name, first name [at least one name must be in full length], "article title", in: journal, volume (year), p. 123-456.
• Encyclopedias: family name [some are yet unaccounted for], Encyclopedia, "article".

Every footnote ends in a full stop. Any set of page numbers end in a full stop or in a colon (when various books are listed). "Page" is always abbreviated to p. (not pp., not pg., not p)

I hope this explains matters. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Double standards and blame the victims

BS, I have seen only afterwards that you went in and mass reverted between my edits.

At the same time you complain of mass reverting. That is quite rich and a clear indication of double standards on your part. You have mass reverted every single time while I have tried to be as compromising as I can.

Also, note that your blame the victims and kill all the Jews paragraph is totally unacceptable and unencyclopedic and will never ever stay in this article. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider your edits here. I didn't mass revert after that edit, but only edited the content I have been discussing on talk. Yet you went ahead and mass reverted my edits anyways.[38] SO naturally, I gave you a taste of your own poison.

Please don't get into talks about what is "unacceptable". The things that are unacceptable are dictated by Wiki policies. Feel free to notify my if I violate one. BTW, what's the "kill all the Jews paragraph"??Bless sins 23:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course you did mass revert. You just reverted the content back to your version regardless of all the work I had done, regardless of any efforts to compromise. Sure, WP policies do allow that. But then do not turn around and tell we to drink water when you are drinking wine.

The "blame the victims, kill all the jews" paragraph is this disgusting piece: [39] I will only link to it as I do not want my fingers to type this screed. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even going to go into how you continue to make offensive remarks, as I know you won't stop doing that. Instead tell me where did I write "blame the victims, kill all the jews". After all you put that in quotation marks, suggesting you copied it of from somewhere. Besides the link you provided sources a book by the Oxford University Press. It is inconceivable that such a press would ever publish anything remotely antisemitic (esp. in 2007).Bless sins 14:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have linked the paragraph and explained the offensiveness above. If you want to write hagiography go somewhere else (no, I am not referring to the Muhammad article). Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Explained"? You have made a false statement, since I have never included the phrase "kill all the jews" in any of my (article) edits. Whether you apologize for making these charges, I don't care, but I do hope you don't repeat them.Bless sins 01:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed you who quoted this passages. Maybe you should apologise. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? I inserted "kill all the jews" in the article? You must stop making these false statements. Actually, because I know that I never inserted that clause, and that you continue to make offensive remarks, I'll simply ignore your false allegations from this point on.Bless sins 11:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't insert literally those very words, but the essence of the message was pretty much the same: "Jews are nasty and deserved their fate". Beit Or 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any indication of that being said in the paragraph at all. All it explains is an alternate interpretation of why Muhammad never allowed such rash action to take place before but allowed it in this case. It is also a secondary source interpretation like those of Watt's, Stillman's, Rodinson's, etc., some of which themselves could imply very much the same things about the Muslims, so if you want to keep a NPOV on the interpretations and opinions of why Muhammad allowed to happen what he did, you should have no problem allowing this. Jedi Master MIK 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"You didn't insert literally those very words" Thank you fro clearing me from that false charge!

"Jews are nasty" when did I insert that? I'm grateful that you verify the truth, but quite disappointed to that allege me of something equally false.Bless sins 03:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You included a whole lorry of offensive nonsense. Maybe you can understand that Beit Or and I both are paraphrasing the gist of your (and that beautiful Ramadan's) thought. It can never be included in this manner. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather than your faulty "paraphrasing", why don't you simply quote me directly? That would create far less misunderstanding. In anycase, do you dispute Ramadan's reliability? If not, you have no reason to remove him.Bless sins 10:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a pulpit from which one can preach mass murder of Jews. The quote you insist on including is essentially Ramadan's rebuke of Muhammad not for massacring the Jews of Banu Qurayza, but for not massacring the Jews earlier. This is bigotry, antisemitism, and glorification of mass murder. Beit Or 13:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, you should be aware that WP:BLP applies to talk pages aswell. regardless of whatever strong views you may have, Wikipedia is not the forum for it, nor is it a "pulpit" for attacking living individuals. ITAQALLAH 16:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That hardly merits a reply except to say that I think you are misusing this policy. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, WP:BLP does not prevent editors from calling a spade a spade. Beit Or 20:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

if you believe it acceptable to accuse a living person, of "bigotry", "antisemitism", "glorification of mass murder", "preach[ing] mass murder of Jews" - then your understanding of the policy in question is inadequate. ITAQALLAH 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you believe there is a violation of WP:BLP, bring your complaint to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Take into account, though, that accusations of antisemitism, fascism, support of terrorism etc. are all over Tariq Ramadan's Wikipedia entry. You are talking about a person who was denied a U.S. visa for providing material support to terrorists. Beit Or 22:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

one incident isn't enough for me to consider taking this to BLP/N. the documentation of accusations in his article (rightly described as such therein) is certainly not the same as disparaging him on a talk page - especially with spurious allegations like ones above of preaching mass murder. in the absense of any further attacks of this nature, there is no need to continue this discussion. ITAQALLAH 00:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have taken this to BLP: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tariq Ramadan. Bless sins 02:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I applaud that move. If one seriously believes that BLP is violated one should report this violation. If not, then one shouldn't talk about it at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Beit and Str, please refer to my previous post for a little more detail. There is no indication whatsoever of Ramadan's interpretation having any anything negative against Jews; in fact there are interpretations on here and other pages regarding Muslims and Muhammad that some would and could interpret to be more scathing than the view that you give can distantly interpret about what Ramadan says. Jedi Master MIK 19:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mik, sure Ramadan says nothing against Jews except that the victims he wants so eagerly killed are Jews. But that's not my problem as I never considered anti-semitism as worse than any other anti-...ism. What Ramadan writes here is indeed the glorification of a massacre and of other potential massacres. It also spits on the graves of the victims as Muhammad exiled two tribes (sure one probably tried to murder him but the other did nothing other than reject his call to conversion - well they were a bit boastful in that, but that's hardly a crime) and had several critics assassinated. Wonderful clement prophet.

PS. One anti-semitic though is present: Ramadan talks about that had been treason before and that Muhammad was supposedly lenient and that this cost him now. Well, there had been treason before BUT the BQ were never part of it, as our referenced article clearly states - they held aloof from the Ban Nadir during that conflict. (The Quanuqa are irrelevant here as they never did any wrong.) The only thing that BQ and earlier traitors have in common is their being Jews. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is an interesting discussion. If you want to know my opinion on this, you can e-mail me and I won't hesitate to discuss this. But such a discussion is not productive here. At the end of the day, if our combined original research produces a conclusion, it is still original research. However, a reliable and scholarly source is worth more than all our original research and merits inclusion. I'm sorry, but this is how wikipedia works. We don't get to decide if a scholar is right or wrong, only if a scholar is reliable or not. If you have something about the reliability of Ramadan, then state it. If you wish to disprove Ramadan's argument, then we discuss it over e-mail (or user talk) but not here.Bless sins 04:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It is us who are writing this article and thus we decided how to include something. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

such decision-making can be done without delving into personal views or observations. what matters here is what secondary sources say, not whether we think they are correct in the light of primary sources. lest we forget, Wikipedia is not a forum. ITAQALLAH 11:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's our job as to decide what sources to use and what material available from sources is encyclopedically vlauable and merits inclusion. Beit Or 20:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

and, as i'm sure you'll agree, that's got nothing to do with personal (and irrelevant) viewpoints held about particular authors or incidents. ITAQALLAH 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case, the viewpoint you call "irrelevant" is backed up by solid evidence. Beit Or 11:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure this can be done without personal views. But it us that make that decision and we cannot become secondary "sources" quoting machines. If Ramadan had something proper to contribute we could include that in neutral fashion (e.g. that Muhammad reacted towards criticism of his earlier too clement behaviour (never his clemency, that would be POV - but only if that is what Ramadan is actually saying). Str1977 ^(talk) 13:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Or better still, we can include the gist of his point into the "Later Muslim scholars justified the treatment of the Banu Qurayza ...." passage. But I must say that it is actually the responsibility of the one wanting to include something to provide a neutral wording. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ramadan does use the word "clemency". Ramadan is also not a "later Muslim scholar". In fact, I'm not even sure what a "later Muslim scholar" is, since Watt, Stillman, Ramadan, Peters, Esposito etc.. are themselves quite "late".Bless sins 17:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not care what words Ramadan uses. Can't you finally get it into your head that we are not here to parrot scholars. You included Muhammad's clemency as a fact when it is very much questionable. But the argument goes that some considered Muhamad's previous behaviour was too clement. That's a double qualification. Certainly, Ramadan is a "later Muslim scholar" - he certainly is a Muslim and he lived later than the massacre or even the surah referring to it. Hence, he is a "later Muslim scholar". Str1977 ^(talk) 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes we don't have to parrot sources, but we are not going to misrepresent sources either. "when it is very much questionable" By who? Str1977, or a scholar who directly questions Ramadan. Sure Ramadan is a "later Muslim scholar", just like Stillman is a "later American (or whatever his nationality is) scholar", and John Esposito is a "later Catholic scholar" etc. Besides, he never claims that he is a making a claim because he is Muslim, and you'd be violating WP:SYNTH by combining two sources to promote a third view.Bless sins 03:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not say we should mispresent "sources". However, we do report on them in a neutral manner if and as long they are relevant. It should be obvious that the clemency of a guy that exiled two tribes and had various persons assassinated is very much in question. It is Ramadan who talks about M's clemency but that's his POV which we cannot endorse. Your take on "Muslim scholars" in nonsensical. It is clear that Muslim scholars have engaged in such arguments and Ramadan is one - that's not to qualify his view but we have to introduce these scholars somehow. However, if you reject placing Ramadan there we can always leave him out. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case, insertions of Ramadan's quote violate WP:SOAP. We could have more productive discussions and a better article if the material added were scholarly rather than propagandistic. Beit Or 11:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"as long they are relevant" Ramadan makes the comment directly in relation to the Qurayza. "is very much in question" By Str1977 only. "which we cannot endorse" W are not doing that. We are saying "Ramadan argues..." Clearly we're attributing Ramadan's argument to him. "Your take on "Muslim scholars" in nonsensical." You're simply avoiding the answer to my valid objection: Ramadan is just as "late" a scholar as Stillman, Watt, Peters, Esposito etc. "but we have to introduce these scholars somehow" Why not introduce secular scholars at some point? Although I'm not sure, but I suspect you are simply dismissing him because he is a Muslim (that's why you are after his faith so much).Bless sins 00:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Tne principle "As long as they are relevant" (actually directed to Abu Nimer, but which I misplaced, having too much on my mind) applies here as well.

Nonsense. Not by Str1977 only. And in any case it doesn't matter. Even if all human beings were Muslims we still not write here "Muhammad (PBUH) is the greatest guy to ever live." as it would be POV. You are obviously not comprehending the fine tuning of the language here, as the supposed accusation was "Muhammad, you are too clement with your enemies." and not "Muhammad, you are clement!"

"Clearly we're attributing Ramadan's argument to him" - are you speaking in jest or do you want to fool everyone here? As much as it disgusts me, here is what was included [40], with notes in [CAPITALS]:

>>On previous occasions, when Muhammad had spared [ASSUMING THAT IS A FACT] the lives prisoners, he found them [ASSUMING THAT IS A FACT] fighting against him soon after. This had happened [ASSUMING THAT IS A FACT] at Uhud, and the more recent siege of Medina. Ramadan writes that Muhammad's clemency [ASSUMING THAT THE CLEMENCY IS A FACT], repeatedly betrayed [ASSUMING THAT IS A FACT], became a sign of his weakness and madness, since it was contrary to Arab and Jewish customs of the day[ASSUMING THAT IS A FACT].<<

Over half of the screed is POV pushing claims and rest merely introduced via the typical "Writer X writes" and filled with problematic stuff: for clemency see above, the claim that this was against Arab and JEWISH (hence "blame the victims!")

So there is no way denying that this was included in a POV pushing manner.

It is not up to me to write NPOV passages for you, even though I have done this in the past. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your last comment is barely understandable. "Not by Str1977 only." Whatever. So far you haven't provided one scholar who has criticized any part of Ramadan's book (especially the part in question).

"On previous occasions, when Muhammad had spared the lives prisoners" Is this not a fact? Did he not spare the live of his enemies at Badr? Did he not spare the lives of the Qaynuqa, and the Nadir? Or did he kill them? You need to go do some research.

"Ramadan writes that Muhammad's clemency, repeatedly betrayed, became a sign of his weakness and madness, since it was contrary to Arab and Jewish customs of the day." The entire sentence there is attributed to Ramadan. Obviously we can't put "Ramadan" after every phase.

And please answer this fundamental question: do you consider professor Tariq Ramadan to be a reliable source? Do you consider the Oxford University Press to be a reliable source?Bless sins 10:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I do not need to provide a scholar to insist on NPOV and accuracy.

2. No, his behaviour after Badr was not clement. Several prisoners were killed.

3. After Badr includes the Quaynuqa who were not treated with clemence. Rather, Muhammad exiled them after they would not convert to Islam.

4. The Nadir are a special case as they probably tried to kill him. But still, whether exiling them was clement is a matter of POV. And surely you forget that the Nadir plotted against Muhammad after he had one of the chiefs assassinated. Was that clement?

5. Yes, the last part is attributed (after incredibly POV pushing before) but we are not quotefarming here. Sum him up in NPOV fashion and nobody would object. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. If you can't understand my replies to your comments, the fault lies with you. I replied to your "by Str1977" only. You obviously do not comprehend the NPOV policy. Go and read it. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Several prisoners is not all they got however, they got dozens and dozens of prisoners of which many were spared and eventually returned. There were a few that committed excesses against Muslims back in Mecca however that were killed for those reasons, not b/c he felt like it.

3. Correction, he preached to them, they responded and acted in bad faith, and then they started a ruckus across Medina. The Muslims sieged them and exiled them from the city. And as Bless explained, that is clement b/c non-clement would've been to execute them like BQ.

4. Um, no its not b/c to kill them would be excessive and to spare them would be foolish, equivalent to letting someone off with a slap on the wrist. Jedi Master MIK 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's all very nice justification of his behaviour. However, while I find people like Bilah not very amicable in their vengefulness I have never faulted M. for these acts. BUT the issue here is: M. might be just in all this, it is not clement. PS. The Quanuqua's only fault was that their underestimated the Muslims' military capabilities - it was foolish to call for a test of strenght. But that is an error of judgement, not one of ethics nor one of law. They did not violate the agreement (and certainly not more than M. by his call to them to covert.) Str1977 ^(talk) 22:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well actually the BQan page gives an account of an violent dispute that might have been the spark for the siege on them. However, saying that was the only thing that started a move against the Jews is like saying the death of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand is all that was needed to start WWI and as history shows, it wasn't. The BQan tribe was hostile both subtly and sometimes outwardly long before that incident; sometimes there'd be arguments that caused heated disputes. I've read ahadith in Bukhari where Jews would tell Muhammad and his followers "death be upon him". Why would they? Muhammad coming to Medina caused tension between them and the Meccans and the battle of Badr increased his prestige, influence, and therefore power; neither things could go over well with a tribe who had it better with the Meccans and their own strength before Muhammad. Jedi Master MIK 01:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure the murder of the Archduke was not the cause of World War I - it was the spark that set it of. But in our case, the BQ as a tribe did not do anything wrong except refusing the convert. So the tribe "was hostile both subtly and sometimes outwardly" - again you are so partisan it really makes me sick. The consitution did never oblige them to be subservient, reverent towards that newcomer - you are basically saying that they should submit to his claims (and probably we should too). The Quaynuqa did not side the Quraish and did not break the agreement with Muhammad but opposed his encroachments within it. There is no justification for their exile. Anyway, I am sick and tired of having to debate this with you. It is irrelevant to our article. In any case, there is no basis for any endorsing statements about M's "clemency". Str1977 ^(talk) 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And just like the incident about the woman and the goldsmith, it may have just been the straw breaking the camel's back, it certainly was not the only thing to give reason for an exile as you keep inferring (by citing WP ironically). And please don't think you have the high ground, the partisanship works both ways; its pretty obvious when you ignore points I make and make as many excuses and apologies as a person on the opposite side. I nor the history of Muslims in Medina and especially not the invitation Muhammad posed to the Jewish tribe give any hint of subservience or forcing conversion as it appears you want to allege here.

And excuse me but by the time he made the small speech to the Jewish tribes, I'm pretty sure Muhammad was by then very settled with a growing following and strong influence all around Medina, a lot more than a newcomer. And if you did really read what he said to them, it is even more apparent he was only trying to portray the victory at Badr as a spiritual sign that his message was true, not "if you don't convert, I'll whoop you like the Meccans". And I'm not saying anything, just that they were not as innocent as people such as you want to allege they were nor was Muhammad evil like you try to prove likewise. And yes there is basis for clemency b/c once again, considering the possible alternative they could have received it was clement. If you can find a better word or phrase, we'll hear it. Jedi Master MIK 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

1. You may insist upon those two policies, but you may not set the standard without a scholar, i.e. you may not determine what is accurate and what is not based on own research.

2. And the rest were freed. Infact they came back and fought at Uhud.

3. Qaynuqa would have been killed, they had surrendered. In anycase, Ramadan isn't talking about Qaynuqa, since they left and never tried to attack Muslims again.

4. "Clemancy" refers to the fact that the Nadir after surrender could've been executed, but they weren't. You know that. Their lives were spared. Yet they came back and attacked the Muslims during the battle of the Trench. The most notable one was Huyyay ibn Akhtab. Finally, the use of the word "clemency" is attributed to Ramadan.

5. I'm directly quoting him either. I've only paraphrased him. Also, I can only present him as to what he is saying, i.e. I can't "whitewash"/"blackwash" his views because that would be inaccurate.Bless sins 12:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Scholars do not usually talk between books, let alone each and every paragraph of them. The quote in question is an incitement to murder; it's extremism with no encyclopedic value. Beit Or 13:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BS,

1. I do not need to have another scholar to detect POV. As for accuracy, we have already a whole bunch of other scholars who tell a different story.

2.-4. You still don't get it. Whether M. was clement is a matter of opinion. Your arguments only show that he could have been less clement.

3. "Qaynuqa would have been killed, they had surrendered." - yes, they would have been killed had it not been for the interference of Abdallah. "... Qaynuqa, since they left and never tried to attack Muslims again." Again? They never attacked Muslims at all. They were attacked by the Muslims. Also, it doesn't matter whether Ramadan doesn't address them - it is fact enough that is collides with your presentation of the ever-merciful Muhammad.

4. Regarding the Nadir again you ignore the chief assassinated on Muhammad's behalf. And if I am not mistaken, I believe that the Nadir agreed to leave the city when besieged. Not all surrender is unconditional, you know!?

5. If you insist on quote-farming there is nothing I can do for you. If he is not summarizable with respect to the topic, he doesn't belong here. We don't write a Hadith-collection but an encyclopedia. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I was specifically referring to accuracy, for which you need to have a scholar.

2-4. Yes, it is a matter of opinion - and that opinion has been attributed to Ramadan.

3. How did Qaynuqa get into this? I don't see how they have anything to do with this discussion. Ramadan and Peterson talk about the Quraysh (who fought the battle at Badr) and the Nadir.

4. The chief has nothing to do with the expulsion. Yes, the Nadir agreed to leave the city. I never said they surrendered unconditionally.

5. Ofcourse its not a quote farm. And I haven't quoted Ramadan, but rather paraphrased him, except for one word. But then again, there exist many examples of such in the article. What does Ramadan have to do with "hadith-collection"?Bless sins 11:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Sure. But I have already explained to you that the accuracy is disputed by all the other books we cite.

2.-4. No, the first part was not attributed. It is was pure POV-masking-as-fact. The gist of the second part (minus the antisemitism) can be included. In any case, quotefarming is bad style.

3. Well, you cannot say "Muhammad was clement" and only pick his better moments. That's like saying (as some Islamocritics do) all terrorists are Muslims (ommitting the ETA or Timothy McVeigh). That's the point: to say M. was clement is an absolute statement. If you do that, leaving something out is not permitted. But to say he was criticized for being "too clement" is pefectly in line.

4. Of course, the chief has something to do with it. Why do you think the Nadir tried to kill Muhammad (and yes, I believe they did)? Because they are evil meanies? Because they didn't want any Muslims around? Pagan sympathies? Or because they felt threatened by him? And yes, you did imply that they surrendered unconditionally as you said "the fact that the Nadir after surrender could've been executed, but they weren't." - no, they could not have been executed according to the agreement (and I am assuming that Muhammad was a man of his word that would not break a solemn promise). They surrendered on the condition that they would withdraw from the town. Muhammad agreed to this as that was what he wanted. In the BQ case, things lie different: here the Jews surrendered uncondionally, placing their lives in M's hand.

5. Then why can't you paraphrase him in a neutral manner? My polemical term "Hadith collection" refers to the fact that these consist of passages along the lines of "X said that Y said that the prophet said ..." And I must say that all too often various editors construct WP articles along these lines. But that's not the style of an encyclopedia. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

1.If accuracy is disputed we must state it as such, (take the Searjent vs. Watt and Stillman issue for example). Secondly which reliable source has disputed Ramadan?

2.-4. Let me re-quote you: "Whether M. was clement is a matter of opinion." The part about Muhammad's clemency is attributed.

3. ' Well, you cannot say "Muhammad was clement" ' Agreed. Just like you can't say "Muhammad was cruel [inherent in the term massacre]". This is because it implies a certain POV. What we can say is "Ramadan says Muhammad was clement".

4. Why do you think the Nadir tried to kill Muhammad? Because the Nadir leaders felt threatened by Muhammad's growing power. "they could not have been executed according to the agreement" Once you betray the agreement, you can no longer claim rights entitled to you in it. Wouldn't you agree that trying to kill Muhammad was against the agreement? Please remember that the Nadir was waiting for help from Ibn Ubayy (which didn't materialize) and they were in a militarily inferior position than the besiegers.

5. Ramadan in not quoting the prophet Muhammad, so I'm not sure why you refer to hadith. We are simply saying this is how Ramadan analyzes the situation, (just as we say this is how Stillman analyzes the situation). Regarding neutrality, I'm attributing what Ramadan says to Ramadan himself. It is factual and neutral to say this is what Ramadan sees the situation (as long as I don't misquote him).Bless sins 02:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Oh no we don't. The last thing we need is a "but Ramadan thinks this was clement" after every event. Look: the dispute is this that Ramadan considers these events clement, supposes that Muhammad was criticized for being too clement (for which I still have to see evidence) and therefore acted harshly towards the BQ.

2.-4. Most was not attributed but presented as a matter-of-fact.

3. First of all, cruelty is not a necessary ingredient in the term. Secondly, how who can deny the cruelty of the massacre is beyond me. Thirdly, there's a difference whether we are describing a person's entire life as clement (including all his events) or whether we describe one event: I grant you that undisputedly M. was clement when he conquered Mecca.

4. What's wrong with you, pal? Why do you think the Nadir felt threatened? Might the assassination of their chief play a role. "Once you betray the agreement, you can no longer claim rights entitled to you in it." Okay, you shape-shift any way you like just without any regard for honesty. The agreement I clearly referred to was the one between M. and the BN. which provided for the latter leaving the town unharmed. Muhammad agreed to that, right? So he had no right to kill them? So it wasn't clemency that he didn't kill them but a matter of expedience.

5. a. You don't get it. "Hadith collection" is my polemic term for the way some (usually Muslim) editors tend to organize articles which I think is based on the literary genre of the Hadit. Also, the prevalent insistence on authority (as in the case of Watt, whose importance is often blown out of proportion, notwithstanding his being RS), reminds me of that. (Apart from this, I am not saying anything - to me words of Muhammad do not hold any authority, you know.) I am saying to you: that is no way to organize an article. Have a look into the standard encyclopediae, such as the Britannica (with all its shortcomings, and tell me whether you find longish quotes, whether the articles are a string of x said this and y said this but z said this. I am not saying we can never do this, especially in the early stages of an article but it is certainly not good style.

5. b. We can report the gist of what he is saying but we should not quote him verbatim, especially if his remarks are such firebrands. Wasn't it you who complained about hate speech on another page? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

1. When did I say after every event? I have so far confined Ramadan's "clemency" argument to one paragraph only.

2-4"Most was not attributed but presented as a matter-of-fact." Once again: we are talking about the claim of "clemency" (you said: "Whether M. was clement is a matter of opinion.") The claim of "clemency" is made only in one sentence. That one sentence is attributed to Ramadan.

3. Most definitions of massacre include POV judgments (like cruelty, barbarous etc.). You yourself think this event was cruel. While I concede that a small minority of readers may not consider "massacre" as a cruel event, the vast majority will. "how who can deny the cruelty of the massacre is beyond me" How one can claim that killing those who tried to annihilate you is "cruel" is beyond me. "there's a difference whether we are describing a person's entire life as clement" I never described his entire life as clement. Only two events: relating to Badr and Nadir.

4. "Why do you think the Nadir felt threatened?" Because Muhammad supplanted their leaders, went against their traditional arrangements, and challenged their religious beliefs. Says who? Says Daniel Peterson professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University (in the book "Muhammad, prophet of God" considered "academic" by professor Khaleel Mohammed of San Diego University). "The agreement I clearly referred to was the one between M. and the BN. which provided for the latter leaving the town unharmed." It is clear from the agreement that neither party would harm the other. Assassination of Muhammad, esp. in which the leaders were involved, would violate the treaty. Like all treaties, if it is violated by one side, the other side is no longer forced to abide by it.

5. a. Ofcourse I won't get you "polemic term[s]". If you think that a format of "x said this and y said this but z said this" is not commonly used, I agree. However, I have seen it commonly used in academic works like EOI. Plus, isn't this exactly what we are doing with regards to Watt, Searjent and Stillman regarding Qurayza's special pact.

5. b. "we should not quote him verbatim" In general that is a good rule to follow. And I'm not quoting Ramadan verbatim, but merely trying to present his statements as accurately as possible.Bless sins 18:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Your POV-pushing listing of events certainly creates that impression. And again: clemency is POV.

2. You cannot separate one part of your edit from the other like that

3. "While I concede that a small minority of readers may not consider "massacre" as a cruel event, the vast majority will." That's because the vast majority of readers disapproves of massacres. Some probably do not. Still, a massacre is a massacre. BTW, while "barbarous" is a POV jugement, cruel is not necessarily. Not everything you dislike is POV. And, for the umpteenth time, "cruelty" is not part and parcel of massacre. Furthermore, you cannot write "M was clement" when in fact you want to say "He was clement except when he wasn't." That's true for practically anybody. Finally, when were the BQ ever involved in all the anti-Islam movements you describe? They did not side with the Quraish neither at Badr nor at Uhud, nor with the BQ or the Nadir.

4.a. I actually agree with what you write here based on Mr Peterson - except that Muhammad did not merely supplant their leaders - he had one murdered. That was my point: M. did not act in clemency to the BN when he had that chief murdered, but more like a mobster.

4.b. Regarding the agreement: do you want to enrage me? Are you seriously not understanding or are you feigning it. So for the last time: I AM TALKING ABOUT THE AGREEMENT REACHED BY MUHAMMAD THE BESIEGER AND THE BESIEGED NADIR, AN AGREEMENT SAYING THAT THE NADIR WOULD LEAVE THEIR CITY OF YATHRIB. As for the other agrement, I agree though I wonder whether Muhammad violated the agrement himself by having Kab murdered. So, one could say: if it is violated by one side, the other side is no longer forced to abide by it, according to your reasoning. Of course, things aren't that easy but we needn't concern with that at all.

5.a. No that's not what we are doing with them. With them, we relate one view on an issue (relate, not quote) and then another. That we give Watt a special place and do not just subsume him under those rejecting the special agreement is a gesture of comprimise by me. Beit Or for instance rejected this.

5.b. Good that you agree with me. Now, under the circumstances the best solution is that you quote Ramadan here as fully as necessary. Then we can work out how to include him in a neutral way. 19:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

small point re: 4b, Ka'b himself violated it by attempting to rally the grieving Meccans post-Badr, which i do believe historians note. ITAQALLAH 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A ridiculous attempt to justify a bloody murder. If we would scrutinize all of Muhammad's dealings after arriving in this way ... woe him. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You might find it ridiculous but its true. Poets had great influence and status in those days and their word could create great fervor and following to do anything. Kab lived in Medina under the Constitution of Medina yet he was going to the Meccans, the declared enemies of the people of Medina, and inciting them to fight again against the Muslims, something that can be considered even today downright treason. Jedi Master MIK 20:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Guess what: poets still have great influence. But still, that is no violation of the Constitution of Yathrib. To lament the slain, even those of the enemy is not treason, just as Antigone's burial of her enemy brother was not treason. Tyrants of course think otherwise. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Being an influence on literary styles/movements is quite different than being the voice of the thoughts, emotions, and decision making factor of the people. They were the media, advisers to leaders, spin doctors, creators/destroyers of morale, etc. If a poet wanted to influence a tribe to wage war against another tribe or make peace with one, it wouldn't be too difficult. I don't think leaders today give a hoot about whether a poet thinks the US should invade Iran or pull out of Iraq. And Ka'b did a little more than lament the dead of the Meccans, even his article is clear that he went to Mecca to incite them to take up arms. So yes this is a little more than burying the enemy. And just FYI, Antigone is a fictional character so unless you're trying to make a case that so is Muhammad, I don't see the relevance. Jedi Master MIK 01:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Being an influence on literary styles/movements is quite different than being the voice of the thoughts ..." Once again you are assuming wrong things about my point. Poets and writers still have an impact on public discussions etc. up to political decisions. Sure politics is sometimes(!) influence by writers (as authors or actors fostering defeatism, which leads to a change in political leadership which then pulls out - mechanics are different but the impact is still there). Also, stop using WP articles as reference as they don't mean *** as reference (especially if edited by some editors commenting here). Antigone, though essentially a fictional character in her impact, teaches us a valuable thing: that there are laws (such as piety) more important than the will of potentates. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There might be influence or importance kept in the heart of certain individuals, important or not, towards poets and poetry but the case is still the same, they're influence and power is nothing to what it was in old times and it does not work the same way either as I described by the roles I stated they held.

Towards referencing wikipedia, you mind telling me where you heard that all Ka'b wrote was lamentations b/c IIRC a long while ago, that is all that was written on his wiki regarding his poetry; its only some months ago IIRC the totality of what was in his poetry and what all his actions were was put in the article. BTW, if the references are sourced, I don't see why you should be having a problem. And an encyclopedia that can't reference references in other articles in its database, its not a very good encyclopedia.

And correction to previous post but what I fully wanted to say was not only is Antigone fiction but the story has little resemblance to this case. Jedi Master MIK 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Clemency, just as massacre, is POV. That's why I attribute him to Ramadan. I don't state it as fact.
2. In the English language, ideas are separated by paragraphs and (yes) sentences.
3. "That's because the vast majority of readers disapproves of massacres." My job is not to worry over how developments of words came about, but rather only take note of them. ' "cruelty" is not part and parcel of massacre' it is most commonly, if not always, associated with it. That's enough to exclude it.
4. "M. did not act in clemency to the BN when he had that chief murdered, but more like a mobster. Yet Ka'ab Ashraf has nothing to do with this. Ka'ab didn't come back from his grave to back stab Muhammad did he? On the other hand Huyayy came back from Khaybar to lead the Confederate armies. That you call Muhammad a "mobster" is very revealing of your intentions.
4 b. "I AM TALKING ABOUT THE AGREEMENT REACHED BY MUHAMMAD THE BESIEGER AND THE BESIEGED NADIR, AN AGREEMENT SAYING THAT THE NADIR WOULD LEAVE THEIR CITY OF YATHRIB." Why do you think Muhammad agreed to such lenient terms? Especially when he was militarily superior position? The Nadir failed to receive re-enforcements, they had lost all morale when they found out about their trees being cut. Moreover, they had squandered the opportunity he gave them earlier, namely leaving Medina peacefully with their goods. He could've demanded unconditional surrender like he did with Qurayza.
5 a. "we relate one view on an issue" Yes I'm also relating an issue. I have not quoted Ramadan verbatim.
5 b. I have presented Ramadan as accurately as I could. If you don't trust me on that, then you won't trust that provide his quote accurately as well. Thus you are probably better off getting the book from the nearest library, or purchasing it, or using one of those online services to view it.Bless sins 02:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. You endorse it through the context and clever wording. My invitation to quote him here on talk is still in force.

2. I have no idea what you mean by that.

3. Well you are just simply wrong on that. You just want to produce a most hagiographical picture of your prophet that can do no wrong.

4. a. Sure Kab had something to do with any observation of whether M. was clement. You want to give an incomplete presentation of matters, cherrypicking the things that (in your mind) show M's clemency, leaving out the things that would contradict this. You also ignore that tbe BQ never acted against M. before. BTW, I did not call M. a mobster I compared his actions to those of a mobster. It is not my position to judge M. - I leave that gladly to God.

4. b. "Why do you think Muhammad agreed to such lenient terms?" Ah, finally we are at the actual agreement I was talking about. You ask why and that is a good question. But the answer is not "out of clemency". Also, what he could have done is irrelevant. You are assuming clemency (when in fact he drove out a whole tribe from their city) and that is unacceptable.

5. a. But you have used him in a onesided, improper and POV pushing manner. Again, remember my invitation.

5. b. I certainly will not purchase this book. If you can provide a link where I can read it, great. I am however amazed that you refuse to provide the quote. If I was as much assuming bad faith as you are in your last posting, I would think this fishy. But I don't and only wonder in amazement. Provide the quote and we can work on it. As for trust, quotes can be easily checked and I don't think you would stoop that low to fabricate a quote. As for "as accurately as I could" - the "as I could" is the problem. I do not doubt your sincerity but your ability. I want to help (which thus far as only got me insults and bad faith - well, for reasons I will not relate now I think that is a bargain.) Str1977 ^(talk) 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Clever wording or stupid wording, I've attributed it to Ramadan. This is what Ramadan says: "Thus his clemency had no effect on most of those who ejoyed it, and it sent a confusing message throughout the peninsula: Muhammad, people thought, never killed his prisoners, contrary to Arab or Jewish customs of the day. His clemency, repeatedly betrayed, was seen as a sign of weakness if not madness."

2. I have separated the two ideas in two different sentences.

3. "Well you are just simply wrong on that." I gues you have no further arguments.

4. "any observation of whether M. was clement" The question is not Muhammad's clemency but his clemency towards defeated/captured foes.

4 b. 'But the answer is not "out of clemency".' According to Str1977's original research. There may be other reasons, but one reason was, as provided by professor Ramadan, clemency.

5 a. "But you have used him in a onesided, improper and POV pushing manner." Ofcourse when I say "According to Ramadan" or something, I will only provide Ramadan's view, thus be onesided. But actually I have provided another scholar's views (Peterson's) after that, so you can't call it onesided.

5. b. Well I've provided the quote. I don't see where the difference is: before you were relying on me, now you are still relying on me. Unless you read the book, you will always have to simply take my word for it. The only reason I provided you th quote is that I had the book handy on me. After all your insults (not just against me, but my beliefs also) I would never go to trouble of visiting the library for your sake.Bless sins 15:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. It was not wholly attributed to Ramadan but introduced by a couple of pseudofactual statements. Which made this whole POV-pushing. Since the actual quote is of supreme importance, I will deal with it in a separate post below.

2. I still have no clue what you are about. But no need to pursue this further.

3. I have no further arguments because I have already explained things to you time and again.

4. a. Here again you try to limit the issue to what seems pleasant to you. If we say "clement" it is clement in general.

4. b. No, it is your POV pushing that wants to include clemency. Ramadan only uses the term, he doesn't explain or argue it - in any case we cannot just endorse him. More on the quote below.

5. a. See item number 1 for that. You introduced him by endorsing statements.

5. b. I am trusting you with the quote. You know very well that someone would catch you if you were cheating with the exact quote. Finally, I never insulted your beliefs. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So let's have a look at the quote:
"Thus his clemency had no effect on most of those who ejoyed it, and it sent a confusing message throughout the peninsula: Muhammad, people thought, never killed his prisoners, contrary to Arab or Jewish customs of the day. His clemency, repeatedly betrayed, was seen as a sign of weakness if not madness."

• I would be better if we had more than just this one sentence.
• I see no way we can include Ramadan's reading other people's minds.
• However, based on this all (subject to revision by the context) I propose:

Later Muslim scholars justified the treatment of the Banu Qurayza with reference ... Qurayza.[38] Tariq Ramadan argues that Muhammad adopted a harsher line on the Banu Qurayza as his earlier, more lenient treatment of prisoners was seen as "as sign of weakness if not madness".

A possible alternative (though less preferred) would be to say his earlier earlier treatment of prisoners, which Ramadan describes as "Clemency, repeatedly betrayed" was seen as ...

Please tell me what you think about it. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's two sentences BTW. If you want the entire chapter, go get the book please.

"see no way we can include Ramadan's reading other people's minds" Yet Stillman says "Muhammad chose Sa'd ibn Mua'dh so as not to pronounce the judgment himself after the precedents he had set with the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir" Thus Stillman claims he knew what was going in the prophet's head when he chose Sa'ad. Something similar has been done by Watt, when he explains why Sa'ad gave the judgment he did.

Umm, no. Unless you want to characterize Stillman as "Later secular/Christian/Western scholars said.." we won't do this to Ramadan. Scholars should NOT be discriminated on the basis of their religion.

I don't see anything wrong with the current version, so I don't see why we are going about doing this.

Please consider the fact that Daniel Peterson re-iterates the same argument.Bless sins 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I only said: more would be better but I am now basing myself on what I have.

It's a different thing whether a scholar talks about one guy based on his actions and also indicates that this is inference rather than reported fact and a scholar talking about the supposed thoughts of a multitude of various groups, based on no actions, and with false information mixed into it (contrary to Ramadan, killing prisoners was not the custom of pagan Arabs or Jews)

It is not discrimination but classification. And it fits. If you insist on including "just this guy Ramadan here", then I have to tell you that there is no space for "just this guy" in the article. Or do you dispute that Ramadan is a muslims scholar? This does not necessarily disparage his view in any way. It is also sensible to group these voices together as they are united by two things: they are Muslims and they do justify the massacre. However, I grant you that the sequence is a bit confusing. First we have the Quran, then Muslims theologians according to Peters, then the Quran again, and then Ramadan. This should be fixed. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. Ramadan actually is never called a Muslim scholar. Of these we talk about the sentence before but Ramadan's sentence is another one. And of course, we cannot introduce him as "the non-Muslim scholar" as that would be contrary to the facts. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To observe the customs of a group of people is not "reading other people's minds". And Ramadan isn't talking about the thoughts of groups, but their actions. The prisoners of Badr didn't think about fighting, they actually fought. The Nadir didn't think of supporting the Confederate armies, they actually did.

"It is not discrimination but classification." Sure let's classify Stillman, Watt, Peters, Searjent etc.

"you insist on including "just this guy Ramadan here"" What about just this guy Stillman, or just this guy Watt? "Or do you dispute that Ramadan is a muslims scholar?" Actually I do. Please find me a source that says Ramadan in a Muslim and that is also relevant to Banu Qurayza. "they are Muslims and they do justify the massacre" Then perhaps we should group all scholars who are non-Muslims and who don't justify the execution?

Str1977, get this straight: scholars who are Muslim shall not be put on a standard lower (or different) than non-Muslim scholars on the basis of their religion.Bless sins 05:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1. But Ramadan in this is not observing customs but imaging them. Also, you are building up straw men when you talk about Badr and the Nadir, as here we are talking about completely different actions (and I think lecturing you that the Quraysh at Badr fought a defensive war, while the Nadir were not bound to avoid coalitions against the man who exiled them. The issue is killing prisoners and there is no evidence for large-scale killing of prisoners among Jews or pagan Arabs at the time.

2. "It is not discrimination but classification. Sure let's classify Stillman, Watt, Peters, Searjent etc." - as what? How can we classify them since they all disagree on this and that.

3. Actually, yes Tariq Ramadan is a Muslims [41] - to ask this question is already bad faith. If there were such a group that was of one opinion on a certain and also shares a religion (note non-Muslim is a strictly Islamic designation, not applicable here) we could group them together

4. I don't understand you at all. I never put Muslim scholars on a lower step. Maybe you do but I don't. But your idea cannot be a basis for obsuring the description. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1. No he is only observing the customs. Because he is a reliable source, we assume his observations are factual, unless there is a source of equal or greater reliability that disputes this. Badr and Nadir are the arguments Ramadan uses. Whatever sort of war they fought, both actively fought against the Muslim community, not merely think about fighting.

2. Please note that I am against classifying scholars, Muslim or otherwise. But these scholars can be classified as Western, non-Muslim, and atleast one of them can be classified as "Orientalist". BTW, if you think "non-Muslim" is an Islamic designation, so is "Muslim", the religion of whom is defined by the Qur'an and other Islamic texts.

3. I asked for a source relevant on Banu Qurayza. The link provided doesn't talk about Ramadan's comments on Banu Qurayza, (it doesn't even talk about the Banu Qurayza at all).

4. By discriminating against them, you are putting them on a lower step.

5. Another point: Ramadan makes his argument before the execution of the Qurayza, and that is where we ought to put it. It is with regard to the judgment. Putting it near the end, where Peters is talking about medieval scholars doesn't make much sense.Bless sins 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Hang the strawman. No one is saying that they "merely thought about fighting" - we are talking about killing prisoners here.

2. With all due respect for your preferences, I think there is no way around the classification in this case. It is a fact that the scholars in reference here are all Muslims. As for "Muslims", it is a valid classification globally, as such a group really does exist. A group of "non-Muslims" does not exist - it is merely the rest - except in the laws of the Islamic Empire, which withheld equal rights from those that were not Muslims. "Orientalist" is a loaded term since that horrid book by Edward Said.

3. I actually don't care about the unreasonable requirements you proclaim - you questioned whether Ramadan was a Muslim and I answered that. Or do you question he is a scholar?

4. Well, what can I say but: I AM NOT DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THEM. Get it?

5. Another point that is nonsense. Ramadan talks about his "assessment" (this used to be a separate section) not about facts. Therefore he belongs where he is (if at all). Str1977 ^(talk) 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

1. That was my response to your original allegation about "Ramadan's reading other people's minds". Ramadan didn't read minds, he read actual events that occurred.

2. "Muslims" is only valid classification of "the Islamic Empire" (whatever that means), since the West supposedly does not "with h[old] equal rights from those that [are] Muslims".

3. "the unreasonable requirements you proclaim" Irrelevant to the topic of Qurayza, Ramadan is many things (not just a Muslim). You have to show how Ramadan's being Muslim is connected to writing stuff about Qurayza using reliable sources.

Stop bringing up the scholar's religion, esp.

4. THEN STOP BRINGING UP THEIR RELIGION.

5. He isn't talking about the assesment, just the events concerned (which is the judgment). Infact, scholarly opinion don't belong in a separate section, rather they belong immediately after the event they are concerned with occurs. Thus we are not going to move Watt, Searjent and Stillman's assessment of the COM or Qurayza's agreement to an "assessment" section, but rather keep it immediately after we mention the event/document.Bless sins 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Actually you can keep your replies to things I never said to yourself. This never was about fighting.

2. IF you do not know what that means, I pity you. Go, educate yourself. And no, the West does not withhold equal rights to Muslims, whereas Islamic states have done this and are still doing it.

3. He is a scholar first and foremost of Islam. Everything he writes is linked with it.

4. I WILL NOT HAVE YOU DICTATE WHAT I CAN TALK ABOUT.

5. No, he is giving his assessment of the whole event. And no, I do not want an "assessment" section - that was Aminz' idea and it got rightly rejected by the majority here (though I dimly remember you supporting Aminz).

Finally, in reply to your message on my talk page: the reason I post invisible additions is to provide what I think is a compromise without including it before you agree to it. All I am posting invisibly is meant to "ultimately" become visible. It only awaits your approval. Why this procedure: I am quite sick and tired of your constant taking advantage of my compromising. Time and again have I compromises but you have never even acknowledged this but kept on pushing your maximalist agenda. Enough is enough. I will not write neutral passages for you and include it on your behalf only for you to turn around and ignore my efforts - if you want it included visibly, you'll have to accept the compromise. If you don't, it stays out. It is your choice. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1. You brought up the original allegation that Ramadan was trying to read others minds. It is clear you have backed off form that allegation (though you don't admit it) and thus I have no intention of pursuing this. "This never was about fighting." On the other hand the content sourced to Ramadan (which the thing under dispute here) was always talking about fighting.

2. "And no, the West does not withhold equal rights to Muslims, whereas Islamic states have done this and are still doing it." I would surely have responded to this false allegation of yours, but wikipedia is not a forum.

3. He is a scholar on Islam related topics - and Stillman is a scholar on Jewish related topics.

4. Ofcourse, I can't dictate to you that you shouldn't discriminate others on the basis of thier religion. I can only request you. Thus: Str1977, it is my humble request, that you please stop discriminating against scholars on the basis of thier religion.

5. "And no, I do not want an "assessment" section" So we're both in agreement regarding this. And I don't want an assessment section because such things are frowned upon these days. It is much rather preferred that notable scholarly opinion be embedded within the text, then be lumped togethor in a seperate section.

"All I am posting invisibly is meant to "ultimately" become visible." Until it becomes visible I have no interest in it. If you want to show me what you mean, you are free to post it on the talk page.

Let's see. At this point you have run out of reasons against Ramadan. You have stopped making claims that Ramadan says "kill all the jews", you do not dispute he is a reliable source, you can't dispute I'm misquoting him (since I provided the quote). Oh yes, you claim not be discriminating agianst him on the basis of his religion. Thus, you absolutely no reason to remove him.Bless sins 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

1. "You brought up the original allegation that Ramadan was trying to read others minds. It is clear you have backed off form that allegation". Hardly. What is clear that you either never understood what I was saying or what Ramadan was saying or both. Ramadan says that pagan Arabs and Jews customarily massacred prisoners and hence laughed at Muhammad who did not do this. You however constantly talked about fighting, which neither I nor Ramadan ever referred to.

2. I agree that this is not the proper forum. But frankly, I am not interested in what way you can dispute facts.

3. And he is also a Muslim. You disputing it is silly. However, it doesn't really matter since my last wording neither calls him "muslim scholar" nor does it list him among those. Currently, the only two instances of Muslim scholars is "Muslim jurists" (clearly accurate since it refers to jurists of Muslim law) and "Arab Muslim theologians and historians" (clearly appropriate since it talks about theologians and also relates thoughts clearly faith-based).

4. Good that you realise that. But why are you then are you telling me what issues I am allowed to write about. Of course you are right I should not discriminate and I honestly don't see where I have. Merely mentioning someone's religion is not discrimination.

5. Exactly, as much as it is event and not just assessment. But Ramadan's comment is assessment.

6. I am afraid that then it will never become visible because I am not prepared to make another compromise which you then ignore. It happened all too often. I am done with it. But still I do one more step: if you agree with the invisible text say so and I will make it visible myself. It want the dispute to be solved and not to drag on for infinity because you insist on you maximalist goals.

7. Well, strictly article-wise (beause otherwise I have a whole lot against him) I don't BUT this is why I do not remove him. I have included him in a way that only awaits your approval. I can do no more. Finally, I have never said that Ramadan said verbatim "kill all the Jews" (see what I wrote about the " symbol above) but that his comment, at least in the way you phrased it, advocated a colletive responsibility of all Jews for the behaviour of some Jews. Ramadan argued that it was okay to massacre the Qurayza because the Nadir (actually) and the Quaynuqa (and other, non-Jewish groups) wronged Muhammad before, even though the Qurayza did not wrong him and in fact did not aid their Jewish brethren in their respective conflicts with Muhammad.

"Oh yes, you claim not be discriminating agianst him on the basis of his religion." No, I do not claim that - I am not discriminating against him, and even if I did it would not be a proper reason for leaving him out - but finally (though I said this before) I am not removing Ramadan. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

1. "You however constantly talked about fighting, which neither I nor Ramadan ever referred to." Ramadan does talk about fighting. He says that the prisoners released at Badr cam back to fight against Muslims at Uhud. Bless sins (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. It is frustrating to run into your brick wall as you still don't realize what I am talking about. But I will AGF and suppose that the fault lies with me not having explained this good enough.

Here again is the R quote:

"Thus his clemency had no effect on most of those who ejoyed it, and it sent a confusing message throughout the peninsula: Muhammad, people thought, never killed his prisoners, contrary to Arab or Jewish customs of the day. His clemency, repeatedly betrayed, was seen as a sign of weakness if not madness."

As you see "fighting" does not appear at all. But the main point is the part in bold: Ramadan is clearly reading the mind of "people" about what? about (not) killing prisoners. He claims that Arabs and Jews at the time customarily killed prisoners. Well, that is not accurate and therefore it stays out. Get it? Str1977 ^(talk) 18:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Fighting" was included in the sentences before that. The sentences where he explains that the prisoners of Badr "fought" at Uhud. It is easy to see that you're confused since you never read the Ramadan text, but still insist on debating it.Bless sins (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So now you blame me for your sins of ommission? I base myself on the quote you gave as I have no time to get my hands on the "oh so beautiful book" of a fundamentalist speaker descended from a line of terrorists. But still, since I first complained that TR is trying to read minds it is also I who knows what I meant by that. And I have told you time and gain that I referred to the supposed killing of prisoners by Arabs and Jews. I never opposed the fighting thing. Why should I? Str1977 ^(talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"sins of ommission" Firstly I comitted no 'sin' (don't apply religious ideas on me). However, I did always explain to you (albeit didn't provide the quote) and paraphrased this. "a fundamentalist speaker descended from a line of terrorists" Shall I take this to WP:BLPN again?Bless sins (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Good for you to realize that. In the future please keep the discussion on topic and don't bring up subjects that are irrelevant. Thanks. Bless sins (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Nothing more to say. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

3. No source says he is a Muslim in the context of Banu Qurayza. And if a source (like Peters) say "Muslim scholars" then that is fine, and no problem in including it (although it is preferable not to). Bless sins (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Your requirement however is not reasonable. You want Ramadan included. Everyone who reads this will ask "who is this Ramadan guy?" The answer clearly is "a Muslim scholar". But still you are arguing against something that is no longer there. The article text (invisible) does not say "and the muslims scholar Ramadan says blahblah". It just introduces the name (wikilinked of course). Is there any need to fight over the theoretical equity of calling TR a "muslims scholar"? Str1977 ^(talk) 18:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Everyone who reads this will ask "who is this Ramadan guy?"" That Ramadan guys is a professor. We can say that if you want. And everyone may also want to know who this Stillman guy is? Or how about Watt guy?Bless sins (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you come to terms with the fact that that question is hypothetical as my version does no longer place TR among the Muslim scholars? Str1977 ^(talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"as my version does no longer place TR among the Muslim scholars" glad this dispute is closed.Bless sins (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

4. You didn't merely mention someone's religion, you tried to use that person's religion to make judgments over how he should be included. But I see that, for the moment, you are no longer using his religion as an object in this discussion. Bless sins (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

4. No, I didn't. A bad faith accusation that is. I never said "x cannot be included because he is a Muslim or whatever." Str1977 ^(talk) 18:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

4. You proposed (paraphrasing) x should be included in manner y, because x is a Muslim.Bless sins (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

4. I proposed "a (plural) say b. x says c." You complain that I placed X after A because X is actually one of A. But all this is a matter of the past and also never amounted to your earlier claims, which thereby are now revealed to be in bad faith. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

5. Glad this matter is also settled.Bless sins (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

5. It depends on how you look at it. I could say that Stillman, Watt and Searjent are "assessing" the historicity of the treaty of prophet Muhammad with Qurayza. If you look at it from that perspective, then yes it is assessment. But I could also say that he is attaching no moral judgment to it: i.e. he doesn't explicitly say if Muhammad was "right" or "wrong". Bless sins (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

But the agreement is mentioned in whole different part of the article. And yes, all the assessments of the agreement are collected into one place. As are the assemessments on the massacre. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note Ramadan is not assessing the execution, but rather the judgment. Thus his assessment should be placed alongside Stillman's and Watt's assessments regarding the judgment.Bless sins (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)::Please note Ramadan is not assessing the execution, but rather the judgment. Thus his assessment should be placed alongside Stillman's and Watt's assessments regarding the judgment.Bless sins (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The judgement is in the same section as the massacre as the latter is merely the (yes) execution of the former. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok so you are saying that all forms of assessment should be lumped up together by section? There are several inconsistencies then. "According to Stillman, Muhammad chose Sa'd ibn Mua'dh so as not" is placed in between the judgment and the execution, not after the execution (as you've placed Ramadan). In another section "The Qurayza remained passive during this conflict, according to R. B. Serjeant," is separated from the assesment of the Qurayza's treaty with Muhammad.

Now here is my proposal. Instead of lumping all the assessments together at the end of the section, why not place them immediately after the events concerned?Bless sins (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned two items:

• "According to Stillman, Muhammad chose Sa'd ibn Mua'dh so as not" - you do have a point there, as this goes into motivations too.
• "The Qurayza remained passive during this conflict, according to R. B. Serjeant", however, is not assessement but a matter of fact (or, to be precise, a matter of opinion of fact), as it is quite easiy that the BQ either remained passive or not.

However, this discussion is pointless as long as you do not accept the suitability of the reference to TR as included in the invisible text. What do you say? Str1977 ^(talk) 18:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the entire sentence: "The Qurayza remained passive during this conflict because of the blood money issue related above." In the italicized part it is clear that Searjent is assessing Qurayza's motivations for remaining passive.

My proposal here (as its always been) is to include the assessment immediately after the event mentioned. This is easier for the reader, because it puts the assessment in context. If we decide to lump all the assessments together then we must do so consistently.Bless sins (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

6. "I am afraid that then it will never become visible". In your version. Just as in your version, Watt, Nomani and Peterson are also "not visible"/censored. Bless sins (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

6. Bad faith reply. I already explained to you why I keep Ramadan invisible for the moment. But maybe I should give you one shot, since you do insist on ignoring the invisible. I will make Ramadan visible once. If you do not revert to your version I'll take it as acceptance. However, if you do, my next move will be back to the invisible version. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

6. I will always ignore the invisible. Even if you put "massacre" in 20 times as invisible, I'll ignore it. And so will the reader of the article (who can't see it).Bless sins (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

6. And I will not call you "ignorant" for it as it might be considered an attack. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

6. So what's you point?Bless sins (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What point? What's your point for ignoring what I wrote? Str1977 ^(talk) 18:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone has the misfortune of reading the article while it is saved as your version, they too will be "ignorant" of the "invisible text". Bless sins (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This would be no great loss. And the culprit would be you as you prevent the text from becoming visible by accepting it. Str1977 ^(talk) 03:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that removing every instance of Stillman would be no great loss either. "as you prevent the text from becoming visible" This is an utterly false allegation! When have I removed any VISIBLE text? You remove/censor sourced content. Not me. I'm not going to call you a "liar" since it may be considered an attack.Bless sins (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not propose deleting Stillman. I am trying to include Ramadan only you block the way. What I say is no false allegation (I cannot stand for what you imagine in your mind): you prevent invisible text from becoming invisible. And thanks again for your AGF language about censorship. You are proving to me that you are totally unwilling to cooperate. For you it appears to be total submission to your wishes or total conflict. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"I am trying to include Ramadan only you block the way." How? By deleting Ramadan? By making him invisible? Oh, wait... that's what you are doing.

" you prevent invisible text from becoming invisible" Exactly how I prevent this is a mystery Str9177 won't reveal (perhaps because Str1977 know that it is a false allegation).

"And thanks again for your AGF language about censorship." Your quite welcome. Glad we can agree on atleast something.

"For you it appears to be total submission to your wishes or total conflict." For me it is submission to wikipedia policies, for you it is submission to your original research. I note that you haven't responded to any of my other comments.Bless sins (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

BS, I am trying to include him but you ignore my efforts. I will certainly not accept your imbalanced presentation of him. That you block my work is not a false allegation but a fact.

"Your [sic] quite welcome. Glad we can agree on atleast[sic] something." We do agree? On what? I have ceased to call your edits censorship but you keep on bashing me. Thanks, but no thanks. I can live without that.

It is not WP policies you are pushing for but a presentation that suits your POV best, i.e. downplaying in any way possible (or impossible) of anything that might reflect badly on your prophet while highlighting anything that might reflect badly on his opponents. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"your prophet" What is that supposed to mean? Why is he my prophet? You better not be trying to drag my religion into this again.Bless sins 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

7. "I have included him" No you haven't. Tell anyone to go to the article "Banu Qurayza" and they won't see content sourced to him (I'm not talking about content not relevant to this discussion). Making someone invisible is as good as removing. If you disagree, then perhaps you won't mind if made invisible a lot of comment I disapprove of without "removing" it?

"Making someone invisible", yes. But the basis of my edit was a lack of Ramadan. I added Ramadan (albeit invisibly) and that cannot be equated with removal. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Invisible is the same thing as removal. At least to a reader it is. Keep in mind this article is not written, for those who want to read the source code, but for those who want to read the article.Bless sins (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Repition does not make it true. It included invisibly what was not there. At worst, it doesn't make any difference. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"At worst, it doesn't make any difference." Perhaps I should make invisible what I have objections towards as well? However, I probably won't do that, since I'm opposed to censorship.Bless sins (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You still do not get it. I did not make something invisible that was already there. I added something as invisible text. If you add something as invisible text I certainly would not call it removal. And your bad faith accusations do not help you at all. Do you think I will yield if only you can insult me long enough? Str1977 ^(talk) 18:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

" I did not make something invisible that was already there." That's wrong. You removed text that was already there, changed it and re-added it as invisible text. What if I took some text sourced to Stillman, change it, and then re-add it as invisible text. Would you not call it removal/censorship?Bless sins (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

8. Finally, you want to place Ramadan right after the discussion of the Qur'an. That is not appropriate. Ramadan's comments have nothing to do with the Qur'an. They have to do with the judgment, and that is why they should be placed after the judgment part. Aside from that, you basically want to censor out half of his comment. That is also unacceptable. You attribute to him the word "harsh", while he uses the word "clemency" - the exact opposite. While I don't mind the use of the word "harsh" attributing it to Ramadan is a blatantly false statement.Bless sins (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

8. Your placement issue is moot anyway, since you do not even address the version I wrote.

As for clemency, we cannot use that term in this way - it would be endorsing. The most we can do is to say "which R. considers clemency" or something like that.

"harsh" is not a "blatantly false statement" - R. talks about M's former clemency. What is the opposite of clemency? Str1977 ^(talk) 19:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

8. "Your placement issue is moot anyway" SO you are just going to ignore my comments?

I have clearly attributed the term to Ramadan What part of that statement do you not get or understand?

"What is the opposite of clemency?" Exactly my point. You are attributing to Ramadan the "opposite" of what he says. This is blatantly false. Possible even a breach of WP:BLP.Bless sins (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

8. If you are ignoring my efforts, how can you complain?

You have written: >Ramadan states: "Muhammad ever clement< That again is the stupid, pseudo-neutral quote-farming hadithification you prefer. And in the end it is endorsing too as TR assumes the clemency (which you initial version clearly showed by a unashamedly POV-masking-as-fact introduction. Consider the fictional example: if some Islam-basher wrote: "Islam ... the dangerous death cult quickly subdued the Middle East as its armies moved quickly", I would not dream of including >Islambasher writes: "the dangerious death cult quickly subdued the Middle East as its armies moved quickly" but write: >Islambasher writes: Islam quickly subdued the Middle East ..."

No, I am not attributing to him the opposite of what he wrote. It is a pity that you can only parrot your books. If TR says that M was clement first but then did away with this clemency because it was ridiculed (so TR says) than it follows that later M used the opposite of clemency - hence I used harsh. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"You have written: >Ramadan states: "Muhammad ever clement< ". No, I have written "Ramadan writes that Muhammad's clemency, repeatedly betrayed, became a sign of weakness and madness, since it was contrary to Arab and Jewish customs of the day." In your "Islambasher" example, you only need to look at articles like Criticism of Islam where this is being done in broad daylight.

"I am not attributing to him the opposite of what he wrote." Exactly my point. You should attribute to him what he wrote, not what he never wrote (let alone the opposite of what he wrote). "than it follows that later M used the opposite of clemency" SImply your OR. Ramadan never explicitly says that. Also, you don't realize that there is a middle ground between "clemency" and "harshness". Just because someone isn't clement, doesn't mean that they are necessarily harsh.Bless sins (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What you wrote I summed up. If other articles actually do this, this is not good. However, it does not allow you to turn around and do this here.

Again: I did not attribute to him the opposite of what he wrote. If you wish (but thus far you have ignored my inclusion of TR anyway) we can have "what TR calls clemency" but I think this overly circumstantial and ugly. Or chose what you consider a better opposite to "clement". Str1977 ^(talk) 18:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"I summed up" No removed quite a bit of what he was saying. Regarding "what TR calls clemency": the sentence is already attributed to Ramadan. If you insist upon this repetitiveness (where Ramadan's name is repeated in the same sentence for the same purpose) we can do this with Stillman as well. Do you really want that?

"Or chose what you consider a better opposite to "clement"." I have no intention of attributing to Ramadan what he didn't say.Bless sins (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

People of the Gospel

If there was any more need for evidence that some here are acting in bad faith, consider that they included the following and reverted a version that included this.

005.047

YUSUFALI: Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to :judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

PICKTHAL: Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

SHAKIR: And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors.

is quoted as relevant to a dispute between Jews, supposedly "people of the book" - well, the text here says something else. But this supposed mistake of mine is used to mass revert to the cherished POV version. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a minor issue. We can not mention these verses as part of a compromise. You are using this issue to delete lots of sourced content. Please stop that.Bless sins 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a minor issue, yes. I am not using it to delete anything except that one verse. I have made my changes bit by bit and explained them and this was only the last.

What you accuse me of was actually what your friend Mik did: he posted the edit summary "people of the Gospel"? Where? They are people of the book.) when he mass reverted to your version. Not only did he not address the "people of the Gospel" in particular, he did not even bother to read the verse I removed, otherwise he would have seen that the Quran indeed says people of the Gospel, which can hardly relate to (non-Christian) Jews. So he used a point in which he was factually wrong (there is no denying that) dishonestly to revert back to your version. And that is a major issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you by some miracle think I wouldn't notice the hypocrisy behind the slander??? You referred to a phrase I couldn't even find in the reverted version as an excuse to mass revert it and judged my intentions erroneously once again in the process. Now that I've let that frustration out, let me explain more calmly.

To explain my edit summary, I couldn't find Gospel used anywhere on the page in either this edit [42] or this edit [43] and so I didn't understand whatever your edit summary was referring to and I still don't actually so please before calling me a liar again, tell me what or where this issue appeared or appears in the edit by Bless.

I didn't explain the mass reversion b/c as I hope you get from the above point, I didn't understand the reason you used, especially for grounds to edit the unrelated stuff. Jedi Master MIK 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't get what you are saying. Let me be clear: my edit which removed the off topic surah was based on my previous edit. Only after I removed the edit did I find out that BS had mass reverted in between. In effect I reverted him as I didn't notice. So since my intention was not to mass revert I talked only about the change I intentend. See this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=166628156&oldid=166627591

You however intentionally mass reverted and used an issue as edit summary that you apparently had no knowledge about. You could have asked here "what do you mean by people of the gospel" or you could have followed the removed links to find out yourself. Instead, you chose to mass revert. I think this dishonest. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

At some point in time you must start taking responsibility for your edits. "In effect I reverted him as I didn't notice." Every time you blame your editing on "mistakes". While mistakes can happen, it gets tiring when you repeatedly make that claim. You can only cry "Wolf! Wolf!" so many times.Bless sins 10:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

BS, I didn't blame anything on a mistake on my part. I didn't make a mistake here. I made an edit and a fitting summary. If there is a mistake, it lays with the WP software that didn't indicate to me that there had been something in between - and yes, technically it was a revert and I accept that but it was not my fault that my summary and the actual diff do not match. I cannot say the same for Mik however, who clearly saw my version and mass reverted based on the removed verse (without checking for what I could have meant). I do not begrudge him that - mistakes do happen. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The root of the problem is your incessant edit warring, which pollutes the article history and makes productive editing nearly impossible. Beit Or 13:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Str, thank you for providing that, I did not see what you were referring to originally. Again however I ask you to stop being so presumptuous. The 1st reason I mass reverted w/o detail is b/c I did not initally see the citation you removed described in your edit summary and so I thought you wrong to have been mass reverting as well and on that I apologize. The 2nd reason is b/c I assumed it would be obvious now when we both mass revert why we both do it so please excuse me if I didn't add "see talk page" as well. Finally, I don't know why I didn't mention anything here, I have no excuse and I apologize.

Beit, it takes minimum 2 to edit war and I mean on opposing sides as well so please don't push it off a simply one user's resiliance. Jedi Master MIK 19:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mik, I am sorry I indeed could have explained it better here on talk (not so much in the edit summary as I could only see that later). Apologies are accepted of course. I hope this now closes this entire issue, agreed? Str1977 ^(talk) 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Back to the original disputes above then shall we? Jedi Master MIK 00:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Aminz has corrected the verse numbers.Bless sins 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Abu-Nimer

This author has been recently added. I would like to know who this is, what kind of credentials he has and how he words this issue. I also would like to know the exact location of his article - is he contained in that journal's issue 15 volume 1 or 2. And is it really only a one page article? Thanks, Str1977 ^(talk) 09:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC) PS. I solved the bibliographical issue myself. I don't understand why an editor who provides a book is unable to provide all the information required. *sigh* Str1977 ^(talk) 09:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have found this article, which settles matters:

Abu-Nimer is totally uninformed as he portrays it that there was a dispute between M. and the BQ (fact: M. and the Banu Aus) and that the BQ chose the arbitrator (fact: M chose Sad from the Aus who had agreed to accept one from among them).

Mr Abu-Nimer also happens to be an expert in the field of conflict resolution but not in history. He can propose models of resolution but he is no expert on what happend back in 627 AD.

The only possible conclusion is that I remove him again. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

His entry appeared in the Journal of Law and Religion, which we can assume, by the title, the journal is a reliable source on religions such as Islam. Given that in the events prophet Muhammad was involved, these events have a significance in Islam. Thus the journal is a reliable source. Also, you repeatedly accuse reliable sources of factual inaccuracy, in this case of being "totally uninformed". Remember that wikipedia is about "verifiability, not truth". BTW, the article you found is not the article I quoted.Bless sins 16:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where he writes something that is no on topic and based on faulty information (at odds with everythin you and I and others have thus far provided. He is no historian and therefor has to rely on others that have misinformed him. The journal BTW is about "Law and Religion" not about history, so that doesn't help either. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

First, lets get this clear. Are the Journal of Law and Religion and Professor Abu-Nimer reliable sources or not?Bless sins 17:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I beleive they are because: Abu-Nimer is an associate professor at the American University's School of International Service in International Peace and Conflict Resolution in Washington, DC, and Director of Peacebuilding and Development Institute, American University.[44]

The Journal of Law and Religion is an interfaith, interdisciplinary peer-reviewed English language academic and professional journal devoted to issues that engage both theology and law. The Journal publishes a diverse range of scholarly work from many nations, disciplines, faith traditions, and perspectives, including historical studies, jurisprudence and theology, work on the vocations of law and religion, and studies on the interplay of law and religion in social, political and other arenas.[45]Bless sins 17:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The answer to both your questions is no, since this article is not about law and religion, nor about conflict resolution, which is Mr. Abu-Nimer's field. Beit Or 20:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So now you think that professors and academic journals are unreliable sources. Not surprising since you consider the Oxford University Press as a publisher of "bigotry", "glorification of mass murder" and "antisemitism".Bless sins 20:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a sad fact about Oxford University Press. It is also a testimony of the general decline of Middle Eastern and islamic studies in the last two decades. Beit Or 22:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You have rejected scholarship coming from Middle East and Asia, and now you are rejecting scholarship from Europe and North America. So what it is exactly that you consider "reliable"?Bless sins 02:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In the context of this particular article, a reliable source is a work by a scholar who is a specialist on either the life of Muhammad and the early Islam or history of Jews in Muslim lands and who does not exhibit a strong religious or other partisan bias. Beit Or 11:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

BS, sure professors CAN BE unreliable sources, even at Oxford. But that's not the point. Abu-Nimer is not an expert in history and hence should not be treated as such in WP. Unfortunately I cannot access his article and only read the gist of his point in another article referencing him (see the link) - but note: that other article doesn't quote him for facts but for models of conflict resolution. That's where AN's expertise lies and he can propose valid models even based on inaccurate information. The remaining issue is where did AN his faulty information from - does he give a historian as a reference for his take on what happened in 627 or did he just read sources carelessly. AN's mistake do not invalidate his scholarship - but we cannot use him for the fact of the BQ matter. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

To study conflicts you need to have some knowledge of conflicts that have taken place in the past. Secondly, accord to JSTOR, the Journal of Law and Religion is a reliable source in "historical studies" (see link above).Bless sins 03:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Abu Nimer's position is reiterated in this book also: War and peace in the law of Islam, written by professor Majid Khadduri, and published by John Hopkins press. The book was later published at London by the, guess who?, Oxford University Press (according to a review by the International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-)).Bless sins 03:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Where and what does Majid Kadduri write about it? Beit Or 11:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The link and the book are above.Bless sins 19:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Professors ARE reliable sources. Academic journals ARE also reliable sources. Please get this right.Bless sins 03:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, some professors are reliable sources and some journals are reliable sources. But note that you are fighting a strawman - sure Abu Nimer is a reliable source for what he is saying. But he is not talking about what you want him to talk about. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that I'm misquoting Abu Nimer? Am I also misquoting Majid Kadduri?Bless sins 19:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that Abu Nimer talks about models of conflict resolution, not about historical facts. You are misuing him, even if all the words are copied. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

His statement is pretty clear. He specifically referring to the Banu Qurayza.Bless sins 00:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

BS, please stop this quote shopping. We all know the major primary and secondary sources on the Jews of Arabia and the life of Muhammad. We all know the leading experts in this field. Please stick to them, instead of mining for quotes you like. Beit Or 09:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, BO.

One more time, BS: we have in the past gathered many historical information about the BQ and their demise. And each and everytime we have heard that the Banu Aus protested and agreed with Muhammad that one of them should be arbitrator about the issue what to do with the BQ. Muhammad appointed Sad and so on. We also have heard that the BQ had earlier surrendered UNCONDITIONALLY. Are you with me so far? NOW another article appears claiming (in passing, as it doesn't want to relate historical events but models of arbitration) that the agreement was between Muhammad and the BQ. An article not by an historian. Since he is not a historian he can only take a valid opinion from another historian (this remains unknown to those like me who cannot access the article). Who are we to follow: those historical secondary "sources" that all agree or the lone voice by a non-historian who says something different?

That's in no way detracting from Abu-Nimer's scholarship. He made an error that was not very relevant to his scholarship. The problem arises when you, BS, try to use it to include these supposed facts.

Back to BO's point: quote shopping is the root of that problem. We have already enough reliable sources to clearly relate the events, based on widely respected "sources" like Watt, Stillman, Guillaume etc. Why do we need to include time and again articles that only barely touch upon the issue and adding nothing new? That's unneccessary even with articles that do not get things wrong. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, who says he made the "error"? You or some scholar? Can you point out a scholar who has criticized professor Abu Nimer and professor Majid Khadduri for making an error in their respective publications? You seriously need to go read WP:V again, which says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If content is verifiable we add it, regardless of whether it is true. BTW, don't complain of lack of access since I've provided the link to professor Majid Khadduri's book above.Bless sins 11:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

ALL the scholars (who are qualified in the field) have rendered things differently. There is nothing more to say. Stop abusing the WP:V policy. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"There is nothing more to say" So you agree?Bless sins 12:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is incivil, BS. Str1977 is telling you there is no need to repeat the same arguments. Beit Or 13:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

if you yourself aren't prepared to refrain from uncivil outbursts, then there is little point in demanding it from others. ITAQALLAH 20:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Incivil outbursts? Can you provide the diffs? Beit Or 22:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No need. I'm sure Beit Or hasn't forgotten the names he/she called Ramadan. (Or have you?)Bless sins 11:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you disagree that Ramadan called for the massacre of Jews? There was uncivil about my descritpion of his incitements, and anyway, please note that WP:CIV applies only to interactions among editors. Beit Or 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Do you disagree that Ramadan called for the massacre of Jews?" Absolutely! Ramadan is not calling for the massacre of anyone. Regarding his attitude towards Jews, maybe you should take a look at this article published by an Israeli (not Arab, not Iranian, but Israeli) newspaper. IF he was calling for a massacre, why would Oxford University Press publish this? Oh wait, you confirmed that the claim that Oxford University Press is a publisher of "bigotry", "glorification of mass murder" and "antisemitism" as a "sad fact about Oxford University Press" on 22:23, 27 October 2007. How come he himself is praised by TIME,[46] and Boston Globe,[47]? Are these publications "antisemitic" as well?Bless sins 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

BS, I think that Beit Or referred to what Ramadan wrote regarding this massacre here (but may he speak for himself). BTW, publication by any company (and OUP is no more than this) is no indication whatsoever for anything, except that OUP thought this should be published. They need not agree with what he says. Can we (again) stop this looking for (fake) authority.

My take is that Ramadan is not actually an antisemite in the true sense ("racial" enmity towards Jews). I know him too little to say whether he has any enmity towards Jews beyond the natural religious disagreement. But what is clear is that of course his understanding ends with regard to Muhammad. Muhammad did it so it must have been good and noble because a prophet must be sinless (a strictly Muslim idea). And, maybe without being aware of it, in arguing this way he at least touces upon Judaeophobia.

In any case, could we focus on the actual issues: what is Ramadan saying and can we include it NEUTRALLY? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"publication by any company (and OUP is no more than this) is no indication whatsoever for anything" WP:RS, however, says "In general, the most reliable publications are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses ... by respected publishing houses." Thus, who published the book does matter. "I know him too little" Wouldn't you say that it is, atleast morally, wrong to say negative things about a living person when you know little about him/her? Nor am I asking you to go find out more about him, the point of discussion is his book, not his personal life. A discussion on his academic life (his professorship and other qualifications) is, however, entirely relevant.Bless sins 17:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

BS, you are misusingoverstating the RS policy as it says "in general" and only refers to UP among others. You cannot draw a direct inference from the place of publication.

I comment on the little presented here (and never on his personal life). I know him too little to say more but what I said was legitimate.

Str1977 ^(talk) 22:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"In general" means most of the time. Ofcourse there are exceptions to every rule. Academics can publish content that we shouldn't consider reliable (consider Patricia Crone for example who disputes most of what you and I take for granted). Arafat would be another example. However, both of the hypotheses put forth by these scholars have been subject to dispute. If Abu-Nimer, Majid Kadduri or Ramadan's works have been disputed (by scholars) then we can make note of that. Or if there are other serious problems (like the scholars have been widely criticized as extremists) then we also take that into consideration. But if it is a wikipedian who is disputing the scholarship of an academic, then that is OR.Bless sins 02:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That was exactly my point about "in general". However, I do not agree with you take on Mrs Crone - I think her book (Hagarism) interesting but methodically flawed and her conclusions utterly wrong. BUT she is a RS and included on WP as a minority view (just as Arafat and the other guy are here - I see that you agree).

But you are confusing fields here: Abu-Nimer has no place here at all. He does not write on "what happened" but on models of conflict resolution. He is quotable there but not here. I have no clue who Kadduri is. Ramadan is included and I have time and again asked for the exact quote so that we can include him a neutral manner. It is not my fault that this is not provided. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Abu Nimer makes his statements as a matter of fact. In fact, what use would his models be if they came from some fantasy land and were not grounded in reality?Bless sins 14:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sure he is assuming an account to be factual. The issue is whether it is accurate. What is the basis for this account? The models he proposes are valid no matter whether his account is accurate (especially if the error contained is that the agreement was not between A and B but between A and C.) Str1977 ^(talk) 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If a scholar considers "assumes" an account to be factual, then it is factual - unless another scholar (not wikipedian, but scholar) disputes this.Bless sins 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Abu Nimer is just as relevant at all for our topic here as an expert in physics would be. Also, reality is not shaped by Will and Representation. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again...off topic. It is clear you have no arguments against Abu Nimer, or Majid Khadduri. They are clearly reliable sources. And they clearly talk about Banu Qurayza. Regarding your physics analogy, please find me a physicist that seriously discusses Qurayza in a physics book. No really, you drew the analogy, and I'm going to ask you to substantiate it. If you can't, that means you make empty claims.Bless sins 05:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because you fail to grasp the point doesn't mean that it is not there. Abu Nimer is not qualified to talk about history. As for the physics analogy: suppose a physicist talks about Gallileo's experiment of droping a ball from the Tower of Pisa. It is a well known story and it relates accurace scientific facts - BUT it never happened and never could have happened. Still, physicist do use it to illustrate the facts of the matter. Do we report a physicist using this illustration as a basis for the claim that it actually happened? No, we don't. The same with Abu Nimer. Now, I already stated that you could look up the reference of Abu Nimmer for that event or use an actual historian. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You realize that Galileo is not the same as Banu Qurayza. I asked you for a "physicist that seriously discusses Qurayza in a physics book". If you can find such an analogy, provide it; if not, realize that Galileo has nothing to do with this. I also notice you have not responded to my argument that this fact has been recorded by two (not one) scholars. The other one is Majid Khadduri.Bless sins 19:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is an analogy if you know what that is. If you want someone without historical qualifications discussing the history of the BQ try Abu Nimer. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

<reset>It was analogy, and you failed to substantiate with further evidence.

Is Abu Nimer a good source on history of art? Probably not. Nor is he a good source on the history of archeology or exploration or banking etc. Is he a good source on the history of conflicts? Definitely. That is, after all, his field. You can't deny the fact that Banu Qurayza was in a conflict with Medina, and Medina itself was divided over what to do.

Even if we suppose that Abu-Nimer is not necessarily a good source, the "Journal of Law and Religion" certainly is. Banu Qurayza's interactions with prophet Muhammad have a significant place in Islam (as does anything else related to prophet Muhammad). Since, Islam is a religion and the journal is a good source on religious matters, the Journal is a good source on the topic.

Majid Khadduri is considered a pioneer at Middle East Studies. (I don't need to explain to you why Banu Qurayza falls into the category of Middle East.) [48]

Bless sins (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You apparently fail to grasp how analogies work. Doesn't surprise me.

Abu Nimer is no authority on either history of art or history of anything. His expertise is on conflict resolution.

Khadduri seems good (though the Journal in itself is irrelevant). Can you quote the actual passage? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You fail to grasp how to make proper analogies. Doesn't surprise me either.

"Abu Nimer is no authority on either history of art" That's what I said. He is a good source on the history of conflict resolution.

The Journal is a very relevant part of judging the reliability of a source, as it is the "publisher of the work".

"Can you quote the actual passage?" <sigh> When you will you actually start reading my responses? I posted the link to the relevant page above. Here it is again.Bless sins (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My analogy was proper to the issue, your requirements were unreasonable.

"That's what I said. He is a good source on the history of conflict resolution." No, not on the history! On dispute resolution. An expert on medicine is not a expert on the history of medicine either.

If you wouldn't bury links in a rubble of bad faith statements, I would find them easier, I will have a look into the link now. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have reviewed the quote and found my caution vindicated. This book cannot serve as a reference for your claim as it is badly mistaken: it talks about an "arbitration between Muhammad and the Banu Qurayza ... in which both parites agreed to submit their dispute to a person ..." - the sentence is half-right, half-wrong: "both parties" did agree and that actually is the nature of arbitration. But there was no arbitration between Muhammad and the BQ but between Muhammad and the Banu Aus! And that they agreed is already included. The BQ, as you yourself amply stated, had surrendered unconditionally, so they were not in a position to agree or disagree.

So back to one: do you have another source? Str1977 ^(talk) 08:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse, he is a reliable source on history of dispute resolution. How do you think he constructs models? By looking at year 2007 only?

I notice you didn't respond to the reliability of the journal.

"If you wouldn't bury links in a rubble of bad faith statements" If you can't read properly it is not my fault.

"the sentence is half-right, half-wrong:" Only according to your original research. Can you find me a scholar who says Majid Khadduri is wrong when he talk about Banu Qurayza?Bless sins (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Ofcourse" (sic!) he is a reliable source on dispute resolution and of course uses historical examples. But what if his information is wrong? The models might still be valid but we then shouldn't use this faulty information.

I do not care about your journal. I'd care about Khadduri's credentials however,.

"Only according to your original research. Can you find me a scholar who says Majid Khadduri is wrong" - I do not need such a scholar and it is not OR. Have a look into the sources quotes in our article and you will see that the arbitration was between Muhammad and the Aus, not between Muhammad and the BQ. Khadduri assumes the latter, which conflicts with all our sources (except Abu Nimer). Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"But what if his information is wrong?" Outside of wikipedia, I'd say that is a very valid point. But on wikipedia we assume that reliable sources are true until shown wrong by other reliable sources. No if the information is wrong, then the models are based on fiction and won't work in the real world.

"I do not care about your journal" I'm afraid you must. WP:V says you should. Wikipedia:V#_note-3 says the publisher of the work affects reliability. It also says that peer-reviewed journals are the most reliable sources.Bless sins (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I will not leave my brain at the entry gate, all based on what the books actually dealing with history say. You also wrong: models based on fictional accounts (that need not be unrealistic - only that they did not occur like this) might well be working. Not all of course but than this affects the quality of he model, not our article here. We are using actual historical research.

About the journal: No, I don't have to. Certainly you are not the one to tell me what I must, especially if you don't get my point: if the article is not about history at all, it doesn't matter what journal printed it. Abu Nimer is valid in his own right BUT NOT HERE. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So you will ignore WP:V, when it says that peer-reviewed journals are reliable sources? It's not me you're ignoring, but WP:V.Bless sins (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No at all. It is me not concerning myself with an irrelevant issue. Why is it irrelevant? Because Abu-Nimer has no expertise on our issue here. Whether Abu Nimer publishes his off-topic article in a world class scholarly journal or paints his walls with it makes no difference. So, I am not ignoring WP:V, I am ignoring an article by an non-expert. And you know that point well enough, so stop pestering me with it. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Whether Abu Nimer publishes his off-topic article in a world class scholarly journal...it makes no difference" But it does make a difference, according to WP:V. Why do you insist upon going against WP:V?Bless sins (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Because Abu-Nimer has no expertise on our issue here." Ofcourse he does. He has expertise in history of conflict resolution. And this is certainly a historical example of conflict resolution.

Why are you ignoring Majid Khadduri. Is he not a reliable source? His work is published in a university press.

Why are you ignoring Hashmi, Sohail H.; Buchanan, Allen E; Moore, Margaret? Their work is also published in a university press.Bless sins (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, repeating the same nonsense over and over again doesn't make for an argument. Abu-Nimer is no historian and WP:V does not say what you claim. As for these other authors - this discussion is solely about Abu-Nimer (look at the title) so they do not concern us here. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith edit summary

BS, please stop your bad faith edit summaries, you are fooling nobody. I have time and again worked for compromise, reduced the occurence of the accurate and neutral M-word. What Itaqallah posted is no comprise but rather a maximalist version in accord with your POV, removing every occurence of the M-word, replacing it with "aftermath" and similar sanitizing language. It is also factually incorrect as Arafat doesn't dispute the historicity of "the incident" but that of the massacre, i.e. that large numbers of people were killed. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah's edits were approximately half-way between the version I want, and that which you want. The fact you reverted it, shows you are not interested in compromising.Bless sins 00:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Itaq's edits removing every occurrence of the M-word. That's hardly a compromise. The rest of your comment is actually funny as you are the chief "mass reverter" on this article. I have time and again compromised with your objections (reducing the M-word to the minimum, including AL's regret in an acceptable brief and NPOV fashion etc.) to which you never even replied. It seems to me that you are not interest in a compromise ... at least non in compromise with non-Muslims. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, if some editor removes your original research, he/she can't be blamed. Reducing you original research is also not a "compromise". "non in compromise with non-Muslims" Unfortunately that's what you are good at - attacking other people's religious beliefs.Bless sins 11:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If some editor removes your POV pushing he or she can't be blamed.

Oh, you easily offended being, I did not attack anyone's religious beliefs here or anywhere.

The problem with the edit summary here is that you are acting innocent accusing me of not wanting to compromise when in fact you have been more uncompromising. Double standards again. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

in the interests of our neutrality policy, and as discussed above, POV language like massacre should be avoided. ITAQALLAH 18:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of NPOV and accuracy this article should not be whitewashed in this way. Furthermore "your" version suffers countless other setbacks (grammar, style, format). This is unacceptable. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

execution is equally as accurate as massacre, and is also more neutral. you don't appear to like being accused of 'censorship' - please reciprocate and reconsider the benefit in accusing others of whitewashing etc. also, please do specify these grammar/formatting problems so that they may be fixed. ITAQALLAH 20:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone ever stopped you from fixing grammar and format? As long as you don't censor out content, and edit against scholarly consensus, I don't think anyone here has a problem with your editing.Bless sins 12:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop this bickering, BS. Beit Or 13:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BS, I have told you that there were many other reasons to oppose your or Itaq's version. However, it appears that you think proper grammar is only my job? No, it is yours as well. If you can't do that, I will take care of it BUT I will not serve to copyedit non-neutral passages by you. BTW, many of the passage where your language is at its worst have been changed into a different wording without changing the contents (e.g. when the Nadir chief came during the siege) - still your revert it. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Verification failed

I took a look at F.E.Peters cited book for the following piece 'Arab Muslim theologians and historians have either viewed the incident as "the punishment of the Medina Jews, who were invited to convert and refused, perfectly exemplify the Quran's tales of what happened to those who rejected the prophets of old" or offered a political explanation.'

According to the article its supposed to be on page 77. But when I read that page I found no mention of the Qurayza, rather only a mention of Abd al Muttalib (the prophet's grandfather) and something about the prophet's clan (don't recall the exact details).

Assuming good faith, this is only a typo of some editor (whoever added this), and should be corrected as soon as possible.Bless sins 01:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who added this. I think as well that it either is a typo or a different edition. I agree that it should be corrected ASAP. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No other edition is specified. I'll wait about a week (in the meanwhile I'll tag this) before removing it.Bless sins 17:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that another edition "is specified". Books not appearing in our literature section have been cited under nonsensical terms like "Watt (1960)" before. Tagging is called for but removing information that has been here for months without any objection after only a week is definitely uncalled for. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. The reference was added by Aminz [49]. I will notify him. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no such sentence on the referenced page. Beit Or 20:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

the page is correct, Aminz doesn't seem to have specified the book he was using. see "Islam, a Guide for Jews and Christians" (2003) Princeton University Press, p. 77. ITAQALLAH 20:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Now the question is what the exact quote is and whether it adds anything encyclopedically valuable to the article. Beit Or 20:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

On page 78, it mentions the political explanation of Muhammad's conflict with each of the three tribes separately. Before that on page 77 however, a theological view is provided.--Aminz 08:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide the full quote, please? Beit Or 08:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have specified the two books by Peters, assuming (based on the verification that started this section) that only that one reference was based on the "Guide" book and all others on the "Muhammad" book. If that is wrong, feel free to correct this (respecting the established format). Str1977 ^(talk) 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC over neutrality and sourcing

i have started a RfC to get us moving through WP:DR. the main areas of dispute seem to be usability of Ramadan as a source as well as the neutrality (or lack thereof) in some passages in the articles. if my summary of the dispute is inaccurate or anything hasn't been mentioned please do fix as appropriate. ITAQALLAH 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is regarding the following:

• Should content regarding the Banu Qurayza sourced to the following persons be included:
  • Montgomery Watt
  • Tariq Ramadan
  • Daniel C. Peterson
  • Shibli Nomani
• Are any of the following terms POV for the purposes of describing the killing of 600 men in accordance with a judgment pronounced upon them: "execution", "massacre", "killing"?Bless sins 04:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is not about these authors in toto but about the proper way to include them.

It is also about the appropriateness of calling the killing of 600+ plus men a "massacre". Str1977 ^(talk) 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Source for "massacre"

Book is: Irving M. Zeitlin (2007-01-29). The Historical Muhammad. Polity. p. 13. 978-0745639994.

Read on Google Books here, page 13:

Amazon page: [50]

Irving M. Zeitlin is Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Toronto. - Merzbow 04:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be a reliable source, albeit he is not a scholar on Muhammad/Islamic studies nor on history. Please also take a look at the sources for execution at Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Evidence_for_execution.Bless sins 04:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, when Sa'ad decreed his judgment his words have been translated as such "we shall execute their warriors and take their children prisoner".Bless sins 05:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever did this translation, it is not a very exact one. As I explained, one executes decisions and not people - strictly speaking. An exact translation would be "put to death" or something more specific.

In any case, your reference to your list is futile. Piling up the results of your cherrypicking does not contribute anything to the debate (except evidence that scholars do use "execution" but that was never in dispute). Now, you have another counterexample that scholars also use "massacre" and, even more to the point, as a reference to the event in its entirety (and not "aftermath", nor "massacre and enslavement"). It was unsurprising that now Zeitlin's credentials and field are questioned, when in fact the title suggests it to be a work of history.

Stop your maximalist approach. I have reduced the M word as much as possible while you are only satisfied with complete annihilation. That's unacceptable. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. The Ibn Khaldun theory about the Muslims-Jewish conflict - referenced in that book - should be included. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

the translation does seem accurate. people are executed. an 'execution' primarily refers to capital punishment. ITAQALLAH 12:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Whoever did this translation, it is not a very exact one." Now Str1977 thinks he/she is better than Trevor Le Gassick (who translated this in The Life of the Prophet Muhammad: Al-Sira Al-Nabawiyya) professor of Arabic at the University of Michigan. Another instance where str1977 gives precedence to his/her own analysis as opposed to scholarly research.Bless sins 14:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I am consistent nitpicker on the word "execution" - that's the linguist in me. But we should strive for exactness. I will ignore the bad faith insults again levelled against me. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Must important question: if judgment of Sa'd ibn Mua'dh has been legal. If it is legal then we can speak of execution. If it is not legal then we are having massacre ! In my thinking this is classic massacre (in this time period this is ulmost "normal") after city conquest. Reason for that thinking is decission of Muhammad to declare judge dying man. Because I am much better in roman history I will now write one similar example: After Caesarion has fallen to Roman hands Augustus has known that he must kill him, but if he give order to kill his cousin this will create political problems. Because of that he has asked his consultants what he need to do. Answer has been there can be only one Caesar, so Cesarion has been killed by order of Augustus only on the "pressure" of his consulants (so he is not guilty). Similar thing has been Muhammad decision of declaring Sa'd ibn Mua'dh judge. Creating court has been political decission (because of need for Aws) and nothing else ! For the end I must say that this is my personal thinking ! ---Rjecina 17:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input but I don't think this relevant. As stated before, Sa'd judgement was not one of legal judgement on the BQ but a judgment in a conflict between Muhammad and some of the Aus. And no, it was not almost normal at that time in this place (7th century Arabia). Caesarion's case is not relevant either because a) this is only about an individual, b) Octavianus never acknowledged the kinship, c) was basically an act of political murder. Yes, I see the parallel with having someone else decide but a) it was Octavius who decided (while his advisers only counselled) and b) Muhammad did this only because a group actually opposed. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The question of legality arises only if there's a law in place. No such thing can be said about Arabia, where there was no written code. There was however an unwritten code understood by all that included many do's and don't's. The situation can be said to have changed under Muhammad, who did introduce a written code and ultimately brought the Islamic law. One thing about Sa'ad's judgment: the case was submitted to his judgment by Muhammad, the Aws, (and according to reliable sources) by the Banu Qurayza as well. Furthermore, the people of Arabia (who would know more about the local law, than any of us) regarded the judgment as punishment for treachery (according to Watt).Bless sins (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a matter of law but of sheer force used in the context of war. Thanks for disbanding with the illusion, still expounded above, that the massacre was in any way an act of justice. However, you are mistaken if you think that before the advent of M. the Arabs and Jews were all uncivilized barbarians. Quite the contrary. "Furthermore, the people of Arabia (who would know more about the local law, than any of us)" the people of Arabia that would be relevant are the ones living back in the day, not the ones that have been shaped by centuries of "Muhammad can do no wrong" teachings. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Arabs and Jews were all uncivilized barbarians" I never said that. I only said the Arabs had "no written code [of law]". (The Jews ofcourse did). Secondly, the Arabs "living back in the day"/"Muhammad's contemporaries" considered it as punishment of treachery (according to Watt).Bless sins (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

When we look decisions of Muhammad and Augustus they are more similar of what you think. If my memory is not creating tricks after Caesarion has fallen to roman hands Augustus has known what he must do, but he has asked consulants something like: what will we do with him. He has known the answer but he has wanted somebody else to say word.

On other hand Muhammad has known the answer but because of political problems somebody else has needed to say the word.

For me difference is only number of killed nothing more, nothing else. ---Rjecina 20:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment on Roman history, since I have little knowledge of it.Bless sins (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not our topic anyway. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blood money issue

I copy this over from Aminz' (and partly my own) talk page:

Aminz, two issues:

1. I am still awaiting clarification of the "blood money" issue.
2. Please have a look at the BQ talk page as a reference (Peters 77) is questioned by BS. Since you added that reference in the first place, could you please chime in on that.

Thanks, Str1977 ^(talk) 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Str1977,

I apologize for my delay. Due to some personal issues, I can not edit wikipedia regularly for some time. Hope everything is going well with you

Regarding the bloodmoney issue:

Rizwi S. Faizer in Muhammad and the Medinan Jews,International Journal of Middle East Studies 28 (1996), 463—489 says:

More importantly, Ibn Ishaq shows us that the Jews actually permitted Muhammad to participate in the activities of their community during the first few months after his arrival in Medina. Thus, Ibn Ishaq shows Muhammad passing sentence on an adulterous Jewish couple, raising the value of the blood price of the B. Qurayza to equal that of the B. Nadir, and becoming involved in religious arguments with the Jews.

Another source is here [51]

"Taking advantage of Muhammad's arrival in Madina, the weaker tribe challenged their stronger neighbour to submit the matter to Muhammad's adjudication..."

--Aminz 07:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Aminz for the heads up.

Of course real life should always supersede Wiki-business. And under the circumstances thanks for your rapid reply.

The Faizer bit is good, the other one however is still confusing to me as it talks about retaliation, i.e. life for life, i.e. capital punishment. However, I have also looked into the whole range of Quran verses you linked to now and think that M's decision was probably that "life for life" /capital punishment should be the norm but that the victim's relatives were also free (as a matter of grace towards the killer) to accept blood money instead. I am still awaiting the Guillaume I ordered and once I have received it, I will consider the entire matter further. I will let you know and you are always welcome to comment. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I now have Guillaume at hand and will post on him shortly. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is what the article presently states:

"During the first few months after arrival of Muhammad in Medina, the Banu Qurayza were involved in a dispute with the Banu Nadir about the compensation for killing, as the blood money paid for killing a man of Qurayza was only half of the blood-money required for killing a man of Nadir. The Qurayza called on Muhammad as arbitrator, who delivered the surah 5:42-45 and raised the assessment of the Qurayza to the full amount of blood money.[19]"

Here is what Ibn Ishaq writes, in Guillaume's translation:

"Da'ud b. al-Husayn from 'Ikrima from Ibn 'Abbas said that the verses of The Table in which God said "Then judge between them or withdraw from them and if you withdraw from them they will do thee no harm And if thou judgest, judge with fairness, for God Loveth those who deal fairly" were sent down concerning blood-money between B. al-Nadir and B. Qurayza. Those slain from B. al-Nadir were leaders and they wanted the whole bloodwit while B. Qurayza wanted half of it. They referred the matter for arbitration to the apostle, and God sent down that passage concerning them. The apostle ordered that the matter should be settled (page 267 bottom)

justly and awared the bloodwit in equal shares. But God knows which account is correct. (page 268 top)

The Quranic verse quoted above is taken from Surah 5 (The Table), verse 42. [52]

Str1977 ^(talk) 14:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So is this issue settled?Bless sins 20:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not yet. I am treading slowly as this requires thought and time. But we are getting there. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Torah issue reloaded

This article once contained coverage of the claim by some Muslims that Sad based his verdict on Deuteronomy or that the verdict coincided with this. See for instance, this version. Other versions of a treatment do exist. Farah apparently was disputed as to saying something like this (unfortunately page 52 is missing in google search.) I remember that it was removed by consensus.

My question: should we reinstate a coverage of the whole issue or remain at leaving it out?

But please read archive 2, especially items 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 18, 19 before posting anything here.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this is not what the discussion between Str1977 and Bless sins (myself) is regarding. For the issue currently in dispute see the subsection below.Bless sins (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please not that BS is speaking falsely here. Above is exactly the issue that needs to be decided before we can even consider his attempts. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We do not regurgitate factually incorrect fringe theories. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the archives. I see no consensus for the non-coverage of the topic. What I do see is that atleast two other reliable sources Farah and Esposito also say this.Bless sins (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: Str1977 has been going around and recruiting editors (some of who haven't edited the article in quite some time) to comment on this section. I think this is biased (since some users like, User:Striver who were part of the discussion before, have not been informed). To make sure vote-stacking doesn't occur, please note this is NOT A VENUE FOR VOTING but for discussion. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have been reviewing the archives and informed those involved in the discussion back then. There is nothing wrong with this. And no, this is not a vote. This a venue for a change in the consensus if this happens to be the outcome. I personally never had a strong opinion on whether to include this or not. It think the claim is nonsensical but so is the Arafat thesis and I don't have a problem with that either. Also, it doesn't matter that there are two more "sources" repeating that same nonsensical claim. Not for our issue: SHOULD WE INCLUDE THIS AT ALL. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been informing only a selected group of users. That is, Striver, a major user in the discussion hasn't been informed. Why? Likely because (given his/her past position on the issue) he/she would support the inclusion. Like Striver, Truthspreader has also not been invited, for apparently the same reasons.Bless sins (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have informed those that came to my mind, hardly all of my persuasion. But all this is moot since you anyway do not want to discuss the matter, as stated below. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And you conveniently forgot those who would disagree with you. I do want to discuss this matter, as I long as my comments on this talk page are not manipulated, removed, or separated. There can be no discussion if I'm not allowed to fairly present my views.Bless sins (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So, Aminz does agree with me? In fact, by now he does in general and disagrees with you (as he says a presentation should be balanced) but I didn't know that when I contacted him, as he was one of those arguing for an inclusing. I am against an inclusion, though not very strongly.

So, first you do want to discuss this matter, than not, now again you do. Can you make up your mind? The issue of course being whether we should include this issue. And you are allowed to present your views on this. I do not even hinder your saying "we should include Peterson", even though it fails to address the point. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Because you are allowing me express myself, I will put forth my argument: there is much evaluation of this incident. A religious approval is made when we say that Muhammad approved of this judgment. Lings, Peterson and others are simply saying that this judgment was in accordance with the Torah. If we can bring the Qur'an in this, than we can also bring in the Torah.Bless sins (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the interruption but why does it look like this issue went nowhere incredibly fast? Str1977, do you think this issue should be reinstated in the article? I did not catch whether you think so or not nor did I catch what sparked this issue up again. Either way, what reason do you have for either take? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue best be taken up during the mediation. But I don't object to discussion (I never have) on this issue. My position is that this issue is important enough to be included in the article, on two conditions. All content added must be sourced to a reliable source. And the source must also establish establish the issue's relevance to the topic of Banu Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Mik,

it went nowhere because BS could not even lower himself to accept what I consider the issue to be discussed, namely whether to include this issue (the Torah claim) at all. I never disagreed with him on using Peterson or others, IF we include the issue.

My stance is: we can include this but I prefer sticking with the status quo. But I am not strongly tied to this and will bow to a new consensus once achieved. However, I do insist on a proper, balanced treatment of the claim. I cannot see this in the way BS recently tried to reinclude it. (And it was this reinclusion that sparked the issue.)

BS,

"A religious approval is made when we say that Muhammad approved of this judgment." - well, that is clearly stated in our sources. What this means for Islam's stance on the massacre is a question that Islam has to answer but in itself it is the approval by one man.

"Lings, Peterson and others are simply saying that this judgment was in accordance with the Torah." - as in coincidence? That's exactly the problem with the claim that centuries after the event some people come along and discover this coincidence. Or rather: supposedly discover as in fact the Torah does not include such rulings.

"If we can bring the Qur'an in this, than we can also bring in the Torah." - no, the difference is: the Quran is the scripture of Islam, announced by Muhammad, one of the participants, and reflecting the event, with some verses directly referring to this event. The Torah OTOH was written centuries earlier and thus cannot address the massacre of the BQ. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Str1977

Ah, I see, thanks for the heads up. Alright then, we have sources that give support for this alternate interpretation of the events, what else do we need? Why don't we put it in as "Another interpretation by some historians as to this decision..." and then if and when we do ever get sources for opposing view points as I'm sure we will eventually, we'll stick them in like "Some however reject this theory because..." We don't always have the yin and yang for every theory and interpretation at one time. You can't just call every interpretation and theory that some people wont like unfair and unbalanced, otherwise by that standard I'd have a lot more to complain about in this article.

Whenever there was no ruling in the Quran yet pertaining to something that happened at some time in the life of Muhammad, he would usually go by what the Torah said to do. Even if you don't believe that, you should believe that Muslims do take the Torah to have been a previous law of God and while to some extent defunct now still worthy of respect, especially when the Quran was still not fully created. Therefore, the Torah is not as irrelevant as you suggest.

AFAIK, there isn't any verse in the Quran that says to massacre all the able bodied men after a conflict and take the rest as captives. There are however such verses in the Torah. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What we need is consensus about including this at all, as per undue weight. Personally, I am open to be convinced.

And no, it is definitely not "another interpretation by some historians"

"Whenever there was no ruling in the Quran yet pertaining to something that happened at some time in the life of Muhammad, he would usually go by what the Torah said to do." - Now that is speculation and even more so when we are talking about this incident, as the (primary) sources say nothing of the sort.

"AFAIK, there isn't any verse in the Quran that says to massacre all the able bodied men after a conflict and take the rest as captives. There are however such verses in the Torah." - I do not know about the Quran but Muhammad certainly approved. There are such verses in the Torah in regard to the Amalekites and the Canannites, not to some POWs. Your good faith take on this is mistaken. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So you don't think it should be included. Ok then, thats partly what I wanted to know. Now if we could also learn why.

Why not? Its sourced as one by apparently several authors.

Not speculation, common knowledge. Muhammad didn't follow the pagan religions that the Meccans or other Arabians followed and definitely not their many deities. Furthermore, in many other accounts regarding other incidences like stoning for adultery, it has direct correlation with what is written in the Torah though nothing is stated in the Quran and often times, later accounts give sometimes contradicting actions taken for the issue before resolved differently.

It can just as easily be suggested his response to Sa'd's decision was referring to the Muslim belief that the Torah was a book from God before too.

On the contrary, it is first general as to who these specific ROE (kill males, capture women/children) are to be practiced towards in war. When it does specifically mention people like the Amalekites and Cannanites afterwards, it makes clear to not leave anything alive that breathes.

Final note, when it states "your God delivers into your hand", that usually implies the city has been taken and that usually implies there are captives, especially when only thereafter does it state something should be done with the enemies. Therefore, yes indeed the captured can be considered "some POWs". Jedi Master MIK (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do I tend to not include it: because it gives undue weight to a very fringe claim (and it doesn't help that the claim is also factually nonsense - though that is not he main issue). But as I said, I am not married to the status quo and think that in whole process of mediation a solution is possible if we all try to be nice.

"Not speculation, common knowledge. Muhammad didn't follow the pagan religions ..."

That's not what you said before. You stated that he used the Torah - even more, that he used the Torah on this occasion. "Other accounts" are other accounts but here we are talking but this one acount here.

"It can just as easily be suggested his response to Sa'd's decision was referring to the Muslim belief that the Torah was a book from God before too." That's a Muslims belief but note that Muslims also believe the Torah to have been corrupted, that we do not know for sure how Muslims felt about it that the period we are talking about (source problem) and that, again, we are not debating using the Torah in general but in this specific case. Are there primary sources stating that? And don't forget: the Torah can provide stoning of adulterers but it does not provide massacring prisoners of war outside of two long-gone peoples.

"When it does specifically mention people like the Amalekites and Cannanites afterwards, it makes clear to not leave anything alive that breathes." The Canaanites are singled out for extermination at the very passage you cite, the Amalekites are mentioned elsewhere.

"that usually implies the city has been taken and that usually implies there are captives" - yes of course it talks about prisoners of war but not just any prisoners of war. Also, what city did the Muslims conquer in the case of the BQ? This was not one people going to war against another (e.g. against Mecca) but against from group within their own city. In any case, the cases are completely different from each other. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel C. Peterson

The issue here is that Str1977 is removing the following: "Daniel C. Peterson and Martin Lings state that this judgment was in accordance with the law of Moses as stated in Deut. 20:10-14." I have not stopped Str1977 from adding "coverage". The question is regarding keeping the content or removing it.Bless sins (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

BS, I had already opened a section on the issue. The issue however is not "should we include Peterson and Lings on this" but should we include this issue at all. IF we do, we may accurately report Peterson and Lings and others. IF we don't, we will not. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only interested in the inclusion of (primarily) Peterson, not in the "coverage" of the issue.Bless sins (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are not interested in the coverage of this issue, we can close the entire thing as neither of us wants it included. Note that we go issue-wise, not author-wise. Peterson has no place in this article unless he has something to say that is relevant to this article. But you have just declared the issue to be irrelevant. Str1977 ^(talk) 03:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I regret to say that I can't participate in this discussion as long as Str9177 attempts to merge my section into his/hers. I can't stress enough but, Str1977, you must stop removing sections I created. When you created a section, I respectfully disagreed, and presented my views in a separate section. Its time you respect my right to express my opinions on the issue.Bless sins (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You stated that the discussion is irrelevant anyway. Hence I already considered it closed. You never contributed anything anyway. Please don't lecture me about "respect" as I can't see where you have ever shown others just a small part of the respect you demand for yourelf. Double standards, right! Str1977 ^(talk) 11:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"as I can't see where you have ever shown others just a small part of the respect you demand for yourelf." I've never manipulated your comments. I've never removed sections on talk that you created. I've never separated your comments (or changed them in any way). I'm allowing for free expression of views. You are hindering it.Bless sins (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I never manipulated your comments either. True, I merged a double section into one already existing because they are about the same thing. Some time ago, you also artificially divided one section into two way after a lot of comments. I am in no way hindering your expression. However, you have expressed your opinion that the issue is irrelevant. Hence, case closed. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. I retain your section but not without this comment: Please note that this is not what the discussion between Str1977 (myself) and BS is regarding. For the issue currently in dispute see the subsection above. I will not discuss the issue you invented. Not until the overall issue of whether the Deuteronomy claim should be included is answered in the affirmative. And after this, I don't see any need for a discussion of Peterson in particular since IF the Dtn nonsense is included surely Peterson will have his place as well. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing me to express my comments on the talk page. Now we may discuss this matter, while respect the others right to express his/her opinion as well as, amongst other things, create sections on the talk page.Bless sins (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I never disputed your right to express your opinion. However, on the issue of whether Peterson's view on the Deuteronomy claim should be included I have no opinion and nothing to say (or rather: nothing of consequence) unless we first establish whether this whole fabricated Deuteronomy claim should be included at all. As I stated, I have no cemented view on this but I tend to stick with the status quo unless I am superseded by consensus. If consensus is that we include the claim, I will do what I can to ensure that the treatment is balanced. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have no cemented view, then why are you constantly removing him. BTW, there was no consensus to exclude Peterson from the article.Bless sins (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, could you please read what I wrote. I do not remove him in particular but the entire issue because the status quo achieved by consensus excluded this fabricated issue per undue weight. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

wikisource deletion

I have initiated a "deletion discussion" about s:Banu Qurayza, as it is not a single source text. Please get involved and help us figure out the "right thing" to do with the content of that page. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

mediation request

considering the continued reverts and fruitless discussion, i have filed a request for mediation here. i have listed the two main parties as Bless sins and Str1977, because these have been the two main participants in the ongoing dispute. if both parties would prefer a more inclusive list of those more peripherally involved, that's your choice, but it's possible that universal agreement to formal mediation may not be reached within the 7 days from all listed (which is a requirement). you can also list the issues of dispute to a greater degree than i have done. ITAQALLAH 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind I added a point which sort of got buried in the ensuing arguments but nonetheless also kept getting changed back and forth. I also added myself as part of the disputers if you don't mind as I was also disputing on at least 2 of the arguments as well. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

my 2c

I had a look at the dispute here [53].

In the intro, In the Bless sin's version " the tribe's collaboration with the invading armies ...", the extent and type of collaboration is not specified. Str's version: "the tribe was charged with treachery" is factually correct but doesn't clarify the type of accusation and why it happened. I suggest we keep Str's version but explain in more details and more explicitly what that accusation of treachery was. i.e. Muslim accused Qurayza of treachery and said that ... constituted Qurayza's breach from their pact; or something like this.

On the historicity of the special agreement, it seems to me that Str's version is shorter and flows better but his version says that "among modern historians, R. B. Serjeant supports ...." it may imply that Serjeant is alone here. but we just don't know. In the Bless sins' version, it appears we have taken for granted the historicity of the pact and are talking about the consequences of breaching it. The issue of "the usual consequences of breaching pacts" is an all together different story and should be included in its proper place, and not in the middle of discussing the historicity of the specific pact. Note: If in that specific pact, there is any explicit mention of the consequences of breaching the pact, we can say it when we are explaining the nature of the pact.

In another place, Bless sins says that "During the siege, the Qurayza allowed Huyayy ibn Akhtab (leader of the Banu Nadir) to return, whom Muhammad had exiled, and who had instigated the Meccan confederacy besieging Medina." This seems to imply not only that the cheif came to Qurayza but also that Qurayza were not supposed to do that because Muhammad had exiled them. I don't know what the diplomatic rules of the time required. But it strikes me that Bless sins's version is saying something more than what Str's version says. So, the discussion should centered on whether Qurayza's pact with Muhammad allowed them to meet with Huyayy ibn Akhtab.

Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Re:"In 627 CE, the tribe's collaboration with the invading armies during the Battle of the Trench was considered treacherous." I suggest, we instead mention Ibn Ishaq's report: That guy X from Nadir came to Y from Qurayza. Y's reaction was Z. Muhammad sent W to Qurayza to investigate the matter. W reported back T to Muhammad. Muhammad sent J to sow discord among them do M and N. Qurayza did P (X,Y,Z,W,T,J,.. can be found from Ibn Ishaq's original text).... Here, the reader can make up his mind regarding what "the tribe's collaboration" was; and what Muhammad's POV has been. Also, per WP:Lead we have to provide a comprehensive summary in the intro that can stand on its own alone. --Aminz (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No way, we do not bloat the intro with quotes. We can explain the events in all detail from all perspectives in the main text but not in the intro. The above sentence is unacceptable because it assumes that they BQ indeed collaborated though leaves open whether this was treason. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a fair compromise. I agree with the gist of what you're saying, except let's use a reliable source instead of Ibn Ishaq. (Ibn Ishaq's reliability may be questioned, esp. since one can find passages that may be unacceptable to non-Muslims).Bless sins (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So Ibn Ishaq suddenly is no reliable source. He is the source period, these other writers are merely analyisis. But as I said, we do not want quotes in the intro. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So you actually think Ibn Ishaq is reliable source? That means Ibn Ishaq reports of prophet Muhammad's visit to Jerusalem and the heavens should be considered factually accurate? I have absolutely no problem with this.Bless sins (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. You fail to grasp what a reliable source according to WP is. It does not constitute correctness in everything but that it reliably gives information useful for the article. That you think otherwise explains why you have to remove sources not to your liking. And BTW Ibn Ishaq is the source on all this here. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nomani and Lings give a pretty good summary of what happened. Are there any sources that you can think of?Bless sins (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have also reverted to Str1977 version in the lead as a courtesy and a show of good faith.Bless sins (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Muslim and Non-Muslim analysis should be briefly mentioned in the intro BUT after Ibn Ishaq, because Ibn Ishaq is our only primary source in this world, and all Muslim (Naomi) and non-Muslim (Watt, Stillman, Ling,...) views are analysis of that (though they are important but next to Ibn Ishaq).--Aminz (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, we should simply "report" the facts instead of writing words that have judgmental implications with them.Cheers. --Aminz (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate this very much. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok the consensus seems to be that we include Ibn Ishaq in the lead. I'll look him and come up with a lead.Bless sins (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

BS stop messing around. There is no consensus of that kind, in fact I expressly opposed including any quote or longish stuff into the intro, which is good as it is now. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins "compromise"

Okay, BS, I return the favour and go through your latest version. My non-negotiatables are printed in bold. 1. I insist that the intro does not assume the guilt of the BQ. But I included some of your language. 2. "He and Serjeant, however, note ..." must go. Since Serjeant affirms the historicity of the special agreement, his view on the general agreement is quite irrelevant. 3. Lex Talionis: basically agree but reword a bit. 4. "Practically all ... except the Banu Qurayza" has to go. I will never accept this vague, implying speech. 5. I am leaning towards your way of including the "tried to remain neutral" thing but I must make some tweaks to the wording 6. Huyayy: I accept the inclusion of a "welcomed" but not "admitted back" as long as there is not basis for a claim that he sought permanent residence. 7. I will never accept the extermination of the word "massacre" in this article. I already reduced it as much as possible. 8. "The account says ... false to God and His Apostle" cannot stay in this form. Since I have now seen the way this phrase is used by scholars, it is included in a fitting form in a fitting place ("infers from Abu Lubaba's gesture"). But not here, not like this. 9. The "BQ agreed as well" I will retain for now but fact tag it. Abu-Nimer is no fitting source for this. About the others I first want to enquire. Please tell me what you know about their credentials, field and what they actually write. And of course, we need page numbers. 10. "as was practice" does not work. I guess you want to say that this was customary. 11. There is no reason for the Arab term to appear here. This is en.wikipedia. But I will retain the link "under" other words. 12. "Incident" see above for massacre. Also, quite clearly Arafat rejects the massacre, not the incident. 13. Your changes to the literature section are awkward and onesided. Thus, reverted.

Lest, I forget, you have included and re-deleted Ramadan passages. To get things clear: I am not opposing any inclusion of TR and thus you cannot use this to "appease" me. There are quite some things more important than TR (especially the points in bold):

• "The Banu Qurayza retreated into their stronghold. They endured the siege for 25 days, fearing the expected consequences of treason." - With the factual part I have no problems - I do with the claim about "treason", as this would necessarily endorse TR's view (especially the way you put it. So this stays out - since the 25 days are already included, it is best this whole thing goes.

(May I also note that this was the first time this appeared in the article, so its instant re-removal can't be "appeasing".)

And finally, the issue of "Deuteronomy". As I said, we first have to decide whether to include this issue by consensus. If we do, I will go ahead and include it in a balanced way. But currently, there is no consensus for it.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to compromise with you. I reverted all of my edits to your version, except the non-negotiables. By reverting the non-negotiables, you have rejected my proposed compromise. Now I will return to my the former version. However, I'm inclined to think that perhaps you are interested in compromise. Thus I give you a chance to self revert this edit. If you don't I'll go back to the former version, realizing that this dispute must be solved by the strictest application of wiki policies, not compromise. Regarding your above points, I'll respond to them later.Bless sins (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You really tried hard to compromise ... not. Time and again have I tried to reach for a compromise with you and to no avail. You had one shot (and I seriously AGF that you honestly sought a compromise) only to immediately return into battle-mode ... not because I reject your efforts but because I did not enthusiastically embrace anything you wrote.

As for non-negotiables, I have indentified two, whereas you apparently have a dozen.

Note also that you did not even try to respond to any of the points I raised in my posting above.

Of course, I will not self-revert and I think any such suggestion (except in the case of an accidental violation of 3RR) to be in bad faith as it basically means letting me push for your POV version. I you want to revert do it yourself, I cannot stop you. Neither can you stop me from doing the same.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"You really tried hard to compromise ... not." So apparently all these edits were not compromises. Well thank you for telling me that what I think is a compromise, is not a compromise in your view. I will now revert back. I was foolish to think that partially reverting to your version would be a "compromise" since you clearly disagree.Bless sins (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Partially reverting"? You must be joking. You even peppered up your version with Ramadan hate speech in order to then graciously take it back, while I actually addressed all your points and totally rejected only two of them (needless to say that I already had compromises on one of these). Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"You must be joking" I told you already, I write in a straightforward manner, and wished you'd do the same. "Ramadan hate speech". If you attack him one more time, I'll take this WP:BLPN again. And yes, I did revert myself to you version. Again, check out these edits. But apparently, compromises a "joke".Bless sins (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did revert on what you newly included. You did revert on some minor points. You still included the "vague speech" by Watt and the vitriol by Ramadan. Don't think you with all you said (and your violations of BLP) can scare me into complying. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Str1977:

1. The intro only lists fact (as stated by reliable sources) about Banu Qurayza's actions that led to its execution. I can also "insist" things, but ultimately the article must be in accordance with RS, not your insistence. Bless sins

1. So the intro only lists facts. Thanks for demonstrating your POV pushing. The collaboration is not fact. You and I agree that it happened in some way but that doesn't make it fact. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the early source Ibn Ishaq, the BQ did make an agreement w/ the confederates when Huayy met with the BQ chief and so far as I've seen, most sources agree with that. Again by the same means, it is well established that Sa'ad was given the right to decide the fate of BQ. With all due respect I ask what or where is the POV pushing b/c those points seem to be the only points of contention and they don't look incorrect or POV. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

How is listing facts "POV pushing"? "You and I agree" It doesn't matter what we think, but what reliable sources think.Bless sins (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How? When facts are not facts but opinions. That's how! Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Fact"="fact". "Opinion"="opinion". What you are saying (i.e "fact"="opinion") is absurd!Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is absurd but you are treating opinions that way. That's what I meant: you are masking opinions as facts and want to present them as facts! Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"you are treating opinions that way" No I'm not.

You were. Please stop now. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

2. I'm not sure whether Searjent accepts the historicity, only that you insist Searjent does. In any case, Searjents views here are relevant, esp. if Watt's are.

2. Hallo? It is totally irrelevant what S. thinks on the general agreement if he considers the special agreement to be factual (a claim that someone else included, I AGF on that) - not that it hurts much if S "irrelvant" (as opposed to his "relevant") view is included. Only it makes the sentence needlessly complicated. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"It is totally irrelevant what S. thinks on the general agreement" No it isn't. Even if he/she does consider the special agreement to be factual, this doesn't change his/her views on the a general understanding between Muslims and the Banu Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed S's views are not changed. But we are not here to include any blurp from S. but rather concisely and accurately report on an issue which is between those accepting and those denying the special agreement. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is neither inaccurate, nor repeated elsewhere in the article.Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, there is nothing wrong with mentioning Searjent with Watt b/c he is mentioned earlier in the same paragraph as well and so brining him back up briefly again with something he commented on has no wrong in it. However, the latter part should be removed b/c I doubt they knew they'd receive the sentence that they did. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

4. It's sourced to Watt. Are you saying Watt is lying? Are yous saying it is irrelevant to the topic? Cite a wiki policy for removing this.

4. I am saying the wording is vague and not useful for this encyclopedia unless someone wants to make the BQ look as bad as possible (and we know the outcome of this) - Watt and you apparently want to do this. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"the wording is vague" No it isn't. Its pretty clear. What part of the sentence do you not understand? And if you don't like Watt, keep it to yourself. Your bias against him is no reason for excluding material sourced to him.Bless sins (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course "practically everyone but" is vague. I never said I didn't "like" Watt but this slavish report of every word uttered from the lips of the master as practiced by you is plainly absurd. Especially in this case. If you worship Watt, keep it to yourself. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it vague? Again, I urge you to not bring into this discussion whom I worship and whom I don't. Those are my personal religious beliefs, and therefore none of your business.Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Practically everyone but" is vague: why only "practically" everyone and not just everyone? Is there someone that did not participate either but whose being mentioned would defeat the point of singeling the BQ out for blame? Quite apart from the fact that the BQ did not contribute to the defense effort in some way (at least I heard this here before, would have to dig it up)

If you don't worship Watt, than don't act like you do. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Practically" means "in a practical manner". Since you absolutely don't like that word, I'll remove it.Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Practically all" means "all that matter", what matters however is a POV judgment, especially if it is aimed at stressing the guilt of one group in order to justify their being massacred. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Watt is not stressing anyone's guilt. In any case, you're making baseless allegations against a very scholarly source.Bless sins (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My point stands. "Practically all" is vague language, no matter what the infallible Watt had in mind when he wrote it. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

5. They "tried to remain neutral" initially (or during the early stages) of the Battle of the Trench. This is not only from Watt, but I also found it Nomani, Lings, as well as other scholars.

5. Where is the problem?

6. Firstly you are attributing this to Ibn Ishaq. Does Ibn Ishaq say that the Qurayza "welcomed" Huyayy? I got the statement from Nomani. Secondly, we need not attribute this to Ibn Ishaq, as this is source to more reliable sources. Finally I never inserted in the article that Huyayy sought permanent residence (though I have seen sources that say this).

And on what source does Nomani base his narrative, pray tell? The wording is by Nomani but the subject is from Ibn Ishaq. If we cannot attribute this to Ibn Ishaq he has to go everywhere because we are not quoting him in Arabic and any translation is already interpretation. Also, you are not attributing it to Nomani, you are claiming it as fact by simply stating that the "BQ welcomed Huyayy". Also, what about Lings? You brought him up, now finish what you started. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no reply on Lings! Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no reply on Nomani! I've never inserted Lings as a source for this particular issue. If I inserted him into the article, then you could definitely ask me more. I've inserted Nomani, is there anything you want me to tell you about what he says?Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we settled Nomani. As for Lings you should have provided the interesting information you alluded to. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I alluded to that information. I'll provide it when I have the time. As far as I know Lings is not included in the article (in regards to that information), so this is not urgent.Bless sins (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

7. Please continue this at Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Discussion where I await your response.

7. There is nothing to discuss. You want to erradicate the word and I won't let you. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"There is nothing to discuss." So you don't want no discussion on the subject. Ok, your choice. IF you change your mind, leave a message at Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Discussion.Bless sins (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated that I see no reason to consider onfuscating the massacre. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note I'm responding to this issue here.Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

8. For now, I think Jedi Master has accepted some sort of compromise. I'll find some reliable content on this later and expand it.

8. No, it doesn't need "expanding" which probably means adding a lot of irrelevant details. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

8. Wikipedia is not paper, and we can always expand if content is sourced to reliable sources, and ofcourse is relevant to the subject.Bless sins (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It still needs to readable. If one looks for this article, one does not look for the workings within Abu Luhuhu's soul. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

One also does not look for Abu Lubaba pointing at his neck. (BTW, it is "Lubaba" not "Luhuhu". It surprises me that you can't even get his name right, yet you want to discuss him anyways).Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course one does look for this, as it was something that he told the BQ about the fate Muhammad had decreed for them. Again you show that you would rather have this piece of evidence gone or, if you can't have that, would neutralise it. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to remove the issue but give the entire story instead of only half of it. "would neutralise it" I insist we maintain neutrality in accordance with NPOV.Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no "half of the story" - we are not here to tell stories. We are here to cover what is relevant. AL's conscience is not directly relevant to the BQ. And my suggested comromise you consistently ignored until Mik removed it. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse we tell stories, or narratives. All of what we know comes from Muslim sources, orally transmitted until they were written down. Abu Lubaba's regret that he told Qurayza something that he shouldn't have is also relevant to Banu Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we tell stories or narratives then?

The narrative of this article is the history of the BQ, not the biography of Al. There it has not place in here, strictly speaking. All my attempts at compromise you ignored.

And BTW, it is spelled "of course". Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

9. Abu-Nimer is certainly a good source. The sources (including Abu-Nimer) are discussed at Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Abu-Nimer, where I await your response.

9. Abu Nimer is not qualified to speak on this. I await your information about the other sources. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm no longer responding to it here, but on Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Abu-Nimer.Bless sins (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Then don't. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

10. Are you denying that it is sourced? Are you saying it violates a wiki policy?

10. It is simply not meaningful English. I think there is a policy that requires that this encyclopedia is written in English. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So are saying that the words "as", "was" and "practice" are not English words?Bless sins (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As they are used, they are meaningless. They are also wrong without "among Muslims". It was not practice that the Ghatafan gave a fifth to a prophet. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says the Ghatafan didn't give 1/5 of their spoils to their leader? If so, I'd like to see it. If not you can't shouldn't talk about which you have little knowledge.Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so now it is my job to provide evidence for your claim? Quite brilliant! I won't do it for you. So far we have only evidence for this being a Muslim practice (which is also the only relevant thing). Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"for your claim"??? You claimed "It was not practice that the Ghatafan gave a fifth to a prophet". I never claimed that.Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop this twisting of reality: you used an improper, meaningless wording ("as was practice.") which I supplemented by adding "in Islam". I never claimed anything about the Ghatafan and couldn't care less about that tribe. You brought them up for reasons beyond my knowledge even though they are completely irrelevant. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You brought up the tribe on 07:44, 10 December 2007. Prior to that I didn't mention the tribe.Bless sins (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

11. What about the use of Hebrew words "Ha-aharon li-Venei Kuraita" and "kohanim"? Apparently you are ok with Hebrew words, but not ok with Arabic ones. Since when does wikipedia discriminate against Arabic?

12. These are used in reference to the article's topic (the BQ), hence are indispensable, and are also immediately explained. And please keep quiet just once about imagined discrimination. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

11. In other Hebrew words are ok, but Arabic words are not. And no, I will not "keep quiet". You don't own this talk page, and can't tell me to be quiet here. If Hebrew words are ok, then so are Arabic ones.

"These are used in reference to the article's topic". Yes, and Ma malakat aymanukum is used in reference to Rayhana, who was a member of the tribe of Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And Rayhana is not the topic of this article. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

She was a notable member of the Qurayzah tribe. If she isn't related to the topic, then we can remove her.Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

She is a notable member but she IS not the topic of the article. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying we shouldn't mention her?Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you read? No, I don't. I am saying we need not use incomprehensible Arab phrases in the visible text. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Can you read?" If I couldn't how would I be corresponding with you? If Arab phrases are to be removed what about Hebrew phrases?Bless sins (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It is you who suggested twice that Rayhanna should be removed. I am talking about such bad faith suggestions.

I am talking about incomprensible stuff, no matter whether it's Hebrew or Arabic. Only that the Arabic tends to get more and more on WP thanks to some editors. If you want to edit in Arabic, go to the Arabic WP. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

12. Why don't we refer to Arafat's work to see what he rejects?

Certainly not to some ambiguous, vague "incident" - if he uses the term he has made clear from the context what he means. He does not reject the historicity of the siege, not even of the enslavements. It is just the massacre he rejects because it is justifiable unpleasant to his moral sense. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think he uses the term "execution". Let me get back with the source. In any case we should use the most neutral term, not a term that implies cruelty and barbarousness.Bless sins (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "he denies that the BQ were killed on a large scale" Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll accept your version as a compromise. I hope this leads somewhere.Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

13. Front page mag (which you inserted) is not a reliable source. Nor is it appropriate to use Bat Ye'or, who has neither been used, nor whose work is about Banu Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So you can insert passage after passage from extremist Islamic writers but just one link to that mag is verboten. Also, Bat Yeor actually writes on the subject. Maybe we should include something from her. In any case, your argument presented here goes against the whole "additional reading" section, not just Bat Yeor! Why remove only here? The reason is plain to see. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"extremist Islamic writers". Who are you referring to? Please keep WP:BLP in mind when answering my question.Bless sins (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhuh, again you are trying to frighten me into bowing to your POV pushing. Well, there are actual extremists cited on this page and extremists is actually quited soft on them. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm admonishing you to observe WP:BLP. I'll repeat the question: Who are you referring to [when you say "extremist Islamic writers"]?Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you already threatened me with WP-legal reports, I will not give you material even though I don't think I have done anything wrong. The person in question is called such by sources outside of WP too. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you call me holding you accountable for your actions to be "threats" then so be it. You shall abide by wiki laws (as outlined by WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:BLP etc.) while you are here.Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And the same goes for you. You repeatedly threatened that you would report me if I didn't submit to your will. I will not accept this. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

BS' incessant use of partisan sources to forward POV's should be called to the attention of the wider community. I associate myself with Str's comments here. Arrow740 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you get tired of going around talk pages and accusing me of using "partisan" sources. You say that again and again and again. Come up with a new argument for once.Bless sins (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop saying you do it only if you stop doing it. Arrow740 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to reality, what is your opinion on a matter specific to this article. If you disagree with sources, name the sources.Bless sins (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BS, Arrow is right on this. You are adding partisan sources and you are removing sources contrary to your POV, as evidenced by Bat Yeor and the Frontpage mag. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BS' incessant use of partisan sources to forward POV's should be called to the attention of the wider community. I associate myself with Str's comments here. Arrow740 (talk)

A very odd statement coming from an editor that never adds informative content; he immediately jumps to the "controversy" or the "criticism" section. It's called POV-mining and its frowned upon. Moreover, Arrow's behavior in Islam and Islamic conquest of India reflect cute little methods that he uses to bypass 3RR (he simply adds a different POV source, rather than reverting). Certainly Arrow isn't in a position to be accusing others of partisanship. There is an overwhelming case against him, as well. However, I think you should watch your sources a bit more, Bless Sins (e.g. Cyberistan is not a valid source for NPOV material; internet sources should be used with suspicion in general). With that said, Bat Yeor, although technically a scholar, has opinionated writing that is overwhelmingly in the minority (particularly Euroabia theory). Bat Yeor's facts and sources are probably worthy of citation, but her opinions should not be treated as fact in an encyclopedia (and I wouldn't expect Arrow to be able to make that distinction). Encyclopedia's do not plug opinions, even if its the opinion of a scholar. Ideally, encyclopedias do not persuade; they inform. -Rosywounds (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rosy, I don't know what Arrow does elsewhere but if you have aproblem with him elsewhere, solve it elsewhere.

As for the points you make: internet sources are not more or less suspicious than printed workes - there is crap in both formats. Internet sources have the advantage of being easily accesible and hence the reference can be checked better. But of course, if an internet source fails WP standards it shouldn't be used.

As far as Bat Yeor is concerned, you should first read the article before commenting. She is not used at all right now but only appears in a "Further reading" section along with other books. If we used her, we would of course have to conform to NPOV. However, that hasn't been a problem with her (as we haven't used her) but with other writers of different persuasions. The BY dispute above only concerned BS's removing of her from the "Further reading" section while retaining all other books. That seemed like eliminating unpleasent authors.

Any inclusion would also not concern Eurabia - as they BQ are certainly not involved in this. Also "technically a scholar" - we have other writers that are technically scholars pushed into this article by BS, so using BY would be only fair. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Frontpage mag has been debunked as an unreliable source several times by consensus on WP:RSN. Ye'or is not relevant to this subject (I haven't seen her write extensively about the Qurayza).Bless sins (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Debunked by whom? Debunked as what? It is a valid though not perfect source to link to. Also, I think it insultingly hypocritical to say such things and then introduce extremist Ramadan. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow's addition

Arrow, you should represent your source accurately. Your author says that Qurayza were allied to Muslims but refused to fight, though Qurayza lent their tools. Next, he says that they were deeply offended by Muhammad's message. This is different from what you wrote. The author appears to say that to justify why they didn't fight. You are putting it before Qurayza lent their tools. This changes the meaning of the phrase. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How? Arrow740 (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The author says that they were allied to Muslims but refused to fight. Then he says that they were offended. This makes sense. But you write that they were offended therefore they helped which doesn't make sense. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Read it again. There is no "therefore." Arrow740 (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The "although" that you started your sentence with was not in the source. You further changed the natural order of the sentence.--Be happy!! (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in the article didn't exist until I wrote it. Arrow740 (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Therefore" is not the same as "although", Aminz.

To say that the BQ were offended and therefore furnished tools indeed sounds insane (though people sometimes act insanely).

To say although they were offended they furnished tools is perfectly sensible and at least to me there seems no misrepresentation of the source.

I have some more questions: does the source say that the BQ were asked and refused? Or were they not even asked? Did they simply provide the tools? Has he any source material that has the BQ proclaimn their being offended for their refusal (assuming this) or is that the historian's take on things? This has to be clearly separated. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To the the Qurayza were offended, so they didn't fight is probably what the author is getting at.Bless sins (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my questions. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The source says the matter in the following way: Although the Qurayza were allied to Muslims but refused to fight though they lent tools. They were offended because of the Qur'an.

Arrow rephrased this as: Although they were offended, they lent tools. This now sounds different.

The source simply says that although Qurayza were allied to Muslims but they refused to fight. My understanding here is that he thinks Qurayza alliance required them to fight but they refused to do so, otherwise "refused to fight" would not make any sense to me. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Aminz (or whoever), could you please quote the source here on the talk page. I do not want to hear what the author was probably getting at but what he says and how far this is taken from the sources or his one analysis.

Arrow's version seems identical contentwise regarding the things he says (offended - provided tools), though not in the things he omits.

Str1977 ^(talk) 11:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now edited it along these lines: that they non-participation is a fact, that their furnishing tools is a fact and that the motive for their non-participation is the author's interpretation - I certainly have not found it in any source I have seen. The active "refusal" I have replaced with non-participation until a reference for an active refusal is shown. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Siege and "aftermath"

"Massacre" in the headline here is a pretty blatant violation of WP:NPOV. BYT (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is currently subject to mediation.

"Massacre" is only accurate, not a violation of POV. "aftermath" however is a violation of sensible wording period. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Was the decision to drop a bomb on Hiroshima a massacre? Does the word belong in a headline there? If not, why not? Also, can you please provide a link to the mediation? BYT (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I've got it. The fact that it's under dispute certainly does not require us to bolt the word "massacre" into the headline here until the mediation concludes. If an admin locks down the article, of course, that's a different matter. In the meantime, please address my question above if you feel it's important to retain this wording. The talk page is active, the article is as well. BYT (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reason the word "massacre" is "bolted" into the headline is because there is no suitable alternative ... at least not one that has found universal acceptance. However, I proposed "demise" and we will see how this will go. "Massacre" BTW is the most accurate term imaginable.

For your Hiroshima question, go to the Hiroshima article. It is of no concern to this article here. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Help me out, though -- are you saying that any large-scale killing of combatants constitutes a "massacre"? BYT (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiroshima or the BQ - in neither case we are dealing with combatants.

A massacre is the large-scale killing of a mass of people by another group of people outside of a battle. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see that definition anywhere I looked, but let's leave that question alone. Help me understand why, specifically, you feel the word is "the most accurate word imaginable" for use in this headline, as opposed to any other word that you and I could discuss? I've put forward two alternate phrasings, and neither seems to appeal to you.

Are you saying we are somehow duty-bound to use "massacre" for each and every situation that conforms to your definition? Would we be duty-bound to use it, for instance, in a headline about the documented Israeli use of white phosphorus against children hiding in bomb shelters? In your view, would such a use be appropriate in a headline? BYT (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

See tu quoque, then stop using that logically fallacious argument. Arrow740 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Arrow, for the note. I am still uncertain about why Str1977 feels that "massacre" is the "most accurate word imaginable" for a headline, and is unwilling to discuss any of the alternate phrasings I've put forward. BYT (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That actually doesn't appear to be a tu quoque; he is simply providing a similar situation in which neither of you would agree to similar terminology. Str1977 has so eloquently provided a (his) definition of a massacre, and BYT is now demanding that it be applied universally. Perhaps that may be disagreeable to you, Arrow, but it's not a fallacious demand to make. Moreover, there are no objective criteria to define what a massacre is, therefore, the word represents a POV since the term is organically ambiguous. This was already discussed in a mediation on this article or a related one earlier, I believe. The most accurate word possible is not "massacre"; the most accurate wording would be "### were killed." That ought to be common sense... If certain editors have such compromising biases that they would insist "massacre" is the most "accurate" word, then perhaps an RfC would be able to settle this. Quite frankly, it's a nonsensical and childish rebuttal. The only time the term "massacre" is ever appropriate is if the event is appropriately titled as such amongst the majority of mainstream scholarship and media outlets (e.g. the My Lai Massacre). This event is not; even if a minority of scholars do note it as a "massacre," it would still be undue weight to cater to that minority by addressing the entire event as a massacre in general. Even the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which dwarfs this event in comparison, took HEAVY debate in order to use the term "massacre" in its title, despite the fact that ALL media outlets refer to it as such. The term "massacre" should be used if that is what people generally know it as; it should not be something that Wikipedians came up with (original research) or that a polemicist said (unreliable source/POV). -Rosywounds (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a hypothetical "tu quoque" because I have not and do not edit the Hiroshima article. If BYT accepts my definition, he may go ahead and apply it elsewhere. If not, why does he ask. In so far, it is fallacious as Hiroshima is of no concern to this article.

"Massacre" cannot be replaced by "### were killed" ... just look at the grammar. "### were massacred" I did already replace by other wordings but in the nominal form required of the section header there is no alternative that would express the same content. (The alternative "demise" is on another level.)

"Massacre" is not an ambiguous term but a valid word describing an event such as this. Oh, and yes, the traditional term for this event (as evidenced by the title of the picture) is "massacre of the BQ". Str1977 ^(talk) 16:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The title of the picture was given by an illustrator, not BBC, CNN, a theologian, a Middle East scholar, etc.

2. There is no objective criteria to denote what is or is not a massacre; moreover, the term has a negative connotation in the English language. The term is only applicable if this event is generally characterized as such. Since this event isn't generally known as the "Banu Qurayza massacre," one has to wonder whether or not the term is POV. As I already told you, the Sabra and Shatila massacre is called a massacre because that is how it is generally known amongst the media and amongst scholarship (and amongst every day people that want to search the event online).

3. It is not a tu quoque; he proposed a hypothetical situation, not a personal attack, and you refused to respond to his question. If you were editing an article on the Lebanon War in 2006, for example, you did not respond as to whether or not you would consider the use of cluster bombs in Beirut to have led to a "massacre" of returning Beiruti citizens. You have defined massacre; therefore, the word massacre now has limits and boundaries. The use of cluster bombs fits within those boundaries. The bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima fit within those boundaries. None of those events, however, is widely considered a massacre. Thus, the term massacre DOES NOT have objective criteria as you have claimed.

4. The Banu Qurayza tribe allied themselves with the Meccans during the battle, which violated the constitution of Medina (the constitution demanded Jewish/Muslim cooperation). The word execution would actually be more accurate, since the Jews violated a pact that they had agreed to; and, as this article says, they were "charged" with treachery. "Beheading" would be equally accurate since, after all, that is the method in which they were killed. Better yet, the term "Aftermath" would be the best title, since that is what that entire section is about (the aftermath of the battle). The word aftermath is probably the most commonly used terminology on Wikipedia for similar events; I can probably go find some examples for you if you wish. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1. So you are disputing the title of the picture? What is the real title?

2. It is quite clear what a massacre is. That massacres are not looked upon favouredly in the English-speaking world is no reason not to call a spade a spade. Ah, and yes, the event is generally known as a massacre.

3. I refused to respond to his question? He has no business asking me this question as I do not edit these articles. What goes on there is of no concern to this article.

4. It has been discussed ad nausea, that a) the nature of the agreements between the groups within Yathrib (not a stupid Jewish-Muslim dichotomy) is not so clear, b) that there has been no trial regarding the guilt of the BQ in general or as individuals. c) "Behead" is used in some places, d) "Aftermath" is actually the worst of the worst and will never be accepted. You might think the muder of 600 people no big deal and only fair - that's your thing - but other will not accept it. Their wounds were not that rosy. e) I am in no way interested in any further conversation with you. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The title of the picture comes from Charles Rieu, Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum, London: British Museum Publications for the British Library, 1977, p.211. In point of references, the two columns of golden flame (one seated on a throne in the back and the other in the foreground near the "action") are abstract representations of Muhammad and Ali, respectively, a common feature of period Islamic art. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, please see Wikipedia's policies on civility and assume good faith. Secondly, beheading is not used in the title, and that's what we are talking about. The nature of the agreements are not clear, but the only sources available do suggest that agreements of some sort did exist. This is a fact that you must accept, sorry. There had been no trial, but they were punished for allying with an enemy and were hence "charged" with treachery. The title of the picture is not disputable; using the title of a picture to determine the title of this article section is disputable. You haven't provided a sufficient amount of sources to prove that this event is widely known as a massacre; as I already suggest, articles like Sabra and Shatila massacre use a massive collection of sources to verify its name. I didn't say the killing of 600 was necessarily "fair." Don't put words in my mouth. Moreover, what *I think* or what *you think* is irrelevant to this article; perhaps someone needs to tell you that before you start editing. -Rosywounds (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And you are talking about AGF here? Str1977 ^(talk) 01:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Question for Brian Gotts

Brian -- do you believe this reversion to be a minor edit?

From Help:Minor edit: "A check to a minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."

Clarify, please. Is your reversion, above, an example of a version that "could never be the subject of a dispute"? BYT (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see [54]. The minor edit mark was automatically applied by WP, not by me. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But yes, I see calling the wholesale killing of prisoners (not combatants) a "massacre" as something not subject to reasonable dispute. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

They were combatants. As was found, they had no shortage of weapons, nor were they hesitant in the least when they were approached to attack the Muslims. The non-combatants (women and children) were not killed.Bless sins (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

They were not ... or rather they were only because Muslims made them combatants. Muslims besieged their homes so were they not entitled to defend themselves? It is perverted to think that the fact that Muslims attacked a group gave them the right to murder the group afterwards based on their resistance. Before you ask, I don't think that Muhammad and his fellow Muslims entertained that perverted idea: they rather said the BQ committed treason and therefore should be killed. But that is something different from what you claimed. Oh, and BTW, the innocent womena and children were not "not killed" but they were ENSLAVED. Are you saying that punishment innocents a little less harsh is just?

PS. Don't remove the gap between this and early postings. 17:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Brian -- that is the very point under dispute in mediation, so I hardly see why you would conclude that it could "never be the subject of a dispute." It seems to me that the exception you are citing falls under the category of reverting WP:VANDALISM. It reads: "The intended use of the rollback feature is for cases of vandalism." Frankly, I resent the implication that I vandalized the article. If that is what you believe I did, could I ask you to explain why it is that you feel that way? BYT (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say it can't be used for other things, BYT. Let's focus here. Arrow740 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BYT, Maybe Brian was not aware of the mediation going on (just speculating) ... after all you were ignorant of it as well. Or maybe he accidentally checked the "minor" box. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. By the way, I've now proposed two rephrasings of the headline in question. There seems to me to be no clear reason (or consensus) to retain your "massacre" version in the article during mediation, and no explanation from you clarifying why the options I've put forward are somehow more biased than "massacre." BYT (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Massacre" is most accurate. "Aftermath" is vague and meaningless. "Execution" has its own problems (verdicts are executed, strictly speaking, not people) and implies a judicial proceeding, as does punishment. Sorry if you haven't found any explanation but you have come quite late into a long discussion and these things might be new to you but other editors have discussed them countless times. Please, don't expect me to repeat everything again. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, I notice that you just reverted without comment here. Is there a specific reason that you don't want to discuss this? BYT (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

BYT,

Though it is not forbidden to "revert without a comment", I usually do leave a comment on talk if there is discussion going on. And I have commented here.

Or do you mean edit summary? Again, it is not forbidden ... but I usually do. However, I never leave meaningless edit summary. "As per talk" seems meaningless as you wrote a lot on talk.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. Did you mean your ""Possibly. By the way, ..." posting? As I reverted, I wasn't aware of it. Hope it settles this matter. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do have another question. We know now that "massacre" doesn't work for me and at least two other editors, and that the two versions I have proposed don't work for you. What specific wording do you suggest to get us through until mediation yields a (presumably) better outcome? Again, there is no earthly reason for us to hold on to any version of the headline now that does not have consensus, which clearly "massacre" lacks. BYT (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

None, this is subject to mediation and until medition finds a solution, I will not enter into another, informal medition with other editors on this. Especially, since totally unacceptable wordings are pushed by these. The suggestion made on mediation is there for everyone to read and for parties to the mediation to accept. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I'm still unclear as to why, as mediation plays out on this obviously disputed matter, you feel your version must be the default setting for the article. Is it just a personal aesthetic conviction, or is there some other reason? It can't be because "massacre" has consensus. BYT (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course you are free to disagree and voila we would have an edit war.

"My version" happens to be the status quo, happens to be accurate, happens to be supported by many editors of this article as well (though not all are active right now).

"death sentence" again implies a judicial nature of the whole event and actually does not cover the actual massacre, or - in other words - the execution of the "death sentences". Neither does it cover (and here BS would agree) the women and children that were enslaved. So this would become "Siege, defeat, and death and enslavement sentence".

However, thanks for taking into account that this might be disputed. I appreciate that. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. Though BS has not yet explicitely accepted "demise" as the non-temporary consensus, I will include it here according to my statement on the mediation page. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"happens to be the status quo, happens to be accurate, happens to be supported by many editors of this article as well (though not all are active right now)." False. The version deletes a lot of sourced material, misrepresents the sources included, and is not supported except by drive by a reverter who doesn't engage in discussion on talk (like Arrow740).

You should know that nothing on wikipedia is permanent. If it was we wouldn't have the "edit" links. Anyways, my acceptance of demise (which, by the way, I included in the article) is conditional upon your rejection of "massacre" as POV.Bless sins (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, come one BS, we heard your old nonsensical song before.

BTW, you did not come up with "demise", you rejected or ignored it various times, you couldn't even bring yourself to accept it explicitely in the mediation.

Still, since you reverting everything to your POV pushing mess but the section header I take it the agreement on this still stands. Don't disappoint me, BS. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what song you are talking about, I never wrote one. Please stay on topic.

Regarding "demise", am I not the first person to put it into effect?[55]Bless sins (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

BS, please stop insulting other people's intelligence and educate yourself about expressions in the English language. "Your song" is what are you are repeatedly saying here on talk even though you know that it has been discussed time and again and found wanting.

No, you explicitely rejected it here on talk page. You were very slow to acknowledge it in mediation and never brought yourself to formally accept it as the permanent solution. Stop claiming things contrary to the truth here. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop making false allegations. A song is a musical composition. I think most sane-minded individuals will agree. I never composed any music.

I repeat: I was the first person to put the term "demise" into the article. This is the truth. One can say things all he/she wants, but actually acting is a far more significant thing.Bless sins (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

BS, stop your BS. Look up metaphor.

After and while opposing it for a long time. Do not try to portray yourself as the one who brought the solution as "demise" was actually my suggestion. Just stop it, okay? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A comment from an outsider

I understand there's a dispute over two versions here. [56] I see NPOV problems with both versions, with one side attempting to put forth Islamic apologetics, the other side attempting to attack Islam. Let the facts speak for themselves. Examples:

What the Muslim armies actually thought:

The tribe's collaboration with the invading armies during the Battle of the Trench was considered treacherous...

— Bless sins's version

How can anybody know that? Str1977's sentence is more neutral:

the tribe was charged with treachery and collaboration with the invading armies...

— Str1977's version

What the Jews actually thought:

...and knew the consequences of treachery.

— Bless sins's version

Historians can't peer into the minds of the Jewish tribe at that time. They can only speculate on what happened.

With that said, the sources Bless sins used do appear to be reliable. You can't negate a person's authority on Islamic history just because they don't specifically specialize in "Islamic history." The sources provided are at least as reliable as Daniel C. Peterson, a Mormon proselytizer for a school with a reputation for poor scholarship. Also, Frontpage Magazine is an unreliable source, but that's OK, so long as it's just provided as an external link -- not as a citation. WP:RS only applies to sources cited, not external links. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The tribe's actions have been considered treacherous by not only the Muslim army but by scholars as well.

Regarding the lead: "Let the facts speak for themselves" was proposed by Aminz earlier (see Talk:Banu_Qurayza#my_2c). Str1977, however, was reluctant to discuss this. If he/she wishes I'm willing to re-open the discussion.

Also regarding "peer into the minds". We have Stillman speculating as to the reasons due to which Muhammad chose Sa'ad to pronounce judgment. Surely Stillman couldn't have looked into Muhammad's mind?Bless sins (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed any mention of "treachery" from the lead, as the article does not seem to discuss this at length.Bless sins (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, we ought to make use of the Britannica's summary of the events which gives the most notable facts, neutrally.

When it was discovered that members of the Jewish tribe Qurayzah had been complicit with the enemy during the Battle of the Ditch, Muhammad turned against them. The Qurayzah men were separated from the tribe's women and children and ordered by the Muslim general Sa'd ibn Mu'adh to be put to death; the women and children were to be enslaved.

— Encyclopedia Britannica

Bless sins (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There may be some scholars that believe that, but that's an opinion, not an assertion of fact. "Treachery" is a loaded term. Nobody knows for certain if Islam is true or false, and there's disagreements over whether early Islam was peaceful or spread through conquest. Whether or not betraying Muhammad is "treachery," is a subject of opinion. The claim that they even definitely did knowingly betray him is itself in dispute, with sources provided. Making the jump to, "AND THEY KNEW IT WAS TREACHERY!" is blatant POV-pushing. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knows for certain if Islam is true or false - Thats not the issue of dispute here though (I hope).

The claim that they even definitely did knowingly betray him is itself in dispute, with sources provided. - From just looking at "Arrow740's version", its only 2 sources and those at best keep it very vague as to what was going on. There are plenty of sources however to the contrary that say otherwise. The original source itself, ibn ishaq, who is given even in "Arrow740's version" says that they did realize that they'd be breaking their agreement w/ someone who was always fair in agreements to them and when the Muslims came to see whether they were still with them, the BQ responded negatively towards them.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"there's disagreements over whether early Islam was peaceful or spread through conquest." That's completely false. The Islamic state spread through massive conquests starting with Muhammad. Conversion was the result of oppressive social policies, see dhimmi. Arrow740 (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Islamic state spread through massive conquests starting with Muhammad. - If you didn't notice, he mentioned the spread of Islam, not the Muslim state. Islam was spread through various emissaries and teachers sent around the world to various kings and tribal leaders. Even regarding conquest, any outside Arabia territory gained during the time of Muhammad (saw) was not taken forcefully including Yemen, Oman, and Bahrain.

Conversion was the result of oppressive social policies, see dhimmi. - maybe you should read the other article regarding dhimmi treatment , Pact of Umar, which states that many western scholars consider the agreement to be a creation of much latter caliph dynasties, not something authentic from Caliph Umar himself or something implemented in early caliphates. The article dhimmi itself is not always very specific what time period or place certain rules were applied.. If you want to use something confirmed and specific regarding the early conquest though, look up The Umariyya Covenant and tell us how oppressive that sounds.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat you are misunderstand the issue. The statement "and knew the consequences of treachery" is about general treachery/betrayal. The authors do not refer to the later events when making the statement. Also we have attributed this statement to scholars, and we are not stating it fact.

Bless sins (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"With that said, the sources Bless sins used do appear to be reliable." The main problem was the way there were employed.

"You can't negate a person's authority on Islamic history just because they don't specifically specialize in "Islamic history.""

I don't think anybody ever did this.

"Also, Frontpage Magazine is an unreliable source, but that's OK, so long as it's just provided as an external link -- not as a citation."

And we haven't used it for a citation but as a link. However unreliable it might be, some Islamist writers employed here probably should be seen as mirroring this.

"The tribe's actions have been considered treacherous by not only the Muslim army but by scholars as well."

But we have to attribute it to those actually raising the charge.

"Regarding the lead: "Let the facts speak for themselves" was proposed by Aminz earlier (see Talk:Banu_Qurayza#my_2c). Str1977, however, was reluctant to discuss this. If he/she wishes I'm willing to re-open the discussion."

Stop your obfuscation. We are mostly restricting us to facts but what we do not want is a onesided presentation of facts. Anyway, such a discussion in general is pointless - must be done regarding specific passages and so it has been handled.

"Also regarding "peer into the minds". We have Stillman speculating as to the reasons due to which Muhammad chose Sa'ad to pronounce judgment."

That's a scholarly observation and clearly marked as conjecture. The problem with the "Jews knews the result of treachery" is a) that we do not know (Ramadan for instance would advise us differently) b) that this endorses the charge of treachery.

"I have removed any mention of "treachery" from the lead, as the article does not seem to discuss this at length."

That's untrue. We discuss at lenght the obligations derived from the various pacts and the breaking of it. That justifies the inclusion of the charge of treachery.

"Also, we ought to make use of the Britannica's summary of the events which gives the most notable facts, neutrally."

No, we need not necessarily need to employ text from the most overrated encyclopedia in the world. BTW, is this the 1911 or the modern version? However, you may well argue why we should include some detail. AFAI can see everything in EB is already in here as well, save the wrong title of Sad.

""Treachery" is a loaded term."

No at all. Treachery is an accusation and is no less "loaded" than murder. The important thing is that WE do not call the BQ treacherous but only report the opinion of others.

"Nobody knows for certain if Islam is true or false"

That has no bearing on the question of treachery. This is about political allegiance. Whether they did commit treachery that is the matter of dispute.

"and there's disagreements over whether early Islam was peaceful or spread through conquest."

That's irrelevant to our article as we need not make such general observations. BTW, Islam clearly spread through conquest but Arrow has already stated that. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again I call for the lead to be based upon facts, just as Aminz proposed. Does Str1977 agree?

"That's a scholarly observation". Serjeant's observation is also scholarly.

"I don't think anybody ever did this." You did. You said Abu-Nimer wasn't a reliable source, because he wasn't specifically a specialist in "history".

"However unreliable it might be, some Islamist writers employed here probably should be seen as mirroring this." I don't see any Islamist writers, and won't unless you name them.

"But we have to attribute it to those actually raising the charge." There are many scholars who are saying this charge.

"We discuss at lenght the obligations derived from the various pacts and the breaking of it." Then perhaps we should discuss the pact. As far as I can see we are not discussing treachery at any significant length.

"most overrated encyclopedia in the world" this is your opinion. It is, in fact, rated high, but it deserves that rating. Britannica presents mainstream knowledge that is reliable and notable. Academic scholars also present mainstream knowledge that is reliable, but often the details aren't necessarily notable (atleast not notable enough for the lead).Bless sins (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is you who is twisting the intro to fit your POV pushing. And no I didn't do what you claim - I deny Abunimer's suitability because he is no expert in "history". The Islamist is your Muslim brotherhood friend Tariq Ramadan and you know that. The treachery (or lack thereof) is the result of our treatment of the pacts. EB doesn't deserve nothing. They are not even able to give the correct plural of the word "tribus", despite being told about their mistake. WP, with all its faults, is still better because here mistakes can be corrected in an instant. Regardless of that, I will not give my hand to rewriting what has come a long way towards a good article just to include a Britannica wording. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote

We have quite a long quote in this article from Ibn Ishaq, and it starts as follows: "Ibn Ishaq describes the killing of the Banu Qurayza men..."

What is the reason for including this? I know that Str1977 expresses very much distaste for such quotes (as he expressed on Battle of the Trench, where we quoted the most reliable source).Bless sins (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we included it in order to avoid any quarrell about how to describe the massacre.

BS, I do not dislike just any quote. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That is what I suspect. It appears you leave this quote since it presents a POV different from Watt is presenting. Is this correct? IF not, you have not provided a reasonable explanation to include this quote.Bless sins (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A possible difference (which I do not see) between the source and Watt is not my problem. Stop making bad faith assumptions. And stop claiming compromise when there is none. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be avoiding the question: why do we need an Ibn Ishaq quote, and what is the quote's notability. Ibn Ishaq, along with other medieval scholars, have quite a bit to say about the Qurayza, why this quote in particular (that happens to show a different POV)?Bless sins (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So what exactly is YOUR objection against the quote?

To me, it nicely relates the events. The quote also avoids any suggestion that a summary would be POV. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This quote gives unnecessary emphasis to some of the events which can be construed according to a particular POV. In a time when we refuse to mention Abu Lubaba's gestures, I find it strange to talk about such trivial details. A summary would be much better. After all, have we not written the entire article without quote-farming?Bless sins (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is quite a central event in the BQ's history not a trivial detail. Using a quote avoids introducing anachronisms or POV leanings (be the pro- or anti-massacre). As you raise AL, I think you are probably only complaining to get back to me. Therefore I will no longer take your complaint seriously. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure its a significant event. But what about the quote, is it significant as well? Come up with some sources to show that. And Abu Lubaba is a major issue here, one that is being discussed at the mediation. That you will not take the views of others seriously is getting to be a problem. Apparently you've stopped taking wiki policies seriously as well.Bless sins (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not the view of others (let alone wikipolicies), not even your views in general but this particular issue. After months of dealing with this article you suddenly come up with this but cannot even clearly state your problems with the quote. What is wrong with the quote? Str1977 ^(talk) 01:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, reading the quote I remembered that another source, Ibn Kathir, states that around 400 were killed, not 600-900. Should we add his passage in too? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We should definitely add the information. Also, I am not clinging to the quote - I only questioned BS's reasons for removing it. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Demise" misleading

The term "demise" implies that the Banu Qurayza died by themselves rather than being slain after having surrendered.

Siege, surrender, slaying and slavery would probably be the most appropriate title. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, demise does not necessitate whatever you just said, its a broad term for end of something which is what happened to the Banu Qurayza.

And we've already been through those setup of titles on this talk and in mediation and none were agreeable to everyone, changing it over and over is not going to do anything either.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to skip "surrender" and to call the slaying "demise". You and they had argued over the original title that read "massacre". 80.179.192.75 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to skip "surrender" and to call the slaying "demise". - Demise includes their surrender and dissolve; like I said, demise does not necessarily and/or literally implied death.

You and they had argued over the original title that read "massacre". - yes and we came up with this compromise which we agreed was not POV but it give a general understanding of what happened, that after this the BQ tribe was dissolved in more ways than one.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Demise" in no way indicates slaying after surrender. It is therefore necessary to correct it. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 80.179.192.75 (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Never said it did. We've all made our points and all sides have agreed to "demise", stop repeating the same thing over and over again and most importantly, stop disrupting the article. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Demise indicates that the tribe in substance came to an end at the time (not every single member of course).

It was a compromis solution avoiding words unacceptable to some editors, me included - words like "punishment" (implying guilt), "execution" (implying a real verdict and also bad as a word) - as well as the word unacceptable to others: Massacre.

"Slaying after surrender" is not fit for a header anyway for stylistic reasons - we need to be short.

The SSSS solution proposed above really sucks already because of the alliteration and includes to too many things at once. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest two titles: Siege and surrender for the first paragraph and Slaying and slavery for the rest of the story. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear 80..., you are welcome to register here and to bring up the issue on the ongoing meditiation which resulted in the wording "demise". Str1977 ^(talk) 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The "demise" solution came after a long debate. Unless anyone (specifically 80.179.192.75) have reaaaally good reasons to change it (like tens of academic scholarly sources, for example) we'll stick with what we have now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bless sins (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The existing title Siege and demise is inadequate and misleading while the recommended titles Siege and surrender for the first paragraph and Slaying and slavery for the rest of the story are accurate and appropriate. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just repeating over and over something doesn't mean it will happen; address the points responded to you or stop this. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no alternative but to correct the misleading title "Siege and demise". 80.179.192.75 (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)