Talk:Banu Qurayza

"client"

It's unclear to me what is meant by the word "client" in the article. I think the term needs to be introduced or explained. sbump (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Revise

This is the portion that needs revision;

"Early history Extant sources provide no conclusive evidence whether the Banu Qurayza were ethnically Jewish or Arab converts to Judaism.[1] Just like the other Jews of Yathrib, the Qurayza claimed to be of Israelite descent[3] and observed the commandments of Judaism, but adopted many Arab customs and intermarried with Arabs.[1]"

1) There are customs in the middle east, common to all semitic peoples. For example arranged marriages, and "equal tribal exchange;" that practice was done by the ancient Hebrews, the Ishmaelites, the Babylonians, the Sumerians basically, everyone who was semitic. You can't adopt, something that is already part of your culture. Although there were tribal differences, customs across all semitic groups were fundamentally the same.

2) Even in pre-Islamic times, the Arabs were a fiercely proud people, and past the time of Jacob and his sons, Ishmaelites did not marry Hebrews. The Arabs of pre-Islamic times were fiercely proud, and fierce sectarian, so intermarriage was highly unlikely. Indeed, Arab sectarianism has in fact done a lot to damage the health of Misrahi Jews; because of heavy inbreeding, many Misrahi Jews suffer from genetic diseases, and often have them at even higher rates than ashkenazim. In Israeli hospitals, the overwhelming majority of still births, tend to come from the misrahi community. Misrahi babies tend to be stillborn, because they did not mix much with the Arabs, whose considerably larger numbers has let them get away with inbreeding for years. Within the Arab genepool, the population was large enough, and varied enough, because they absorbed many semitic tribes, that suffering from the effects of inbreeding has been minimal. Congenital birth defects are common in Saudi Arabia, but not nearly so common, as they are among Misrahi and to a certain extent, Sephardic Jews. I say that Arab sectarianism has damaged the health of middle eastern Jews, because their refusal to let daughters or sons marry Jews, forced many to inbreed to survive and keep themselves alive as a separate tribal group. The reason some misrahi Jews have lighter colored skin, has nothing to do with them having European blood but rather, it is albinism that results from heavy, unhealthy inbreeding. To a certain extent, albinism due to inbreeding also occurs among the Arabs; some even have blonde hair.

3) A healthy semitic person's skin color, ranges from light olive (roughly the same shade as a southern Italian, or a Cretan or Cypriot Greek), to dark, reddish olive (like with Egyptians). An unhealthy semitic person, will have a skin color that looks "unnatural." How can I put this another way? Light skin, is natural and healthy, to people from northern Europe, but in the middle east, if someone does not have European, Northern Iranian, Kurdish or Armenian blood, then light skin IS NOT healthy, its a sign of heavy inbreeding.

One of the biggest health concerns of the Arabian peninsula outside wounds inflicted in war, are congenital birth defects; in Saudi Arabia, congenital birth disorders are by far the biggest headache faced by doctors there. Also, for all its rapid population growth, many Arab families in the Arabian peninsula often have women that give birth to babies that are stillborn, that is babies born dead, because of some genetic defect caused by inbreeding. Year by year, in virtually all Arab countries, the number of stillbirths is steadily increasing. At the current rates, semites, as a people, will likely become extinct within the next 1,000 years.

Once again the lighter skin seen in the middle east lately IS NOT healthy; a semitic person is supposed to be dark.

Its okay for ashkenazi Jews, because they have European blood in them, the semitic in them is only around 3 to 10%. In other words lighter skin is normal for them; however its NOT normal for a semitic person with little to no European admixture.

Please look more deeply into Arab sectarianism, and revise the article if you so wish it.

67.148.120.72 (talk)stardingo747 —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC).

And who says so? Under which authority do you speak? Let me just note:

• Sumerians are not a semitic people and a claim that some custom is common to all these peoples is a big claim indeed.
• The question whether the BQ were ethnically Jewish is is not about intermarriage - if a whole Arab tribe would have converted to Judaism they would then be considered Jews, regardless of any objection by other Arabs to intermarriage.
• Birth disorders and other headaches are irrelevant here!
• You can also spare us racist staments like "the lighter skin seen in the middle east lately IS NOT healthy; a semitic person is supposed to be dark."
• Semites are a language family, not a race. Hence juxtaposing Semites and Europeans based on skin-colour is wrongheaded!
• This is also the reason why "semites as a people" cannot become extinct - they are not a people!

So please leave this article alone. Thank you very much! Str1977 ^(talk) 19:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Demise

The use of the word "demise" in the heading came after a lengthy discussion and mediation (Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Banu Qurayza). The mediator summarized it as "Everyone agrees to using Demise in the heading". The word was a compromise between "massacre" and "execution" (both of which were objected to by various parties).Bless sins (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That was three years ago, and it appears the mediation was terminated without resolution. In any event, you've reworded it so neither word is used, haven't you? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The mediation didn't find resolution on several issues, but there was an agreement between Str1977 and I over the use of word demise. That's long-standing consensus.Bless sins (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The mediation was three years ago, and did not appear to discuss the use of the word in the lede. In any event, you've reworded it so neither word is used, haven't you? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It seemed to have discussed the words' general use in the article (except when part of a title). That consensus, though 3 years ago, hasn't been discussed or challenged since. Also, I don't see either of the words being used.Bless sins (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad with "(sm)" after

Why is "(sm.)" included after every mention of the name Muhammad? This is an encyclopedia, not a religious text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.75.240 (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Only occurrence of (sm) that I can see in this entry is "Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad (Sm.): A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah", which is a book title used as part of a reference. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I see it everywhere the name Muhammad is mentioned. Elchip (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, checked again and it appeared in a few places, but not consistently. Also, it looks like the citation I mentioned above is incorrect as the actual book title doesn't use that mark. I checked and that change was introduced in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=541310040&oldid=541072143, reverted now. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A proposal to merge Invasion of Banu Qurayza back here is under discussion

And it's happening here: Talk:Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza#How_is_this_not_a_POV_fork_of_Banu_Qurayza.3F Your thoughts are invited!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Deuteronomy? How?

What significance is there to the accidental similarity of the sentence given the Banu Qurayza and Deuteronomy? There is no known causal connection and none of the sources are claiming that there is. This is a comparison to another religion or aspects of that religion that has nothing to do with the subject. It's also a comparison to atavistic aspects of Deuteronomy prior to developments of Ezekiel. Is the purpose to show that Muhammad was a throwback to an earlier ethos? If so, this should be in the analysis section as it is commentary, not history. It is "undue weight" to use such comparisons that reflect the interests of a minority of authors who have other agendas aside from discussing this episode in Muhammad's life. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The significance of this observation is that it recurs in discussions of this episode. I'm not going to speculate about the authors' intentions beyond what they wrote, aside from noting that there is perhaps a "strategic" ambiguity in how this parallel is drawn in apologetics. I agree that it belongs in the analysis section. Eperoton (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about what you mean when you say there is a "strategic" ambiguity. But I'm glad that we agree that this is not part of the canonical story. If we don't know why authors are making this comparison, why repeat it? For example, we do have Ash-Shafii supporting "collective punishment" based on this episode. It was Ezekiel that later introduced individual responsibility and the abolition of collective punishment in Judaism. An article on comparative religion or "collective punishment" could compare the evolution of this concept in different religions but that would be a synthesis here. (By the way, those authors who refer to regional standards at the time provide appropriate context--and we have five of them.) Let me leave this for your consideration. The weight and placement has been considerably improved. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think we can make a good guess as to the motivation underlying this comparison: apologetics. What I mean is that we can't read the authors' mind and tell -- to sketch out the possible rationales in broad strokes -- whether the exact motivation of the parallel is to suggest that the judgment may have been informed by the Torah, or that the Banu Qurayza "got what they deserved" or simply to point out "similar things one finds in other scriptures". By "strategic ambiguity", I meant that perhaps the authors themselves wanted to leave it up to the reader to make their interpretation. I do think we do need to report what these sources say, though. In a perfect world, we would have sources to place everything in its proper context and correct every misleading statement found in another source without synthesis. This sounds like a reasonable solution given the available sources. Eperoton (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thought about sharing some sources that state that Saad's vedict was given according to the rules of Banū Qurayzah’s own religion, specifically the Book of Deuteronomy (20:10-15):

1. Ahmed al-Dawoody, The Islamic Law of War. (don't have the book at my hands right now will give the page if you're interested)
2. Muhammad Hammīdullāh, Muslim Conduct of State: Being a Treatise on Siyar, That is Islamic Notion of Public International Law, Consisting of the Laws of Peace, War and Neutrality, Together with Precedents from Orthodox Practice and Preceded by a Historical and General Introduction, rev. & enl. 5 th ed. (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1968), pp. 241 f.; Hammīdullāh, Battlefields, p. 3, footnote no. 1;
3. Ahmed Zaki Yamani, “Humanitarian International Law in Islam: A General Outlook”, Michigan Yearbook of International Legal Studies, Vol. 7, 1985, p. 203;
4. Marcel A. Boisard, Jihad: A Commitment to Universal Peace (Indianapolis, Ind.: American Trust Publications, 1988), p. 38;
5. Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1991), p. 232;
6. P.J. Stewart, Unfolding Islam, 2nd ed. (Reading, Berkshire: Garnet Publishing, 2008), p. 85.

--TalkJizya (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Taking exact phrasing of a quote out of context is misleading. No source claims ibn Ishaq tells us that Deuteronomy was used to determine the sentence. The word "according" has this implication when the word is taken out of context. Which source states that Islamic texts give us evidence that Deuteronomy was being used? At best a few tell us that the sentence was consistent with Deuteronomy and we shouldn't imply a further causal connection. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jazon from nyc: You're levying certain claims without providing sufficient evidence. You're saying, "it's out of context" without showing how a whole phrase from different multiple source all using nearly the same terminology is "out of context". Your comments are also astoundingly incomprehensible, no "source claims ibn Ishaq tells us that Deuteronomy was used to determine the sentence", but how is Ibn Ishaq the only source of the history/biography of the Prophet Muhammad? No, the word "according" doesn't have that implication, stop trying to do the bush around the beating. It doesn't matter which Islamic source state that Deuteronomy was used, what matters is that we have a bunch of reliable sources all stating that this was the case. If we used "Islamic source" as a metric most of the things stated in this article would have been deleted, such as the Western scholarship and the academic papers on this subject, something that we'll agree (I hope) can't be sustained. No, at best all sources tell us that this arbitration was according to Deuteronomy. --TalkJizya (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It's up to you to prove that the wording is appropriate since you made the bold change (it was perviously "coincided with"). The phrase "according to" can mean something as weak as “in conformity with” or as strongly as “as directed or required by” [1]. Until you show us the sources prove Sa'ad was directed by Deuteronomy we should keep the consensus version whereby we only note that the verdict "coincided with." Jason from nyc (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: Stop lying, it's you who first made these bold edits without any justifications https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=736724567&oldid=736700834 which @Eperoton: reverted (rightly so!)

I already gave you plenty of sources that state that "Sa'ad's verdict was according to Deuteronomy"and not "Sa'ad's verdict coincided with Book of Moses", and here they are

1. Ahmed al-Dawoody, The Islamic Law of War, Palgrave Macmillan, p.27.
2. Muhammad Hammīdullāh, Muslim Conduct of State: Being a Treatise on Siyar, That is Islamic Notion of Public International Law, Consisting of the Laws of Peace, War and Neutrality, Together with Precedents from Orthodox Practice and Preceded by a Historical and General Introduction, rev. & enl. 5 th ed. (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1968), pp. 241 f.; Hammīdullāh, Battlefields, p. 3, footnote no. 1;
3. Ahmed Zaki Yamani, “Humanitarian International Law in Islam: A General Outlook”, Michigan Yearbook of International Legal Studies, Vol. 7, 1985, p. 203;
4. Marcel A. Boisard, Jihad: A Commitment to Universal Peace (Indianapolis, Ind.: American Trust Publications, 1988), p. 38;
5. Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1991), p. 232;
6. P.J. Stewart, Unfolding Islam, 2nd ed. (Reading, Berkshire: Garnet Publishing, 2008), p. 85.

I will revert your edit per WP:BRD, have a nice sunny day --TalkJizya (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

al-Dawoody says, “It is pointed out that this sentence was given according to the rules …” suggests the weaker sense of “coincides" is appropriate. Hammīdullāh explicitly uses the weaker sense “in conformity with”. Links uses "coincided exactly with" in a footnote. Thus we should use the weaker sense and I'll restore the consensus. Stop edit warring and please argue your case. I shouldn't be doing your work for you. You need to make the argument. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] This is a difficult case. Let's step back and examine the sources more closely. There are few sources here that meet the WP:RS threshold based on the author or publisher, but for WP:WEIGHT we also need to check the authors' credentials. Of the citations we have, Peterson is the only academic specialist in the biography of Muhammad. Al-Dawoody is an academic specialist in Islamic law. Others are not mainstream academics or specialists in more distant fields: Martin Lings, Marcel André Boisard [2], Philip Stewart [3], Ahmed Zaki Yamani. We should also take into account that not a single academic specialist in Muhammad's biography has, to my knowledge, argued for this connection. Now let's look at the phrasing.

 Perhaps with some apologetic intent, the late English scholar Martin Lings notes, correctly, that Sa`d's judgment accords with that of the law of Moses as recorded in Dunt. 20:10-14. See Lings, p. 232 n. 1. Daniel C. Peterson. Muhammad, Prophet of God (Kindle Locations 2627-2628). Kindle Edition. 

 It is pointed out that this sentence was given according to the rules of Banū Qurayzah’s own religion, specifically the Book of Deuteronomy (20:10–15). Footnote: See Ḥammīdullāh, Muslim Conduct of State, pp. 241 f.; Ḥammīdullāh, Battlefields, p. 3, footnote no. 1; Yamani, “Humanitarian International Law in Islam,” p. 203; Boisard, Jihad: A Commitment to Universal Peace, p. 38; Lings, Muhammad, p. 232; Stewart, Unfolding Islam, p. 85. Al-Dawoody, The Islamic Law of War, Palgrave Macmillan, p.27.

TalkJizya's phrasing, based on al-Dawoody, implies assertions both about intent and the Jewish law. The intent part seems to refer only to Boisard and Stewart, and the part about the Jewish law only on Boisard and Hamidullah (I don't have access to Yamani's text). This is in contrast to assertion of similarity to the Torah without these implications, which is shared by multiple sources. It seems to be undue to use phrasing that reflects only an argument from a source (Boisard) that is very weak, arguably non-reliable in matters of early Islamic history and a summary in one RS.

As a side note, it's disappointing to see al-Dawoody, whose book is largely devoted to examining the relationship between scripture and law make such a sloppy statement relating to the Jewish law. I see nothing to suggest that Jewish law had anything to say on the subject in that era. Suzanne Last Stone writes in The Jewish Law of War "Halakhic rules governing the conduct of war are equally contested and rudimentary. [discussion of Maimonides] But, for the most part, Jewish law developed few rules of battle." (Just Wars, Holy Wars, and Jihads: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Encounters and Exchanges, OUP). Michael Walzer has a more extensive discussion here [4] (pp. 108-110). Reuven Firestone gives a concise summary of the big picture here [5]

 To summarize, biblical Judaism appears to have quite a bloody military record. Rabbinic Judaism has virtually none. Simple historical contextualization suggests a simple and logical reason this great about-face in Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism remained quietist and innocent because it was rendered absolutely incapable of being militant. [...] Islam, like biblical Judaism, emerged out of an environment in which it was required to fight in order to survive. Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity, on the other hand, emerged out of an environment in which they were required to refrain from fighting in order to survive. p. 81

If we were to use phrasing that implies an assertion about Jewish law, we would need to cite additional sources to correct it. Eperoton (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: The sources are clear, al-Dawoody source says "It is pointed out that this sentence was given according to the rules of Banu Qurayzah's own religion, … Deuteronomy (20:something)" --TalkJizya (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I discussed that sentence. It implies only the weaker sense of "being consistent with" and not "being directed by." We should make that clear by using the words "coincide" as more careful authors do. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I think you made a basic mistake here, al-Dawoody's Islamic Law of War is a reduced version of his Phd thesis, in which he omits references for the sake of brevity, in his Phd thesis he references

1. Muhammad Hammīdullāh, Muslim Conduct of State: Being a Treatise on Siyar, That is Islamic Notion of Public International Law, Consisting of the Laws of Peace, War and Neutrality, Together with Precedents from Orthodox Practice and Preceded by a Historical and General Introduction, rev. & enl. 5 th ed. (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1968), pp. 241 f.; Hammīdullāh, Battlefields, p. 3, footnote no. 1;
2. Ahmed Zaki Yamani, “Humanitarian International Law in Islam: A General Outlook”, Michigan Yearbook of International Legal Studies, Vol. 7, 1985, p. 203;
3. Marcel A. Boisard, Jihad: A Commitment to Universal Peace (Indianapolis, Ind.: American Trust Publications, 1988), p. 38;
4. Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1991), p. 232;
5. P.J. Stewart, Unfolding Islam, 2nd ed. (Reading, Berkshire: Garnet Publishing, 2008), p. 85.

Which are all reliable references. Martin Lings is, contrary to what you purported, the author of a famous, widely acclaimed and award winning biography of the Prophet. Many universities still employ it in their academic courses on Islam. Ahmed Zaki Yamani's article is in a peer reviewed journal, it is also a reliable reference, obviously. Muhammad Hamidullah is undoubtedly a professional and expert in what relates to Prophetic biographies, he's the one who found manuscripts coming from (the then thought to be lost) Ibn Ishaq's biography and who edited and published them, he also wrote many books on the Prophet and his biography including a book fully dedicated to military missions during his life. If there's an expert here it's without doubt him.

--TalkJizya (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what mistake you refer to. There's no difference between al-Dawoody's thesis and book on this point, aside from formatting. We have to distinguish reliability, which relates to WP:V, from prominence, with relates to WP:NPOV. Reliability is about what sources can be used. Prominence is about how we reflect them, so as to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". I hope you aren't arguing that a viewpoint of someone who has no professional credentials in history like Yamani is equally significant as viewpoints of leading academic specialists. Eperoton (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I talked about the number of references, you only quoted a few when he quoted much more in his thesis, since, as pointed above, that was made for the sake of brevity. I didn't argue for that, I argued that here we have a view that is frequent. The dispute here is not on whether we should reflect that view, but on the wording, whether it's "coincided" or "was ... according to". --TalkJizya (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like you misread al-Dawoody's footnote, but that's not important. Anyway, the phrasing referring simply to similarity to the Torah is supported by all the citations, while the phrasing you propose is supported by only some. We could specify which authors express which viewpoints, but I don't see how these particular assertions are "significant" with respect to the sources that make those arguments. The phrasing about the "rules" of Judaism comes from Boisard and Hamidullah. What authority do Hamidullah (certainly a prominent Islamic scholar) or Boisard have to speak about Judaism? What authority do Boisard and Stewart have to speak about Sa'd motivations? Eperoton (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: No, I did not misread al-Dawoody's footnote, here's his footnote in his Phd thesis:

1. Muhammad Hammīdullāh, Muslim Conduct of State: Being a Treatise on Siyar, That is Islamic Notion of Public International Law, Consisting of the Laws of Peace, War and Neutrality, Together with Precedents from Orthodox Practice and Preceded by a Historical and General Introduction, rev. & enl. 5 th ed. (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1968), pp. 241 f.; Hammīdullāh, Battlefields, p. 3, footnote no. 1;
2. Ahmed Zaki Yamani, “Humanitarian International Law in Islam: A General Outlook”, Michigan Yearbook of International Legal Studies, Vol. 7, 1985, p. 203;
3. Marcel A. Boisard, Jihad: A Commitment to Universal Peace (Indianapolis, Ind.: American Trust Publications, 1988), p. 38;
4. Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1991), p. 232;
5. P.J. Stewart, Unfolding Islam, 2nd ed. (Reading, Berkshire: Garnet Publishing, 2008), p. 85.

As I said, it's not about Judaic Law, it's about how Sa'ad perceived it, and how he made that verdict. And that's the subject, which relates to biographical elements of the life of the Prophet. And here, for example, Hamidullah is undoubtedly relevant here as such an expert. --TalkJizya (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Check the footnote I quoted above again - all the five ciations are there, with details in the bibliography. Hamidullah is quoted by Kister as follows: "This arbitral award was in conformity with the Jewish personal law [...] In the case of the Banu Quraizah, it was the arbitrator of their own choice who awarded exactly what Deuteronomy provided." These are statements about the relationship of the verdict to Jewish law, with some ambiguity, while the phrasing "given according to the rules" implies intent. Do you wish to quote Hamidullah on "conformity with the Jewish personal law" so we would have to cite RSs showing that this is utter nonsense? Eperoton (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you clarify exactly your last concern? Why are you too afraid to instead of quoting other sources quoting other sources, quote these last sources? = in this case Muhammad Hamidullah, Battlefields, p.3, footnote n 1 : "... the prisoners of war of the battle of Banu Quraizah, who were not killed on the battlefield, but after the surrender and at the decision of the arbitrator of their own choice who applied to them their own Biblical law (Deuteronomy, XX. 13-14) and their own practice (cf. infra 206)." I'm not a super duper hyper ultra expert in English, but I'm pretty confident that "applied to them" gives the sense of intent.

--TalkJizya (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for tracking down that quote. So, it looks like Hamidullah does think there was intent and we'll need to quote him directly with separate attribution, since "biblical law" is not the same of "rules of their religion". Eperoton (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that quote. I only see "In the case of the BanG-Quraiza, it was the arbitrator of their own choice who awarded exactly what Deutronomy provided ..." [6] Overall, giving undue weight to a single citation when all others only state that it is "consistent with" or "coincides with" requires justification. There's no discussion of how the practice of Judaism in Arabia is unique in this regard given the changes in Judaism over the preceding 1000 years, and long after Deuteronomy. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: NOOO, that quote was from his book BATTLEFIELDS and NOT his book MUSLIM CONDUCT OF STATE "... the prisoners of war of the battle of Banu Quraizah, who were not killed on the battlefield, but after the surrender and at the decision of the arbitrator of their own choice who applied to them their own Biblical law (Deuteronomy, XX. 13-14) and their own practice (cf. infra 206)." --TalkJizya (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No, did you suddenly forget the other sources and particularly Ahmed al-Dawoody who was pretty explicit on that point (without even mentioning the references he gave in that relevant footnote)? --TalkJizya (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Al-Dawoody doesn't make that argument himself. He only cites other authors, and misleadingly at that. We can't interpret primary sources ourselves per WP:OR, but we can certainly use secondary sources directly. What other significant viewpoints do you think the new version doesn't adequately reflect? Eperoton (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if you were to levy that claim, al-Dawoody states "It is pointed out that..." meaning that such statement is mentioned in the references he gave. The new version completely ignores that, as do Hamidullah is the only one who stated that, and all of this because you're too busy checking sources discussing other said sources instead of actually looking directly into these sources. --TalkJizya (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I've checked all the sources he cited, except Yamani, whose viewpoint is not significant here. Did you? Eperoton (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that after the Hamidullah, Battlefields episode. I don't have enough time to go through all the sources (working still on the jizya article, and as you may know, translations take an awful lot of time), what I'm saying is that the al-Dawoody source very clearly points out that this decision had an intent element in it, and the references he gave point to that. We shouldn't disregard that. Furthermore, you seem to be violating WP's fundamental premise. We don't look at a premise and check for sources confirming it, rather we look for all the relevant verifiable source and try to illustrate them in an encyclopedic way, something that you didn't do, as the Hamidullah, Battlefields episode constructively shows. --TalkJizya (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You're accusing me of lying now? How about you read carefully what I wrote above, including the hyperlinks I gave to those sources. As for the rest, I have no idea what you're referring to. Eperoton (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Editors are doing extensive work vetting your sources. Cherry picking the source you want over all others isn't the way to write an encyclopedia. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Which specific part are you referring to? --TalkJizya (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: It seems @Eperoton: was the one who did some effort, at least. --TalkJizya (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

And here's another one from Muslim scholar and expert on Prophetic biography Shibli Nomani: Sirat-un-Nabi, vol.2, pp.119-121. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkJizya (talk • contribs) 18:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Instead of sending us on a goose chase, how about giving us a link (as I give you when I want to discuss a passage)? Most of the literature doesn't mention Deuteronomy. Of that that does, most only note the similarity between words and verdict. Rarely does an author claim that Deuteronomy was a basis. Even then they don't explain why they came to that conclusion (i.e. their sources or reasoning.) You're giving extreme undue weight to a few sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

So all the sources I gave are "few". So accurate... --TalkJizya (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, WP:WEIGHT remains a concern. I know enough about the mainstream academic perspective on this subject to identify Boisard's take as WP:FRINGE in that context. I don't know enough about traditional Islamic views to assess the prominence of the notion that Sa'd consciously applied Deuteronomy, but from what I know it doesn't seem to be commonly held in that mileu. Furthermore, at the moment, our treatment of it is based on a one-sentence treatment of the topic by an author who used a different phrasing in another book, and it's not entirely clear this meaning was intended by even that author. The word "applied" suggests intent on the part of the applier, but this isn't made explicit (one can apply something inadvertently). I would encourage TalkJizya to find an unequivocal citation from another prominent Islamic scholar. This is a notable episode from early Islamic history, so if this view is at all prominent, it shouldn't be hard to find a clear expression of it. I'll tag the sentence in the meantime. Eperoton (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

See here https://books.google.is/books?id=SzRLCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT335&dq=%D8%B3%D8%B9%D8%AF+%D8%A8%D9%86%D9%88+%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B8%D8%A9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AB%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%D8%B3%D8%B9%D8%AF%20%D8%A8%D9%86%D9%88%20%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B8%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AB%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9&f=false

But at this point, since you can't even appreciate or realize how authoritative Muhammad Hamidullah's src, since he's the guy who EDITED IBN ISHAQ, you know that biography that is the center of research in Western academia? At a point in time when it was thought to be lost! he wrote dozens of books on the Seerah. In the larger scheme of things, debating this article has been a tremendous time sink and the debate just doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I think I will take this occasion to WP:DISENGAGE. I think there have been too many contradictory viewpoints here and not enough cooperative spirit to reach a consensus, without mentioning the POV fork, the push on WP:PEACOCK language ("goes as far as to say", HOW DARE HE!!!)...etc. I'll concentrate for the time now only on the Jizya article. --TalkJizya (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Editors have done extensive work reviewing your sources. Wikipedia editing consists more than just being "copy monkeys" as Jimbo once put it. It requires context and Eperoton (who've I'm disagreed with several times) has done a yeoman's job in reviewing the wider context. A dismissive attitude is not in keeping with WP:GOODFAITH. As Hamidullah expresses himself differently in different books, it would be prudent that we not state a conclusion about his definitive viewpoint. As he doesn't have an extensive discussion of how the Judaism in Medina differs from that practiced elsewhere at that time in the world, we aren't clear how he concluded that Sa'ad reverted to a biblical Judaism of 1000 years prior. It's prudent to leave this speculative sentence out. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Hmm, no. Ibn Ishaq was "edited" by Ibn Hisham and this version was never thought to be lost, while Ibn Ishaq's original still is. You're probably thinking of Sahifah Hammam ibn Munabbih. Anyway, you're missing the point, which is not whether or not Hamidullah is a prominent scholar, but rather whether or not what he wrote on the subject is a clear indication of the view that Sa'd consciously applied biblical law. The text you just linked to also contains only an ambiguous, impersonal formulation ("came entirely in accordance with"). I'm skeptical that this view is held by traditional Islamic scholars not only because I haven't seen it expressed unequivocally. The traditional doctrine of Quran's miraculous nature commonly presupposes that even the grand biblical narratives weren't widely known among the Arabs of Muhammad's time. How well would that sit with the suggestion that an Arab with no special connection to Judaism had detailed knowledge of the archaic biblical law of war? So, the question remains open. Eperoton (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: No, Ibn Ishaq's original Seerah was much larger, Ibn Hisham removed many elements from it, Hamidullah actually found the original manuscripts of Ibn Ishaq which was thought to be lost (and that only Ibn Hisham version remained). I'm not thinking about Sahifat Hammam, which is a Hadith collection that has no relation to Ibn Ishaq. You're also misinterpreting here many elements, it is unanimously known that Sa'ad was the ally of Banu Qurayza's tribe, and he had knowledge about their law (and not biblical narratives). So where is this presumed contradiction? --TalkJizya (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: Do you know what WP:DISENGAGE means? --TalkJizya (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ping you and I'm not obliged to be silent. I'll work with any editor who seeks to reach a consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have more information about Hamidullah and Ibn Ishaq, I'd be interested to hear it on my talk page. It seems to contradict common knowledge, but there are few things I like more than correcting misconceptions, including my own. Likewise, if you can find citations from prominent Islamic scholars where this view about Sa'd intent is expressed in unequivocal terms, I'll be happily proven wrong. Eperoton (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This once was discussed years ago with no conclusion. There was once a consensus not to include this assertion as a case of undue weight given to a fringe position. However, time and again editors have also tried to restore this. I'm neutral as to wether to include this or not but if included, a passage on actual Jewish jurisprudence must be included as well. I have restored this passage as it once existed. It can be tweaked of course but not removed, unless the whole paragraph goes. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banu Qurayza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070520021754/http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/misc/qurayza.html to http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/misc/qurayza.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: USER "Eperoton"'s deletion followed by comment @ 20:59, 16 September 2018

"Summarizing" the views of many scholars does not equal misquoting those scholars. What you just called "summarizing" attempt in fact amounts to misrepresentation of those scholars' position. Consider your statement that "Watt argues that the treatment of Qurayza was regular Arab practice," which ignores Watt's very next comment: "but on a larger scale than usual." Surely, anyone can see what huge difference your exclusion of Watt's clause just mentioned entails.

Ditto with your comment where your treatment of the scholars looks more like driving a herd of cattle: "Similar statements are made by Stillman, Paret, Lewis and Rodinson."

Rodinson, just to give ONE example, has a nuanced judgement on this inhuman incident. After examining the so called mitigating circumstances in his "Mohammed," Rodinson states "Details emerge even from these very texts which make it difficult to accept the Prophet's innocence (pp. 213). Likewise, in his "A Critical Survey..." (p. 77, note 142), Rodinson is critical of Paret's remark that this incident shouldn't be judged in light of our moral conceptions. Thus it is simply WRONG to bracket Rodinson's nuanced judgment in some allegedly "similar statements."

The scholarly way; -- rather the ONLY way; -- is to avoid such "summarizing" attempts altogether and quote the scholars verbatim. Let their views be quoted accurately and presented faithfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khasif746 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Khasif746: If this article doesn't summarize their positions accurately, that's certainly something we want to fix, but the policy-compliant way to fix it would still be to summarize their views, accurately. Short inline quotations are ok if they help to convey the point more efficiently than summarizing it in our own words. Quoting them all at length would lead to a WP:QUOTEFARM, and giving some views more prominence than others through long quotations would also be against WP:NPOV. If you have access to the sources and can provide quotations in the refs or links to online versions, I'd be glad to help summarize them per MOS:QUOTE. Eperoton (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Banu Qurayza.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

One source does not contain any of the claimed story

It's written on this article that a muslim woman got assaulted and {Guillaume 363} is one of the sources.
But after reading it multiple times I found no story like that on the page (363), and the story is completely different.
Here the page if you're curious
https://archive.org/details/GuillaumeATheLifeOfMuhammad/page/n203/mode/2up
So I changed the text to match what was written in the source.
But a user, HistoryofIran always revert my edit and doesn't want to cooperate when asked to provide any proofs such as screenshots or photos of the sources' pages he claimed.
It appears like we can just write anything on references as long as people don't notice that it's untrue, huh?
Arief1982 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I've already explained it to you well enough [7]. This seems either like a heavy lack of WP:COMPENTENCE, or WP:JDLI. Please understand how citations work (WP:CITE). This should also be of help; WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Lol, why did you edit your statement? why did you remove my comment? You already explained well enough? lol, here's the screenshot if anyone is curious
https://i.ibb.co/Yc6kntN/aaa4.jpg
And here's the screenshot of the claimed source {Guillaume 363}
https://i.ibb.co/n0zw7bL/5555.jpg
Arief1982 (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Sigh, I literally just linked the discussion... --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah the discussion with my last comment deleted by you.
You called that explanation? pfft..
Here, read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fictitious_references
If any fictitious references are found on a page, they, and any information they solely support, shall be immediately removed upon discovery. Arief1982 (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the intended reference is to Guillaume, page 751, note 568. It credits the start of hostilities to an assault on a woman. This is the work of Ibn Hisham, not Ibn Ishaq.

Guillaume, page 363, only states that Muhammad collected the Banu Qaynuqa' in the market-place and threatened them. This is the work of Ibn Ishaq himself.

Al-Waqidi (tr. Faizer, Routledge, 2011), pages 87-88, refers to both incidents. However, he states that the meeting in the market-place was first. This engendered resentments, in the context of continuing which the woman was assaulted.

So the three earliest sources do not exactly disagree with one another, but each is crafted to present a particular point of view.Petra MacDonald (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

HOWEVER, I don't see how it is relevant to this article.

The confrontation in the market-place and the assault on the Muslim woman were both connected with the Qaynuqa' tribe.

This article is about the Qurayzah.

I know they both begin with Q, but they are not the same tribe.Petra MacDonald (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, well it was still besides my point. And what is fictitious exactly? Do mind you need proof for such claims. HistoryofIran (talk)

The mythology of the Banu Qurayza incident

This article is not considered a good article because of it demonstrates a biased perspective with fundamental deficiencies, both factual and logical. Walid Arafat's groundbreaking 1976 JRAS article, convincingly demonstrates the mythological nature of the account of the massacre of the Qurayza tribe with a thorough exploration of the facts and fallacies, further exemplified by Muhammad Munir's 2016 paper in the Islamabad Law Review which rebuts M. J. Kister's 1986 attempt to dismiss Arafat's thesis. Past Wikipedia contributors, relying heavily and uncritically on orientalist, derivative or dubious accounts, have inexplicably overlooked both Arafat's and Munir's peer reviewed contributions to the literature in the process. In the first instance, almost everyone refers to Ibn Ishaq's biography of the Prophet which is known to be unreliable because of its fabrications - the Banu Qurayza account therein conflicting with the account given in Surah Ahzab in the Qur'an - and reason, besides being contradictory and imprecise. Compounding matters, the motives of the Prophet throughout the Wikipedia article concerned are consistently couched in negative or pejorative terms demonstrating an ideological bias against him and conflicting strongly with what would be fair and just in the case of someone confronted with the same or a similar situation. This page therefore requires a significant rewrite to update its content - if not then maybe two pages on the same subject might be appropriate; thereby leaving in place the current page complete with major deficiencies as is, supplemented by a second page mainstreaming the mythological nature of the incident based on the findings of modern scholarship. 2A0C:5BC0:40:10E8:CAD9:D2FF:FE15:3A28 (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Fred Donner and Tom Holland's statements

@Louis P. Boog You added to the article text:

Historians Fred Donner[113] and Tom Holland[114] cast doubt not on the scale of the killings, but on their having happened at all, arguing that existence of the tribe and its slaughter is at odds with a more reliable document known as the Constitution of Medina. ...

However in the page that you cited (page 73), what Fred Donner actually says is:

For example, whereas the traditional sources describe in great detail his conflict with the three main Jewish clans of Medina—the Qaynuqa, Nadir, and Qurayza—none of these clans is even mentioned in the umma document. How are we to interpret their omission from the document? Is the umma document's silence on them evidence that the document was only drawn up late in Muhammad's life, after these three Jewish tribes had already been vanquished? Or were there once clauses (or other documents) that were simply lost or that were dropped as irrelevant after these tribes were no longer present in Medina? Or should we interpret this silence as evidence that the stories about Muhammad's clashes with the Jews of Medina are greatly exaggerated (or perhaps invented completely) by later Muslim tradition—perhaps as part of the project of depicting Muhammad as a true prophet , which involved overcoming resistance of those around him? These and many other questions remain to be resolved by future scholarship.

Clearly, Donner is merely presenting possibilities as to why those three prominent Jewish tribes are not in the Umma document (also known as the Constitution of Medina), and the first possibility he gives actually acknowledges the existence of those three Jewish tribes, and that the constitution was only drawn up after those three tribes' elimination by Muhammad. The second possibility is that the document is flawed, with missing parts. While the third possibility is that those three Jewish tribes did not exist at all. Yet again, these are merely possibilities he came up with, and nowhere does he say that the third possibility is the most likely. So clearly the text you included misrepresents the source. Also, nowhere does he say that the constitution of Medina is more reliable than the reports that mention those three Jewish tribes. In fact, FYI, the primary source of the constitution is actually Ibn Ishaq, and Ibn Ishaq along with other Sira and Hadith scholars also record the story of those three Jewish tribes, in detail. So if all the accounts that mention those three Jewish tribes are false, then of course the Constitution of Medina is also false. Regarding the Tom Holland source you cite, the version I have access to does not have pages numbered. Could you take a photo or screenshot of them so I can check it? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 20:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

replying to one of your points. Link to my edits you deleted.

nowhere does he say that the constitution of Medina is more reliable than the reports that mention those three Jewish tribes

Here is a quote from Donner's book

"... the agreement between Muhammad and the people of Yathrib described earlier, known as the umma document, seems to be of virtually documentary quality. Although preserved only in collections of later date, its text is so different in content and style from everything else in those collections, and so evidently archaic in character, that all students of early Islam, even the most skeptical, accept it as authentic and of virtually documentary value.

Without more research it looks like you have proven me wrong, and Donner was "merely presenting possibilities as to why those three prominent Jewish tribes are not in the Umma document". None the less, the fact that

a) Banu Qurayza and the other two clans are not "even mentioned in the umma document", and that

b) at least some scholars consider the document "of virtually documentary value", and that

c) at the very least some writers state as fact that the Umma document was written the same year as the hijrah, i.e. from the beginning of Muhammad's stay there before the Banu Qurayza were killed (for example):

The year 622 which is known as the year of migration or the hijrah set in motion two important Islamic events. Chronologically, this is the year that starts the Islamic Calendar. Politically, this is the year when the Medina Constitution was agreed upon and written into law.

... raises questions about should merit a mention in the article.

P.S. I do not own a copy of Tom Holland's book, the online copy is very different from the one I used. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog: Please read WP:OR. For every addition you make to an article, there must be reliable sources that directly support it. From the quote you brought up, I don't see Donner saying that the Constitution of Medina is more reliable than all the accounts that mention the three Jewish tribes. Saying that something uses an older style of language is not the same as saying that something is more reliable. Many of the Hadith and the Sira are reports that were transmitted orally from generation to generation and later collected into books, so it is only natural that the language style follows the changes of the times, whereas for the Constitution of Medina document, it is likely that Ibn Ishaq copied it directly from an existing text, so it is not surprising that the language style still retains the old style. As for Khan L. Ali, he does not even meet the WP:IS criteria, which is one of the WP:RS requirements. By the way, R. Stephen Humphreys actually has provided a fairly comprehensive summary of the issues concerning this Constitution of Medina:

It is disputed whether [the Constitution of Medina] is a single document or a collation of several, at what point it (or its component parts) was drawn up, whether it is a unilateral edict or a negotiated settlement, who the principal parties to it were. It is not even clear how it should be translated, so obscure and ambivalent are many of its key terms. Finally, because the rest of the tradition regarding Muhammad's life (including the Qur'an itself) is so bitterly contested, we do not have an agreed upon documentary context within which the Constitution might be interpreted.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 05:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa: Let me quote Donner again,

Donner

The umma document raises many perplexing questions in view of the traditional sources’ description of Muhammad’s relations with the Jews of Medina. For example, whereas the traditional sources describe in great detail his conflicts with the three main Jewish clans of Medina— the Qaynuqa’, Nadir, and Qurayza — none of these clans is even mentioned in the umma document. How are we to interpret their omission from the document? Is the umma document's silence on them evidence that the document was only drawn up late in Muhammad’s life, after these three Jewish tribes had already been vanquished? Or were there once clauses (or other documents) that were simply lost or that were dropped as irrelevant after these tribes were no longer present in Medina? Or should we interpret this silence as evidence that the stories about Muhammad’s clashes with the Jews of Medina are greatly exaggerated (or perhaps invented completely) by later Muslim tradition— perhaps as part of the project of depicting Muhammad as a true prophet, which involved overcoming the stubborn resistance of those around him?

Rather than deleting my edits couldn't they have been toned down to say something like "Scholar Fred Donner notes that while "the traditional sources describe in great detail his conflicts with the three main Jewish clans of Medina— the Qaynuqa’, Nadir, and Qurayza — none of these clans is even mentioned in the umma document", and while noting the document or version we have may have been drawn up after the tribes were no longer in Medina, wonders if one way of interpreting "this silence" is "as evidence that the stories about Muhammad’s clashes with the Jews of Medina are greatly exaggerated (or perhaps invented completely) by later Muslim tradition".

Wouldn't that have been directly supported?

Holland

Here is a link to the unnumbered page from In the Shadow of the Sword: The Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global... by Tom Holland, taken from Google books. If anyone has trouble with that, there is a screenshot of the page just below this link to my talk page.

In talking about the fate of Banu Qurayza and the other two tribes, Holland is pretty clear that the traditions are questionable, and not just because of their lack of mention in the "constitution". The tribes had

"initially ... given their backing to the Prophet, and then after turning fractious, to have been variously driven into exile or massacred and dumped into pits. Yet there are serious difficulties in accepting this tradition as true. It is not simply that the three Jewish clans mentioned by the historian do not feature anywhere in the Constitution of Medina. There is also another, and familiar, problem: That our only sources for the annihilation of these Jews are all suspiciously late. Not only that, but they date from the heyday of Muslim greatness: a period when the authors would have had every interest in fabricating the sanction of the Prophet for the brusque slapping down of uppity infidels. Certainly, if it were truly the case that entire communities of Jews had been expelled into the desert or else wiped out by Ishaelites in a bloodbath, then no contemporary seems to noted it. This, at a time when Jews, just like Christians, had never been more alert to the propaganda value of martyrs, is most peculiar. So peculiar, in fact, as to appear downright implausible."

--Louis P. Boog (talk)

Pretty clearly a reliable source that directly supports questioning the traditional narrative of the tribe. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. apropos your comment

Many of the Hadith and the Sira are reports that were transmitted orally from generation to generation and later collected into books, so it is only natural that the language style follows the changes of the times, ...

I can't believe that someone who lectures other editors and deletes edits wholesale wouldn't know that hadith are supposed to be passed down verbatim and not modified by contemporary language styles! Have a nice day. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog:

Rather than deleting my edits couldn't they have been toned down to ...

No, your addition was a misrepresentation of the source to begin with: cherry-picking the third possibility Donner gives, that the three Jewish tribes (namely the Qaynuqa, the Nadir, and the Qurayza) did not exist, and leaving out the first two possibilities he gives, that they did exist but were eliminated before the Constitution of Medina was drawn up (the first possibility), or that parts of the Constitution mentioning these tribes were missing or dropped after their elimination (the second possibility). So toning it down certainly won't do. The passage you added to the article needs to be completely rewritten if it is to be included at all, and a section titled "Doubts" is certainly not the place to put it, since Donner doesn't particularly doubt the historicity of the tribes, but merely offers three different possibilities as to why these three major Jewish tribes are not listed in the Umma document (also known as the Constitution of Medina), and he closes with "These and many other questions remain to be resolved by future scholarship."

Tom Holland ...: Yet there are serious difficulties in accepting this tradition as true. It is not simply that the three Jewish clans mentioned by the historian do not feature anywhere in the Constitution of Medina. There is also another, and familiar, problem: That our only sources for the annihilation of these Jews are all suspiciously late.

Tom Holland is a pop historian who loves to write novels. And this theory of his is clearly a WP:FRINGE. Not only does he contradict a plethora of reliable sources that acknowledge the existence and elimination of the three Jewish tribes, but he also seems to be unaware that the earliest source of the Constitution of Medina itself is Ibn Ishaq. Here's an excerpt from the above Donner's book, page 227:

The "umma document," sometimes also called the "Constitution of Medina," ... The original documents are now lost, but the text is preserved, with mostly minor variations, in two early Islamic literary texts: the Sira (a biography of the prophet) of Muhammad ibn Ishaq (died ca. 150/767), and the Kitab al-amwal (a book on property) of Abu 'Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam (died 224/838).

And this Ibn Ishaq, along with other primary sources such as Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, reports the presence of those three Jewish tribes (i.e., the Qaynuqa, the Nadir, and the Qurayza), even the expulsion of the first two and the destruction of the third. It is obvious that Tom Holland lacked the understanding of what he was writing. We simply do not include the flat-earth theory in the Earth article, nor do we include the theory that Muhammad did not exist in the Muhammad article. Because that would give them undue weight. And the same treatment should be applied here.

I can't believe that someone who lectures other editors and deletes edits wholesale wouldn't know that hadith are supposed to be passed down verbatim

Here are three hadiths, with different chains of transmission, that report the same saying of Muhammad. All three have quite different variations in the wording. If the hadiths had always been transmitted verbatim, this would certainly not have happened. Note that for the Arabic texts, I only copied the parts of Muhammad's words, to highlight their wording differences in each of the hadiths.

Sahih al-Bukhari 3320
إِذَا وَقَعَ الذُّبَابُ فِي شَرَابِ أَحَدِكُمْ فَلْيَغْمِسْهُ، ثُمَّ لِيَنْزِعْهُ، فَإِنَّ فِي إِحْدَى جَنَاحَيْهِ دَاءً وَالأُخْرَى شِفَاءً ‏"‏‏.‏
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said "If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink) and take it out, for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease."

Sunan Abi Dawud 3844
إِذَا وَقَعَ الذُّبَابُ فِي إِنَاءِ أَحَدِكُمْ فَامْقُلُوهُ فَإِنَّ فِي أَحَدِ جَنَاحَيْهِ دَاءً وَفِي الآخَرِ شِفَاءً وَإِنَّهُ يَتَّقِي بِجَنَاحِهِ الَّذِي فِيهِ الدَّاءُ فَلْيَغْمِسْهُ كُلَّهُ ‏"‏ ‏.‏
Abu Hurairah reported the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) as saying:
when a fly alights in anyone’s vessel, he should plunge it all in, for in one of its wings there is a disease, and in the other is a cure. It prevents the wing of it is which there is a cure, so plunge it all in (the vessel).

Sunan Ibn Majah 3504
فِي أَحَدِ جَنَاحَىِ الذُّبَابِ سُمٌّ وَفِي الآخَرِ شِفَاءٌ فَإِذَا وَقَعَ فِي الطَّعَامِ فَامْقُلُوهُ فِيهِ فَإِنَّهُ يُقَدِّمُ السُّمَّ وَيُؤَخِّرُ الشِّفَاءَ ‏"‏
Abu Sa’eed narrated that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
“On one of the wings of a fly there is a poison and on the other is the cure. If it falls into the food, then dip it into it, for it puts the poison first and holds back the cure.”

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 12:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa:let's say you are right on this point, and early hadith were sometimes paraphrased. In fact let's say I made a really stupid mistake and owe anyone reading this an apology for my bad memory and sloppiness (just hypothetically). That leaves us with whether or not doubts about the "plethora of reliable sources" (sahih hadith and others) "that acknowledge the existence and elimination of the three Jewish tribes" written down four to five generations after the death of Muhammad come from their use of newer "styles of language", compared to the Umma Document's older style. Here is W. Montgomery Watt summarizing the "strong reasons" which J. Wellhausen adduced the Umma document authenticity. One of them is that "style is archaic" but mainly its because its content is not what a "later falsifier writing under the Umayyads or 'Abbasids would have included".

No later falsifier writing under the Umayyads or 'Abbasids would have included non-Muslims in the ummah, would have retained the articles against Quraysh, and would have given Muhammad so insignificant a place. Moreover the style is archaic, and certain points, such as the use of believers instead of Muslims in most articles, belong to the earlier Medinan period.

--Louis P. Boog (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog: When I say "a plethora of reliable sources," I'm referring to reliable secular scholars, not the hadiths. Watt discusses the authenticity of the Constitution of Medina there, not whether the three Jewish tribes—the Qaynuqa, the Nadir, and the Qurayza—exist or not. Rather, on page 227, Watt states:

It seems probable, then, that the three main Jewish groups are not mentioned in the document. If that is so, the document in its present form might belong to the period after the elimination of Qurayzah. The difficulty that much attention is given to Jewish affairs at a time when there were few Jews in Medina could be explained by the hypothesis that the document in its final form was intended as a charter for the Jews remaining in Medina and included all relevant articles from earlier forms of the Constitution of the city.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 05:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Massacred

the term massacred in the foreword is a mislabelling and unfactual, there was peace negotiations and the majority of the tribe fled to syria, as i tried to edit in, many afterwards seeked refuge with the prophet or even converted, only the men left behind in the fortresses were later killed according to Sa'd ibn Mu'aadhs judgement IyadQadi (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWARRING. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Pledge of Aqaba

Please mention the pledge of Aqabah in the aws and khazraj section as it is essential to the history and it nonmention gives a distorted picture IyadQadi (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Change of Qiblah

historic accounts dont mention that the qiblah was changed because of jews, Prophet prayed for the qiblah to change many months in mecca before the encounter, see "65 Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh))".

please verify and change IyadQadi (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Date of massacre

IyadQadi Kaalakaa deleted my date of the massacre, (i.e. 627 CE), with the edit summary: "Page x? It also seems WP:OR to me. It only cites Muir as the source but says that Muir is using an unreliable chronology. It does not make sense." He is referring to the note (which I copied from another article Siege of Banu Qurayza), namely:

"On page x Muir says the siege of Medina and the invasion of Banu Qurayza occurred in Dhul Qa'dah AH 5, February, March, CE 627. A few lines later he says the trench was dug in Shawwal, February 627, and the army posted on 8 Dhul Qa'dah, AH 5, 2 March 626. This second date is repeated on page 258. In AH 5 8 Dhul Qa'dah fell on 31 March 627 by the fixed calendar and on 31 January 627 by the intercalated calendar which was introduced in the fifth century and remained in use until AD 632. Digging of the trench commenced on 5 Shawwal (29 December 626) and took six days. See Expedition of Dhat al-Riqa#Discrepancy in dates. Muir uses the unreliable chronology of the secretary (Al-Waqidi), noting on page 269 that this places the end of the siege on a Thursday, while other historians place it on a Saturday."

I would argue the unreliable chronology refers to the days of the digging of the trench and not what year the massacre took place, but let's say I'm wrong and Muir is wrong and we don't know the year the Banu Qurayza were eliminated. As it stands, someone reading the beginning of the lede without much knowledge of Islam has no idea when the killings took place. Shouldn't the lede say something like "the exact year it took place is unknown, but it occurred between 622 and 630" in either 626 or 627", or "historians disagree when it took place"? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog: Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS. It is very concerning that someone who has done over 42,000 edits since 23 December 2006 still doesn't quite grasp basic Wikipedia guidelines. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 05:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@IyadQadi: please refrain from personal attacks and attempt to answer the question. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog: Are you replying to my comment or IyadQadi's? If you're replying to mine, have you read and understood the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that I mentioned above? You're basing your addition to this article on unsourced text from another Wikipedia article, and then you simply added to the end of the text that you added a source whose content doesn't even support it. That alone is already in violation of the above Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This also seems to be a WP:CIR issue. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa you're right I confused you two. My comment was directed at you, not IyadQadi. I suppose that's incompetence.

So I have two questions/comments.

I copied a reference to a book by Muir from another article that gives a date for the killing and enslaving, but may not be appropriate, and that you are quite upset about. I'd like to hear opinions other than yours about whether it can be used.

2nd question, Shouldn't we either have a date or a reason why we don't for the extinction of the tribe? Louis P. Boog (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa A clarification. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so it should not be cited as a source; but that is NOT the same as copying text and references from other wikipedia articles, unless I am very much mistaken. Louis P. Boog (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog: It may be acceptable if the text is properly sourced, but if it's original research, it's not allowed. In the other Wikipedia article it came from, the text you copied doesn't even have a citation to a source that supports it, which is WP:OR, hence my deleting it. To address this absence of sources, you cited Muir's book when adding it to this article. However, that book doesn't directly support the claim in this text, such as if Muir used an 'unreliable chronology.' Again, that's WP:OR, which is why I reverted it. Regarding the date of the incident, I just added it along with sources that support it. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 09:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa: I should have written "626 or 627 CE" using that "On page x ..." citation. Just to clear up the issue, would that have satisfied you?--Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog: Do you understand what original research is? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 13:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa:I think so, now why wouldn't have using "626 or 627 CE" with the "On page x ..." citation have been within wikipedia regulations? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

What? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 07:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality

I just read this page and I must say there is a significant mention of the names Stillman and Watt (like 50 times collectively). It's consistent throughout, whole paragraphs dedicated to what some non-muslims think and then some mention of what muslims say in 2-3 lines; with a caveat added if it's too vindicating, like this " Meir J. Kister has contradicted".This paragraph I find particularly reprehensible: "Tariq Ramadan argues that Muhammad deviated from his earlier, more lenient treatment of prisoners as this was seen "as sign of weakness if not madness", Peterson concurs that the Muslims wanted to deter future treachery by setting an example with severe punishment."It's just baseless speculation, with some name-calling added. Why are these contemporary secondary sources given so much weight without even providing the underlying basis for their speculation? Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:REPUTABLE that "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." And here is what independent source means, according to WP:IIS "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective." Also, please see WP:YESBIAS that:

NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. It means "neutrally reflecting what the sources say. It does not mean that the article has to be 'neutral'." We do not document "neutral facts or opinions". Instead, we write about all facts and referenced opinions (that aren't solely based on primary sources) neutrally, even when those facts and opinions present bias.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 02:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

W. N. Arafat's and Barakat Ahmad's arguments

These two authors, in addition to their arguments being WP:FRINGE and having been rejected and refuted by top-quality scholars, are also clearly not independent sources, which is a requirement of our WP:SOURCE policy. W. N. Arafat's argument, in particular, is absolutely erroneous, assuming that all the reports of the massacre of the Banu Qurayza come only from Ibn Ishaq and thus attacking him vigorously. In fact, the two most respected hadith collections, Bukhari and Muslim, as well as Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi, also report the massacre [8][9][10][11]. I am deleting the section that presents their arguments, as the inclusion is also clearly WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 18:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

In making this edit, you removed an in-use reference definition that I have replaced. I'm not sure I agree with your reasons for removing the reference, but either it should be removed completely and correctly (and appropriately replaced), or it should remain until some suitable fix is found. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it and letting me know. I didn't realize that when I removed the passage, the ref was also used elsewhere in the article. And at the time, I was using the "edit source" instead of the visual editor, which usually automatically transfer the definition from a deleted ref into another ref with the same name. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 11:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Your arguments read like WP:OR. You are basically using WP:PRIMARY sources to try ad refute scholarly sources.

Why do you think W. N. Arafat's and Barakat Ahmad are not WP:INDEPENDENT sources? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Lack of Neutrality

In reading this, there is clearly a lack of Neutrality present in this article. As a Muslim, I find it offensive. As a teacher, I find it troubling. To the writers of this article, please revise. Lizabit (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

No. Vague complaints like this are not actionable. You have neither identified anything specific in the article that is problematic, nor have you provided a constructive proposal on how to change it. As a teacher, you should know better. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV Abuse

As I read this page, I noticed that there was a negative tone in it. I reviewed this page's history and noticed an example contributor (@Kaalakaa) has visited, decimated, and rebuilt this page in a voice that introduces the problematic NPOV. When i visited the user's talk page, I discovered that their behaviour is thematic, consequently earning a topic ban on Islam related pages for NPOV abuse, as the issue was raised in the Admin Incident Report page.

I am unable to revert their abusive edits to be inline with the arbitration outcome as they are too old and now incorporated with recent edits.

@Vice regent: Tagging you as involved parties. Bro The Man (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bro The Man are you referring to the Kaalakaa topic ban? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, however the edits made on this page pre-date the topic ban. Bro The Man (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Please WP:BOLD-ly fix any issues and if there are any objections, ping me and I'm happy to help find consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I am far from an expert in creating Wikipedia articles, but I would suggest we revert the opening paragraph to the version of May 20 2023. Several people have expresses concern over the neutrality of that specific paragraph. Apart from that, the current version of the article is scarcely different. Daminb (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent@Bro The Man

I realised I had forgot to ping you. I am sorry if I am getting impatient.

I just wanted to ask if you agree to revert the opening section of the paragraph to that of May 20, 2023. A similar motion was put into effect for the Battle of Badr article after the problematic POV. I am asking for your consensus, since usually such edits done without a discussion are removed within a heartbeat.

In addition, I would like to ask if we should bring back the "Doubts about the Historicity of the event" section. It might have been a part of Kaalakaa's campaign, but I am pretty much neutral on its inclusion.

Also, I do not want to burden you with the job. If I get your agreement (or silence, for that matter) I am going to try to copy the text and do the proper sourcing by myself, but after 9 or so days, since I am busy right now. Thank you. Daminb (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is heinously anti-muslim

"or that of timeless cruelty of Muslims towards Jews and the intrinsic violence of Muslims in general". Enough said. Add to that they people refuse to allow me to edit the page. I can't add what secular historians think? I can't add what shias (upwards of 20% of muslims) think? They don't recognise Bukhari or Muslim. I know what's gonna happen next, you'll delete this "or that of timeless cruelty of Muslims towards Jews and the intrinsic violence of Muslims in general" but then you'll never think about the underlying reasons for why that was allowed on this page for so long, whereas me adding that Imam Malik refuted this story and Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri gets deleted in less than an hour. Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That text is to be found in the Legacy subtitle. I can't delete it without getting reverted. It really is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this pejorative article. Thank you. Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the meaning of the statement you're referring to. What it says is: "The killing of the Banu Qurayza has been used polemically in modern times to either support the idea of a timeless treachery of Jews towards Muslims [...] or that of timeless cruelty of Muslims towards Jews and the intrinsic violence of Muslims in general." (my emphasis) It does not claim that Muslims are intrinsically violent just as it does not claim that Jews are treacherous. It is explaining how the story has been used for political or ideological reasons in later times, which is relevant and sufficiently neutral. The source cited is reliable and supports this directly as well, so there's no verifiability issue either.

You're free to make constructive edits that add relevant material and that are directly supported by citations to reliable sources (this means published scholarly sources, not random websites and not direct interpretations of primary sources; see the linked policy). The already-cited source (Sharkey p.34), for example, has more to say on the same issue. You can ask for help here on how to formulate that content, if you like. Removing well-sourced material without a valid reason, however, is not constructive and will be reverted. R Prazeres (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I know what polemics means. But if you don't find a problem with that statement then not sure what to say. When you read this article you'd have no idea about the shia perspective or Imam Malik's or Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri or the Qur'an. This article is validating the polemics. I did source my stuff so no idea what you mean. I mentioned two scholars lol. But that also got deleted and was sourced. Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Mohammadreza al-Khaghani (al-Khaghani (Beyg), Mohammadreza (1 January 2023). "Reconsidering the Fate of Banū Qurayẓa Captives". Islamic Inquiries) and Arafat (Arafat, W.N. (15 September 2016) "New Light on the Story of Banū Qurayẓa and the Jews of Medina" (PDF). The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland) were the scholars. Imam Malik is not a contemporary scholar, but obviously should count (Shaeezz (21 October 2012). "Seeking The Truth: How Authentic Is The Work Of Ibn Ishaq". Seeking The Truth. Retrieved 25 September 2024) Then Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri actually predates Ibn Ishaq ("The Battle of Banu Qurayza - Al-Shia". en.al-shia.org. 2023-06-12. Retrieved 2024-10-19) the primary source citation is in al-Maghazi al-Nabawiyya.

Just for you to understand why I didn't like that statement it would be like posting Talmudic writings about sucking the infant's penis. Then lisitng how people die from it, in pre-modern times and even in modern times. Then ending it with a legacy subtitle that says "this is used polemically to show the intrinsic evil of Jews". It's like a stamp of approval on that POV. The Legacy bit that says it's used to show "treachery of Jews" is totally undermined, since the second that the text introduces a the Muslim POV of a Qurayza betrayl it's immediately shut down with (my words) "Watt and montgomery doubt that a betrayal took place". I hope that clears things up.

Again this article fails to address the shia view (which do not recognise Muslim and Bukhari), the secular view (quite popular on the reddit page Academic Qur'an), the Qur'anic view. Here's an example, by saying that the betrayal was revealed by angel Gabriel and omitting what the Qur'an says 33:26 "And He brought down those from the People of the Book who supported the enemy alliance from their own strongholds, and cast horror into their hearts. You killed some, and took others captive" it's putting Ibn Ishaq above the Qur'an. That verse is pretty clear that the betrayal wasn't some Waḥy but perceptible to the Muslims. It's always about what you omit not what you include.

It's my contention that if the Qur'an wasn't clear about the fate of Banu Nadir, we would see the same narrative applied to them (massacre the men and enslave the women and children). Since this story is repeated for Banu Mustaliq (which the Qur'an never mentions) and Banu Qaynuqa (although this differs since the "massacre" was averted at the last second) in sunni hadiths. Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd consider revising to "or by Islam critics as of a timeless ..." because that's what the source is citing. Namely, a forward by Ibn Warraq and Bat Ye'or (Sharkey, 2017. p.58, n.18). Wiqi⁵⁵ 23:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza being judged according to Talmudic law

@MattExzy The Banu Qurayza were judged according to Talmudic law by the chief of their allies from Banu Aws, Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, Sahih Bukhari 3804. Ismail7Hussein (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza the article misleading

Banu Qurayza the article misleading on several point such as agreement was broken by Jewish. Prophet Muhammad often raided Quraysh trade caravans and plundered their goods, This is wrong allegation Prophet Muhammad never looted. Prophet Muhammad name must be write in respective manner. The article is disrespectfully written. I asked Wikipedia to withdraw the article.

Zahidhaq (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

A discussion about the opening section

Hey, @Vandyred,

I would like to discuss the contents of the opening section with you since I see we have run into a disagreement.

I, as well as many other people on the talk page, think that there are major issues with the article, as it stands right now. There were numerous revisions made by a user named Kaalakaa, which were so problematic that he managed to get topic-banned from Islam-related pages with an overwhelming majority against him (22-1 if I am not mistaken). For instance, there was a discussion on the talk page of the Battle of Badr article. It was written in a biased way, which prompted people to revert the article.

This article's opening section shares the same problem. It is supposed to be a short introduction of a Jewish tribe which lived in Arabia, but for some reason it dedicates three out of four in total long paragraphs which primarily focus on the prophet of Islam. And when it discusses him, despite the presence of different viewpoints on issues, weight is only given to certain opinions which discredit him.

In light of this, I decided to roll it back to a version, which did not have this problem. This treatment was also applied on the Battle of Badr article, so it is not something brand new. Sure, it is probably not perfect, but a major improvement from what we have now. That is why I think the edit I made was needed.

Of course, I would like to know your reasons about removing my edits, so that we can reach a consensus. I acknowledge that you may be busy, so I would be delighted if you are able to reply in the following week.

Yours faithfully,

@Daminb Daminb (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)