Jump to content

Talk:Banu Qurayza/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

RfC Arbitrator

Should the article note that both Muhammad and Banu Qurayza chose the arbitrator and agreed to submit their dispute to him? I believe yes, because this is stated in reliable sources:

"For example, in the incident of Aws and Khazraj tribes of Medina, the Prophet acted as a mediator according to Arab tradition, and ended their enmity; in arbitration between the Prophet and the Banu Qurayza, (a Jewish tribe) both agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them." [Context: the author is giving examples of mediation and arbitration in the life of Muhammad.]

Source:Mohammed Abu-Nimer (2000–2001). "A Framework for Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam". Journal of Law and Religion. 15 (1–2): 247.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

"The arbitration between Muhammad and Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe, in which both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them,..."

Source:Khadduri, Majid (1955). War And Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

"After twenty-five days, the tribe [Banu Qurayza] agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing."

Source:Hashmi, Sohail H. (2003). States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries. Cambridge University Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Are these sources sufficient (note they have been published in the Journal of Law and Religion (an academic and peer-reviewed journal; see the JSTOR summary), Johns Hopkins Press (a university press) and Cambridge University Press (also a university press)).Bless sins (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question: yes. ITAQALLAH 22:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, BS, please stop misrepresenting the case by presenting only the sources that suit you best. Remember "unconditional surrender" etc. Str1977 (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You have failed to mention that Banu Qurayza were punished according to their own law. so there execution and enslavement can hardly be seen as Muslim brutality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.59.98 (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear guest, we have not failed not mention that. This is a very contentious and problematic claim. We have discussed it in the past and will do so in the future. Str1977 (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite. We are re-hashing old material here. See, e.g., [1]. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Umm, this RfC is not regarding the Torah issue, but rather regarding a different issue (i.e. whether the Qurayza agreed and chose the Sa'd). I don't expect you to know what you're talking about considering your opinion is solicited in an attempt to vote-stack, and that the solicitor mislead you about the topic of the discussion (by claiming the discussion was about the "Deuteronomy issue").Bless sins (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
BS, I was clearly responding to the comment above, by the unregistered user, claiming that the BQ were killed "according to their own law." Your personal attacks are entirely out of order. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I had two things on my mind - probably because they were linked your edits and because these two items really serve the same goal: blame the victims for their death - and hence the headline was wrong. I rectified that mistake. Str1977 (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So, does that mean that you judge the merit of inclusion of a point of view mainly based on whether it agrees with your view rather than whether it is sufficiently sourced? Wikipedia should ideally include "all" point of views that could be sufficiently sourced. Wikipedia:Verifiability says:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

--Be happy!! (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. O judge information on its own merit. I foyu haven't noticed it is not about my POV but about BS's and others POV pushing I am concerned. The POV involved being to blame the victims for their own death not only through the charges under which they were killed (that is hardly avoidable and no problem, as long as these charges are presented in a neutral manner) but also through rubbish claims that the Jews chose their hangmen and that they were killed by their own law.
The threshold or inclusion in Wikipedia is not apologetic value to Islam nor falsehood. "No Undue Weight" is a WP policy too. Str1977 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the reliability of these three reliable sources is already established by the consensus here there is a clear consensus for their inclusion.
I think we should apply similar standards through the whole article. By the same standards, the view of Michael Lecker should be included (which is already included). We should not act based on what one of us think is falsehood; and in fact to say that something is falsehood requires such a high degree of confidence is rare in historical studies. I think we should only care whether the content is verifiable. If there are differing views, we should mention them all. Also as you can see on the reliable noticeboard, your claims of John Esposito being unreliable is not accepted. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus! This is not tit for tat (and if anything Lecker is already paired with a "massacre was normal then" crowd). Undue weight should not be given. Str1977 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This is completely unacceptable Str. The consensus is clear in this section. Can you see anybody here agreeing with you on the RfC point? --Be happy!! (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course I can see that. Ah, and consensus connot override our need for accuracy. Str1977 (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
So, do you think there is a problem with Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability (e.g. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth") and WP:Consensus? --Be happy!! (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem with editors misusing that statement to make WP into a den of POV pushing and falsehood. You can spare yourself (and me) repeating that sentence again and again as it doesn't solve the issue. Str1977 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: yes, mention it. It's verifiable in a very reliable source. However, if another reliable source disputes the claim, it should also be mentioned that the claim is disputed. Nick Graves (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the third location for this consensus. The first was a discussion at WP:RSN that can be found here. Both responding users agreed that the sources were reliable.

Secondly, we had a discussion about this at the mediation, where everyone including the mediator (who said "Its clear that we have reliable sources stating that the Qurayza chose Sa'd and I see no reason to exclude that from the article") agreed on the reliability of the sources.

The third is above where - once again - Str1977 is the only user disputing the reliability of the sources.Bless sins (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What is a location for consensus?
  • RSN cannot say anything about this issue.
  • The mediation never yielded a result on this. You are forgetting that I was part of the mediation and I certainly did not agree to your claims. Certainly the mediator cannot dictate consensus.
So after clearing up the smoke produced by BS, there remains only this section. Again, a consensus has not been reached here either when two editors disagree. You are using sources (some lacking expertise for this subject) in contravention of other sources. Str1977 (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:RSN is an oft used avenue for generating consensus on the reliability of sources. Consensus was generated there that the sources are reliable.
You are forgetting that only you opposed the sources at the mediation, while everyone else supported this. Even the mediator, who wasn't a party to the dispute (and thus an outsider) supported the inclusion.
Finally, here, you are again the only user opposing this. (Briangotts was responding to the Torah issue, which you mislead him to believe was the issue here).Bless sins (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, consensus was not achieved here. RSN cannot solve the issues of this article, only issues like reliable sources.
Hey, a mediation is about getting disputants to agree. Since I did not agree there was no consensus.
You are mistating things. Brian clearly restatet that he was not misled by mistake in his last posting and stated that he opposed your views. Str1977 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Every user here, except for you, believes in the inclusion.
WP:RSN established that these sources are reliable, something you have yet to admit.
During the mediation every wikipedian agreed except for you.
Thus I'm restoring it since consensus has been established at every venue. You don't have a single good argument, and continually present your original research.Bless sins (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Last time I said you mistated things. After my correction , I can only take it as a lie. I was not the only one speaking against your claims here (not getting into those that disagree with you without speaking up).
And of course, you are still missusing the mediation. I hereby vow that I will never enter into mediation with your again because of your evident bad faith stance.
I restore and I revert because there is no consensus. Str1977 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"I can only take it as a lie" In light of such remarks discussion becomes quite difficult, still I'll try to persevere.
Whether you will ever enter into mediation again or not, is beside the point that you did enter into mediation. The mediation did produce results that have been confirmed by consensus here and on WP:RSN.Bless sins (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey look, BS. It is your bad faith behaviour that's the problem here. The first time you made your claims about the mediation I assumed good faith but the second time, after I corrected you, I have to deduce bad faith.
I did enter mediation with you and the Master Jedi. Mediation yielded some results, mainly the solution to the word "massacre". It did not yield results on what you claim. Mediation is strictly voluntary, based on the agreement of all parties (me, you, Mik). The mediatior is merely a tool bring this about. I disagree with how the mediator ended the mediation. Nothing gives you the right to mispresent the mediation or use it for your POV pushing (for which you are quite notorious). Mik is honouring the mediation's results and I have nothing to complain about him. You are misusing the mediation and this is why I will not go to mediation with you ever again. But that doesn't mean that I'll accept your wrongdoing in this case. Str1977 (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
During the mediation we had agreement of every user except you, correct? You can't deny the fact that every user accepted the inclusion of the sourced content except you. I'm not claiming that you agreed, only that everyone else besides you agreed. Consensus doesn't require that everyone agree, only that the vast majority do.Bless sins (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"During the mediation we had agreement of every user except you, correct?"
That's a nonsense statement. Mediation requires the consensus of ALL parties to have a result. I do not claim the support of mediation in things where Mik and I agree but you didn't. Stop your extremely bad faith behaviour.
Also remember: WP is NOT a DEMOCRACY! Str1977 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't require that every party agree, only that the vast majority agree. That is what I'm claiming. I know that (currently) you don't agree, that is why you are reverting me. But as this section, and others listed above, show everyone except you agree with the addition. Please don't use straw man arguments.Bless sins (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
In mediation, agreement by ALL parties is required however.
On this page, I was not the only voice of disagreement. Str1977 (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That is not a requirement for consensus, which is what I'm claiming.
On the issue of the above (Qurayza choosing Sa'd) you are the only voice of disagreement. Bless sins (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Still, you are misrepresenting things. I am NOT the only dissenter. Don't forget Merzbow (not mentioning any silent ones). Str1977 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Merzbow has not commented once in this section. Now please don't go storming off to Merzbow's talk page, dragging him into this - because if you do, I'll have to report you for canvassing (you've already stated that you think he's opposed to me).
regarding the "silent" ones: they don't count as "silence implies consensus", per WP:CONSENSUS. Now please stop flouting it.Bless sins (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry but I confounded Merzbow and Briangotts. My mistake. But your mistake, that you inentionally try to ignore his voice of opposition.
Your constant threats will get you nowhere. You won't expell or massacre me.
Silence does not imply consensus - at best it means indifference. I don't bring them up (as I said) because they are not countable. But be sure they do exist. Str1977 (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"... and both Muhammad and Qurayza appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh" - that's POv-driven twisting of the sources into saying something they never say. Str1977 (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I can read the sources do say this. What leads you to believe that they don't?Bless sins (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, what sources say that Muhammad and the Qurayza together chose Sad? Most sources (including the most reliable) say that Muhammad chose him. Some say that the BQ accepted him. A lone one (which I think careless wording), I think, sad the BQ chose him. It is your OR combination that results in the above statement which - given the circumstances - is nonsense. Str1977 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
" what sources say that Muhammad and the Qurayza together chose Sad?" The three sources I quoted above. Look carefully and again.Bless sins (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, do you mean these:
"For example, in the incident of Aws and Khazraj tribes of Medina, the Prophet acted as a mediator according to Arab tradition, and ended their enmity; in arbitration between the Prophet and the Banu Qurayza, (a Jewish tribe) both agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them." ::::Source:Mohammed Abu-Nimer (2000-2001). "A Framework for Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam". Journal of Law and Religion 15 (1-2): 247.
I don't see your claim in there.
"The arbitration between Muhammad and Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe, in which both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them,..."
Source:Khadduri, Majid (1955). War And Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Not here either. Oh, and wait. Isn't that thehe identical text? Who copied whom? Clearly, one os not an independent source.
"After twenty-five days, the tribe [Banu Qurayza] agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing."
Source:Hashmi, Sohail H.; Buchanan, Allen E; Moore, Margaret (2003). States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries. Cambridge University Press.
This also merely says taht the BQ chose the arbitrator. This of course controdacicts aour earlier, more reliable sources.
You want to mix up contradicting sources! Str1977 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again (sigh), here is the text that supports that the Qurayza chose Sa'd:
"...in arbitration between the Prophet and the Banu Qurayza, (a Jewish tribe) both agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them."
"...arbitration between Muhammad and Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe, in which both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them."
"...the tribe [Banu Qurayza] agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing."
Tell me one thing: do you see the words "Banu Qurayza" and "choosing"/"chosen"? Yes or no. I'd really appreciate if you answered that question.
"This of course controdacicts aour earlier, more reliable sources." There was consensus on WP:RSN that the sources above are reliable. Thus reliability can't be an issue.
Bless sins (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"Once again (sigh), here is the text that supports that the Qurayza chose Sa'd:"
Only that you didn't claim that before. Only that you didn't put that into the article. You fabricated a claim that Muhammad and the Qurayza together agreed on an arbitrator. Which is not in the sources.
And the claim that the BQ had any say in this contradicts our most reliable sources.
Badly visited discussions at RSN cannot eliminate policies like "no undue weight". And they cannot remove the sources that oppose your claim. Str1977 (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
So you agree that the above sources state that Qurayza chose Sa'd. I also not that not a single source contradicts the above sources. Even if they do, we do what Nick Graves has suggested: mention both.
'our most reliable sources" The above sources are one of our most reliable sources.
Again I urge you to respect consensus at WP:RSN. I'm not sure what "badly visited" means, but I don't think that's something from wiki policies.Bless sins (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that some sources say that but they are not our most reliable sources. Hence, we msut proceed as I stated below. Str1977 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so assuming that we have two sets of sources making directly opposing claims (i.e. some saying Qurayza chose Sa'd or were happy with him as arbitrator, and some saying they didn't chose Sa'd), then why not just mention both claims alongisde eachother? This is of course assuming we do have the sources saying explicitly that Qurayza had no say or right of approval in the selection (as opposed to making inferences from general statements like 'unconditional surrender'). ITAQALLAH 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
These are not merely inferences as you want to put it. "Unconditional surrender" is a clear term with a meaning and your suggestions contradict that term. The most reliable and most longstanding sources speak of that. The BQ agreeing to him formally does not contradict that but the "chose him" does. Any mentioning of this must be treated accordingly as per no undue weight. I never opposed that. Str1977 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Unconditional surrender means surrender without stipulated conditions. If we say that their captors gave them the liberty to choose an arbitrator, then it doesn't mean the Qurayza necessarily demanded it (which would make it a condition). So saying the surrender was unconditional and that the tribe was allowed to choose an arbitrator aren't necessarily contradictory. ITAQALLAH 16:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Which source does say that Muhammad gave the BQ such a liberty? I see not a single one. Those that claim the BQ chose Sad simply ignore the fact of the unconditional surrender. Those that include the unconditional surrender do not talk about the BQ chosing anything.
As I said, we may include the books that state the BQ chose Sad (even though I think them badly mistaken – but that, as you'd rightfully note, is no valid criterion) but only as an alternative view, e.g. "Some sources/scholars report …" Str1977 (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no source that contradicts the view that the Qurayza chose Sa'd. You have yet to provide a "Banu Qurayza didn't choose Sa'd" (or something similar) quote from a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. There is no requirement to provide such a direct, negative statement. If you chose not to think so be it. But I will not turn off reason. "BQ chose" and "BQ surrendered unconditionally" do contradict.
I already stated an acceotable way for inclusion of both views but as long as you do not take it up, we cannot go there. Str1977 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, most reasonable people won't necessarily see a contradiction between surrendering unconditionally and choosing an arbitrator after the surrender. To choose something, and to demand it, are two different concepts. No one is saying the Qurayza demanded Sa'd, they simply chose him.Bless sins (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, most if not all reasonable people would agree with me. Chosing and demanding are actually quite close - consider that in French "demander" means "to ask". A different thing would be "to accept" or "to submit". Str1977 (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well the people of the preceding RfC didn't agree with you. Nor did the people participating in the mediation (you excepted ofcourse).
Simple example: when given the choice I can go to a shop and choose the ice cream I want to have. I can choose chocolate, vanilla, etc... A different situation would be me demanding chocolate ice cream, and threatening of some sort of consequences if my demands are not met. In a society where I'm simply an ordinary citizen I can easily do the "choosing". But it would very difficult for me to do the "demanding", as I have no special powers to threaten others with.Bless sins (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That's too bad for them if they don't agree.
Stop bringing up the mediation (yes, Mik agreed with you) - it ended without result on this.
I don't need your explanations. I never said that "demand" and "ask" meant the same. I said they were close. Hence I can only restate my posting above. Str1977 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't need my exmplanations, then I'll stop giving them to you. Thanks for acknowleging that Jedi Master agreed, please also acknowlege that Aminz and Shell also agreed. That is all I'm claiming.

"I never said that "demand" and "ask" meant the same. I said they were close." Oh yes, I can probably concede that sources may come "close" to "contradiciting" but don't actually do so.Bless sins (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Aminz and Shell were no party to the mediation. I grant you that Aminz agreed with you here.
Stop your bad faith remarks about things being close. You give explanations that nobody asked for while ignoring actual issues. The BQ chosing Sad contradicts their status as having "unconditionally surrendered". Str1977 (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Now you need to acknowledge that Shell also agreed with me. After that you will have, in effect, said "everyone at the mediation (except Str1977) agreed with Bless_sins".
"The BQ chosing Sad contradicts their status as having "unconditionally surrendered"." According to your original research, definitely. No scholar says that though.Bless sins (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Shell was no party either and hence doesn't count. She was a mediator aiming at bringing us three to agree.
So you do deny simple common sense? Str1977 (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
But Shell was/is a wikipedian. Consensus can be formed amongst almost any group of wikipedians (restrictions such as sockpuppetry etc. apply).
I explained "common sense" to you in my post dated 13:22, 3 June 2008. You, however, said that you "don't need [my] explanations". Fine. In that case we use exactly what the sources say. No source explicitly denies the Qurayza choosing.Bless sins (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. Shell has no interest in this issue. She was merely trying to help to get the three of us to agree. That unfortunately didn't work out. Stop bringing up hte mediation. It is of no consequence here.
Apart from the sources that state that Muhammad (with noone else mentioned) chose Sad. That is a contradiction. Str1977 (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because a source doesn't mention something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist! If a book talks about China, but fails to mention nearby Mongolia, doesn't mean that Mongolia doesn't exist! Only if the source says that "Muhammad chose Sa'd alone", "only Muhammad chose Sa'd", then we can infer a possible contradiction.Bless sins (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
"Just because a source doesn't mention something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist!" True but irrelevant. If Muhammad chose Sad that contradicts the statement that the BQ chose Sad. No "alone" is needed. Your combining the two is Original research. Str1977 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to jump in here since my name keeps getting mentioned, its pretty obvious that reliable sources exists that state BQ chose the arbitrator. I have yet to see any argument that would exclude this material. The claim that this shouldn't be mentioned because some sources say "unconditional surrender" doens't hold water - in order for that claim to be true, we have to assume a great deal about what the authors meant by "unconditional surrender" which clearly contradicts the original research policy. If there are any sources which state that BQ did not choose or agree to the arbitrator, then that viewpoint should be included as well. Shell babelfish 15:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If one wants to contribute to a discussion, one should first inform oneself about all points. The issue (on my part) is not to exclude any mentioning of sources that claim the BQ chose Sad. I am open to mention this as an alternative claim. But I oppose making it the claim #1 or constructing some kind of a mish-mash. That would really be OR - in contrast to a common sense deduction about what unconditional surrender means. The contradiction is there. Also, the most reliable and longstanding sources say Muhammad chose Sad - which also contradicts the claim the BQ chose him. Str1977 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to attempt to belittle other editors in order to get your way, please stop with the personal remarks. If you have no objection to putting both in, then how about suggesting a way to word it that would suit both viewpoints? (Or Bless sins, did you have a wording suggestion for this that would incorporate both?) And no, a "common sense" deduction about unconditional surrender is exactly what is meant by OR - instead of reporting what a source said, you are using what they said to support further theories - WP:OR does not allow this; we don't interpret. Shell babelfish 03:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I am really sick and tired of being told what to do by someone who has obviously a grudge against me. Please do stop this.
I am open to include this but it is BS who is insistent on it. He should make a suggestion. "Both viewpoints" - that is hardly possible if one viewpoint is to blame the Jews for their own death.
I am also amazed about the popularity of the view that wikipedians should be robots merely repeating the exact words of a source. Unconditional surrender has a meaning and hence conflicts with other ideas. Quite apart from the fact that you ignore that it contradicts other sources as well. I can no longer attribute this ignoring to a failure to have read the discussion as I have mentioned it to you before. Str1977 (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are making personal comments. Please read WP:NPA - this is not an acceptable mode of behavior if you want to continue editing Wikipedia and will lead to escalating blocks if you insist on continuing. I have no grudge against anyone here; I understand that you feel upset at having been blocked but please remember that the block was reviewed and upheld -- this is about your incivility and attacks against other editors, not some personal feelings I have.
Both sides in a dispute need to work together to resolve an issue. Reverting simply because you don't like a wording isn't productive (and this goes for both sides, not just you); try editing the statements to make them more acceptable or discuss how to change them. Again, you're equating the fact that they chose or agreed with the arbitrator (and remember, they may not have really been in a position to refuse) as advocating that they caused their own death -- that's an extreme jump in logic and shows that you have strong feelings or a POV on this material as well.
The reason that view of "parroting" sources is popular is because its policy and therefore non-negotiable. You can continue to think its wrong, but until you can convince the community at large that a change in policy needs to happen, we need to abide by policy. I understand if you don't like my arguments, but continuing to belittle them by claiming I haven't read the discussion isn't going to help your case. Instead of getting personal, try addressing what people are saying to you. Shell babelfish 15:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have already replied on your talk page.
If both sides should follow the rules, you should also admonish both sides, not just me.
"Again, you're equating the fact that they chose or agreed with the arbitrator ... ... as advocating that they caused their own death" - well it is clear that I do not hold that view but that some are. What I have strong feelings about is to slant the article into that direction. I am not the only one who sees that. A fellow editor feels even more strongly about and has stated that he can't stand to even read this discussion because "it leaves a bad taste in (his) mouth" (his words, not mine).
"(and remember, they may not have really been in a position to refuse)" - that is exactly my point. Only that is not what BS would like to add.
"The reason that view of "parroting" sources is popular is because its policy and therefore non-negotiable." - Actually it is not policy. Nowhere does policy say that we must parrot-like quote source A and source B and source C. We must accurately present all notable views in order to create a NPOV and accurate article, which is what I am trying to do.
Str1977 (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And as I replied, I have warned others for the edit warring, but currently I don't see any other parties being incivil. If that is incorrect, please point out the comments to me and I will mention those as well.
I imagine there must be a way to mention that some scholars believe that the people of BQ had a hand in choosing the arbitrator or at least agreed to the arbitrator without making it sound like they caused their own death. If there are other scholars who say they didn't have a choice or they didn't agree, then by all means, that should be included as well.
Actually, yes, policy does say that. Please read WP:OR - accurately presenting views means just that, it does not mean we can infer things that the source does not say. In this example, if the source does not say that BQ had no choice in the arbitrator and only says they surrendered unconditionally, we cannot infer that they meant BQ had no choice in the arbitrator. There are cases in history where people or groups have surrendered and then been given a say in how they were tried and executed, so the phrase "unconditional surrender" does not immediately rule out the possibility that BQ may have been allowed to choose or agree to an arbitrator. Besides, the point of Wikipedia isn't really to prove or disprove any scholar's theory so I'm not even sure that this line of discussion is really going to get anywhere towards resolving this issue. Shell babelfish 16:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"or at least agreed to the arbitrator" - I already included this a long time ago but BS is not statisfied with it.
"Actually, yes, policy does say that." Policy is saying what? I don't disagree with what you wrote this time, but last time you said policy required parroting. And this is what policy does not say! WP is defined as an encyclopedia and encyclopediae present information. They don't just parrot sources. By that I mean a article that would read: "A says X and B says Y and C says Z etc.
And I stand by my view that Watt's take about an unconditional surrender means no further say in matters except by allowance on the victor's part. Of such an allowance nothing is seen.
One more point. I want this discussion to end to but but there is a certain limit of quality that I am not prepared to sacrifice for the sake of achieving agreement here. Certain things are non-negotiable. Str1977 (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK so it sounds like the statement could include something about them agreeing to the arbitrator and you would be ok with that so long as it wasn't overwhelming and it was presented neutrally?

BlessSins - taking this in to account can you come up with a way to word the statement that we could look at and see if everyone agrees? Shell babelfish 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement should also include the statement that the Qurayza chose the arbitrator. It is for that reason I provided the sources.
My current version is:

The Banu Qurayza agreed with Muhammad's suggestion that one of the Jews' Medinan allies would be the arbitrator, and both Muhammad and Qurayza appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a leading man among the Aws, as judge.

Considering just the "choosing" part, and ignoring the facts that are already agreed upon (e.g. Sa'd was a leading man) it boils down to:

both Muhammad and Qurayza appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh...as judge

I don't consider that to be "overwhelming"
an alternative could be:

both Muhammad and Qurayza submitted thier dispute to Sa'd ibn Mua'dh for a decision.

Other than that, does Str1977 have any suggestions?
Bless sins (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to say right off the bat that your wording won't work. It doesn't present both views, it only mentions the view that they agreed. The statement needs to be clear that some scholars believe the surrender was unconditional and others believe that BQ were either allowed to pick their arbitrator or were allowed to agree to the arbitrator (whatever the actual scholars wording is). Leaving out the fact that some scholars don't believe their were allowed a choice isn't a compromise, right? Shell babelfish 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a view that suggest they didn't agree? Secondly, if you see my version I never removed the statement that Watt thinks they unconditionally surrendered. I wrote in the preceding section "While Watt writes the surrender was "unconditional",[42] Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore say the Banu Qurayza agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing."
However, the issue was slightly complicated by the fact that we've split the surrender and judgment into to different sections. Perhaps if we merged the sections again, we can include all the views in the same section.Bless sins (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"However, the issue was slightly complicated by the fact that we've split the surrender and judgment into to different sections." - we don't need to. Let's avoid the word "unconditional" during our surrender narrative, i.e. at the end of the surrender section. The demise section will eventually discuss all viewpoints. The current state is merely preliminary. Str1977 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, at least one and the others don't agree on whether BQ agreed to surrender only on choosing an arbitrator, agreed afterwards or submitted to having him as arbitrator. With so many different wordings, it sounds like the scholars aren't at all sure about what really happened. Lets see what wording Str1977 comes up with (as he mentioned below). Shell babelfish 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I see this as becoming a discussion of when the Qurayza chose Sa'd. One of my sources does say the choosing of Sa'd happened at the time of surrender. In that case I compeletly understand Str977's objection that this is far from bieng a fact as Watt - an equally reliable source - disputes it.
The two other sources, however, don't say the Qurayza chose the arbitrator at the time of surrender, rather at the time of Muhammad's choosing.Bless sins (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I am currently preparing a wording to include all views. Only I still have to get my hands on those sources that have been used here since day 1 and which because of this have not been reviewed in detail in a while, namely Watt. Once I have, I will immediately post this.

But in the meantime, the outline should look like:

Watt: BQ surrendered unconditionally - Aws complain - Muhammad choses Sad Khaduri (+ Abu Nimer): arbitration between M. and BQ - chose arbitrator together Hashmi: BQ surrendered on the condition of an arbitrator of their chosing Ibn Kathir (explain who he is): that BQ submitted to Sad as arbitrator, in another passage reports that BQ brought up Sad's name as alternative to M.

This is the very basic outline of what it should look like.

However, I need Watt's actual wording before I can implement it and see how exactly to word this. Please be patient. Str1977 (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it should not be broken down by views, but by the order. Where the facts are accepted, we need now attribute (e.g. "Aws complain"). Here's my break down:
  • Banu Qurayza surrender
    • Watt et al, say its unconditional.
    • Hashmi et al say its was on some terms
  • Aws complain.
  • Banu Qurayza agree to mediation
    • Many sources (including Watt) for this one.
  • Banu Qurayza and Muhammad choose arbitrator.
    • Sources for Muhammad's choosing are Watt et al.
    • Sources for Qurayza's choosing are Khadduri et al.
What do you think?Bless sins (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The overriding order is of course the chain of events but different views should not be mixed. I'd say:

Siege and Surrender section:

  • "BQ surrender": unqualified and therefore undisputed

Demise section

  • Watt: unconditional
  • Aws complain ... M. choses Sad.
  • Hashmi et al: on conditions ...
  • Khaduri (+ Abu Nimer): arbitration between M. and BQ - chose arbitrator together (either before Hashmi or after)
  • also Ibn Kathir: noting that in one account the BQ bring Sad's name into play way earlier
  • Ibn Kathir: BQ formally submitting to Sad (tying the branches back together)


Views should not be mixed like that as this creates the wrong impression of agreement when there is none - absence of explicit disagreement is not agreement either. The Aws complaint (which is the reason for Sad's involvement in that version) wouldn't have occurred if the arbitration was simply between M. and BQ. Str1977 (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Ibn Kathir isn't a "reliable source" I don't think we can include him, unless another source gives him emphasis. We can certainly put him in the footnotes, though.Bless sins (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
He is a RS. We can report what he says and then it isn't OR. Without him I see little point in the whole undertaking. Str1977 (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No, he is a medieval source. He has no "reputation for fact-checking". He is no academic, nor a scholar. Thus he is not an RS. Besides are you willing to acknowledge that Muhammad received divine revelations, as Ibn Kathir should claim?Bless sins (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
IK is a primary source and hence is not easy to use. We can only say what he clearly says and may not interpret him. I would have no problem to state that IK reports that M. received revelations. Hiding that claim would be very wrong. Of course, this shouldn't be endorsed. Also note that I used IK in conjunction with Muir, an aged but nevertheless useful source. Str1977 (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
"We can only say what he clearly says" Oh he says pages and pages of text, most of it being irrelevant to a modern encyclopedia. Please find a scholar who cites the passage by Ibn Kathir, because Ibn Kathir by himself is not reliable. Muir issue is discussed in the section below.Bless sins (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I have already moved him into a footnote where we mention that Muir rejects IK and the "surrender to Muhammad" views. Muir is a modern scholar so it should be okay. Str1977 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
"One of my sources does say the choosing of Sa'd happened at the time of surrender. In that case I compeletly understand Str977's objection that this is far from bieng a fact as Watt - an equally reliable source - disputes it."
Are you talking about the second Ibn Kathir passage? (As posted in my my sandbox? I plan on including this. Only, in this source Sad is not chosen at that time. What happens is that the BQ bring up his name as an alternative to Muhammad. If that version were to be strictly followed, it could be understood that the BQ made their surrender not to M. at all but to Sad.
This would tie in with the BQ's formal submission to Sad as related by Ibn Kathir BUT that passage fits with all versions (hence above: tying the branches back together). Str1977 (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some principles we need to agree upon:

  • We can't say something the sources don't. No matter how tempting, or how "obvious" we shouldn't be saying something the sources don't explicitly state. This is OR. (Remember that everything a source say we don't have to, but everything we say, has to be from a source)
  • Attribution is required in the following case only:
    • For a perspective. E.g. Muhammad was a merciful or cruel person.
    • For contradicting narratives, if,
      • the contradictions are serious. For example, the contradictions between Ahmad and Barakat, and other scholars on how many Qurayza were killed may not be serious enough.
      • the contradictions are explicit. This again ties back into my argument that we can't use our interpretation of sources, in this case to assume a contradiction.
  • This article must respect chronological order. Small deviations are probably not a problem, but we aren't giving competing narratives. Small differences should be noted in the chronological order they occur. Thus we should organize the article by chronological order, not by view of person.Bless sins (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no other way in the case of the choice of Sad as we do have conflicting narratives given by the scholars. Str1977 (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see my proposed wording.Bless sins (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording1

Here is my proposed wording:

The next morning, the Banu Qurayza surrendered and the Muslims seized their stronghold.[1] According to Watt, they surrendered unconditionally, while according to Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore, Banu Qurayza agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing.[2] This, Abu-Nimer writes, was based on the Arabian tradition of arbitration in which the parties submit their dispute to a person chosen by them.[3]Metnion Abdullah bin Salam, and the weapons discovered

After the surrender of the Qurayza, some of the tribe of Aws wanted to honor their alliance with Qurayza asked Muhammad to treat the Qurayza leniently as he had previously treated the Qaynuqa for the sake of Ibn Ubayy. (Arab custom required support of an ally, independent of the ally's conduct to a third party.) In response Muhammad suggested that an arbitrator should be chosen from one of the Banu Qurayza's Medinan allies, to which the Qurayza agreed.[1] They both then jointly appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a leading man among the Aws, as judge.[4][5][6][7]

Please give your thoughts on this. expalin what it is missing (if anything) and what shouldn't be there (if anything) and what changes to the wording are required (if any).Bless sins (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have found another interesting source: Muir who (though quite old) does us the favour of discussing various versions. Str1977 (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I highly doubt Muir's reliability. More or on that later. Str1977 do you have any doubts on my version? If not I'd prefer it to yours, as for one I think it summarizes the views well.Bless sins (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure there are doubts about your version (leaving aside formatting issues):
  • It does not present differing views very well but rushes along, placing unconditional vs. conditional in the same sentence as the narrative of the actual surrender, also creating the impression of only two versions. Sure, there is a dichotomy between unconditional vs. conditional but not all "conditional surrenders" were "a Muslim arbitrator of their chosing".
  • My version not only mentions who was in charge of the women but also who was in charge of the men.
  • Your version fails to link the "Aws complain and Muhammad suggests Sad" with the idea that the BQ surrendered unconditionally. If they had surrendered on the condition of "a Muslim arbitrator of their chosing", Muhammad would not have been able to make such suggestions to the BA as he would have to talk matters with the BQ. If they had surrendered to the BA, the BA would not have pleaded for leniency as they would have been the deciding force.
  • "They both then jointly appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a leading man among the Aws, as judge." - That is simply not true. It only fits with the Hashmi/Khaduri version (they are M and BQ in the context), not with Watt (who has M. appointing Sad) not with Muir (where the BA act themselves). Str1977 (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there more than two versions?
  • That can be included in my wording, no problem.
  • I can't "link" ideas not previously linked by other scholars. Watt doesn't explicitly link it. As far as I see, you also don't "link" the ideas in any explicit manner.
  • I'm opening a section for that.Bless sins (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course there are more than two versions - conditional vs. unconditional is only one element. There is also "surrendered to whom".
  • Sure Watt links them (see his text Itaqallah graciously posted on my talk page, there's a link to the history). He explains that the BQ surrendered unconditionally to Muhammad and that then the Aws complained and then Muhammad appppointed Sad. Str1977 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I don't quite understand you. On the issue of surrender, some scholars say they surrendered unconditionally. Others say they surrendered upon a condition. What is the third view, and whose is it?
  • I took a look at this. Couldn't find any explicit "link". Can you copy and paste it here?
Bless sins (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Str1977 (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's make this very clear: there is the view that the Qurayza surrendered unconditionally, there is a view that they surrendered upon a condition. What is the third view? Literally, what is it. Please write it out.
In my last post, I just said that I read that. "I took a look at this". Can you give me the specific sentences where Watt makes the connection?Bless sins (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I already explained the different views to you in the above posting. Read it again until you understand.
  • I will not post large chunks of text for you here when they are already posted in the history of my talk page (thanks to Itaqallah again). It is not hard to find. Str1977 (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Both answers are signs of uncooperativeness. You need to respond if we are to get somewhere. I asked you to specifically quote a third view, you haven't done that. I've read the text on your talk page and didn't find any "link". Yet you refuse to clear up the matter my specifying the paragraphs in question. Finally, please don't undo my sub-sectioning of this section. It is already too big.Bless sins (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that I already have name the three views (apart from the fact that they are in the article). But if you insist, here are the alternatives again: a surrender can be either unconditionally or done on any kind of condition, which would theoretically leave an unlimited number of possibly ways of surrender.
In our case the three main views are 1) that the BQ surrendered unconditionally to Muhammad who then, pressured by the BA, suggested leaving the decision to one of their chiefs. BA and BQ agreed and Muhammad appointed Sad. (This is Watt's view, apparently also supported by Ramadan.) 2) that the BQ surrendered on the condition to have their case arbitrated by someone chosen by both parties. (This is the view espoused by Hashi et al. and Khadduri.) 3) the BQ surrendered on the condition that one the Aws should decide their fate. (The view brough forth by Muir.)
Watt can be found in the history of my talk page, Muir by the link you removed from the article, the others in my sand box (also linked on my talk page.) Str1977 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
In my latest edit (that you reverted), I included all three views in the first two lines, did I not?
"Watt can be found in the history of my talk page" I never asked for "Watt", but for the "link that Watt makes". I'm not looking for Watt's book, else I'd go to the library. What I want is (for the nth time) the specific quote in which Watt makes the connection.Bless sins (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording2

Here is my preliminary proposal, pending Watt's actual text:

The next morning, the Banu Qurayza surrendered and the Muslims seized their stronghold and their weapons.< ref name="WattProphetStatesman"/ > The men were bound and placed under the custody of Muhammad ibn Maslamah, who had killed Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, while the women and children were placed under Abdullah ibn Sallam, a former rabbi who had converted to Islam.< ref name = "Muir />< ref >Ramadan, p. 145.</ ref > The number of weapons is already mentioned and should not be repeated.

SECTION BREAK

According to Watt (name other possible sources if avaiable), the Qurayza unconditionally surrendered to Muhammad. The Aws, who wanted to honor their old alliance with the Qurayza, asked Muhammad to treat the Qurayza leniently as he had previously treated the Qaynuqa for the sake of Ibn Ubayy. (Arab custom required support of an ally, independent of the ally's conduct to a third party.)< ref name="WattProphetStatesman"/ > Muhammad then suggested to bring the case before an an arbitrator chosen from the Aws and when the Aws agreed, he appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a leading man among the Aws who was dying from a wound suffered during the Battle of the Trench, to decide the fate of the Jewish tribe.< Guillaume et al >

According to others, the Qurayza did not surrender unconditionally: Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore relate that tribe agreed to surrender on the condition of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing.< ref >Hashmi, Buchanan, Moore, Margaret, p. 376.</ ref > According to Khadduri (also cited by Abu Nimer), "both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them"< ref > Khadduri,p. 233f.</ ref > < ref >Abu-Nimer, p. 247.</ ref >, according to the Arabian tradition of arbitration.< ref >Abu-Nimer, p. 247.</ ref >

Muir holds that the Qurayza surrendered on the condition that "their fate was decided by their allies, the Bani Aws".< ref name = "Muir /> Ibn Kathir reports that the Qurayza, refusing to surrender to Muhammad, instead named Sa'd as alternative and subsequently surrendered to him< Ibn Kathir >, an account which Muir rejects as "most unlikely, as this chief had, when deputed to them on a late occasion, parted from them with the most hostile threats." < ref name = "Muir />

Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, regardless of how he came into this position, requested and received promises from all that they would abide by his decision.< ref name="Peterson" > He then pronounced that "the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives". Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment.< Guillaume et al >

So, this is my proposal. Have a go at it. Str1977 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some notes are in order:
  • I remain of the opinion that the weapons numbers should be stated further up. But as a sign of good will I repeat here that the Muslims captured the weapons, thus reminding the reader of them and enabling him to look up the above figures.
  • The placement of the women and children is a matter of the surrender and hence belongs into that paragraph.
  • I have left the description of who Sad is within the "Watt paragraph". People read that first and remember later on. However, if you want it, we could also describe Sad's identity immediately before his decision.
  • I have retained Ibn Kathir's second account ("named Sad instead) as it seemed noteworthy. But I wouldn't mind if it were moved to a footnote along with Muir's rejection of it. BTW, Muir also expressly rejects the "Watt view" (avant le lettre of course) - this could be placed in the footnote too. I didn't know how to include it in main text without disrupting it too much.
  • I left out the Ibn Kathir's first account ("formal submission") as it seemed inconsequential after reading Muir. After all, here IK only says that Muhamad told others (whom exactly) to "stand up for your master/better" - this may have nothing to do with any legal submission as explained by Muir. Any attempt to interpret this would be OR ... and needless OR at that.
Str1977 (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't proceed without hearing you out first. But since you currently have to bear with a version that doesn't contain the "BQ chose" view and the last version is one mine, I will post it now into the article. That doesn't mean our discussion is over but that I was sincere when I said that I wanted to include all views. Str1977 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I find that there's a LOT of problems with your version. We just need to learn to not let the reversions distract the discussion.Bless sins (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Naturally, I stand by my version. Str1977 (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The weapons should be placed at the time they were seized, or at least known to exist. If there's a source that says that the Qurayza possessed weapons at the beginning of the battle, then I'd agree with Str1977. Otherwise we place them below.
  • Isn't that where I placed it?
  • N/A
  • Muir is not a reliable source (or atleast I highly doubt it), nor is answering-islam.
  • Like I said Ibn Kathir isn't a reliable source. You'll have a hard time proving his "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking".
Bless sins (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
"The weapons should be placed at the time they were seized, or at least known to exist." - Well, if it is the time they were known to exist we would have to include them much further. Of course the BQ had weapons just like any other tribe. The number best fits when we are talking about their strength. This is the way that Heck uses them too. Str1977 (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In relation to the principles I proposed above, I have three major objections with your version:

  • Its not in exact chronological order. "Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore relate that tribe agreed to surrender on the condition of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing" should be moved before the Aws complain. Infact the Aws' reactions are not disputed so they need not be "according to Watt".
  • Hashmi et al. don't say "the Qurayza did not surrender unconditionally". Please stick to what they do say. If you really seek to contrast, then placing their view beside Watt should do the trick.
  • both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them" is not disputed by any source therefore need not be attributed. The same goes for the Aws' reactions (as I said above).
  • Like I said before, Muir and Ibn Kathir are to be removed, as they're not reliable sources. Muir's reliability was discussed here with the result that he's not reliable enough.Bless sins (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your chronological argument. There is no reason to present Hashmi before Watt.
  • The Aws' reaction itself may not be disputed but it is most important for the Watt scenario. In the other narratives the complaint is not needed to bring about Sad's appointment. I have not seen these complaints in Hashmi or Khaduri. Only in Watt and Muir.
  • ""both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them" is not disputed by any source therefore need not be attributed." - that's not true. Watt for that matter would dispute it. Sure, in a way "both parties ..." is always correct but in the different versions, the identity of the parties changes. Watt has M vs. BA, Hashmi has M vs. BQ. The "both parties agree" refers in context to M vs. BQ and hence it only fits with that viewpoint.
  • I can somewhat relate to your point re Ibn Kathir but not regarding Muir. He will have to stay. The discussion you linked is not sufficent reason. It didn't have the result that Muir couldn't be used or is not reliable enough. That was Aminz' view but even Itaqallah did not completely agree while others vehemently defended Muir's usability. My position is quite close to Itaq's: use him but with caution. And I think he is quite useful since he let's us partake in his weighing one account against another (the thing I so utterly missed in Watt so far). Funny that now you want to remove scholars.
Str1977 (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ofcourse there is! Events must be placed chronologically. First the Qurayza surrendered. Then the Aws asked for lenient treatment. We should respect chronological order.
  • "I have not seen these complaints in Hashmi or Khaduri." That doesn't mean its insignificant. It should be mentioned when it happens. Remember, there are no "scenarios" (I don't know where you get that from). There are simple events and we report them without creating suppositions.
  • There is a section below on who disputes it. If a reliable source says an arbitration took place between Bani Aws, then we mention this as well.
  • Regarding Muir the discussion is below. Also, I object to the removal or reliable sources, not unreliable ones.
  • Finally, both our versions lack the fact that the Qurayza agreed with the appointment of Sa'd. This is mentioned by everyone (even Watt).Bless sins
  • "First the Qurayza surrendered. Then the Aws asked for lenient treatment. We should respect chronological order." My version is doing that.
  • "I have not seen these complaints in Hashmi or Khaduri." - "That doesn't mean its insignificant. It should be mentioned when it happens. Remember, there are no "scenarios" (I don't know where you get that from). There are simple events and we report them without creating suppositions." - No, sure there the events and if we were omniscient, we could simply what happened. But we are not. We have to base ourselves on scholars (and these in turn on sources) and they disagree. Hence, we have to present these different opinions as clearly as possible. If Hashmi et al. mention the Aws complaints (I haven't seen them doing that) we can include that as well. If they are not, they don't seem to place any importance on the Aws.
  • "If a reliable source says an arbitration took place between Bani Aws, then we mention this as well." Sure. We are mentioning it. But Hashmi don't say so.
  • Muir is a reliable source according WP rules. "Also, I object to the removal or reliable sources, not unreliable ones." And I never proposed the removal of reliable sources - only writers like Ramadan.
  • "Finally, both our versions lack the fact that the Qurayza agreed with the appointment of Sa'd. This is mentioned by everyone (even Watt)." - Maybe you posted this without reviewing my latest changes (made after I re-read Watt's text). I do mention it. Only, actually they agreed with the proposal of having one of the Aws as arbitrator. Str1977 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "they disagree" Not on the Aws issue. Str1977, just because someone doesn't mention the Aws' complaints, doesn't mean they disagree with it.
  • "Sure. We are mentioning it. But Hashmi don't say so." That is of no significance, unless Hashmi disagrees with it. Also, we must mention it when it happened.
  • "I never proposed the removal of reliable sources - only writers like Ramadan." But you've agreed he is a reliable source.
  • I don't see where you mention the "agreement", can you give the source.
  • "During the Battle of the Trench, he had beend sent as one of Muhammad's emmissaries to ascertain the Quarayza's activities and had reportedly parted from them with threats." Belongs in the Battle of the Trench section.Bless sins (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If they don't mention the Aws issue, it must be of no importance to their view. And yes, if the BQ and M. hatched out there differences by chosing an arbitrator between them, it doesn't make any difference whether the Aws complained.
  • No, we report Hashmi by saying what Hashmi says. We do not insert what he does not say because he does not explicitely disagree.
  • Search the article for the sentence: "Muhammad then suggested to bring the case before an an arbitrator chosen from the Aws, to which both the Aws and the Qurayza agreed to."
  • It is mentioned in the Trench section but it seems relevant to his position now, as arbitrator.
Str1977 (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "it must be of no importance to their view" That doesn't mean its no importance to wikipedia, that wants to build a comprehensive article including all major viewpoints. "it doesn't make any difference whether the Aws complained" But the Aws did complain, as Watt says (seconded by Ramadan), and this complaining is not contradicted by any scholar (as far as I know).
  • "We do not insert what he does not say because he does not explicitely disagree." I agree, and he doesn't disagree with the Aws account.
  • OK, that is what I was looking for.
  • I don't know why we need to give this information twice. What is its significance (attributed by scholars)?Bless sins (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It is important to WP and hence we included it. But it is not important to Hashmi's view. And to attribute something like that to Hashmi is pure speculation. The Aws did complain Watt says - that is his view. If Ramadan agrees with him, that's fine. Maybe we should add Ramadan to the references supporting Watt's POV.
  • It doesn't matter whether you think he doesn't disagree. He certainly does not voice agreement and hence we remain silent on the matter. No one is forcing you or the reader to think that Hashmi and Watt disagree. But what Hashmi doesn't say he doesn't say. Str1977 (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "And to attribute something like that to Hashmi is pure speculation." I've never insisted on attributing it to Hashmi. "The Aws did complain Watt says - that is his view." It's also an undisputed view, thus a fact.
  • Let's agree to the principle that someone doesn't disagree with something unless they state they disagree with it, ok? Else we'd conclude that Watt disagrees with Musaylama killing Ka'b, as he doesn't state that...and numerous other events.Bless sins (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
But neither do they agree when they don't agree. As I wrote somewhere else, you need not assume disagreement when agreement is noted in the article. Note that the article nowhere says that Hashmi rejects a role of the Aws. It remains silent in that respect - a reflection of Hashmi's own silence.
Cases are of course different between the accounts of the surrender and the the identity of Kab's killer. It is not that Watt or Hashmi don't mention something period - it is that they both give an account of the surrender and in Hashmi's account the Aws don't seem to play a noteworthy role. And if that's the case, we have no basis of it including it in any way. Str1977 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
"But neither do they agree when they don't agree." Correct. So we don't assume anything. We don't assume they agree, we don't assume they disagree. Does that sound fair?
"And if that's the case, we have no basis of it including it in any way." But Watt mentions the account of Aws, doesn't he? That is sufficient reason for including it.Bless sins (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It does sound fair. What is not fair is to somehow wanting the article to suggest that Hashmi relates the BA pleas.
"But Watt mentions the account of Aws, doesn't he?" I was talking about the supposed presence of the BA in Hashmi. Please think along. Str1977 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Another point. We could also include the pleas by the BA to Sad which preceded the decision. Sad was apppointed and the BA pleaded, he requested and obtained their pledges and then gave his decision.
If we do this we could partly move the information about "honoring the old alliance" from the Watt passage to that later passage, thereby addressing your complaint above. What do you think? Str1977 (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Which "pleas"? The ones to the prophet were before Sa'd was appointed, the ones to Sa'd were after he was appointed.Bless sins (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Pleas in general. The ones to Sad are anyway no problem at all. They are already included after his appointment where they belong. Str1977 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I restate this proposal which has been ignored by BS. I have done something to that extent but I am willing to go further with his help.
Currently, the text presenting Watt's account reads:
"According to Watt, the Qurayza unconditionally surrendered to Muhammad. The Aws, who wanted to honor their old alliance with the Qurayza, asked Muhammad to treat the Qurayza leniently as he had previously treated the Qaynuqa for the sake of Ibn Ubayy. (Arab custom required support of an ally, independent of the ally's conduct to a third party.) Muhammad then suggested to bring the case before an an arbitrator chosen from the Aws, to which both the Aws and the Qurayza agreed to. Muhammad then appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh to decide the fate of the Jewish tribe.[1][36][37][38][41]"
The part in bold is the information I gather BS would want to include in another way, pertaining to the pleading of the Aws.
Now, my suggestion is this: if he can thin out the above paragraph, reducing the extent to a minimum without (and this is essential) harming Watt's point, we can then move the removed information (concerned strictly with the Aws) to a passage after the differing views, immediately preceding the passage where we currently introduce the person of Sad.
Can you do that, BS? Str1977 (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I can understand that you don't want to "harm Watt's point", but why is "thin out the above paragraph, reducing the extent to a minimum without" necessary? Besides, we present things in chronological order with no conditions attached.Bless sins (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not necessary at all. It is only neccessary if we wanted to move a large part of what is being said about the BA to another place (e.g. after Hashmi and Muir). I will not allow repetiveness. Things like the "BA wanted honor their old alliance", the reference to Ibn Ubay could be included otherwise.
"Besides, we present things in chronological order with no conditions attached." Nonsense. Your whole idea of "chronological order" is nonsensical when there is no agreement about what actually happened, how things got from BQ surrendered to Sad being in a position to decree their deaths. And the insistence on clearly presenting all views without diluting or mixing them is indeed unconditional. Str1977 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"It is only neccessary." Right, why is it necessary? If we want to "move" material, like you say, where does the repetitiveness come from?
There is agreement on almost everything, except a few details. The only thing there is a dispute on are the terms of Qurayza's surrender. Besides that there is no disagreement, though not all events are mentioned in every source.
"the insistence on clearly presenting all views without diluting" I agree this is a legitimate insistence.
"...or mixing them" Not legitimate. We are "mixing" (i.e. reporting more than one view in a paragraph/section) all over the article. There is no ban on doing this.Bless sins (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh my. Why is it neccessary? Because without it no actual move is possible. We will certainly not move the entire bit, thus destroying Watt's view. In other words, a move requires a differentiation between the things needed for Watt's view and the things dispensable for that. If such a differentiation is not possible, nothing can be moved.
"There is agreement on almost everything" No, there isn't. At least not when people like Hashmi, Khaduri, Abu Nimer (or Muir) come into play. Yes, the major ones (Watt, Peters, Stillman, Guillaume) all agree on most things. And the only thing you mention rather has many consequences.
In other places we do not have a real disagreement about facts, hence the situation does not arise. Here we have an hence any mixing would be a dilution. It also is the reverse of your previous demand "to include all views". We are doing this now and will not change this to "include a stew of all views". Str1977 (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with differentiation, only with you asking to "minimize" stuff. But since you haven't asked for that in your last two replies, I suppose that is no longer necessary.
There is only one disagreement and that is the terms of surrender. If there any other controversial topic here, please name it.
To dilute is to thin out someone's views. That is not something I proposed (though you said "thin out the above paragraph"). Finally, what's a "stew" in the context of this article?Bless sins (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I have said the same thing throughout the above postings. But it appears that you are not interested since you are not moving a finger to suggest something.
The terms of surrender and the appointment of Sad are controversial. I already said that.
"To dilute is to thin out someone's views." I'd very much appreciate if you actually read what I wrote. I don't want to dilute anything. But in order to present anything about the BA elsewhere, we'd have to thin it out in the Watt passage but only so much that Watt's view is intact. When I say "we'd have to" I actually should say YOU'd have to. I am fine with the current version and there leave it to you to make the first suggestion. And please, let your next reply here by such a suggestion or don't bother replying. I am tired to explain again and again.
With stew I meant anything that is created out of different ingredients. Str1977 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"And please, let your next reply here by such a suggestion or don't bother replying." Sure, I'll put my suggestion in the article.Bless sins (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess Shell would prefer it if you replied here. After all, there is no guarantee that it will be a workable suggestion. Str1977 (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm replying here, and will continue to do so. I will use the talk page of this article as long as I'm active. And yes, there is no guarantee that my version will be perfect, but that is why you have the edit button (but I hope you won't use it to simply revert).Bless sins (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay by me. I will always look with an open mind. Str1977 (talk)
But of course I will not accept your creating a harmonised tale with the tendency to make Hashmi the standard acccount and minimise Watt (and all this under an edit summary that has nothing to do with what you've done).
FYI, the "espoused" passage did not say that Muir talked about Watt - only that the view rejected by Muir is the one espoused by Watt. I will add a "later" to clarify that further.
The Ahmad bit (but he is not talking merely about the choice of Sad) is useful and I did consider including it myself. I will retain it in some form. Str1977 (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't "harmonised" any accounts by pretending agreement where there wasn't any. (If you mean that I was made the article more understandable, then yes that was my intention). Nor did I minimize Watt (can you tell me what passage of him I removed)? Nor have I made Hashmi the standard account, I've clearly attributed the opinion of him and other authors to themselves respectively.Bless sins (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
But you did. You put Hashmi etc. in the prime position again. You again put the attribution at the end, making it seem at first sight that Hashmi's view is a fact. You removed the Aws pleas from Watt's scenario. You placed Khaduri and Abu Nimer next to Watt's view (when the two are mutually exclusive) and not next to Hashmi's. You also presented their view as if they said the BQ chose Sad when they in fact only wrote that they together with Muhammad chose the arbitrator. Yes, that amounts to the two (note: the two, not merely the BQ) chosing Sad but that's not what these authors are explicitely saying. Also, in my version, we do not need to invent such words to make such things clear.
All in all, you are twisting differing narratives, I guess in a way that best suits your POV. I will not accept it. Str1977 (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean "prime position"? If you mean I put them first, then that cna't be avoided. Logically one scholar will go before another. My choice to put Hashmi first is so that watt can remain connected to the rest of the paragraph (i.e. we have Hashmi et al. -> Watt -> Watt). Attribution can be put anywhere as well. Generally its not a good idea to start a section with an attribution.
"You removed the Aws pleas from Watt's scenario." Can you point to the specific sentence?
I placed Khadduri's and Abu-Nimer's views next to Watt, not in Watt. In other words I put them side by side. Secodnly, they are not mutually exclusive. Khadduri and Abu-Nimer agree that the prophet chose Sa'd. Watt doesn't disagree that the Qurayza chose Sa'd.
My version reads "According to Khadduri and Abu-Nimer, the Qurayza also chose Sa'd ibn Mu'adh as an arbitrator." Note the "also". Nevertheless I'll make this clear in ym next edit.
"I guess in a way that best suits your POV." Please keep bad faith accusations to yourself.
I will not accept a version that is against chronological order (with obvious exceptions).Bless sins (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we should now move on to the next issue.Bless sins (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, "putting them first". Of course putting someone first cannot be avoided which emphasizes the need to carefully consider whom to put first, as I am sure you have done. Putting Hashmi first gives his view undue prominence (as opposed to that world class scholar Watt). And it also hurts the logical flow of the differing views. And you are still trying to harmonise. (And by putting the "according to" after the view you are still trying to create an air of factuality. I told you this before but you persist. Ah, and please do not try to use fixing this one item as an excuse for reverting.)
The specific sentence? You put Watt into the first paragraph (but merely as another, easily neglible opinion) and did not even give the whole Watt scenario there. Then you put the Aws in the next paragraph, with no obvious connection between the two.
"Watt doesn't disagree that the Qurayza chose Sa'd." He doesn't agree either. The BQ are no active factor in his scenario.
"Note the "also". Nevertheless I'll make this clear in ym next edit." - That doesn't help at all as Khadduri and AN do not say this. They say both parties chose and arbitrator. No more, no less.
And I will not accept a version that tries to slant the presentation of the various views. We present one view after the other, starting the with the most prominent one, that of Watt which also largely agrees with that of Peters and Stillman. Str1977 (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

Str1977 has said that the statement that the Qurayza chose their arbitrator is contradicted by some sources. The sources that say this, I've given them above. Can Str1977 please quote the sources that would contradict the sources above. (I'm looking for what scholars say not unsourced commentary). Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is quite easy. Some sources say they chose Sad (Ibn Kathir), some say they chose an arbitrator together with Muhammad (Hashmi et al., Khadduri), some say Muhammad chose Sad when pressured by the Aws (Watt) and some say the submitted to the Aws (Muir). If Watt clearly states that the BQ agreed to an arbitrator from the Aws and that Muhammad then chose Sad, this means that, according to him, the BQ did not chose Sad. No further problematisation needed. Str1977 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I see no quote from a reliable source. I'm not looking for your opinion, but for scholarly opinion. I provided a quote from each of my sources, and expect you to do the same. Bless sins (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
He gave you what each of the scholars had to say on the subject. Is there a reason you're looking for the specific quote? Shell babelfish 23:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
BS, we use scholars to provide information for the article, not to shoot down other scholars.
Any quotes can be found in my sandbox where we have Hashmi, Khadduri, Abu Nimer and Ibn Kathir (twice). Watt can be accessed via a link on my talk page. Str1977 (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Shell, what Str1977 said is "If Watt clearly states that the BQ agreed to an arbitrator from the Aws and that Muhammad then chose Sad, this means that, according to him, the BQ did not chose Sad." In other words if Watt doesn't mention something, it means he disagrees with it. I think that is very incorrect way of looking at sources. Watt doesn't mention numerous things that are mentioned by other scholars. It doesn't mean those things are disputed.
I want the full quote so I can judge for myself whether a contradiction exists. I've seen the sources and haven't found a contradiction.Bless sins (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Str1977 you have pages of Watt on your talk page. Please give me a sentence or two (or a paragraph) where he contradicts Khadduri et al. I want the specific statement please.Bless sins (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Bless sins, you way of going about is unacceptable. We mention what the sources say. We do not attribute something that they do not say. It is as simple as that. Why do you have a problem by that. Str1977 (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"We do not attribute something that they do not say." Exactly, then why do you insist that Watt not mentioning the choosing issue is somehow significant? Finally, please honor my request to provide the text from your sources that supposedly "contradict" the account. This is a repetition of a previous request. I provided you with quotes, and now I'm asking you should do the same.Bless sins (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe Str1977 pointed out that the quotes were available in his Sandbox, but didn't give a link to it. It appears to be at User_talk:Str1977/sandbox. Shell babelfish 23:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The link to the specific quotes certainly helps.
In the [User_talk:Str1977/sandbox]], I see, first of all, quotes that I've already posted above. The other two quotes are sourced to Ibn Kathir. Ibn Kathir's second quote says "Banu Qurayza then said they would accept the authority of Sa'd b. Mu'adh." This actually supports the view rather than contradicts it. the first quote says that the Qurayza submits to the authority of Sa'd. There is no contradiction between choosing an arbitrator and submitting to the authority of the aribitrator you've just chosen (the statements go hand in hand actually).Bless sins (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the quotes in the sandbox (thanks to Shell for providing the link - I thought my reference to obvious) are nothing new. I merely copied them from our mediation.
As for "then why do you insist that Watt not mentioning the choosing issue is somehow significant?" - No, that's not our issue at all! The issue is that Watt DOES say something about the chosing of Sad. He says "Muhammad met this feeling by suggesting that the fate of the Jews should be decided by one of their Medinan Muslim allies. In this way Muḥammad avoided any likelihood of a blood-feud. The Jews agreed with the suggestion, and Muhammad appointed as judge Sa'd ibnMu'ādh, the leading man among the Aws and indeed among the Helpers generally." - He DOES say something specifically about WHO CHOSE SAD (Muhammad) and he DOES say something about the Jews' role (agreed to his suggestions to pick an arbitrator from the Aws). Which happens to be exactly what our article is saying.
BS, if I am not mistaken you have above informed me that Ibn Kathir is not a reliable source for our purposes here and I have had no qualms about accepting that advice. Why the sudden U-turn. You might remember that I had included Ibn Kathir's second quote as a forth view in the article before you convinced me otherwise. Regarding the first quote, the most natural interpretation would be that this is the same event that Ibn Kathir describes in the other quote. Also, you are saying that IK supports the Hashmi view? Possibly - I never would suggest that these scholars (being scholars) based their view on thin air - they certainly have based themselves on interpreting the avaiable sources - as have Watt and Muir, only differently. Different interpretations is nothing spectacular among historians. Only that line of thought doesn't help us any further, given IK's nature as a primary source.
But let me restate the important point: Watt says that Muhammad chose Sad. And that we report. That the most distinguished scholar says so makes it clear that any "they chose Sad together" cannot possibly be an undisputed view. Str1977 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

<-- First things first:

  • "Why the sudden U-turn [on Ibn Kathir's reliability]"? I never said he is reliable.
  • "That the most distinguished scholar says so makes it clear that any "they chose Sad together" cannot possibly be an undisputed view." I'm sorry I don't see where Watt says the Qurayza didn't choose Sa'd (see below).Bless sins (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Watt quote: Excellent, now you finally provided me with a quote, which I had been asking for. Let's take it sentence by sentence:

  • "Muhammad met this feeling by suggesting that the fate of the Jews should be decided by one of their Medinan Muslim allies."
    • This says that Muhammad suggested that someone from Aws (presumably) be appointed as arbitrator. No mention of Qurayza not choosing Sa'd.
  • "In this way Muḥammad avoided any likelihood of a blood-feud."
    • Nothing about choosing at all.
  • "The Jews agreed with the suggestion, and Muhammad appointed as judge Sa'd ibnMu'ādh, the leading man among the Aws and indeed among the Helpers generally."
    • This says that only after the Qurayza agreed with the suggestion, Muhammad implemented it. Again there is no mention that the Qurayza didn't choose their arbitrator. If there is any evidence at all, it for the Qurayza not only playing a role in who the arbitrator is, but also approving it.
  • So where is that quote of yours that suggests the Qurayza didn't choose the arbitrator?Bless sins (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
You just read it. That you choose to ignore the fact that in Watt's account the BQ did not chose Sad - he mentions Sad, he mentions his chosing, he mentions the BQ but he specifically does not say that the BQ chose Sad. In contrast to what you claim "the Qurayza not only playing a role in who the arbitrator is, but also approving it" - this is nonsense. The BQ are mentioned as approving of Muhammad suggestion, namely to pick one from the BA. They did not approve of Sad. Muhammad only brought up afterwards. He appointed him. Anything else is contradicting the clear opinion of Watt. I would prefer that you stopped playing games.
BTW, Barakhat Ahmad also in no uncertain terms declares the idea that the BQ could have chosen Sad as unconceivable. As do other scholars that he refers to. Each destroying your bogus claim that "BQ chose Sad" is somehow undisputed or even "fact".
Since you repeatedly brought up Ahmad, I must say that this is draining my belief in your good faith again. Stop it! Str1977 (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I have to agree with Bless sins here. Watt does not specifically say that BQ had no role in choosing Sa'd, nor does he specifically say they did either. Essentially, he does not go in to sufficient detail in that short quote to make a claim one way or the other. He cannot be used to support a statement saying that BQ did not have a role in choosing Sa'd and he cannot be used to support a statement that says BQ did have a role in choosing Sa'd. Shell babelfish 01:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Shell summed it up nicely.
Str1977, you brought up Barakat Ahmad. I'm not sure what you're using him for.Bless sins (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Watt does say that Muhammad chose Sad, which in turn means that the BQ did not chose him. Otherwise, he would have to say "Muhammad and the BQ chose Sad". Anything else is unacceptable OR and POV pushing.
"He cannot be used to support a statement saying that BQ did not have a role in choosing Sa'd" - and no such statement exists! But the way he puts it also makes clear that he views matters differently. Hence there is no basis to claim that the "BQ chose Sad" claim is undisputed. It certainly does not belong into the intro.
Ahmad I looked up because of the contradictory things stated here about him. I found a few more things and I will post them in a while. Str1977 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but no, Watt does not go in to sufficient detail for us to say that he states BQ did not have something to do with choosing or approving S'ad - to say that his work supports that or that he meant to say that is original research - we can only report things that a source actually says, not what we believe they meant. Were there other sources that clearly state that BQ did not have any part in choosing the arbitrator? Shell babelfish 06:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You might have a point if someone tried to include the statement "According to Watt ... the Qurayza had no part in chosing Sad" (ignoring for now the fact that the actual contentious point was the ultimate choosing made). But that's not what happening here. I have summed up what Watt says - no more and no less. I did the same for Hashmi and others.
The issue here is that someone tried to include a matter of fact statement that the BQ agreed to Sad as arbitrator and our sources do not provide a basis for this.
Here are some quotes from Ahmad's book:
"The inner contradictions in the above account cannot be reconciled ... The tradition reported by Abu Sa'id and Al-Khudri and given by al-Bukhari and Muslim is very difficult to accept; it means that the B. Qurayzah surrendered on the condition that the man who so recently reviled them and was praying for vengeance should be appointed their judge. They were inviting a death sentence." (p. 79)
"It is not without reason that Caetani has questioned the whole account of Sa'd's selection by the B. Qurayzah as hakam. (ref: Caetani, annali dell'Islam, vol I., p. 632)" (p. 80)
"The B. Qurayzah's choice of Sa'd as hakam does not stand to reason." (p. 80)
Str1977 (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Or to look upon this from another angle:
We present various views on how the arbitration proceeded from the BQ's surrender to Sad's decision. I opppose including details about this into the intro in principle, even if there were a consensus among scholars but even more so since such a consensus is lacking. But even this line would be taken it is quite inappropriate that among all the statements about the process, the one that BS wants to include into the intro is: "The Banu Qurayza ... agreed with the appointment of Sa'd ibn Mu'adh". That is at least a one sided summary of what the article text below is saying, if not a misrepresentation. Str1977 (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for providing quotes from those other scholars. Bless sins, do you agree that these quotes show there is disagreement among scholars about whether or the accounts of BQ choosing S'ad are accurate? Shell babelfish 10:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Assuming that Str1977 has quoted the sources correctly, and that the sources are reliable, I concede there is disagreement (and that we should note the disagreement). Shell, please be a witness that Str1977 is quoting Ahmad, and indeed accepts that he is a (though not the most) reliable source. I'm saying this because Str1977 previously considered him to be not reliable.Bless sins (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I have given you verbatim quotes. All are from Barakhat Ahmad (used for a long time as an RS and even introduced by you lately for numbers) and another scholar that he quotes, a scholar writing in a peer-reviewed journal.
Ahamad is an RS according to Wikirules - that doesn't mean that his views are uncontroversial, especially his figures and his views on what really happened at that time. Hence it is not a matter of "most reliable" as there is no such thing. RS is wikiterms simply means usable. I am saying no more. Ahmad is a scholar and he puts up an argument in his book. Hence, he can be readily used e.g. when relating what others say or what sources says. Str1977 (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess what I meant is that I don't want you to cherry pick: that is use him explicitly in cases where he contradicts Abu Nimer and Khadduri, while in others, simply move him down in the footnotes (as if he's some unreliable, extra source).Bless sins (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do not cherry pick. I have taken the trouble of getting my hands on his book and getting through it, looking for anything of interest to the article (more is coming).
But in the case where Ahmad is put in a footnote (along with other scholars) he is there for a reason. There is a main point everyone agrees on. Only the actual figures are a matter of disagreement. Hence I put them in a footnote where everyone you wants to look more closely at the debate about the figures. (NB. The figures are about the whole Jewish community, if I am not mistaken so cannot be used for anything else. Also only Ahmad's calculation is presented with figures before and after the expulsion/killing of Jews.) Being in footnotes DOES NOT make something a "unreliable, extra source". Also, extra sources are not "unreliable" - unreliable means that we don't use it. Str1977 (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not simply include the discussion in the mainbody so readers can see it? If there is a disagreement, that actually makes it more notable.Bless sins (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Readers can see it in the footnote too.
Why put in a footnote? As I already explained, the differences about the numbers is not the actual topic of this article. All voices agree on the fact that Jews were left - there is no agreement about numbers. And note, these numbers do not concern the BQ but Jews in general. Str1977 (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation?

Formal mediation didn't seem to work for some of the participants here, so what would everyone think about something informal? It looks like there's still some things that need sorting out and a few more editors have gotten involved, so maybe its possible to find a way to work things out at this point? Shell babelfish 08:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the issues under dispute have been discussed since September 2007 (see this). Any method that transcends mere discussion I welcome, since I think all of us are desperate to find a solution.Bless sins (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
An informal mediation has been going on thanks to the Jedi Master though his recent absence has halted matters. I am open to any efforts to make this a stable and balanced article and I would advise BS to adopt a more compromising and a less "being difficult" attitude. He should start with the Peters/Ahmed figures question.
Any formal medition however has been made impossible due to BS's choice to misuse the recent, unfortunately failed mediation and my subsequent vow. I also don't see any role for Shell in any solution. Too much has happened for that. Str1977 (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You just came off a block for personal attacks and immediately resume discussing other editors in a bad light. You need to find a way to discuss the article content that doesn't require you to bad-mouth other editors. Shell babelfish 12:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Shell, I am not personally attacking anyone. You should seriously consider your motives for your last posting. Str1977 (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"I am open to any efforts to make this a stable and balanced article " thn why not go through informal mediation?
"I also don't see any role for Shell in any solution." Actually, I think that the more users come to this article the better it is. We need more inputs, more suggestions, more opinions, and, may I say, more mediation, if we are ever to get past us two bickering.Bless sins (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not informal mediation? Yeah, why not. But you see, apart from Mik's absence we're at it.
That depends on who it is. Some people unfortunately have eroded my trust in them. And I don't think a combination that didn't work out in a past mediation is a good remedy for the future. Str1977 (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The mediation did work out in the past: we got over the issue of "massacre" and "execution".
Str1977, here is your choice: accept informal mediation for a chance to end this dispute. Or continue to address this dispute through reversions, and discussion that is fruitless more often than not.
As for me, I choose the former option, I want this dispute to end, so I can move on. What about you?Bless sins (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
All right, the medition yielded some results but then went of the rails. For the very same reasons that our discussion here does not proceed. You are not addressing my points but prefer to use rhetoric to justify reverting me.
In any case, what would be the difference between an informal mediation and what we already have?
I would want this dispute to end to but if that means yielding to each and every of your POV pushing aims I am not able to do it. Maybe it is time for you to realise that you have to move towards the others too, that you cannot turn this into a "Muhammad killed a couple of Jews who had it coming anyway and only have their selves to blame" article. Str1977 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why, but you seem to interpret by good-willed edits into something about "the Jews". Please let me clear up: emotion may flare up in this article, but we should be objective about it. There is some information in this article that I personally don't like too much, but I let it stay in because wiki policies require me to do that. We must place wikipolicies above our own interests.
Finally, I've tried to convince you to accept mediation. I'd like to know whether you embrace this offer, or will walk away from it.Bless sins (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Not so fast. I cannot go to mediation with you. I made a vow and anyway the last mediation doesn't make me confident. But I am open to informal ways of solving this. There is no decision on my part needed - it is you who need to decide that it is better to settle for less than your POV being pushed.
Why do I interpret it that way? Because most of your edits are aimed at hammering the point across that a) the Jews are to blame, b) the massacre was all right and dandy, c) Muhammad never did anything wrong. Compare the earlier longstanding version with want you want and you'll see that most of your additions are about that.
How about showing at least some good will by dropping the most glaringly POV pushing additions like the "practically all" or the "they feared the consequences of treachery" that really add nothing to the article except for POV pushing. Str1977 (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
PS. Also you should not use false edit summaries like "the issues are still very much the same; accept Str1977's and Devotus' changes" - you accept none of my changes but simply blanket reverted.
The first thing you should address is the apparent contradiction regarding whether Ahmad has 600-900 Jews killed or whether they have to be much less. Str1977 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I did accept some of your changes:[2]. Not much though.Bless sins (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
One - you accepted one change (but only slightly). You blanket reverted all the rest, formatting problems and typos included. Str1977 (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And then you went and reverted him in the same manner, so it appears that neither of you are willing to do much but edit war to enforce your prefereces - has anyone tried just editing what other people write instead of reverting? Shell babelfish 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The difference is during my next to last revert I worked hard to work something of BS's information in. BS doesn't do this. In his last he (more or less) took up my addition and later added them to his blanket revert.
Also, I never reverted typos and un-uniform references back in. Nor do I delete tags.
Str1977 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If that is what you are doing, I apologize. That kind of change is exactly what I meant by editing others changes instead of a simple revert. However in your last edit that I was referring to, the edit summary "restore NPOV and accurate version, please discuss things first at talk" makes it seem like a revert and looking at diffs [3] it does appear that you simply restored a previous version you edited.
Bless Sins, could you agree to trying this approach as well? Instead of reverting a change, try editing what is there to make it more acceptable to both views? Shell babelfish 16:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"However in your last edit that I was referring to ..." Yes, my last edit was a revert but the one before was carefully aiming at every single diff taking them into account. E.g. for instance I dropped my opposition to the "Jews and Muslims have their own religion except ..." bit. I thought it pointless and irrelevant and I still do but thought it less important to fight about it. (BS should do the same in regards to Watt's "practically all", which I see as a major POV problem). I also introduced the whole complex issue of what Ahmad really says. When BS simply reverted my changes, then I restored my earlier version. Str1977 (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Str1977 has so far asked me simply remove information sourced to 11 scholars. That I can't agree with. But for other edits I can make it more acceptable.Bless sins (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't appear to be what he's saying at all. He's asking you to consolidate their viewpoints and avoid using extreme adjectives and also gave very specific reasons for each thing he'd like to change. Try addressing that above first instead of reverting. Shell babelfish 12:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, that is not what I am saying at all. I gave specific reasons in each case for changing your presentation of these. Str1977 (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"avoid using extreme adjectives" If my adjectives are "extreme" is that a reason to remove entire sentences (and in some cases paragraphs) of content. Why can't Str1977 simply fix the adjectives. Secondly, the adjectives I use are similar to those actually used in the sources. the adjective "treachery' is used by Ramadan (and I've attributed its use to Ramadan). The use of "practically all" is straight out of Watt. Nevertheless, I'm open to synonyms for the word "all" and "treachery".
Secondly, I went a significant way to compromise with Str1977 by making my edits one by one, explaining each of them.[4] If you compare this with my previous version ([5]) the difference are very significant. Most importantly, I entirely dropped the "Torah" issue, despite having 5 scholarly sources (Stillman, Ramadan, Nomani, Peterson and Farah). I also accepted Str1977's wordings in the lead, used Str1977's placement of Inamdar, and the discovery of weapons. I also dropped Nasr, Farah and Stillman's analysis of Sa'd's intentions. I dropped my previous insistence to present Ramadan's view fairly. I also dropped the changes insited upon by Devotus (and I agreed with him on that), namely the inclusion of Umar and Muhammad's quote.
Yet Str1977 turns around are reverts every single one of my edits, while keeping Briangotts edit. (This can be seen by comparing Str1977's version[6] before and after: no difference except for accomodating Briangott's additions). I'm now less inclined than ever to drop my insistences (which I consider legitimate) for the sake of stability and compromise.Bless sins (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You said: "If my adjectives are "extreme" is that a reason to remove entire sentences" The short answer is possibly. If you are writing something that comes across as not being in a neutral voice, editing it may include changing words, moving things around and even removing entire sentences. This doesn't mean that removal is always the best way to deal with a problem, but sometimes, editing for tone and clarity does mean removing things.
You said: "I went a significant way to compromise with Str1977 by making my edits one by one" I'm not sure why you think that's some kind of compromise, its still using just your text. To me, all that means is that people have to look through a slew of diffs to see your changes. If there are differences over the edits you're making, try putting the text on the talk page and working out a compromise wording instead of simply re-inserting it into the article. If things still haven't been agreed upon on the talk page, its rather unproductive to be edit warring back and forth over the material. Let it sit for a while and try to get things worked out; material can always be put back in (or removed) when a consensus is achieved.
I agree, reverting isn't helpful, the problem here is that you, Bless sins, are also guilty of the same issue. Stop editing the article and work out your differences first -- continuing to insist that the article look one way or another makes both you and Str1977 appear argumentative and seem like you're trying to either own the article or force your changes in through attrition. The article will not fall apart if it is not in someone's preferred state until the issues are worked out. Shell babelfish 17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Why can't a user replace the adjective with another without removing the source and its content itself/ Don't you agree that would further dispute resolution?
I did it so I could jutify one edit at a time.
"work out your differences first" How???? We've tried the talk page for months. Str1977 won't agree to mediation. Except Str1977, those who responded to the RfC agreed for the inclusion of the Qurayze "chose" Sa'd, but Str1977 still hasn't agreed. How do you propose on wokring out the differences?Bless sins (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In regards to why an entire statement might be removed, I can't really guess what another editor might be thinking, I'm just mentioning the fact that there are times other editors will make drastic edits to text you write. Its hard to distance yourself from your own writing, so its natural to feel suspicious or even upset, but remember, the final goal here is to improve the article, so sometimes those tough edits are necessary.
I understand why you did each edit separately, but the idea is to justify it here and get agreement first, not continuing fighting over the article.
I see things working out right now. For instance, Str1977 is willing to include the idea that some scholars believe BQ chose or agreed to Sa'd. The reason I think you've been having problems with this is that your version omits the fact that some scholars don't believe that BQ chose or agreed to Sa'd -- both viewpoints need to be in the article.
I know this has been a very long and heated discussion, but it does look like things can be worked out and if we can settle down and discuss how to compromise, it may all be over soon. Shell babelfish 17:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, let me clarify this: my version has always included the fact that the Qurayza surrendered "unconditionally". I may have attributed this to Watt, who makes the claim, but I always include it. Regarding it be "over soon" , I hope you're right because this dispute has dragged on quite long. Also, can I safely assume that Str1977 has agreed to give informal mediation a chance?Bless sins (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but it also stated they chose the arbitrator in a manner that made it seem like that was the only line of thought out there. I think that part of the problem is that sometimes you and Str1977 are agreeing with each other and just not realizing it because you both have different manners of speaking - hopefully, I can help there. And no one really needs to agree to "informal" mediation - that's kind of the whole point - we're just talking here and trying to work things out. Shell babelfish 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If I fix the "extreme adjective", which means removing the entire phrase which basically only adds the extreme vocabulary, I am charged with "removing a source". You cannot simply justify this by pointing to Ramadan or Watts - you always have to ask that question: what does this add to the article.
"Secondly, I went a significant way to compromise with Str1977 by making my edits one by one, explaining each of them." - Actually this is what I did without getting a response from you.
"Most importantly, I entirely dropped the "Torah" issue, despite having 5 scholarly sources (Stillman, Ramadan, Nomani, Peterson and Farah)." - Only recently.
"I also accepted Str1977's wordings in the lead" - How so? You actually didn't.
"I dropped my previous insistence to present Ramadan's view fairly." Why? I never demanded that he shouldn't be treated fairly. I only insist that extreme language used by him shouldn't be used here if it contains no informational value.
But let me tell you a real reason: I cannot use your version for any edits because they are riddled with errors regarding form (see the section below).
Brian's edit I did not simply keep. I heavily modified him. I did not keep the "savage acts" passage - hence I treated Brian's scholars exactly as I did treat Ramadan. Str1977 (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While Watt

The current version by BS is not neutral regarding the different views on who chose Sad. Watt, described by him and Aminz as the great scholar, is not given a fair shake at all by burying him in a subclause starting "While Watt ..." He at least deserves equal time. I will try to give him just that but it will take some time as all the sources are currently hopelessly intertwined. Str1977 (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Further explanation

As explained, the version introduced by BS is not neutral (see section above). I am currently preparing a version that should satisfy all but first have to get hold of this or that source again.

However, I cannot let BS's version stand on other reasons. He reintroduces non-working references. Sentences end in nowhere ("He points out that < ref >Watt, Muhammad at Medina, 1956, p.296< / ref > Stillman notes ..."), references are not uniform (in comparison a minor squibble)

I have straightened out Briangott's recent additions. There is no need to quote (is it quote?) rows of scholars (and that goes for both sides of the debate). It is enough that various scholars fall on this or that side of the fence. I have made the references conform to the style in use here. In Baron's case I think, v.3 means "volume 3" - I have added this accordingly to the literature sectiom. Andrae I have tagged for clarification due to Itaquallah's concerns. If Itaqallah merely objected that Andrae does not say "savage act", the tag should be removed again. But I want to be sure about his views.

I have also replaced the wieldy "citecheck" tag with the less intrusive "verify" tag. I am still awaiting Merzbow's take on this.

Str1977 (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. BS, please let me assure you that the current state of the "chosing Sad" passage is not a permanent one. Please have patience. Str1977 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As I explained above, Str1977 is removing the views of 11 different scholars in his/her revisions. We can't hope to achieve neutrality by suppressing the views of 11 scholars when NPOV requires us to present "all significant views".
The references should be in conformity with wiki standards, here is an example: Wikipedia:CITE#Shortened_notes.
It is you Str1977 that doesn't have patience. You are constantly blanket reverting me, removing upwards of 15% of the article.Bless sins (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, this is getting silly. Str1977 is not "removing the views" of 11 different scholars. You and he have a difference of opinion on how that section should be worded. In addition, your text has numerous problems with it functionally which Str1977 outlined above. Please stop reverting to a broken format and work with those people who disagree with you to come up with a compromise before editing the article again. Shell babelfish 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The attribution to Andrae was that he said it was a savage act by the standards of Muhammad's day. Indeed, he pretty much says it's a savage act, and this seems to be his personal perspective, but he makes no mention of the "standards of Muhammad's day" - so including Andrae in any discussion about precedent or the conditions of those times is quite misleading. ITAQALLAH 15:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Str1977 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of content

There seems to be a confusion on whether Str1977 is removing 11 different scholars. Here's the content Str1977 is removing:

  • Practically all of Medina's inhabitants opposed the 10,000 strong Confederate army besieging the city, except the Banu Qurayza.
    • Sourced to W. Montgomery Watt.
Reasons: a) "practically all except" is POV language. It creates the impression that all but the BQ helped without saying it (and in fact, the BQ helped by providing tools). b) we don't need to introduce the term "Confederates" Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ...came on the verge of attacking Muhammad in the rear - activities which were considered treasonable.
    • Sourced to W. Montgomery Watt.
This already included by our narrative which in details relates how the BQ were persuaded to treacher and then refrained from it. Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ...as a condition for attacking Muhammad.
    • Sourced to Tariq Ramadan, whom it is agreed is a reliable source. The auhtor is clear why the Qurayza demanded hostages, it was for a very specific reason.
No additional information. The treacherous plans have been explained before. That the reason the BQ demanded hostages was to finalise the (treacherous) agreement goes without saying. Information value: zero. Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • He did so, Nasr states in the Encyclopedia Britannica, after discovering that the Qurayza had been complicit with the enemy during the battle.
Only summarizes what our narrative has been saying in detail, except for the Nasr stating as fact that the BQ were traitors. For WP, this is merely his viewpoint - a viewpoint we have already included many times. Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • according to Ramadan, they feared consequences of treason.
    • Sourced to Ramadan.
Serves only to hit home the point that the BQ were traitors. We have already included that viewpoint many times. Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • According to Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore, Banu Qurayza agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing.
    • Str1977 simply replaces it with "Banu Qurayza unconditionally surrendered" without noticing a difference of opinion amongst scholars.
    • Sourced to Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore.
You are correct in this. But this is the large issue that we are currently on the verge of solving. Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • both Muhammad and Qurayza appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a leading man among the Aws, as judge.
    • Sourced to Hashmi, Buchanan, Moore, Abu-Nimer, and Khadduri.
That is just one view. You included it as fact. Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Shibli Nomani explains that Muhammad's approval was due to Jewish law, as the Islamic prophet had adopted Jewish customs on numerous occasions (e.g. Jerusalem as Qibla, Jewish law of retribution as Qisas). Daniel C. Peterson, Tariq Ramadan, and Caesar Farah all concur that the judgment was in accordance with the Book of Deuteronomy 20:10-14.
    • Sourced to Nomani, Peterson, Ramadan, and Farah.
The other large issue (the one you above allegedly dropped). It is a late claim and will need a lot of discussion about whether to include this at all. Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Western historians believe that Muhammad was at least informed of Sa'd's decision to kill the men of the Qurayza
    • Sourced to Nasr in Britannica.
This slipped under the radar. But the substance is included. No problem with this. Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • On previous occasions (including the Battle of the Trench), when Muhammad had spared the lives prisoners, he found them fighting against him and killing Muslims soon after.[8] Tariq Ramadan argues that Muhammad's clemency, repeatedly betrayed, was seen as a sign of weakness and madness.
    • Str1977, while keeping most of it, removes the aprt that Muhammad's lenient treatment had been betrayed before. Ramadan, however, mentions it, and even seems to be emphasizing the point.
    • Sourced to Ramadan.
Because it is of no consequence for the BQ. And note that the term "lenient" treatment is highly problematic, given what M. actually did. But it was more lenient than what he did to the BQ. Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Daniel C. Peterson argues that this is because the Nadir felt responsible for the fate of the Qurayza, since it was their chieftain, Huyayy ibn Akhtab, who persuaded the Qurayza to go against their covenant with Muhammad.
    • Str1977 replaces it with "the Nadir felt responsible for the Quarayza due to the role of their chieftain in the events", which severly misrepresents what the author is trying to say. everyone played a "role", yet to feel responsible, one's role had to be particularly negative.
    • Sourced to Peterson
Because "the role of Huyayy" is enough. We have already reported what that role was. We don't need to repeat it. Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • He cites for example Deut. 20:13-14 which enjoins Israelites to mete out a similar punishment on their enemies. He adds that the events can't be judged by modern day standards.
    • While he rewords, Str1977 completely removes the part about "for example Deut. 20:13-14 which enjoins Israelites to mete out a similar punishment on their enemies". In this Str1977 keeps the assertion that this was "Arab practice", but blocks out the assertion that also had roots in the Israelite tradition.
    • Sourced to Stillman.
Asctually, that is not what Stillman says. Stillman says that massacres were common in the ancient world and gives Dtn as an example. He does not say that the Arab practice had roots in Israelite practice (it could only have sucht roots via Muhammad). Regardless of whether that examples is valid (given that 2000 years had elapsed since the Israelite invasion of Canaan), it adds nothing. It also again raises the Dtn issue that is controversial and should be dealt separately (see above.) Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • According to Barakat Ahmad's calculations, there still remained 24,000 to 28,000 Jews in Medina, after the demise of the Qurayza. Reuven Firestone agrees that Jews continued to live in Medina thereafter, but doesn't agree with Ahmad's figure.
    • Str1977 places it in the "notes" section. However, this is a major opinion and can't simply be moved down there.
    • Sourced to Firestone and Ahmad.
No, this is not "major opinion". The major point is that there remained Jews in the city until Umar. The actual figures are a minor thing: Ahmad calculates them and Firestone contradicts them. On the major issue they agree. Hence, a footnote is an appropriate place. You may disagree of course but to list this among "removed scholars" is unfair. Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope that makes things clear.Bless sins (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Its very difficult to deal with these as such a large chunk and so many different reasons. Would there be any objections to dealing with things one at a time? There's already discussion going on in several sections which sometimes overlap - I know I'm getting confused :) Shell babelfish 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well then, how about we start with the first issue on my list.Bless sins (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, do you think we could get the arbitrator point worked out first - it sounds like everyone is in agreement there and its just working out the wording now? I think there's also an open section about some large quotes too - is that still something that needs attention? Shell babelfish 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does. But unfortunately I haven't seen any of the sources (and I don't think Str1977 has either).Bless sins (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one item at a time. Lumped together they cannot be solved. I have given in short my reasons for my changes above.

However, IMHO it is better to start with the little ones and not with the large issues: "BQ chose", "Dtn" - not that these shouldn't be addressed but I first have to get my hands on Watt (Prophet and Statesman) again. Unless of course, one of you has it at hand. Str1977 (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have access to it, so I'm happy to provide whatever passage you need. ITAQALLAH 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I completed the intro per WP:LEAD here [7]. Let's separate this from other edits. I am busy in real life but will try to join discussion on this as much as I can. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this intro is too detailed. I have no objection to mention that they entered into negotiations and that in the end nothing came of it. Especially the details why that happened, e.g. the demand for assurances should not be mentioned. We would then also have to include that Muhammad had a hand in these demands.
Also, I don't understand why some sources are removed.
And of course, the year should be included.
(Leaving out, as usual, formatting concerns.) Str1977 (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:LEAD, the intro should be able to stand alone as a summary of the article. Ideally, it should summarize the details mentioned in the main sections of the article, one being "Battle of the Trench". --Be happy!! (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the lead is too detailed; it looks about right for the length of the article. Shell babelfish 16:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I made a few tweak to the lead. I mainly removed the arguments made by the besiegers to convince the BQ and the reasons for the negotiations breaking down. The lead can still stand alone. I also restored a few deleted refs and repaired one that was broken. Str1977 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
And what is your arguments for such changes? I will revert if a good explanation is not provided. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • His argument seems to be that you broke or removed several references and that he felt some items were unnecessary. Threatening to revert is in no way helping the situation - I'm shocked that knowing Str1977 fixed some errors you made that you would consider a revert appropriate. Reverting is only appropriate for vandalism - work out your issues here. Shell babelfish 00:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, Aminz you don't own the article, not even the lead.
The argument is simply that the intro should be concise and not contain unnecessary details. In what way are these things missing in my version actually needed? Str1977 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nor do you own it. In practice you have reverted far more than Aminz has (or even said he would).Bless sins (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I never claimed I owned it. I never threatened anyone "if you don't explain by noon, I'll revert you". The reverts I did I think I can justify and I put forth many arguments. Str1977 (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"I never threatened anyone "if you don't explain by noon, I'll revert you"." No you don't - you simply revert without notice.Bless sins (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Talk about a large case of the pots calling the kettle black -- every one of you seems to think that reverting edits you don't like is acceptable and then you point fingers at other editors when they do it. Do you guys understand how silly you all look? Let me clear this up - reverting edits you don't like is NOT acceptable. Period. No one cares who reverted more, or whether or not they warned someone first - you all need to just stop it. Shell babelfish 07:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I criticized not Aminz' (possible) reverting but this attitude to issue ultimatums.
Shell, I hope you don't mind telling you this, but you could you refrain from calling others "silly" ... and I am not merely talking about myself but also about BS and others.
I don't like the reverting either but sometimes disagreements lead to that. I have, as you well know, have made quite an effort to come to an agreement and I would hope others would do the same. Str1977 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion is ongoing here, but there is still edit warring going on both on the article and even here on the talk page. You've now taken to removing convenience sections (more than once) that other editors have inserted in the talk page - can you explain what the reasoning is for that? Shell babelfish 01:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I oppose creating sections after things have been posted. It rips apart discussions that belongs together. If sections are introduced "backwardly" it should be by consensus. Str1977 (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Creating additional sections when discussions get lengthy is common practice on Wikipedia; they're typically referred to as convenience breaks. They don't harm the discussion and help editors who have trouble editing large sections. Please don't revert them. Shell babelfish 06:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I am talking about changing discussions after the fact. If some new issue is addressed where one could have started a new section but did not immediately do so I don't object. What I object to is, as in our case, when there is ONE continuous discussion with one editor making a proposal and then another making a proposal and then afterwards someone comes along and divide this all into different sections as if they were unconnected. And as a matter of courtesy, one could always ask whether other would mind. Str1977 (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Since these sorts of convenience breaks are customary on Wikipedia, it is very unlikely that someone will come along and assume that the discussion is unrelated - if you're concerned there could be some confusion, its possible that these section breaks could be renamed or made a third level heading. This type of refactoring is commonplace, and reverting it because it is not your preferred style really isn't a good way to handle an objection to the changes. Just because the ability to revert to prior versions exists doesn't mean its appropriate to use this tool in place of discussion. Shell babelfish 10:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Aminz has once again inserted a huge introduction because, he says, the intro should be able to stand alone. Quite possibly the article has grown to such an extent that this is applicable now (earlier I didn't get that impression).

But that doesn't mean that every issue raised in the article should be included in the intro. I am especially objecting to coverage of the "Jewish or Arab descent" (which currently in the intro is just as long as in the article), details like their role as tax collectors, or the detailed way in which their relationship to the BA and BK is related.

There are cases of misrepresentation, consider: "Upon his arrival in Medina in 622, Muhammad established a compact, the Constitution of Medina (date debated), which committed the Jewish and Muslim tribes to mutual cooperation" (Intro by Aminz) vs. "The nature of this document as recorded by Ibn Ishaq and transmitted by Ibn Hisham is the subject of dispute among modern historians, many of whom maintain that this "treaty" is possibly a collage of agreements, of different dates, and that it is not clear when they were made" (article)

And still the way in which the negotiations are described in the intro is too detailed.

Last (and possibly least but still not unimportant), Aminz proceeded without care for whether existing references are broken. He should have stayed around and looked for the error until he could rectify it. Str1977 (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and yes: what is "Watt (1964) pp. 170-172". Our literature section has books by him from 1970, 1961, 1956. Str1977 (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not every issue raised in the article should go to the intro but the main points should go. Unless we find an objective criterion of what to include and what to exclude we can not proceed. My suggestion is to include something for each section of the article that would faithfully summarize the details there; we measure the number of words in the article and compute the compression rate needed; then we uniformly apply it throughout the article. In my view, to specify the origin of the tribe we are writing about is important, so is their role as tax collectors for the persian king. I summarized the paragraph following the "Constitution of Medina" by adding "date debated" and I can not see why this is inaccurate. Please explain. Then we come to the negotiations part. This is a factual and neutral explanation of what happened and puts the later events in their context. This is closely following Watt's summary of the issue. P.S. And four references for one sentence is excessive; that's why I removed two of them. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you that the main points were included. Somethings included were not main points, somethings left out were needed.
Some things were basically duplicating the exact words that the article below used. That's no way to go.
No, we cannot duplicate every debate in the intro, hence my opposition to the "origins" passage.
Their role as tax collectors is a tiny detail rally not needed.
"Date debated" is exactly not an accurate summary of the actual debates. It suggests to the unwary reader that it is unclear whether Muhammad made that compact in 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, when in fact the actual debate includes views that the whole thing was assembled way afterwards. And of course such differences have an impact on the nature of the agreement as well.
Your summary of the Trench and siege is way too detailed. Whether you think something excessive is irrelevant. You simply do not remove sources unless you have a reason to think them unreliable or not to the point. There's no damage in having an excessive amounts of references. Str1977 (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There is apparently no way to argue what a main point is this way. As I said unless we find an objective criterion of what to include and what to exclude we can not proceed. Do you agree with my suggestion to include something for each section of the article that would faithfully summarize the details there; we measure the number of words in the article and compute the compression rate needed; then we uniformly apply it throughout the article instead of arguing over what is relevant and what is not.
You seem to agree that the references were "excessive" and that your restoring of them was unnecessary. Listing four references does not help the text look pretty.
Regarding the constitution of Medina, to say that its date is debated is accurate in itself. The point to be made here is not about the date the document we have as constitution of Medina, was drafted; it is that the very existence of such a pact. When scholars debate it, they do not argue that there were no such pact signed before. For the purpose of the intro we can just drop the name "Constitution of Medina" and that should resolve the problem (?)--Be happy!! (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid if you are looking for an objective criterion what to include you may wait forever. I would go about the opposite way: take the entire article text and cut off what is not needed. Do that again and again until the result is as short and concise as possible but still constitutes a comprehensive summary of the BQ's history.
No, I am not suggesting that we should include something for each section/paragraph - see for instance the Tubba section that rightfully was not part in any version of the intro.
Some automatical application of compression rates is no way to go. What matters is that the intro contains the important thoughts in the most concise way possible.
I am amazed how you came to think that I "seem to agree that the references were "excessive" and that your restoring of them was unnecessary." I certainly do not think that. IMHO one has to go a great deal further to be excessive. The four little numbers do not hurt the article's prettiness at all. And I am in no way willing to accept the removal of references on a whim.
"Date debated" was misleading not because the date was not debated but because debates went much further. With the rest I can agree and I actually think that my wording does solve this problem. The link to the "Constitution of Medina" (without mentioning the CoM in the intro text) article is appropriate. Str1977 (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Muir

Is Muir a reliable source? I don't think so. Previous consensus supports this position. But because consensus can change, I'm bringing this up again.

Muir's writings are treated negatively by modern scholars. For example, Clinton Bennett writes in In Search of Muhammad, p. 116, that when Muir writes on Banu Qurayza "deliberately" omits material to portray Muhammad as "cruel". Note this is not a general criticism of Muir, but one very specific to Banu Qurayza. Elsewhere Bennett writes that Muir wrote with the intention to for [Islam and other religions] to be replaced by Christianity." (Victorian Images of Islam, p. 176).

There should be other refutations of Muir as well.Bless sins (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Muir certainly is a bit controversial and old but he is nonetheless a modern scholar. I trust any complaint against Muir I could make against Ramadan (who clearly would want all mankind to become Muslim) or even Watt. What ever happened to "we cannot judge scholars ever".
Muir is used with caution. He is nowhere portrayed as fact. Any ommission by him is certainly made up for by our including other scholars.
As for the link above: it doesn't contain consensus of any kind. Only you and Aminz agreed. Itaqallah was more nuanced. Arrow completely against you. My position is almost indentical with Itaqallah (as voiced in the linked discussion).
Why is it suddently so urgent to suppress one voice? Why remove this one scholar? Str1977 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you are bringing Ramadan into this. Have other scholars refuted Ramadan?
Regarding the link: the bottom line is that Muir was removed. Finally, don't insert unreliable sources such as answering-islam. That is the lowest of the low, as you know it not a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil when discussing your concerns; this statement was over the line. Clearly, Answering-Islam is not the source, but a convenience link to a source being used - this is remarkably different. Shell babelfish 00:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I got off point when I saw a ridiculous site like "Answering-Islam" inserted.Bless sins (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Because as distasteful Muir might be to you, Ramadan is distasteful to others. No reason to remove either however. Str1977 (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't make assumptions. I never said Muir is "distasteful" for me. Muir has been refuted by scholars. If we include him, that is to be definitely noted. Bless sins (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Then why do you want to remove Muir or the link to him?
Muir is old and in some ways dated. But he is a useful source. We can only definitely note what there is. He is merely used as one view, a valid view IMHO. Note, we do not include any voices directly contradicting Watt or Hashmi (only through the presentation of differing views).
As far as the linked site goes: unfortunately Muir's book is only avaiable on two sites: this one and a "Evangelism for Muslim" sites. The latter will not be pleasant to BS either and, more importantly, it doesn't contain Muir's most valuable footnotes. Str1977 (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"Muir's book is only avaiable" It kinda gives an indication on Muir reputation and amongst whom he is popular - certainly not scholars who have refuted him. Why do we need a link to Muir's book? Do we have a link to other scholars' books?Bless sins (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Avaiable on the internet, that is. Remember that the most recent books are not avaiable at all on the internet. The most respectable books are not avaiable on the internet.
We do not necessarily need a link to any book (and that includes all links included right now) BUT to have one avaiable is a matter of convenience. Str1977 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • How about this - since we already provide the full citation for the reference and since the links to online copies are on sites of dubious reliability with rather obvious POVs, can we just drop the convenience link to the online version? Shell babelfish 07:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree, it's not necessary. There are many print editions of Muir available, I have access to one myself, so I personally don't see any need for linking to such websites. ITAQALLAH 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Compromise: if Str1977 wishes, he can copy the relevant material in the article space (e.g. a page called Talk: Banu Qurayza/Muir) and then link to it. I wouldn't have a problem with that, and Str1977 still has a convenient link.Bless sins (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer to retain the convenience link. If consensus here is otherwise, I'll submit but I must insist that we also remove the link to the utterly pointless Muhbarakpuri. Also, it needs then some effort to provide the page numbers, a task I will then shoulder myself ... if it come to that. (And of course, I'll also take such a consensus as dropping any attacks against Muir himself.) Str1977 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an objection to the website that hosts Mubarakpuri? If you do, I'd like to hear it. If you mean that instead of using Mubarakpuri as a link we should use him as a source, like we are doing with Muir, then I agree.Bless sins (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have an objection against that hagiographic piece penned by him. It is utterly worthless as a source and there is actually no reason for him to be here. Quite in contrast to Muir who is (though old and dated) scholar. Str1977 (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Mubarakpuri is a professor at the University of Medina. Further, he hasn't been accused of deliberately misrepresenting material, like Muir, by other scholars. Finally, I said that we may want to include the fact that Muir's Qurayza account is disputed by other scholars. What is your response to that?Bless sins (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
That goes way beyond the pale of the above straw poll and hence I am changing the format.
Muhbarakpuri's book is not a scholarly work but a hagiography. And his inclusion here certainly has provoked resistance and concern for a while.
We present all views re the BQ. If some one has a different account to present, I'll gladly add it too. But we do not add notes about the scholars. We do not add that Ramadan supports certain groups, neither should we makes notes about Muir. Anything like this belongs into articles on these people.
Str1977 (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute. If a scholar has disputed an account, we shouldn't note that scholar? Is this what you're saying.
If there is scholarly criticism of Ramadan, relating to the Banu Qurayza, we add it too.
"And his inclusion here certainly has provoked resistance and concern for a while. " Which scholars have "resisted" Mubarakpuri. I'm only interested in scholarly criticisms.01:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"If a scholar has disputed an account, we shouldn't note that scholar?" We should of course not specific criticism. But not general ones that only serve to discredit one view.
I am not actually interested that you're only interest in scholarly criticism. I see a double standard as you haven't needed "scholarly criticism" to argue against (merely linking to a subpage of) AnsweringIslam. Double standards, anyone? Str1977 (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Str1977, make up your mind: do you consider answering-islam to be reliable or unreliable. If you do, let's take this to WP:RSN. If you don't, I wish for you to not change your mind, nor bring the site up again.
As for me, I consider Ramadan to be reliable. I participated in the RfC above, which yielded the same result. I am further willing to go to lengths to show he is reliable.
Muir is different from both sources. He is not clear-cut unreliable like answering-islam, nor is he as reliable as Ramadan (given the scholarly criticisms against him).Bless sins (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean "make up your mind"? I made up and spoke my mind above and you can read it. I have nothing to add to what I wrote above. Str1977 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Make up your mind on the reliability of answering-islam. Do you agree it is unreliable? If yes, then do not even consider its inclusion. You shouldn't be comparing the site to professors.
Please let's get backt o the topic of Muir, and the scholarly criticism against him.Bless sins (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I have already stated my opinion. I am not here to yield to what you fancy to demand. And may I remind you that this is not about that website. I already made my proposal.
No, I will not accept your attempts to include a "don't believe him" note discrediting what is an old and dated but scholarly source which we are only using very very carefully. Str1977 (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

BS is removing things with the following edit summaries:

  • while I don't in any way accept the version, this is absolutely unacceptable: "[8]"
    • What is indeed absolutely unacceptable IMHO is to delete a source. Answering-Islam is merely the site that hosts Muir's text. If there is another site doing that, I'd have no objection against using that. But don't simply remove it. This is particularly unacceptable since we still have links to Muhbarakpuri's Nectar in our article.
  • and this is OR:"According to others, the Qurayza did not surrender unconditionally:"
    • This is not OR but merely the introduction to the following views. Sure, we could also do without it but to delete it as OR is nonsensical. It serves well to introduce two views in disagreement with Watt but also with each other.

Str1977 (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Answering-Islam is not a reliable source. You should know this. Mubarakpuri, by contrast, is a professor at the University of Medina.
No scholar I know says this. Provide me a quote in which a scholar says this, and I'll reverse my position. We are not here to judge scholars' opinions, but to simply state them. Bless sins (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Answering Islam is not an issue here. They merely host Muir's book.
Muhbarakputri is pure hagiography (and still, I do not propose to remove him).
No scholar? You brought them up yourself (or was it Mik? You certainly have dealt with them long enough to know them: Hashmi et al., Khadduri. And Muir as well. Str1977 (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Bless Sins, can you explain why providing a convenience link to a reliable source is a problem? Again, edit warring isn't helping here, please stop. Also, Str1977 has provided several examples of scholars that support his views - can you please be more specific about your concerns in the section above where this is being discussed? Shell babelfish 00:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • How do we know that answering-islam is not falsifying the account? If you look at the website it is filled with polemics against Muslims and against Islam. I have never brought anti-Christian websites to this article, I expect anti-Islam sites shouldn't be brought. Also, this seems to be a case of WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.Bless sins (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Baseless allegations should not be the basis for discussion here. If you think that there is a twisting of source, go and check the site with the actual book and if you find something, bring it one. Until you having something like that, drop the allegation.
"Anti-Islamic sites"? As said before, the site is merely used as a host for the book. The site is freely avaible on the internet, whether you like it or not, and you cannot shut it down (probably a good thing). Also, there have been no specifically anti-Christian sites on this article but that's hardly suprising given that there are no Christians involved in this topic. But some Islamic article certainly contain sites and sources inimical to Christians or Jews. And again and again Ramadan come back to mind.
Regardless of that, we make sure that this article will not be inflammatory, no matter where the flaming comes from. But we also have to include all views. Str1977 (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And this edit is unacceptable POV pushing. You turn Hashmi's view into a factual statement!

Umm, I wrote "The Banu Qurayza surrendered on the condition of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing, Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore state..."(emphasis added). Do you not see that? In you version it appears as "Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore relate", not much difference. finally please sign your comments.Bless sins (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes. Your presentation makes it look like you are stating facts, even if you add a "Hashmi ... state" later.
Also, the sequence - putting Hashmi first - is not sensible. Isn't Watt that great, internationall renowned scholar? Isn't he the author of the Qurayza article in a standard work of reference, the Encyclopedia of Islam? Haven't you, BS, and even more so Aminz, always extolled the virtues of Watt?
Also, our problem regarding the Aws complaint) makes a "Watt-Hashmi-Muir" sequence more feasible. Presenting Watt second (with the Aws complaint) after Hashmi (necessarily without the Aws account) makes it really look like the complaint being particular to Watt, something you have insisted that it's not. Str1977 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
"even if you add a "Hashmi ... state" later." You too added him later, so I don't see what the fuss is all about.
"Isn't Watt ... virtues of Watt?" Yes, yes and yes (though I can't speak for Aminz). How does that make Hashmi any less reliable?
Presenting it "Watt-Hashmi-Muir" is also an option, but that's not what you did. You made it "Watt-undisputed facts that happened later on-Hashmi-Muir". Nothing is "particular to Watt" unless we out his name on it, or say something like "according to him".Bless sins (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "You too added him later, so I don't see what the fuss is all about." - You don't see a lot. In particular, you have not understood what I wrote. You worded it so that the attribution came after the thought, buried somwhere in the midst of the text. Hence you create the impression of fact when this is merely one opinion.
  • "How does that make Hashmi any less reliable?" It doesn't concern his reliability in WP terms and I never claimed that. But why are you placing such a "superstar" like Watt in the second row behind a "relative nobody" like Hashmi? And BTW, practically all the major scholars we use (Peters, Stillman, Guillaume) side with Watt on this.
  • "Presenting it "Watt-Hashmi-Muir" is also an option, but that's not what you did." That's exactly what I did. I presented Watt's view in its entirety. And you would still have to show where Hashmi says anything about the BA complaining. If he is silent, so are we (when presenting his view). Str1977 (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
One more item: "The Banu Qurayza surrendered on the condition of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing, Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore state ... and Muir writes that this arbitrator had to be from their allies, the Bani Aws."
That is an original synthesis on your part, combining Hashmi and Muir. However, Muir decidedly rejects the view that the BQ chose Sad because his threats had indicated his enmity. You make it seem like Muir is providing a detail fitting into Hashmi's point when the two are mutually exclusive. If Hashmi is correct, the BQ chose Sad (jointly with Muhammad), if Muir is correct, nothing could be further from the truth. It could very well be that (with Muir) the BQ insisted on a BA arbitrator and in the end got Sad. But that is not what Hashmi is saying at all.
I think all this trying to harmonise all conflicting accounts into a single one has to stop. If seriously meant what you said when you said "let's present all views" this has to stop. All views are all views. Not some mish-mash concocted of various ingredients. Str1977 (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok I'll remove the "and". I'll even put them int two sentences, for the sake of your satisfaction.Bless sins (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd very much appreciate if you did nothing of the kind because even if you did that, it'd still be POV pushing, non neutral and wrong. Is this back to the "take one objection and fulfill it while keeping all the other problems in" approach?
We have to present all views fully and fairly and neutrally. Apparently (and I am saddened to note that) you are not interested. Especially since you chose to ignore my offer about other ways to include the BA! Str1977 (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not "POV pushing". I'm going to stop at that, since Shell insists that we keep civil here, but don't test my limits of tolerating statements that are not very polite.
That was your main objection "synthesis", and I'm trying to address it. Also which offer of yours have I ignored?Bless sins (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
BS, I am afraid you are already testing my limits. It is really hard to assume good faith when my actual points are not addressed and things are constantly misinterpreted. Or when claims are made that a point is undisputed when scholars are actually disputing it.
You ignore the issue above (the way no give Hashmi prominence over Watt - Hashmi already as an unfair advantage of having three authors, some readers might read this as three separate scholarly voices agreeing when it is only one work).
If you really referred only to this one point that's okay. But when you are saying "I'll remove" and "I'll put" this reads like an announcement to again revert to the non neutral version, only with these tidbits addressed. Str1977 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to given anyone prominence. That Hashmi's book was reviewed by two other scholars is not "unfair", it infacts adds to his book's reputation for fact-checking.
Also, I have no intention of "revert[ing] to the non neutral version". I never claimed that. I would like to revert to the neutral version. But since Shell has put a moratorium on all reverts (unless against vandalism of BLP issues) I won't do that even. Nor should you.Bless sins (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
If that is not your intent, please avoid anything that looks like it. But ... wait a minute: "I would like to revert to the neutral version.", i.e. what you call the neutral version (probably taking mine as non neutral) ... so in the end my words were fitting.
Re Hashmi: you mistake my "unfair" point. Hashmi can write books with whomever he likes. My point was merely about the fact that even in my version it reads "According to Watt ... according to Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore" - readers who don't know that H/B/M have together written one book might mistake this for the first view having one proponent and the second one three, when reality is completely reversed. I am not saying that this impression is something we can do much about. However, I am considering rewording the "Watt" view a bit so that it may also include those that pretty much agree with him.
One more question: "That Hashmi's book was reviewed by two other scholars" - reviewed? I thought the Buchanan and Moore were co-authors with Hashmi? Reviewers would have no place in being named that way. But I take it you simply chose the wrong word and everything is in order the way it is. Str1977 (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hashmi's point does have three proponents. The two others reviewed it and deemed it acceptable to publish. Correct I mean the co-authors.Bless sins (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
If they are authors, they have not reviewed it but have co-authored the book. Which still is only one book. Your reply suggests that you approve of any possible misconceptin. Str1977 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your last move proved that I was right in my concerns. Do not add controversial details to the intro. Only Hashmi and Khaduri say the BQ agreed/chose to Sad. Watt says they agreed beforehand. Many authors point out that they would not have chosen him. And in particular, before you claim that we agree you should ask me first whether we agree. Such presumption I think is quite incivil too. Str1977 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Watt also says they agreed. "Many authors point out that they would not have chosen him." Not one says that. And if they do, you have yet to provide quotes that they do that.
Also, you shouldn't be reverting me at all, unless I vandalize or make a BLP vio. I urge you to self-revert.Bless sins (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
So I will do what you have done above: Give me the actual quote in which Watt says that the BQ agreed to Sad as arbitrator! Until you have a quote (one that really says that) do not introduce this again.
As for the other disagreeing scholars, I will provide them in the near future.
This does not even touch upon the question of whether this is notable enough for the intro. Even Aminz didn't want to include this. You knew that your insertion was controversial and hence your move (and not my reaction) was disruptive. Str1977 (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Give me the actual quote in which Watt says that the BQ agreed to Sad as arbitrator!" ...Muhammad met this feeling by suggesting that the fate of the Jews should be decided by one of their Medinan Muslim allies...The Jews agreed with the suggestion, and Muhammad appointed as judge Sa'd ibn Mu'adh...When he was brought to where Muhammad was, all the Aws and others present swore to abide by his decision... Watt: Muhammad. Prophet and Statesman. OUP, 1962. p. 172 f. --Devotus (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not in there.
Above quote says the BQ agreed to M's suggestion that one of the BA should be arbitrator. It does not say that they agreed Sad should be arbitrator.
Str1977 (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
And I suppose you're going to claim that Sa'd isn't "one of the BA". But if you want to be extremely precise, I'll comply with your wishes, after all what is correct is correct.
How about Qurayza eventually surrendered and agreed their case be judged by one of their Medinan Muslim allies, the Bani Aws. The latter's leader decreed...?Bless sins (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Muhammad asked whether one of the BA should be arbitrator and the BA and the BQ agreed. He did not ask whether Sad should be arbitrator! After the two tribes agreed, he could have picked any of the BA. Nothing in the above passage suggests any chosing of or agreeing to Sad on the part of the two tribes.
Your suggestion ("Qurayza eventually surrendered and agreed their case be judged by one of their Medinan Muslim allies, the Bani Aws.") is Muir's scenario but not Watt's. Also, Sad is not "the latter's leader" but one among many chiefs. Str1977 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That they swore to abide by his decision - as Watt writes - implies that they agreed that he should be arbitrator. I'll also try to find other quotes - from Watt as well as from others - confirming that, as soon as I have time to do that.--Devotus (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It was the BA and Muhammad that swore to abide by whatever decision. In Watt, they merely agree beforehand that one from the BA should decide.
I will watch any Watt quote closely to ensure that none get misinterpreted.
PS. Could you comment on the proposal section? Str1977 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Watt wrote (as cited): "When he was brought to where Muhammad was, all the Aws and others present swore to abide by his decision" Another quote: Frants Buhl: Das Leben Muhammeds. Darmstadt, 1961. p. 275: "Nachdem er dem Propheten und allen Anwesenden das Versprechen abgenommen hatte, daß sie sich unweigerlich nach seinem Urteil richten würden..." In English: "After the prophet and everyone present had pledged to abide by his decision without fail..." - him being Sa'd ibn Mu'adh. I'll try to find other quotes, too.--Devotus (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what you cite is referenced to Peterson and not to Watt. Watt leaves out that pledge alltogether. I don't have that book avaible but I remember that various books word this element differently, interpreting the words "everyone present" differently. In any case, this is no basis for including that in the intro, as it constitutes giving this an undue weight. It really does create the impression that the BQ chose Sad which certainly is not the consensus of the scholars, to say the least. Str1977 (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Referenced to Peterson? No, you can look it up. The same in Muhammad at Medina, OUP 1962, p. 214. "allen Anwesenden" literary means everony present, so everybody - including the Qurayza - who had been there; Buhl does not means anything else by that. Whether we include it in the intro or not is not really my concerne, I just wanted to show you a few refs for that particular claim.--Devotus (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is references to Peterson, is it not? Weren't you quoting from our article?
"everyone present" is correct. But that doesn't translate to everyone including the Qurayza. Are we certain they were present? Or were there locked up somewhere in town? Some sources say the meeting was inside a mosque, hardly a place for Jews to go. To sum it up: you're "everybody - including the Qurayza" has no basis in the sources.
And furthermore: your whole argument that the pledge to abide by the judgement somehow means that the BQ agreed with Sad as arbitrator doesn't hold water. They already had surrendered unconditionally to Muhammad (at least according to Watt, Peters, Kister), had agreed to Muhammad's suggestion that one of the BA should decide their fate and now where in no position to "chicken out" (with their hands tied behind their backs, mind you). But most importantly: the inclusion of a "the BQ agreed to Sad" into the intro does not constitute a full representation of the matter as presented in the article (hence violating NPOV) and also gives one element undue weight (another policy).
I have no intention of discussing this further as the whole issue is pointless. Str1977 (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

[9]--Devotus (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look with great interest and openness. This of course might take a while. Right now, I could only take a quick glance and it looks interesting. The quotes however are still detached from the point that is being made. Str1977 (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Str1977, the critical question is: do you have an objection towards the above link (except for the quote). If not, then Devotus can go ahead and add it. If yes, then we'll discuss it.
As for me, I have some suggestions:
  • Devotus may consider mentioning the part where the Qurayza were fed before their execution just before the part we have the quote describing the execution. If we can quote Ibn Ishaq's longish quote, we can certainly include this as well.
  • Avoid the term "execution" as Str1977 has strongly disapproved of it in the past.
There is some stuff I may add from Ramadan (about the plurality of opinions).Bless sins (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In general I am content with the content. But I have had to make certain linguistic changes, also making this a bit more concise. See this version (changed passage in bold):

Muslim jurists were acquainted with the incident and based their judgements and decrees on the account of the demise.[9] The well known Muslim jurist Ash-Shafii (767-820), for example, examined the incident and on this basis elucidated the problem of individual and collective punishment: he decreed that those that remained passive while being in the territory of a people breaking a compact with the Muslims should be punished even if they themselves did not actively participate.[9] Another famous scholar, al-Mawardi (972-1058), put the incident in a religious context, opining that it was a religious duty of the prophet and his companions to kill the Qurayza.[9] According to Meir J. Kister, al-Mawardi's opinion reflects the current Sunni position on demise of the Qurayza.[9] Ash-Shaybani (750-805) uses the case of the Qurayza to argue that the killing of the fighting men is permitted after the fighting has ceased.[9] He furthermore considers it preferable to kill the men with their hands untied but allows for tying their in case of necessity.[9] He also emphasizes that the men about to be killed should be provided with food and water, using similar actions by Muhammad towards the Qurayza as precedent.[9] However, the demise of the Qurayza was not taken as a model for the relationship of Muslim rulers toward their Jewish subjects. (refs as already included)

It might also be of advantage to add the rough lifetimes of the jurists quoted. Str1977 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have taken over a few changes of yours; the ones I didn't take over were not precise enough or too short.--Devotus (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Where? How? What are the differences to my version? Could you explain these? Str1977 (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
here ;-)--Devotus (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks I will do a little trick over there to discover the differences. Str1977 (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. The diff is now clearly visible [10]. Str1977 (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So, let's have a look at the differences (leaving out the formatting of the refs, all Kister refs are so close that they can be merged into one):

  • "Muslim jurists were acquainted with the incident regarding the demise of the Banu Qurayza" - the bold part added by you is neither needed nor proper English. It is enough to say that they were acquainted with the incident, the incidident being the "demise".
  • "reflects the current Sunni position regarding the reason for the demise of the Qurayza" - I think this needlessly complicated. (My typo that I now spotted should of course be rectified.)
  • "f there should be the danger of the men fleing or killing a Muslim they have to be executed with their hands tied" - I don't see why should have to go in such details. And everybody knows the reasoning behind tying somebody up. (And "if there should be the danger" is also strange - the danger is always there.)
  • ", for he ordered that the captives of the Qurayza should be given dates, be allowed to rest at mid-day and that their execution be delayed so that it would not take place at the hottest time of the day" - the same goes for this. We really do not have to give that much detail. We are to use Kister as a ref, not copy him minutely.
  • "was no model for normal behaviour of Muslim rulers towards their Jews subjects" - this is clumsy English. "Jews subjects" is wrong. Also, it is nonsensical to say that this was no model. Anything can be a model. The point is that it was not taken as a model by those Muslim rulers. What do you mean by "normal" behaviour.

All in all, I don't see how the changes you made to my version improve the text. The better changes are delving too much into details (a debatable point), the worse ones are disimproving it linguistically (not debatable). Str1977 (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving an active RfC

You seem to have archived an active RfC on Tariq Ramadan as a source. If so you could either pull that section out of the archive back onto this talk page, or you could delete it from the listing on RfC. If you are still in disagreement about the source, it might be better to take the question to the reliable sources noticeboard rather than RfC. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove the RFC notice, since the section has been archived. YahelGuhan (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Str1977 already has.Bless sins (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry for not indicating this here. Str1977 (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Watt

Str1977, what is your reason (in the past) for removing the following content sourced to Watt, Muhammad at Medina, 1956, p. 36:

*"To oppose this enormous force, Muhammad could count on about 3,000 men, that is, practically all the inhabitants of Medina with the exception of the Jewish tribe of Qurayza, who seem to have tried to remain neutral."

I don't think it is appropriate for wikipedians to remove scholarly material.Bless sins (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have explained you countless times why the inclusion of "practically all" is not acceptable. If he said "all" that would be something solid (but he cannot say that, it wouldn't be true) - "practically all" is flurry and unduely singles out the BQ
Also we need no full quote here. The gist of Watt is that the BQ tried to remain neutral (in his view).
Please do not repeat questions that have been answered before. Str1977 (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
If he says "practically all", then we say "practically all". I don't see the reason for removing this. Ofcourse Watt is singling out the Qurayza! But what's wrong with that? Nor am I asking for a full quote, only to include what Watt says.Bless sins (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I have told you many times that I will not accept things like "practically all" under any circumstances. I have no problem with presenting his thought but I am unable to accept hyperbolic language such as this one serving only to single out the BQ without the necessary basis: that the facts are correct. If ALL BUT the BQ had helped, he would be saying "practically all" - since the BQ hence were not the only one not helping (forgetting the fact that they supplied tools) singeling them out would be wrong.
I have explained this to you often enough. Don't think you will change the answer repeating the question again and again. It will remain "no!" and the next time you bring this up this all you will get. Str1977 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're confusing you saying "no!" with wikipolicies. There is no wikipolicy that rules against the inclusion of "practically all" . We write what Watt says. There is no reason to remove him.Bless sins (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

and the Banu Nadir vs. financed by the Banu Nadir

Dear Pioneer, you have twice changed the passage "a Quraysh-led army under the command of Abu Sufyan, together with contingents from the Bedouin tribe of Ghatafan and the exiled Banu Nadir, marched against Medina" to "a Quraysh-led army under the command of Abu Sufyan, together with contingents from the Bedouin tribe of Ghatafan financed by the exiled Banu Nadir, marched against Medina".

According to my request, you supplied a source the second time: "W. Montgomery Watt: Muhammad at Medina, p.217-18".

But I still have my doubts. Please reply whether Watt really says that the Nadir did not actively, militarily participate in the Battle of the Trench. If they did participate in this way, changing the text into "financed" is not accurate.

I am awaiting your response. Str1977 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Watt also states in his book "Muhammad. Prophet and Statesman", p.189: "The Jews of Khaybar, especially the leaders of the clan of an-Nadir exiled from Medina, were still incensed at Muhammad. They made lavish, though no doubt judicious, use of their wealth to induce the neighbouring Arabs to take up arms against the Muslims. This was a straightforward reason for attacking Khaybar." He would not have stopped short from mentioning it had they militarily participated at the Battle of the Trench. Pioneer26 (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This matter is difficult because your change makes the involvement both more specific and less "involved". From what I have seen thus far, the BN are always present during the siege. Str1977 (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Their presence was limited to civilian observers who inspected the Arab Bedouin army. Pioneer26 (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Huyayy ibn Akhtab tried to persuade the Qurayza to join them. They weren't there just to observe. You must also name a source claiming what you wrote.--Devotus (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Btw, see talk of Banu Nadir.--Devotus (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

According to all sources, Huyayy who had invested in organizing the Bedouin contingents, attempted to persuade the Banu Qurayza to join the battle and permit access from their side after his on-site inspection of the front. Pioneer26 (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct: so they didn't just finance it. See talk of Banu Nadir.--Devotus (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out what we need: sure Watt (please use the correct name) references that the BN's financial contribution but that is not all that is claimed by Pioneer's text. By changing it from listing the BN among the confederates as one among many to singeling them out as financiers, his edit claims that they DID NOT participate like all the others did but were a special group. And Devotus: it doesn't really matter whether they tried to persuade the BQ or did something else. What matters is whether they were involved on a different footing than the Quraish or all the other tribes, i.e. on a "we will give money but will not fight basis". They certainly were not the sole financiers - and they certainly marched with the others to Jathrib, which was all the former text stated.
Pioneer, please DO NEVER remove clarify tags just because you disagree with them. Str1977 (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
To solve this dispute, maybe we should add a short note about the BN's role in fiancing the bedouin contingents. I will implement this and you can comment. Str1977 (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Banu Nadir arranged and financed Bedouin contingents. However, there is no basis to assert that there were also Banu Nadir contingents at the Battle of the Trench. Pioneer26 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that positive assertion? Str1977 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Not a single source asserts that Banu Nadir contingents were part of the Meccan Bedouin army. Pioneer26 (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
But all assert that the BN marched with the others on Medina. I will change the text so that it doesn't assert this either way. Anyway, this issue is more on topic at the BN article (where I see there is a conflict about this.) Str1977 (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that Banu Nadir marched with the others on Medina and laid siege to it is quite misleading since they did not participate in the army. Pioneer26 (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that their army marched on Medina - my version leaves it open how far their prarticipation went and how many went. Please take your cause to the BN article where it is more relevant, if you cannot produce sources that clearly say that the BN only financed the undertaking. That Nadir members were present during the Battle is clearly attested. Str1977 (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You have not mentioned the Meccan Bedouin army and put the Nadir members on the same footing. Pioneer26 (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your last posting. Bedouins, Quraish and Nadir were all part of the Confederates that marched on Jathrib, regardless of who did what exactly. Unless you bring clear sources that state your point, you should take this case elsewhere. Str1977 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Bedouin and Quraish had sent an army but not the Banu Nadir. It is you who failed to bring any source to support your allegation. Pioneer26 (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
My version does not claim anything either way. What I wrote is also sourced. I did not write what is not sourced. You however make a specific claim (that the Nadir did not send any fighting forces) which would have to be referenced.
Your refusal to take this issue to the Banu Nadir article also raises doubts, how serious you are about this. Str1977 (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Please cite your source. Pioneer26 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I already have made my case. Your ignoring it doesn't authorise you to revert. Str1977 (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Replacing sourced with unsourced unwarranted. Pioneer26 (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I already have made my case. Your ignoring it doesn't authorise you to revert. Str1977 (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You haven't even cited a single source. Pioneer26 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I already have made my case. Your ignoring it doesn't authorise you to revert. Str1977 (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have answered your questions but you failed to cite a source for your version. Pioneer26 (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I already have made my case. Your ignoring it doesn't authorise you to revert. Str1977 (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is my response to your first question.
Watt also states in his book "Muhammad. Prophet and Statesman", p.189: "The Jews of Khaybar, especially the leaders of the clan of an-Nadir exiled from Medina, were still incensed at Muhammad. They made lavish, though no doubt judicious, use of their wealth to induce the neighbouring Arabs to take up arms against the Muslims. This was a straightforward reason for attacking Khaybar." He would not have stopped short from mentioning it had they militarily participated at the Battle of the Trench. Pioneer26 (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Please cite a source for your version. Pioneer26 (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Argumentum e silentio doesn't hold water. Str1977 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 200l8 (UTC)
Substituting sourced material with an unsourced allegation is completely unwarranted. Pioneer26 (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It is your claim that my "allegation" (actually no allegation at all - the BN had legitimate reasons for all their actions) is not supported by the sources. That is because you only see two extremes: your view (IMHO not sufficently supported by the sources) and the other extreme. Memo to Pioneer: my version does not claim that they fought, it leaves open that question which hitherto is unclear from the sources presented here. Str1977 (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We have already discussed this.

Your assertion that Banu Nadir marched with the others on Medina and laid siege to it is quite misleading since they did not participate in the army. Pioneer26 (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You have not presented any source that supports your version. Pioneer26 (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh my. The sources that have been presented, not necessarily by me, support my wording. Str1977 (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You need to cite a source for your wording. Pioneer26 (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For sources see [11]. There is nothing to discuss or relativize here. The quotes make clear what the current state of research in this area is.--Devotus (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, the quotes make clear that Banu Nadir did not participate in the army that marched and laid siege to Medina. Pioneer26 (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Even though you might have never read it - considering that you most probably are Accredited - no scholar writing on this subject speaks of the Nadir only financing and arranging the siege, but taking part in it. See e.g. the quotes in the link given.--Devotus (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Watt speaks of the Nadir only financing and arranging the siege. Had they taken part in it,

he would not have refrained from saying so. I have thoroughly read the quotes. They make a clear distinction between the Nadir and the army. Pioneer26 (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Argumentum e silentio! Watt speaks of the Nadir financing the siege. Period. No more, no less. What you make of it is OR! Str1977 (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Without saying that your assertion concerning what Watt writes about the topic is correct: I refer to Donner in my version.--Devotus (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Btw: Watt: Muhammad at Medina, p. 217, to which you refer in your version does not deal with the Battle of the Trench, but what the Nadir were doing after the Qurayza had been executed.--Devotus (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what I suspected. Your admission at long last is refreshing. It turns out that all what you ascribed to Watt and argued over it for months is based on misinformation. Pioneer26 (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
What exactly have I admitted? It's you who refers to a source without possesing it and by that reading it in its full context. I did not misinform anyone.--Devotus (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The record is self-explanatory from the outset. Pioneer26 (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
You are contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you admit that: Watt: Muhammad at Medina, p. 217, does not deal with the Battle of the Trench, but what the Nadir were doing after the Qurayza had been executed. On the other hand, you now ascribe to the same identical source the statement that they "marched against Medina and laid siege to it." Make up your mind. Pioneer26 (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Donner refers to Abu Sufyan and his colleagues accompanied by tribal allies who appeared with an army. Pioneer26 (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, what's all this talk about "you are contradicting yourself". Please stop it, Pioneer, and please do not fall for it, Devotus. Such an allegation is childish, beside the point and would actually apply to both of you, as Pioneer has brought up Watt in the first place.

There clearly is a passage in Watt (p. 189, quoted above) stating that the Nadir fro their refuge in Khaybar financed the campaign. There is nothing in there to support that they "ONLY financed" it.

And furthermore, thus far NO source has been provided to make such a claim. Becaue of this, it get's reverted to a version reflecting our current sources.

It is sourced that:

  • that the BN financed the campaign
  • that they were present during the siege

It is (currently) NOT SOURCED that:

  • they merely financed it
  • that they actually fought

The version Devotus and me defend (despite our differences regarding other aspects of the whole event) makes neither of these unsourced claims. It certainly does not claim one way or the other whether the BN fought. Str1977 (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and did not find it necessary to change the citation until Devotus admitted that Watt: Muhammad at Medina, p. 217, does not deal with the Battle of the Trench, but what the Nadir were doing after the Qurayza had been executed. He then contradicted himself but finally withdrew it which leaves the allegation that BN "marched against Medina and laid siege to it" unsourced. It is quite obvious that Watt would not have stopped short from mentioning it if this had happened.
Being "very active in their support of the Meccans" in no way indicates military but financial support. unarmed civilians don't march into a battlefield and lay siege to a city.
Muslim sources including Ibn Ishaq, Waqidi, Nomani and Halabi mention that the Quraysh and Bedouin tribes besieged Medina and no source mentions any Banu Nadir contingent in the army. Pioneer26 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
And neither does our text here mention Nadir contigents. But is your own OR that turns "very active" into "merely financial support". Str1977 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not admit anything. I hadn't put Watt, p. 217 as source in the first place; what I did was checking wheter it really dealed with the khandak-battle. Since it did not I deleted it, though I was late doing that. The point is, that you use sources without ever having read them, relying entirely on our quotes.
The newest version is almost a copy of what Donner wrote in his article; I tried to stay very close to what he wrote so you couldn't complain about the wording (as you always do). Str1977/my version does not state that the Banu Nadir laid siege, but that the Quraysh did, and that they were accompanied among others by the Banu Nadir - this is exactly what Donner wrote, to which I refer in that particular version. Not only that you delete Lewis' and Zeitling's statements without giving any reason, you also claim something which is not to be found in any professional work dealing with the battle, may it be Watt, Paret, Donner or anyone else. Since original research is not allowed here, I don't care about what you think the Muslim sources say and do not say - it simply doesn't matter. Your only goal here is to relativize a well known historical fact, that has never been questioned in any work written by scholars writing about this subject.--Devotus (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I am okay with your version, Devotus. My previous version aimed at the exact same thing. Only Pioneer wants to have the text say that the BN merely financed the thing, a claim not borne out by the sources. Str1977 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
As I have stated, the record is self-explanatory from the outset.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Nadir&diff=200321436&oldid=200294428
You are contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you admit that: Watt: Muhammad at Medina, p. 217, does not deal with the Battle of the Trench, but what the Nadir were doing after the Qurayza had been executed. On the other hand, you now ascribe to the same identical source the statement that they "marched against Medina and laid siege to it." Make up your mind. Pioneer26 (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=239550771&oldid=239485508
Donner refers to Abu Sufyan and his colleagues accompanied by tribal allies who appeared with an army. Pioneer26 (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
"Appeared with an army" indicates that they were chieftains.
It is you who claims something which is not to be found in any professional work dealing with the battle, may it be Watt, Paret, Donner or anyone else. Pioneer26 (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I doubt you have ever read the works of Paret (in German), Watt, Donner or anyone else writing about this. I won't repeat myself. Your justification for [12] is ridiculous - the text does not state, that the Nadir appeared with an army, but that the Meccans did, and that they were accompanied by the Nadir. And again you delete the statements of Lewis and especially Zeitlin without justification.--Devotus (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. Str1977 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
You have become the self-appointed spokesman for Watt, Paret and Donner. However, they speak for themselves.
Actually, Donner makes a clear distinction when he states that they again appeared with an army which can only apply to the exiled Nadir personalities who were well known in Medina.
Furthermore, I reject the flimsy linkage of Lewis and Zeitling to your unfounded allegation.
Pioneer26 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to repeat myself. I'll let the others talk, because concerning the version in question there is nothing to justify, since anything that needed to be said has been said. Goodbye.--Devotus (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Your approach is completely unjustified. Pioneer26 (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Why do you, Pioneer, have to go beyond what the sources say?
PS. Even if you disagree, could you please do us all the favour and mind the page structure, adding one (and only one) indent at a time and not starting at the left side again every time. Str1977 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what the sources say. Watt talks of finance and Stillman on the Meccan Bedouin army. Pioneer26 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop edit warring.

I've warned both User:Devotus and User:Pioneer26 for edit warring. Please negotiate text here in Talk before editing article with any controversial changes. The edit warring of the last weeks is utterly unacceptable, and users who edit war can be, and probably will be, blocked. It doesn't matter if you are "right." Persistence in edit warring is not how we determine article text for Wikipedia. Seek consensus; if consensus cannot be found, follow the dispute resolution process. We can stand having inferior -- or even incorrect -- text for a few days, but we cannot stand edit warring and failure to seek consensus when there is controversy. Please assume good faith. I'll try to assist if I have time. I made an edit reverting Pioneer26, but without making any final determination on his suggested text. --Abd (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It is the other side that failed to respond and chose edit warring. This approach is completely unjustified. Pioneer26 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Both "sides" have been edit warring. Edit warring is not acceptable, no matter which "side" you are on. Now, both sides: please discuss specific changes to the article here. Pioneer26, you seem to have brought new wording here, and you've been removing a source. Please, anew, justify this, starting a new Talk section for this, and please keep it simple, one step at a time. Remember, the goal here is to find text that enjoys consensus, if possible. So "I'm right and you are wrong" probably isn't going to be very effective at convincing other editors. --Abd (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It is the other side that has substituted sourced material with an unfounded allegation. Pioneer26 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Abd, that is exactly the kind of "discussion" going on here since Pioneer arrived. He simply does not listen to what others are saying.
"We" accomodated his input in as much as the article clearly does not say that the BN fought in the battle of the Trench - because there is no source saying this. But what he wants is the article to overemphasize the financial contribution (which is currently duly noted) and push it further in favour of his view that the BN merely financed things and never fought. But for this there is no source either. His version thus makes an unsourced claim, "ours" doesn't.
By "we" I am referring to Devotus and myself. The two of us do not actually fall on the same side and had some disputes before - that we agree on this one should be indicative.
And, Pioneer, what's the "allegation" you are constantly on about? I see no allegation at all! Str1977 (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Watt, Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman, p. 170-175.
  2. ^ Hashmi, Sohail H.; Buchanan, Allen E; Moore, Margaret (2003), p.376
  3. ^ Mohammed Abu-Nimer (2000-2001), p.247
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Guillaume463 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Mohammed Abu-Nimer (2000–2001). "A Framework for Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam". Journal of Law and Religion. 15 (1–2): 247.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  6. ^ Hashmi, Sohail H. (2003). States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries. Cambridge University Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Khadduri, Majid (1955). War And Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Peterson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b c d e f g Kister, p. 66-74.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banu_Qurayza/Archive_7&oldid=1144741932"