Talk:Battle of Khaybar

date of the battle

the date of the battle is stated with 629

in the list of expeditions of Muhammad the date of this battle is mei/June 628 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad (Nr. 53) with this footnote:

Watt, W. Montgomery (1956). Muhammad at Medina. Oxford University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0195773071. 

so what is the right date?

"to be exempted from military service"

Is that a euphemism for being prohibited from owning weapons, armor, mounts and learning and practicing fighting skills?

Throughout Islamic history, it was customary to uphold the laws of protected minorities and their ability to self govern and adjudicate. This meant to equal rights of self-defence.

The arabic word is dhimmi[[1]], which transliterates as "people obligated to protect" and insinuates holy decree which founded on the principles evidenced in the [peace and security treaty of Medina] as well as the [of Muhammad|Covenant of Mohammad] to the christians of Palestine.

Renaming request

In my personal opinion, this article should be renamed from "Battle of Khaybar"----->"Siege of Khaybar"

as per Merriam Webster definition of warfare involving permanent defensive structure:

a : a military blockade of a city or fortified place to compel it to surrender b : a persistent or serious attack (as of illness)

2 obsolete : a seat of distinction : throne lay siege to 1 : to besiege militarily 2 : to pursue diligently or persistently

link to Merriam Webster

while from wikipedia itself, Siege were defined by

A siege is a military blockade of a city, or fortress, with the intent of conquering by attrition, or a well-prepared assault. This derives from Latin: sedere, lit. 'to sit'.[1] Siege warfare is a form of constant, low-intensity conflict characterized by one party holding a strong, static, defensive position. Consequently, an opportunity for negotiation between combatants is not uncommon, as proximity and fluctuating advantage can encourage diplomacy. The art of conducting and resisting sieges is called siege warfare, siegecraft, or poliorcetics.

This is typically coupled with attempts to reduce the fortifications by means of siege engines, artillery bombardment, mining (also known as sapping), or the use of deception or treachery to bypass defenses.

applied for for Khaybar conflict as it is mentioned that each fortresses were subdued through deceptions and catapult or Dabbabah/battering ram.Ahendra (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing any sources that use the word "siege." I'd suggest staying with the current name per WP:COMMONNAME. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 21:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

A "siege" also doesn't seem to quite match up with the narrative presented here. That at least makes it sounds like the defenders met the Muslims in open combat outside of their defenses. In which case it would be a battle, likely followed by a siege after the defenders fell back. Brasswatchman (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Was Khaybar a massacre

Was Khaybar a massacre because according to modern jews it is? 81.100.240.135 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

From the sound of things, I don't think there's any way for anyone to know for certain at this point. One could debate whether or not the attack was fair and if Banu Nadir actually posed a threat to Medina at that point, but that seems to me like something that would depend heavily on one's point of view. Regardless, it doesn't sound like the defenders were unarmed and unprepared. Take this guy for instance, who seems to have died in honorable single combat with Ali. No dirty tricks or cheating there on either side, for whatever it's worth. Brasswatchman (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Original primary sources?

Out of curiosity, what were the original primary or historical sources for the information we have on this battle? Does the Quran or certain hadiths talk about it? I presume that the information must've been originally from Muslim sources. Thanks. Brasswatchman (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

As far of what is known, it is primarily arabian sources (pagan, muslim, jewish, or otherwise). However, there are non-arabic sources but they are primarily reinaissance reinterpretations of established record but portrayed as original despite the fact as well as with an impose euro-patriarchal voice (bias). These writings weren't challenged by modern (1600–1900A.D) era historians but adopted and built upon and thus persisting in the contemporary era (1900AD and forward). Bro The Man (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

In a general sense, it is good to be skeptical of information you read, but one should not automatically assign "good-vs-bad" based on labels.

The general assumption that all people aim for peace is a valid instinct but it's important to note that this does not form a paradox nor conflict with the human drive of self-preservation when perceiving existential crisis.

Or worse, when perceived existential crisis is tied to the philosophy of expansionist conquest in the case of Roman Empire and its influence on the modern European identity which continues to inform contemporary Europe, its foreign Policy, and their refusal to apologise nor recompense their victims. Bro The Man (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)