Talk:Banu Qurayza

Archives

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

Stillman inference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is clear from the following setences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Or with whom"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA nomination on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

5. It is stable.

   

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

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

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General agreements - tribal customs

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

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

Here is the full quote.

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

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

Image caption

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

More sources found for massacre of Banu Qurayza

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

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

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

GA nomination failed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism of Islam template

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

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

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

Arafat and Ahmed

Dispute

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

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

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

Quotes:

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

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

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

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

William Montgomery Watt in Encyclopedia of Islam says:

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

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

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

Jamal Badawi says:

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

Previous discussions

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

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

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

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

Massacre vs. excecution

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

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

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

This is a summary of the last discussion:

• KirbyTime opposed massacre, but accepted "killing".

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

• Merzbow suggested "beheaded".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "Siege and aftermath"

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

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

Exactly,

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

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

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

I agree with Pro on your other addition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ma malakat aymanakum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest then that you read the whole verse:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Article Review

Hello,

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

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

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

Removal of content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BS,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BS,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the surah you linked to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abu Lubaba

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Master Jedi,

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

09:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Str.

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

Well Master Jedi,

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

Mr. Str

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Str:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mik, for the final time:

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

1977, for the second final time:

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

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

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

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

Here's the reasoning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me repeat the issue again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Aminz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(To Str, not you Bless)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King of Himyar

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

Evidence for execution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.Muhammad, By Cook, Oxford University Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence for execution (discussion)

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

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

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

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

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

BS,

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

Well, I don't.

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

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

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

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

Aminz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aaaaah!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

massacre

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

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

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, Itaq, neutral. Massacre is neutral.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kill·ing

–noun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think my last posting answered both of your question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

Here are the two biggest problems I find:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Once again I have had a go at making the references uniform. Since some people have chosen to include books in a different style, probably out of ignorance, I think it best to explain the principles I have applied:

• Monographies:
  • first appearance in footnotes: family name, title, vol. [if applicable], p. 123-456.
  • further appearances in footnotes: family name, title [if there is more than one work of this author], p. 123-456.
  • literature section: family name, first name [at least one name must be in full length], title, volume [if applicable]. Place: publisher [exception: Place University Press], year. ISBN [if avaiable]
• Articles:
  • in footnotes similar to monographies, only that "article title" replaces book title.
  • literature section:
    • article from a collection of essays: family name, first name [at least one name must be in full length], "article title", in: book, vol. [if applicable]. Place: publisher [exception: Place University Press], year. ISBN [if avaiable]
    • article from a journal: family name, first name [at least one name must be in full length], "article title", in: journal, volume (year), p. 123-456.
• Encyclopedias: family name [some are yet unaccounted for], Encyclopedia, "article".

Every footnote ends in a full stop. Any set of page numbers end in a full stop or in a colon (when various books are listed). "Page" is always abbreviated to p. (not pp., not pg., not p)

I hope this explains matters. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Double standards and blame the victims

BS, I have seen only afterwards that you went in and mass reverted between my edits.

At the same time you complain of mass reverting. That is quite rich and a clear indication of double standards on your part. You have mass reverted every single time while I have tried to be as compromising as I can.

Also, note that your blame the victims and kill all the Jews paragraph is totally unacceptable and unencyclopedic and will never ever stay in this article. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider your edits here. I didn't mass revert after that edit, but only edited the content I have been discussing on talk. Yet you went ahead and mass reverted my edits anyways.[36] SO naturally, I gave you a taste of your own poison.

Please don't get into talks about what is "unacceptable". The things that are unacceptable are dictated by Wiki policies. Feel free to notify my if I violate one. BTW, what's the "kill all the Jews paragraph"??Bless sins 23:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course you did mass revert. You just reverted the content back to your version regardless of all the work I had done, regardless of any efforts to compromise. Sure, WP policies do allow that. But then do not turn around and tell we to drink water when you are drinking wine.

The "blame the victims, kill all the jews" paragraph is this disgusting piece: [37] I will only link to it as I do not want my fingers to type this screed. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even going to go into how you continue to make offensive remarks, as I know you won't stop doing that. Instead tell me where did I write "blame the victims, kill all the jews". After all you put that in quotation marks, suggesting you copied it of from somewhere. Besides the link you provided sources a book by the Oxford University Press. It is inconceivable that such a press would ever publish anything remotely antisemitic (esp. in 2007).Bless sins 14:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have linked the paragraph and explained the offensiveness above. If you want to write hagiography go somewhere else (no, I am not referring to the Muhammad article). Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Explained"? You have made a false statement, since I have never included the phrase "kill all the jews" in any of my (article) edits. Whether you apologize for making these charges, I don't care, but I do hope you don't repeat them.Bless sins 01:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed you who quoted this passages. Maybe you should apologise. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? I inserted "kill all the jews" in the article? You must stop making these false statements. Actually, because I know that I never inserted that clause, and that you continue to make offensive remarks, I'll simply ignore your false allegations from this point on.Bless sins 11:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't insert literally those very words, but the essence of the message was pretty much the same: "Jews are nasty and deserved their fate". Beit Or 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any indication of that being said in the paragraph at all. All it explains is an alternate interpretation of why Muhammad never allowed such rash action to take place before but allowed it in this case. It is also a secondary source interpretation like those of Watt's, Stillman's, Rodinson's, etc., some of which themselves could imply very much the same things about the Muslims, so if you want to keep a NPOV on the interpretations and opinions of why Muhammad allowed to happen what he did, you should have no problem allowing this. Jedi Master MIK 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"You didn't insert literally those very words" Thank you fro clearing me from that false charge!

"Jews are nasty" when did I insert that? I'm grateful that you verify the truth, but quite disappointed to that allege me of something equally false.Bless sins 03:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You included a whole lorry of offensive nonsense. Maybe you can understand that Beit Or and I both are paraphrasing the gist of your (and that beautiful Ramadan's) thought. It can never be included in this manner. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather than your faulty "paraphrasing", why don't you simply quote me directly? That would create far less misunderstanding. In anycase, do you dispute Ramadan's reliability? If not, you have no reason to remove him.Bless sins 10:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a pulpit from which one can preach mass murder of Jews. The quote you insist on including is essentially Ramadan's rebuke of Muhammad not for massacring the Jews of Banu Qurayza, but for not massacring the Jews earlier. This is bigotry, antisemitism, and glorification of mass murder. Beit Or 13:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, you should be aware that WP:BLP applies to talk pages aswell. regardless of whatever strong views you may have, Wikipedia is not the forum for it, nor is it a "pulpit" for attacking living individuals. ITAQALLAH 16:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That hardly merits a reply except to say that I think you are misusing this policy. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, WP:BLP does not prevent editors from calling a spade a spade. Beit Or 20:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

if you believe it acceptable to accuse a living person, of "bigotry", "antisemitism", "glorification of mass murder", "preach[ing] mass murder of Jews" - then your understanding of the policy in question is inadequate. ITAQALLAH 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you believe there is a violation of WP:BLP, bring your complaint to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Take into account, though, that accusations of antisemitism, fascism, support of terrorism etc. are all over Tariq Ramadan's Wikipedia entry. You are talking about a person who was denied a U.S. visa for providing material support to terrorists. Beit Or 22:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

one incident isn't enough for me to consider taking this to BLP/N. the documentation of accusations in his article (rightly described as such therein) is certainly not the same as disparaging him on a talk page - especially with spurious allegations like ones above of preaching mass murder. in the absense of any further attacks of this nature, there is no need to continue this discussion. ITAQALLAH 00:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have taken this to BLP:Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tariq_Ramadan.Bless sins 02:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I applaud that move. If one seriously believes that BLP is violated one should report this violation. If not, then one shouldn't talk about it at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Beit and Str, please refer to my previous post for a little more detail. There is no indication whatsoever of Ramadan's interpretation having any anything negative against Jews; in fact there are interpretations on here and other pages regarding Muslims and Muhammad that some would and could interpret to be more scathing than the view that you give can distantly interpret about what Ramadan says. Jedi Master MIK 19:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mik, sure Ramadan says nothing against Jews except that the victims he wants so eagerly killed are Jews. But that's not my problem as I never considered anti-semitism as worse than any other anti-...ism. What Ramadan writes here is indeed the glorification of a massacre and of other potential massacres. It also spits on the graves of the victims as Muhammad exiled two tribes (sure one probably tried to murder him but the other did nothing other than reject his call to conversion - well they were a bit boastful in that, but that's hardly a crime) and had several critics assassinated. Wonderful clement prophet.

PS. One anti-semitic though is present: Ramadan talks about that had been treason before and that Muhammad was supposedly lenient and that this cost him now. Well, there had been treason before BUT the BQ were never part of it, as our referenced article clearly states - they held aloof from the Ban Nadir during that conflict. (The Quanuqa are irrelevant here as they never did any wrong.) The only thing that BQ and earlier traitors have in common is their being Jews. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is an interesting discussion. If you want to know my opinion on this, you can e-mail me and I won't hesitate to discuss this. But such a discussion is not productive here. At the end of the day, if our combined original research produces a conclusion, it is still original research. However, a reliable and scholarly source is worth more than all our original research and merits inclusion. I'm sorry, but this is how wikipedia works. We don't get to decide if a scholar is right or wrong, only if a scholar is reliable or not. If you have something about the reliability of Ramadan, then state it. If you wish to disprove Ramadan's argument, then we discuss it over e-mail (or user talk) but not here.Bless sins 04:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It is us who are writing this article and thus we decided how to include something. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

such decision-making can be done without delving into personal views or observations. what matters here is what secondary sources say, not whether we think they are correct in the light of primary sources. lest we forget, Wikipedia is not a forum. ITAQALLAH 11:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's our job as to decide what sources to use and what material available from sources is encyclopedically vlauable and merits inclusion. Beit Or 20:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

and, as i'm sure you'll agree, that's got nothing to do with personal (and irrelevant) viewpoints held about particular authors or incidents. ITAQALLAH 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case, the viewpoint you call "irrelevant" is backed up by solid evidence. Beit Or 11:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure this can be done without personal views. But it us that make that decision and we cannot become secondary "sources" quoting machines. If Ramadan had something proper to contribute we could include that in neutral fashion (e.g. that Muhammad reacted towards criticism of his earlier too clement behaviour (never his clemency, that would be POV - but only if that is what Ramadan is actually saying). Str1977 ^(talk) 13:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Or better still, we can include the gist of his point into the "Later Muslim scholars justified the treatment of the Banu Qurayza ...." passage. But I must say that it is actually the responsibility of the one wanting to include something to provide a neutral wording. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ramadan does use the word "clemency". Ramadan is also not a "later Muslim scholar". In fact, I'm not even sure what a "later Muslim scholar" is, since Watt, Stillman, Ramadan, Peters, Esposito etc.. are themselves quite "late".Bless sins 17:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not care what words Ramadan uses. Can't you finally get it into your head that we are not here to parrot scholars. You included Muhammad's clemency as a fact when it is very much questionable. But the argument goes that some considered Muhamad's previous behaviour was too clement. That's a double qualification. Certainly, Ramadan is a "later Muslim scholar" - he certainly is a Muslim and he lived later than the massacre or even the surah referring to it. Hence, he is a "later Muslim scholar". Str1977 ^(talk) 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes we don't have to parrot sources, but we are not going to misrepresent sources either. "when it is very much questionable" By who? Str1977, or a scholar who directly questions Ramadan. Sure Ramadan is a "later Muslim scholar", just like Stillman is a "later American (or whatever his nationality is) scholar", and John Esposito is a "later Catholic scholar" etc. Besides, he never claims that he is a making a claim because he is Muslim, and you'd be violating WP:SYNTH by combining two sources to promote a third view.Bless sins 03:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not say we should mispresent "sources". However, we do report on them in a neutral manner if and as long they are relevant. It should be obvious that the clemency of a guy that exiled two tribes and had various persons assassinated is very much in question. It is Ramadan who talks about M's clemency but that's his POV which we cannot endorse. Your take on "Muslim scholars" in nonsensical. It is clear that Muslim scholars have engaged in such arguments and Ramadan is one - that's not to qualify his view but we have to introduce these scholars somehow. However, if you reject placing Ramadan there we can always leave him out. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case, insertions of Ramadan's quote violate WP:SOAP. We could have more productive discussions and a better article if the material added were scholarly rather than propagandistic. Beit Or 11:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

People of the Gospel

If there was any more need for evidence that some here are acting in bad faith, consider that they included the following and reverted a version that included this.

005.047

YUSUFALI: Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to :judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

PICKTHAL: Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

SHAKIR: And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors.

is quoted as relevant to a dispute between Jews, supposedly "people of the book" - well, the text here says something else. But this supposed mistake of mine is used to mass revert to the cherished POV version. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a minor issue. We can not mention these verses as part of a compromise. You are using this issue to delete lots of sourced content. Please stop that.Bless sins 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a minor issue, yes. I am not using it to delete anything except that one verse. I have made my changes bit by bit and explained them and this was only the last.

What you accuse me of was actually what your friend Mik did: he posted the edit summary "people of the Gospel"? Where? They are people of the book.) when he mass reverted to your version. Not only did he not address the "people of the Gospel" in particular, he did not even bother to read the verse I removed, otherwise he would have seen that the Quran indeed says people of the Gospel, which can hardly relate to (non-Christian) Jews. So he used a point in which he was factually wrong (there is no denying that) dishonestly to revert back to your version. And that is a major issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you by some miracle think I wouldn't notice the hypocrisy behind the slander??? You referred to a phrase I couldn't even find in the reverted version as an excuse to mass revert it and judged my intentions erroneously once again in the process. Now that I've let that frustration out, let me explain more calmly.

To explain my edit summary, I couldn't find Gospel used anywhere on the page in either this edit [38] or this edit [39] and so I didn't understand whatever your edit summary was referring to and I still don't actually so please before calling me a liar again, tell me what or where this issue appeared or appears in the edit by Bless.

I didn't explain the mass reversion b/c as I hope you get from the above point, I didn't understand the reason you used, especially for grounds to edit the unrelated stuff. Jedi Master MIK 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't get what you are saying. Let me be clear: my edit which removed the off topic surah was based on my previous edit. Only after I removed the edit did I find out that BS had mass reverted in between. In effect I reverted him as I didn't notice. So since my intention was not to mass revert I talked only about the change I intentend. See this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=166628156&oldid=166627591

You however intentionally mass reverted and used an issue as edit summary that you apparently had no knowledge about. You could have asked here "what do you mean by people of the gospel" or you could have followed the removed links to find out yourself. Instead, you chose to mass revert. I think this dishonest. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

At some point in time you must start taking responsibility for your edits. "In effect I reverted him as I didn't notice." Every time you blame your editing on "mistakes". While mistakes can happen, it gets tiring when you repeatedly make that claim. You can only cry "Wolf! Wolf!" so many times.Bless sins 10:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

BS, I didn't blame anything on a mistake on my part. I didn't make a mistake here. I made an edit and a fitting summary. If there is a mistake, it lays with the WP software that didn't indicate to me that there had been something in between - and yes, technically it was a revert and I accept that but it was not my fault that my summary and the actual diff do not match. I cannot say the same for Mik however, who clearly saw my version and mass reverted based on the removed verse (without checking for what I could have meant). I do not begrudge him that - mistakes do happen. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The root of the problem is your incessant edit warring, which pollutes the article history and makes productive editing nearly impossible. Beit Or 13:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Str, thank you for providing that, I did not see what you were referring to originally. Again however I ask you to stop being so presumptuous. The 1st reason I mass reverted w/o detail is b/c I did not initally see the citation you removed described in your edit summary and so I thought you wrong to have been mass reverting as well and on that I apologize. The 2nd reason is b/c I assumed it would be obvious now when we both mass revert why we both do it so please excuse me if I didn't add "see talk page" as well. Finally, I don't know why I didn't mention anything here, I have no excuse and I apologize.

Beit, it takes minimum 2 to edit war and I mean on opposing sides as well so please don't push it off a simply one user's resiliance. Jedi Master MIK 19:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mik, I am sorry I indeed could have explained it better here on talk (not so much in the edit summary as I could only see that later). Apologies are accepted of course. I hope this now closes this entire issue, agreed? Str1977 ^(talk) 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Abu-Nimer

This author has been recently added. I would like to know who this is, what kind of credentials he has and how he words this issue. I also would like to know the exact location of his article - is he contained in that journal's issue 15 volume 1 or 2. And is it really only a one page article? Thanks, Str1977 ^(talk) 09:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC) PS. I solved the bibliographical issue myself. I don't understand why an editor who provides a book is unable to provide all the information required. *sigh* Str1977 ^(talk) 09:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have found this article, which settles matters:

Abu-Nimer is totally uninformed as he portrays it that there was a dispute between M. and the BQ (fact: M. and the Banu Aus) and that the BQ chose the arbitrator (fact: M chose Sad from the Aus who had agreed to accept one from among them).

Mr Abu-Nimer also happens to be an expert in the field of conflict resolution but not in history. He can propose models of resolution but he is no expert on what happend back in 627 AD.

The only possible conclusion is that I remove him again. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

His entry appeared in the Journal of Law and Religion, which we can assume, by the title, the journal is a reliable source on religions such as Islam. Given that in the events prophet Muhammad was involved, these events have a significance in Islam. Thus the journal is a reliable source. Also, you repeatedly accuse reliable sources of factual inaccuracy, in this case of being "totally uninformed". Remember that wikipedia is about "verifiability, not truth". BTW, the article you found is not the article I quoted.Bless sins 16:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where he writes something that is no on topic and based on faulty information (at odds with everythin you and I and others have thus far provided. He is no historian and therefor has to rely on others that have misinformed him. The journal BTW is about "Law and Religion" not about history, so that doesn't help either. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

First, lets get this clear. Are the Journal of Law and Religion and Professor Abu-Nimer reliable sources or not?Bless sins 17:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I beleive they are because: Abu-Nimer is an associate professor at the American University's School of International Service in International Peace and Conflict Resolution in Washington, DC, and Director of Peacebuilding and Development Institute, American University.[40]

The Journal of Law and Religion is an interfaith, interdisciplinary peer-reviewed English language academic and professional journal devoted to issues that engage both theology and law. The Journal publishes a diverse range of scholarly work from many nations, disciplines, faith traditions, and perspectives, including historical studies, jurisprudence and theology, work on the vocations of law and religion, and studies on the interplay of law and religion in social, political and other arenas.[41]Bless sins 17:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The answer to both your questions is no, since this article is not about law and religion, nor about conflict resolution, which is Mr. Abu-Nimer's field. Beit Or 20:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So now you think that professors and academic journals are unreliable sources. Not surprising since you consider the Oxford University Press as a publisher of "bigotry", "glorification of mass murder" and "antisemitism".Bless sins 20:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a sad fact about Oxford University Press. It is also a testimony of the general decline of Middle Eastern and islamic studies in the last two decades. Beit Or 22:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You have rejected scholarship coming from Middle East and Asia, and now you are rejecting scholarship from Europe and North America. So what it is exactly that you consider "reliable"?Bless sins 02:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In the context of this particular article, a reliable source is a work by a scholar who is a specialist on either the life of Muhammad and the early Islam or history of Jews in Muslim lands and who does not exhibit a strong religious or other partisan bias. Beit Or 11:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

BS, sure professors CAN BE unreliable sources, even at Oxford. But that's not the point. Abu-Nimer is not an expert in history and hence should not be treated as such in WP. Unfortunately I cannot access his article and only read the gist of his point in another article referencing him (see the link) - but note: that other article doesn't quote him for facts but for models of conflict resolution. That's where AN's expertise lies and he can propose valid models even based on inaccurate information. The remaining issue is where did AN his faulty information from - does he give a historian as a reference for his take on what happened in 627 or did he just read sources carelessly. AN's mistake do not invalidate his scholarship - but we cannot use him for the fact of the BQ matter. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

To study conflicts you need to have some knowledge of conflicts that have taken place in the past. Secondly, accord to JSTOR, the Journal of Law and Religion is a reliable source in "historical studies" (see link above).Bless sins 03:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Abu Nimer's position is reiterated in this book also: War and peace in the law of Islam, written by professor Majid Khadduri, and published by John Hopkins press. The book was later published at London by the, guess who?, Oxford University Press (according to a review by the International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-)).Bless sins 03:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Where and what does Majid Kadduri write about it? Beit Or 11:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The link and the book are above.Bless sins 19:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Professors ARE reliable sources. Academic journals ARE also reliable sources. Please get this right.Bless sins 03:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, some professors are reliable sources and some journals are reliable sources. But note that you are fighting a strawman - sure Abu Nimer is a reliable source for what he is saying. But he is not talking about what you want him to talk about. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that I'm misquoting Abu Nimer? Am I also misquoting Majid Kadduri?Bless sins 19:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that Abu Nimer talks about models of conflict resolution, not about historical facts. You are misuing him, even if all the words are copied. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith edit summary

BS, please stop your bad faith edit summaries, you are fooling nobody. I have time and again worked for compromise, reduced the occurence of the accurate and neutral M-word. What Itaqallah posted is no comprise but rather a maximalist version in accord with your POV, removing every occurence of the M-word, replacing it with "aftermath" and similar sanitizing language. It is also factually incorrect as Arafat doesn't dispute the historicity of "the incident" but that of the massacre, i.e. that large numbers of people were killed. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)