Talk:Battle of Khaybar

An entry from Battle of Khaybar appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 8th May, 2006.

Wikipedia

• Talk:Battle of Khaybar/archive1 (to June 2006)

=Did You Know? Template

This article was listed on Did You Know as the result of an error; the template at the top of the page misleads the reader into thinking that it was legitimately listed there. Why is the (presumably honest) mistake being compounded by the restoration of this template? — JEREMY 08:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically it was listed as a DYK on both the 8th and 9th:

22:54 May 8th till 04:40 May 9th

• Start
• End

I agree with Jeremygbyrne though that the template shouldn't be there... I've removed it. Netscott 08:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, why shouldn't the template be there?Timothy Usher 08:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Due to the logic that Jeremy has expressed. Netscott 08:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the folks who work on DYK might be the ultimate decision makers over this. Jeremy, I'd recommend you contact those folks. As this'll likely deteriorate into an edit war otherwise. Netscott 08:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. The template reads only a statement of fact, and is accurate in that. It doesn't say it righteously and gloriously appeared on DYK, or anything like that.Timothy Usher 08:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Original research"? Pull the other one. — JEREMY 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I continue not to understand what the problem can be with this perfectly standard template which neutrally reports a fact. Why not follow up on Netscott's suggestion?Timothy Usher 07:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I simply can't make myself believe that you don't understand, Timothy. You might disagree, but you understand perfectly well my contention that the template misleads others into thinking the article was a legitimate DYK entry, instead of being removed from that category because it had been promoted against the rules. (Wow, deju va!) — JEREMY 08:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the listings' last mention on the DYK suggestion page showing no dispute. Please provide a link proving your point. --tickle me 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a completely nonsensical assertion that the article was listed on DYK as a result of an error; furthermore, there is no policy, guideline or whatever saying that the Did you know template should be removed from an article's talk page under certain circumstances. If Netscott or JEREMY thought the article should not appear on the Main Page, they should have stated their arguments on the Did you know talk page. It's silly to raise issues several months after the fact. Pecher ^Talk 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing "nonsensical" about it. It was listed in error and was subsequently removed for that error (see also section second from bottom on this diff). The situation was rectified immediately, but certain editors edit-warred the template back onto the page despite knowing full well that the error had been made. — JEREMY 13:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know says: "Eligible articles may only be up to 5 days old, or significantly expanded beyond 1000 characters in the last 5 days." This article was expanded from a stub before being shown on the Main Page, so it was not shown in error, even if one admin thinks it was. That the article was on the Main Page is a fact, don't try to suppress it. Pecher ^Talk 13:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It might say that now, but it most certainly didn't then. If you'd even bothered to glance at the page you'd have noticed the big, bold notice saying THESE ITEMS MUST BE NO MORE THAN 120 HOURS (5 days) OLD! I'm not "suppressing" anything, and I'd thank you not to make such ad hominem attacks. — JEREMY 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It had been an unwritten rule for quite long before it was finally codified. If you look through the archives, you'll find lots of articles unstubbed and then featured in the Did you know. Pecher ^Talk 07:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be the secret-handshake unwritten rule known only to the 133ts like yourself, as opposed to the rest of us chumps who took the CAPITALISED, BOLDED WARNING at face value? Bzzzt. Sorry: no credibility for you. — JEREMY 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have context on what the problem was, and wasn't the admin that added the selection or the template but I'm not sure I see the harm in leaving the template on the talk page. You could add a note if you wanted that it was added by mistake. But it's not a big deal, DYK is supposed to be fun and a way to introduce readers to new articles (that they might be able to improve). Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Having apparently exhausted logical discourse after every one of his objections has been addressed with undeniably factual evidence, User:Pecher — returning unrepentant from a 24-hour ban for edit-warring — is now chosing to merely revert my alteration to the template describing the mechanism by which this article was gamed into DYK and thus onto the main page. Perhaps he or his supporters might suggest a compromise they'd be happy with, so we can all move on? — JEREMY 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unstubbed articles are just as valid for DYK as newly-created articles. Regardless, it makes no sense to remove a template specifying that this article was once on the main page, when it in fact was once on the main page. Articles that used to be Featured but were delisted still have a notice saying that they were on the main page when they were featured, simply because removing that notice makes no sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-10 07:26

I suppose, the issue is settled now. Pecher ^Talk 13:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was misinformed by Pecher that the article was unstubbed. It was definitely an invalid nomination. I'm neutral about whether the notice should be removed or not. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-10 16:50

Here is the unstubbing diff[1]. The previous version[2] was a stub. How come I misinformed you? Pecher ^Talk 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Going back a bit more into history shows that the article has experienced lots of changes. --Aminz 20:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The article was stubbed because a prior version was a blatant POV copyvio; see discussion above. Pecher ^Talk 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I was misinformed by Jeremy that it was not a stub, when it clearly was. Either way, just keep me out of this debate, since I have no clue what any of your motives are. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-10 21:17

Guys, the article was selected, rightly or wrongly. That's all that matters. I'm with Brian on this one, why does this matter in the grand scheme of things? ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I see this article as anti-Muslim. It is based on western histories which are in fact derived and twisted from Muslim ones. Prophet Muhammad did not actually participate in Khaybar, he sent his cousin Ali as the leader of the army which is a known fact to all Muslims. Why is this stated as a fact->"Kinana ibn al-Rabi, the treasurer of Banu Nadir, whom Muhammad's followers first tortured, demanding to reveal the location of the hidden treasures of his tribe, and then beheaded" This is not true, torture to prisoners is forbidden to the Muslims, I am a Muslim and I know that Muslims especially at the time of the prophet were the most merciful conqueres in history, otherwise not so many people would be muslims today. Sure, booty was one of the goals, but the main reason of the conquest of Khaybar was that the Jews in Khaybar proved to be mortal enemies to the Muslims by helping the Alliance at the battle of the trench, spying, and ultimately attempted to take the life of the prophet. The prophet couldn't deal with them before because he was threatend by Quraish. Banu Quraizah were judged by a dying companion of the prophet named Sa'ad Ibn Ubadah. He was shot by an arrow during the battle of the trench, he was asked by the prophet to judge a suitable punishment for their betrayal of the alliance between them and the Muslims. Hence, he judged their men to be killed and their sons and women to be enslaved. This severe punishment is suitable for allying themselves with the Muslims and when combat starts they try to stab the Muslims from the back. This has nothing to do with them being Jews, it has to do everything with their betrayal

Hamidious 13:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Why does that battle have a lage dump of non-Muslim view to start with? Why can't i read any Muslim views there? --Striver 21:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wtf? The article then procedes with a long bable on their inocense and peace loving-merchant-only greatness and then mind-reads Muhammad's evil motives?! --Striver 21:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"His henchmen stole into Khaybar at night and assassinated Abu al-Rafi ibn Abi al-Huqayq, one of the Khaybar chieftains. "? Is that a neutral tone? --Striver 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving

This article is about events relevant to the battle , info about the century old history of khaybar does belong to Khaybar and not here, so i am moving it there. --Striver 23:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Totaly disputed

OMG! Look at this:

"The conquest of Khaybar would enable him to satisfy with ample booty his companions who, having hoped to capture Mecca, were disappointed and discontented at the treaty with the Meccans. In addition, the Hudaybiyya agreement gave him the assurance of not being attacked by the Meccans during the expedition."

Even basic understanding of the events shows that they did have no hopes of capturing Mecca prior to the treaty of hudaybia, there is 0 (zero) probability that any scholar whould claim that, and still is that sentence referenced to two scholars. This puts the accuracy of the entire article under question. --Striver 23:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Again the article got it wrong, Bukhari explicitly includes hadith were horse meat are declared halal during this particular incident. --Striver 23:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested sources

Below are some books by scholars that might (from their titles) prove relevant to this article. They should be available in large university libraries. Just suggestions. I haven't had a chance to track down any of them yet. All the authors have other publications too.

G. R. Hawting (2000), The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hugh Kennedy (2006),The Byzantine And Early Islamic Near East (Collected Studies, Cs860)., Ashgate

Hugh Kennedy (2001), The armies of the caliphs : military and society in the early Islamic state, London: Routledge

Michael Lecker (1999), Jews and Arabs in Pre- And Early Islamic Arabia (Collected Studies Series, 639), Ashgate

Michael Lecker (1995), Muslims, Jews, and Pagans: Studies on Early Islamic Medina (Islamic History and Civilization. Studies and Texts, V. 13)

Institutional affiliation of authors Hawting – SOAS, University of London Kennedy – not known but books are reviewed in scholarly journals Lecker– Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Itsmejudith 09:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry the edit I just made[3] was not minor.Bless sins 13:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need to mention Banu Qurayza in "Background" section. I think it should be removed.Bless sins 23:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, you should not add claims such as "Muhammad moved to attack Khaybar in response to the settlement's incitement against the Madinah." without a source. Inserting such POV material isn't made acceptable by including a fact tag. It would appear that you are going to every article about Arabian Jews and inserting material to suggest that they fully deserved their grim fate, and are willing to use baseless claims from partisan/extremist sources or even no sources at all to do this.Proabivouac 07:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, what does Watt say?Proabivouac 08:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You can find it in one of my emails to you (do you remember? ) it discussed the views of Cateani and Watt... I'll try to find the quote and post it here. --Aminz 08:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The article in EI is written by L. Veccia Vaglieri so the statements made by the article are POV of Vaglieri. The article says: "If one accepts the idea of commercial activities undertaken especially by the Jews of Medina, one understands better the reasons for which Muhammad attacked them in particular. His hostility towards the Jews would have had economic causes similar to those which have brought about persecutions and pogroms in so many countries during the course of history...According to Caetani, Muhammad was moved to attack kh̲aybar by motives of political opportunism: on the one hand, the pact concluded with Quraysh at Hudaybiyya gave him the assurance of not being attacked by them during the expedition; on the other hand, if he conquered khaybar he wouldbe able to satisfy with ample booty those of his companions who, having hoped to capture Mecca, were disappointed and discontented...Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu 'l-Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood. So Muhammad had not only a just motive for attacking them, but there was also the positive necessity to destroy these enemies, more formidable even than the Quraysh because of their adherence to their own religion, their intelligence and their superior culture. Muhammad Husayn Haykal (385-6) maintains that the Prophet did not feel sure of the northern fringes of the peninsular: he was afraid lest the Jews established in the oases of Northern Arabia betray him, and lest Heraclius and Kisra seek help from them against him. The sources give support to the view of Montgomery Watt, showing that the Jews, already responsible for the coalition which had laid siege to Medina in 5 A.H. and worried by the growing power of the Prophet, continued to stir up the Arabs against him. Haykal's opinion, however, is to be rejected in that it is inappropriate to consider an event in the light of subsequent developments. In the year 7 A.H. Muhammad was not yet a figure to be reckoned with in the estimation of the rulers of the empires to the north of the peninsular. While giving full credit to the opinion of Montgomery Watt, one should not overlook the fact that the Prophet was in great need of arms and money to accomplish his objectives and he knew that he could find these among the Jews at khaybar (the sources give precise details of the number and type of arms captured by the Muslims from the Jews at Medina and at khaybar.)." --Aminz 08:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If we have the relevant passage from Watt and Caetani, we can creat a passage which presents Caetani's, Watt's and Vaglieri's views in sequence. It does not seem to me that Vaglieri is dismissing Watt's view out of hand, only observing that Caetani's reasoning is equally valid.Proabivouac 09:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It also seems that Vaglieri is more pro Caetani than Watt. He does accept Watt's view but has his own view as well as in "While giving full credit to the opinion of Montgomery Watt, one should not overlook the fact ...". I need to go now but will try to find the other sources. Cheers, --Aminz 09:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we may also want to mention Haykal's view and then say that Vaglieri rejects his view because he consider the event "in the light of subsequent developments". --Aminz 09:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Muhammadan"

Zora, you are absolutely correct that we should not use the term "Muhammadan." Thank you for correcting that.Proabivouac 07:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Might someone explain to me how the factual accuracy of this entire article is disputed?Proabivouac 01:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you mean that the tag should be moved to a relevent section in the article, then you seem to be correct. But I think Aminz can explain this better (since he put this tag).Bless sins 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a message on his talk page[4], he shoudl respond soon. Thanks for being patient.Bless sins 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you stated[5] that I added these edits and put a fact tag on them. Infact I only put a fact tag[6], the edis were made by some anon (68.145.173.96). I don't like it when people accuse me of something I didn't do. You also said "It would appear that you are going to every article about Arabian Jews and inserting material to suggest that they fully deserved their grim fate, and are willing to use baseless claims from partisan/extremist sources or even no sources at all to do this". I have only gone to three articles, and have cited all my edits:

• Banu Qaynuqa: my edits were cited to Nomani, Watt, Ibn Kathir, (translated by Guillame), who sourced Ibn Ishaq.
• Banu Qurayza: edits sourced to Maududi (I know you don't like him), Gene W. Heck, Mubarakpuri
• Battle of Khaybar: Ibn Hisham (translated by Guillame), and Mubarakpuri.

None of them is an extremist source. Maududi may seem a religious source, but he is still not an extremist source, and well noted for his scholarship in the Muslim world, and by Western scholars.Bless sins 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

1. "Contemporary scholars believe that Muhammad moved to attack Khaybar in order to raise his prestige among his followers, as well as to capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests." This is quite factually wrong. 2. "Seen in this light, Muhammad's attacks against the Jews, first in Medina and then in Khaybar, have economic roots similar to those which have brought about persecutions and pogroms in other countries in the course of history." Usage of the terms pogroms,etc etc when the source doesn't mention it is meaningful. It is not even faithful to the source. "If one accepts"--> "Seen in this light" 3. All in all, the whole article is terribly POV and badly needs a cleanup. --Aminz 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

1. This is exactly as in referenced sources. Anyway, that's a matter of opinion rather fact. 2. Your assertion is simply false. The sources does mention the word "pogroms". 3. No good reasons have been stated to support this claim. Beit Or 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary scholars, right! See my post on 08:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC). --Aminz 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have anything to say on this subject, say it here and say it concisely. Beit Or 20:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu 'l-Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood. So Muhammad had not only a just motive for attacking them, but there was also the positive necessity to destroy these enemies, more formidable even than the Quraysh because of their adherence to their own religion, their intelligence and their superior culture." --Aminz 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So, what's the problem with adding Watt's view? He is merely restating Ibn Ishaq. Why are you defacing one article after another with disputed tags instead of improving them? Beit Or 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently Arrow740 is disputing parts of the article by reverting.Bless sins 15:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, re: "I don't like it when people accuse me of something I didn't do." You're quite correct. I apologize for having inadvertently mischaracterized your edits. No one likes false accusations, and I completely understand why it upset you. Apologies.Proabivouac 22:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740's reverts

The section Battle_of_Khaybar#Muhammad.27s_marriage in Arrow740's reverts [7] is absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, it says that "According to ibn Ishaq...", but the statements are sourced to ibn Hisham. Secondly, this is not at all what ibn Hisham says. I looked ibn Hisham up, and this is a clearly a misrepresentation of ibn Hisham. About the negotiations. I didn't really remove any sources, like Arrow740 alleges "replace secondary sources..." nor did I add any new "primary sources". Arrow740's mass removal is totally unjustified.Bless sins 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham are mostly interchangeable since Ibn Hisham's sira is an abbreviated version of Ibn Ishaq's. You must substantiate your claim of misrepresentation. Beit Or 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I was quite clear in my edit summary as to why I undid your revert, BS. Arrow740 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually expanded and detailed the part on Kinana ibn Rabi, why are my edits reverted?? I also added to the "Negotiations" section, while Arrow740 is deleting. It is Arrow740 and Beit Or who need to explain and justify their reverts.Bless sins 22:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The sectioning is correct, and no need to dub it as "over-secitoning". If there were more than three fortresses then add information about them as well. Also, none has really explained my reverts on the talk.Bless sins 04:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless Sins, re Watt, it is a given that his view is notable and should be represented. However, you're pushing it too far, giving him significantly more space and clearly taking his position. Vaglieri opines...Montgomery Watt, however, draws attention to the fact that...was, in fact..." This is a clear example of biased editing. I will revert it, and we can discuss some reasonable compromise here.Proabivouac 04:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then we can change "draws attention to the fact that" to "argues". Why did you delete the entire edit? My edits in other secitons like "Negotiations" and "Kinana al-Rabi" were sourced and relevent. Why did you delete them?Bless sins 05:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you revert my edits without completely reading that which you were reverting?Bless sins 05:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't. We also should be treating potentially controversial facts from Mubarakpuri "with caution" per WP:RS, as we've discussed elsewhere. Instead you've treated it as just another source of valid facts. We should be relying upon Watt and other academics wherever possible. If and where Sealed Nectar is relaying a real Islamic tradition, as is often the case, we should characterize it as such, with reference to the primary sources as well. But that is just my opinion.Proabivouac 05:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we start with Watt and work our way downward? It'll take a little bit longer on talk, but it should avoid edit-warring and allow your material to stay. As it is, you've been editting against consensus (not a criticism, just an observation.)Proabivouac 05:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac,can you explain your recent revert. I can see an interesting point in your recent revert [8]: "Veccia Vaglieri opines" is replaced with "nowadays the common opinion among academics is". Indeed Nice! --Aminz 05:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, would you give me a minute? I'd already attributed the most controversial sentence before you showed up with your snarky comment, and I'm right now writing a compromise version for Watt. So hold on. Bear in mind that the siege engine point isn't really controversial, but the stuff about progroms is clearly so, and we must take care that it's presented neutrally.Proabivouac 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also "Seen in this light" is different from "If one accepts the idea of commercial activities undertaken especially by the Jews of Medina". Further, there is no reason to follow EoI's order. i.e. adding Watt's quote after Veccia Vaglieri. Watt is certainly more renowned than Veccia Vaglieri. It is the best to state different possible motifs in one sentence rather than first saying one view and then another view later.--Aminz 05:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's unfortunately impossible. However, I don't care about the order. Rather, I want to make certain that all these sources are being accurately represented and are neutrally presented.

"Seen in this light"...what difference would it make? No one denies they were traders, and even if they were just hoarding goods for themselves, it would only make Vaglieri's claim that much more likely.Proabivouac 05:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac: I want to assume good faith for your edits, but you haven't responded to me as to why you removed my additions from "Negotiations" and "Kinana al-Rabi". Please do so.Bless sins 05:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to address everything, as we all should be. You can hardly blame me for the edit-warring which has plagued this page. Let's go through this one by one, and methodically. To start with, the scheming material does not belong under "Khaybar in the seventh century." It was placed there, apparently, to argue against Vaglieri's claim. The more logical place for it is in the section below, "Muhammad and the Jews of Medina." Would you agree?Proabivouac 05:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. I think "Muhammad and the Jews of Medina" should not exist, as no one identifies this conflict as Jewish-Muslim. Even Vaglieri suggests the reasons were financial. Thus we should replace "Muhammad and the Jews of Medina" with "Political situation" or something like that. There we can present the poltics of the battle, including both Vaglieri and Watt. Btw, Im not blaming you of editwarring, I'm just upset that you reverted EVERYTHING I posted.Bless sins 06:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I tend to agree with you about the section title. Though it is obviously largely Muslims vs. Jews here, that will be obvious from reading the text and we don't need to prejudge it. First question: why was Watt sourced to Vaglieri? I had just moved that section over from the previous version. Can someone fix that?

As for Kinana al-Rabi, I agree that there is oversectioning here, and in reverse. He killed al Rabi, then took his wife. The version you've given is, first, cited only to Sealed Nectar, a source which must be "treated with caution," per WP:RS. So let's make sure we're doing that. Second - and this is one thing what I'd objected to before - it clearly makes al-Rabi sound like the bad guy here, which isn't quite fair to a fellow who was tortured and beheaded. Let's see if we can find a way to present topical material without arguing either side, and let the facts speak for themselves.

I also would like to make sure that we give everyone time to weigh in. Would that be alright? I've also solicited FayssalF's involvement here.[9]Proabivouac 06:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Good we agree about the title. Then perhaps we should put both Vaglieri and Watt there. We can leave "Khaybar in the seventh century" for geographical facts. The reason Watt is sourced to Vaglieri, is that Vaglieri him/herself presents many different views. One of the views that Vaglieri finds credible is Watt's (he/she dismisses another view).

2. Note that you removed my references from Shibli Nomani and other sources. We will eventually have to put them in.

3. About al-Rabi let's wirte up something below. Everything is sourced to ibn Hisham except "breaching the agreements with Muslims" which is sourced to Muarakpuri. He states that al-Rabi was bound by agreements to not hide anything from the Muslims.

4. About the negotiations, I think my version was perfectly netural.

From now on let's contniue our discussion on this numerical basis.Bless sins 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinana

According to ibn Hisham, Kinana ibn al-Rabi was inquired about the treasure surrendered to Muslims as part of the negotiations. Upon denying knowlege of the treasure, Al-Rabi was warned that he would be executed for breaching the agreements with Muslims. However, al-Rabi maintained that he had no knowlege of the treasure. Then, a Jew reported to Muslims that he had witnessed al-Rabi going round a certian ruin. When the ruin was excavated, the treasure was found and al-Rabi was asked to produce the rest. Upon repeated refusal, Zubayr al-Awwam burnt al-Rabi's chest. After that Muhammad bin Maslama beheaded al-Rabi in revenge for killing his brother Mahmud.

How do you want to make the above netural?Bless sins 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Guillaume's translation of the relevant passage is as follows: "Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought"), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes". The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has." So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud."

• To begin with, we can remove the portion cited to Mubarakpuri.Here is the section of Sealed Nectar which discusses these events. The description of the death of Kinana doesn't give any source (I can only presume because it would help readers find the original passage) and is so sanitized as to constitute disinformation. Clearly, Mubarakpuri is very uncomfortable with the event, and appears to have invented a justification for it not found in Ibn Hisham.
• He was warned he would be killed if the treasure was found after the informant told them about the ruin. There's no indication that at any point he was given the choice of disclosing its location or being excecuted; his only choice was whether to be tortured or not at a point when his excecution had already been decided.
• You've omitted the fact that Zubayr didn't act on his own initiative; Muhammad had ordered Zubayr to "Torture him until you extract what he has."
• Zubayr didn't just "burn his chest," he kindled a fire upon it until Kinana was nearly dead.
• You've omitted the fact that Muhammad handed Kinana over to Muhammad bin Maslama.

Now consider the current version: "According to ibn Ishaq, Muhammad's followers tortured al-Rabi, demanding to reveal the location of the hidden treasures of his tribe, and then beheaded him." This, too, makes it sound like Muhammad's followers did it of their own accord. Not so.

I would propose this:

According to Ibn Ishaq, when Muhammad asked him to locate the tribes’ treasure, al-Rabi denied knowing where it was. A Jew told Muhammad that he had seen Al-Rabi near a certain ruin every morning. When the ruin was excavated, it was found to contain some of the treasure. Muhammad ordered Al-Zubayr to torture al-Rabi until he revealed the location of the rest, then handed him to Muhammad ibn Maslamah, whose brother had died in the battle, to be beheaded.

For obvious reasons, this has been a difficult passage to write. I have done my best to summarize it neutrally and dispassionately. Al-Rabi lied to Muhammad and was caught, which neutrality requires us to mention, but wasn't mentioned before. At the same time, Muhammad's central role wasn't mentioned. Please note that al-Rabi hadn't done anything to Mahmud ibn Maslamah, who, according to the same source, was the first to fall in battle when a millstone was thrown at him from the fort of Na'im.Proabivouac 07:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion (mostly a paraphrase of the above):

According to Ibn Ishaq, when Muhammad asked Kinana al-Rabi to locate the treasure of the Banu Nadir, al-Rabi denied knowing where it was. A Jew told the leader of Muslims that he had seen al-Rabi near a certain ruin every morning. When the ruin was excavated, it was found to contain some of the treasure. Muhammad ordered al-Zubayr to torture Kinana until he revealed the location of the rest. Al-Zubayr struck fire into al-Rabi's chest so that the latter was nearly dead. Muhammad then handed Kinana to Muhammad ibn Maslamah, who beheaded the treasurer of the Nadir.

The suggested version contains not only Muhammad's orders, but also their result: Muhammad ordered al-Zubayr to torture Kinana and Zubayr did so. Beit Or 08:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know the scholarly view on this? Putting aside Muslim sources, the academic sources rarely talk about this. EoI article on Kinana doesn't even mention this incident. --Aminz 09:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Both Beit Or's and Proabivouac's versions have two problems. Firstly, neither of you take into account that Muhammad said to the man :""Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes"." Clearly Muhammad warned the man of the penalty he was about to face. This was done on a suspicion of an informant, but before the evidence (treasure) was found.

Secondly, Muhammad bin Maslama beheaded al-Rabi in revenge for killing his brother Mahmud. Neitehr of you say that.

Thirdly, al-Mubarakpuri maintains that the concealment of the truth (in other words lying), was forbidden by the treaty. Mubarakpuri is a valid source.

This is what I propose (a compromise version that includes everything):

According to Ibn Hisham, Muhammad inquired Kinana al-Rabi, about the treasure of Banu Nadir. Mubarakpuri states that al-Rabi was bound by agreements between Khaybar and Muhammad to reveal the location of the treasure.[ref] A Jew told Muhammad that he had seen al-Rabi, who had custody of the treasure, go round a certain ruin the every morning. Muhammad asked al-Rabi if he knew that he would be executed if the treaure was found, to which the latter said "yes". When the site was excavated, some of the treaure was found. Al-Zubayr then, on Muhammad's orders, kindled a fire with flint and steel on al-Rabi's chest, until the latter was nearly dead. Al-Rabi was given to Muhammad bin Maslama who beheaded him in revenge for killing his brother Mahmud.

Once again the advantage of this version is that it includes everything.Bless sins 14:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Including everything can't be our goal, or the article will become extremely long. In particular, "Muhammad asked al-Rabi if he knew that he would be executed if the treaure was found, to which the latter said "yes"." per my earlier comments, adds nothing. His chance to spare his life by leading them to the treasure had already passsed; all it does is confirm that, by this time, he knew his execution was imminent if the excavation was successful. I really don't see what is gained by specifying the details of his torture, although as I'm not in the business of suprressing information, I suppose we can if ou both think it important. However, Muhammad isn't said to have ordered Al-Zubayr to start a fire on his chest per se, but to torture him until he reveals the rest of the treasure. It's not presented as a punishment, but as an incentive (as he's already going to be executed anyhow.) As for revenge, please take note of my earlier comments. "Al-Rabi was given" should be active, "[Muhammad] handed him." It is an important detail that Mahmud died in battle (the first to fall, according to the narrative), and that implicitly, Muhammad is throwing ibn Maslama a bone by allowing him the honor of the act. However, the narrative makes it clear that Al-Rabi is executed for anything he'd done to ibn Malama, but as punishment having lied about the treasure. The "revenge" wording obscures both of these points. I believe my version is the shortest and most informative of the three proposals.Proabivouac 02:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I couldn't find your earlier comments. "His chance to spare his life by leading them to the treasure had already passsed"? Why? ""Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought"), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes"."--Aminz 03:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say, "If you don't tell us where it is, we'll kill you," but "if we find it [there];" they'd already been told where it was by the Jewish informant. Finding it there would show (as it did) that Kinana had lied to Muhammad. What would be the point of offering to spare his life for telling them what they now already know - a chance that wasn't given later when there was actually more treasure to be located? If there is a sort of second chance being offered here, it is too ambiguous for us to summarize it with any degree of confidence.Proabivouac 03:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that Kinana's chance was already exhausted. We don't know what would have happened if he had confessed that he had lied. If the story is true, it at least proved to Muhammad that he is a liar and doesn't admit it even until the last minute. So, this might have been a reason for his torture (again if it happened)--Aminz 03:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he was given another chance, but there's nothing in the text to suggest that. Observe that I am not inclined to affirm in the text, "His sentence by this time was fixed," for the same reason we shouldn't be deploying the text to suggest something it doesn't. It's a primary source, so must be treated with caution, sticking only to the least ambiguous points.Proabivouac 04:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"So, this might have been a reason for his torture." Arrow740 06:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And there is nothing in the text which denies that he was not given another chance. We don't know and we should be cautious. --Aminz 07:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing in the text that denies he was set upon by winged monkeys from the seventh dimension, either. Does caution require us to mention this as a possibility? "Nowhere does Ibn Ishaq deny the possibly that..."Proabivouac 08:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sin's comment explains why we should include:""Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes"." What this could have been meant? We don't know. It requires a secondary source to explain it. But it does add something to the article. Other points of Bless sin's should be also discussed. I need to go now. Will be back later. --Aminz 08:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this section is becoming longer and longer, and thus more prominent. I believe that itself may violates undue weight - we are talking one passage in Ibn Ishaq here. Lingering over either Al-Rabi's perfidy or suffering is undue weight in either direction. If we're to include every possible nuance of the passage in both directions, we may as well blockquote the whole thing, but I think that'd be a real disservice to the reader and the encyclopedia. Let's just state this briefly and factually (i.e., only what is necessary to gain a bare understanding of the situation) and be done with it. This isn't Kinana ibn al-Rabi, where a blockquote would be appropriate.Proabivouac 08:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any good argument for the inclusion of these two sentences. They only repeat that Muhammad attempted to extort the treasure threatening Kinana with death. This is, however, already clear from the rest of the passage. Beit Or 08:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is actually not clear to me, either. Rather, Muhammad is merely informing him that he will be executed if the treasure is found in the ruin. There isn't any point at which Muhammad states, "tell us where it is, or I'll kill you." Of course I agree with you that this sentence is uninformative. It's as if he asked, "do you know who I am?" and Kinana replied "yes;" just dialogue between events.Proabivouac 09:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Direct speech must usually be kept away from historical articles unless these dialogues or quotes are themselves notable. See Battle of Salamis, for example. Beit Or 09:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the we are giving undue weight then let's just say that al-Rabi was executed, and link to Kinana ibn al-Rabi. Proabivouac, I think we must provide all details. I don't think it is fair to provide the reader with torture narrative, but omit Muhammad's warning. The reader can think whatever they want to think but we present what ibn Hisham says correctly, and fully. If you want to omit a detail - so do I, but for the sake of NPOV, let's just provide everything.Bless sins 13:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A general comment, you should understand that by using Ibn Hisham you're opening Pandora's box. Arrow740 19:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is one of the primary sources. NOT using it would violate NPOV. Wandalstouring 20:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole story come from Ibn Ishaq as transmitted by Ibn Hisham. If we discard him, we'll have nothing to write about. Beit Or 21:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

<reset>My point is that if we rely on Ibn Hisham as the main source instead of modern scholars in this article, where he is being used to portray Jews in a negative light, then other editors will use Ibn Hisham and the hadith to inform about Muhammad's murders, sexual escapades etc in the main articles. So BS should tread carefully. Arrow740 21:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you have to be careful with any assessments in primary sources and provide some background info about the source, but that is the common problem with ALL primary sources. You can provide some commonly agreed points (by modern scholars) about how the primary sources presents events, so the reader understands what is an opinion and what is an event. Come on, have you guys never read the intro of a scholar who works with primary sources? They all try to find out the POV of their sources first. Wandalstouring 00:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins' version

Bless sins, you asked me on my user talk what was wrong with your version of the Kinana passage, so per your request, I'll reiterate my objections:

"According to Ibn Hisham, Muhammad inquired Kinana al-Rabi, about the treasure of Banu Nadir. Mubarakpuri states that al-Rabi was bound by agreements between Khaybar and Muhammad to reveal the location of the treasure.[ref] A Jew told Muhammad that he had seen al-Rabi, who had custody of the treasure, go round a certain ruin the every morning. Muhammad asked al-Rabi if he knew that he would be executed if the treaure was found, to which the latter said "yes". When the site was excavated, some of the treaure was found. Al-Zubayr then, on Muhammad's orders, kindled a fire with flint and steel on al-Rabi's chest, until the latter was nearly dead. Al-Rabi was given to Muhammad bin Maslama who beheaded him in revenge for killing his brother Mahmud."

Putting aside the unacceptable awkwardness of some of the text (e.g. "Muhammad inquired Kinana al-Rabi, about the treasure of Banu Nadir."):

• Mubarakpuri is a religious/partisan source, and does not substantiate his claim here (so far as we can tell, he made it up, as Ibn Ishaq mentions no such agreement.)
• You've eliminated the explicitly-stated purpose of torturing Al-Rabi - to compel him to reveal the location of the rest of the treasure - while falsely stating that Muhammad ordered the specific manner of torture, making it sound (especially in conjunction with the irrelevant dialogue) that it was intended as a punishment.
• Who handed Al-Rabi to Muhammad bin Maslama? We know this, so why choose a passive voice?
• You’ve eliminated the detail that Mahmud was killed in the battle, in favor of wording that quite falsely states Al-Rabi to have killed Mahmud. Ibn Ishaq only says "in revenge for his brother Mahmud," while elsewhere it's stated that Mahmud died when a stone was thrown upon him during the siege.

Per Talk:Banu Qurayza, let's not turn this discussion into another perpetual runaround. All of these points had already been amply explained above.Proabivouac 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 1. About Mubarakpuri. He is a reasearcher at the Unviersity of Madina, has excellent background in Islam, and is infact a scholar on Islam. He is neither an ayotallah, nor the a Grand mufti.

2. Ok, sure we can put that in.

3. I doubt Muhammad personally handed him to Masalma, but was probably handed on his orders. But if you want we can put excatly what ibn hisham says about that.

4. Then we can put "in revenge for his brother Mahmud", instead of "in revenge for killing his brother Mahmud".

Any more objections?Bless sins 20:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to eliminate the detail that Mahmud was killed in battle, presumably by someone other than Al-Rabi?

As for Mubarakpuri, you are no doubt aware that I and others have addressed this at some length elsewhere. Merely restating his credentials, which merely underscore that he is a religious/partisan source, is unlikely to change anyone's judgement.Proabivouac 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I want o put what Ibn Hisham says, "in revenge for his brother Mahmud". I am not trying to omit anything. If you find a source that says this feel free to include it as well.

Secondly, about Mubarakpuri. He is a scholar, if you don't believe me go to The Sealed Nectar to find out. His work was reviewed by others. Working in Saudi Arabia doesn't one make a "religious" source (not that wikipedia says we should exclude religious sources). Please state your argument against Mubarakpuri clearly.Bless sins 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"I doubt Muhammad personally handed him to Masalma..." Ibn Ishaq disagrees with you: "Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama..." Beit Or 21:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

":I want o put what Ibn Hisham says, "in revenge for his brother Mahmud". - it seems you prefer the exact words of the translation here precisely because they are easily misinterpreted - indeed, they must have been, for you very recently falsely stated that Al-Rabi had killed Mahmud himself. Are we trying to mislead our readers to the same false conclusion? In more standard usage we would say that he felt himself (or Ibn Ishaq after the fact felt him) to be avenging his brother, but this is a minor point unworthy of belaboring; it's already summed up in a perfectly neutral manner by observing in this passage that his Mahmud had died in the battle. Perhaps we can change "died" to "was killed?"Proabivouac 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Might I remind you that we are not stating the events as fact, rather in a "According to ibn Hisham..." manner. Thus, we need to represent ibn Hisham as accurately as possible. Beit Or: I'm sorry about the inaccuracy. But as I stated earlier, I have no problem with the active voice. Again, please don't label some statements as "minor", and attempt to exclude them. Bless sins 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, other editors will, as you say, "label" some issues as minor. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it does have contraints related to length, readability, and due weight. We cannot and should not dump the whole Ibn Ishaq into Wikipedia, so we'll necessarily exclude some minor points. Beit Or 16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Like you said the wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Thus there is no reason to exclude some details while include others. Infact that is highly POV. If you really want to shorten this then move this narrative to Kinana ibn Al-Rabi, and just direct the reader there, with a very short passage on this article.Bless sins 16:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Like Proabivouac, I too want this to get over with. Can someone please find a single problem with this version.

According to Ibn Hisham, Muhammad inquired Kinana al-Rabi about the tribe's treasure, but al-Rabi denied knowing where it was. Mubarakpuri states that al-Rabi was bound by agreements between Khaybar and Muhammad to reveal the location of the treasure. A Jew told Muhammad that he had seen Al-Rabi near a certain ruin every morning. Muhammad asked al-Rabi if he knew that he would be executed if he was found to be in possesion of the treasure, to which the latter responded in positive. When the ruin was excavated, it was found to contain some of the treasure. Muhammad ordered Al-Zubayr to torture al-Rabi until he revealed the location of the rest, then handed him to Muhammad ibn Maslamah, who beheaded him in revenge for his brother Mahmud.(edited Feb. 17)

If you guys still disagree, then we'll just put Ibn Hisham/Ishaq's view in verbatim. As that way it will not my POV, as Beit Or has accused this version of.Bless sins 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think you're going to wear us down by suggesting the same thing over and over again after it has been shown to be unacceptable, you're not. Arrow740 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You're above comment assumes bad faith. The version above is actually Proabivouac's version, with some additions from me.Bless sins 18:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To better see the differences between Proabivouac's version and the final version that I edited, take a look here. This shows that the version I posted was basically Proabivouac's version, except a few changes from me.Bless sins 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins for the fifth time, Ibn Ishaq does not say that Al-Rabi killed Mahmud. In fact, it is Marhab who is said to have killed him by throwing a millstone upon him during the siege of Na'im, and ibn Ishaq shows Muhammad b. Maslama accepting Marhab’s challenge to single combat in order to avenge his brother! I don’t know what to make of the fact that you keep tying to add this falsehood.Proabivouac 21:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, and keep it cool with heavy words (e.g. "falsehood"). I've changed it to what Ibn Hisham really says " Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud". Was this the only problem you have with the passage?Bless sins 21:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already outlined my objections to Mubarakpuri, both generally and regarding to this passage, and to the banter about him saying "yes." If you wish to merely state that Muhammad told him he would be killed if it were found, that would be fine, but strikes me as a little too interpretive and unnecessary - it is already obvious from the shorter version why he is killed. At the same time, we aren't out to confuse people; if the significance of something isn't clear, we should leave it out for the sake of clarity and brevity. Similarly, for the "revenge" language - all Ibn Ishaq is saying, as is clear if you read the whole thing, is that b. Maslama was still upset over the death of his brother in battle at the hands of Marhab. Your version appears to contradict itself - Muhammad threatens to excecute him for lying about the treasure, but when he's finally beheaded, it's not for this, but to avenge Mahmud. The record of this talk page shows that you yourself were misled by the wording of this passage; why would we would want to likewise confuse the reader?Proabivouac 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What I miss in this article

• I would like to see a better overview of the politicial and economic constellation and the role of the various Jewish and pagan Arabian clans.
• Other contemporary procedures in case of conquest could be used for further information (foototes) if it is possible to retrieve known examples of warfare in Arabia that didn't involve Muslims.
• Neutral statements would be a brilliant idea, no matter what bloody butchery it was in the end. Wandalstouring 09:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, then, stick around and help. Speaking very generally, the problem in this space is that nearly every editor is perceived as either a Muslim fanatic or an anti-Muslim bigot. I don't think that's remotely true, but the perception is real and hinders trust and cooperation, leading to constant accusations of bad faith and edit wars. We badly need external intervention.Proabivouac 09:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my religious disposition: I was raised Roman Catholic, but I'm an atheist now (quite as bad as a satanist). I love Muslims as much as I love Jews and I have read a bit in the Tanakh and in the Qu'ran. Wandalstouring 10:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You could improve the article if you determine the authority of your sources by checking how many other scholars use them and avoid undue weight for minority opinions. Wandalstouring 10:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of satanist, but it sounds scary :| --Aminz 10:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary scholars

As discussed, this sentence is a misrepresentation of the source. Even then, "Contemporary scholars" is not supported by the source. --Aminz 10:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussed where? This opinion is shared by William Montgomery Watt, Norman Stillman, Bernard Lewis, Laura Veccia Vaglieri. Have you even read the cited sources? Which one has been misrepresented? Why did you disrupted the references? When will you finally stop edit warring until everyone is fed up? Beit Or 10:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In the "Suggested sources" section above, edit 08:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC) onwards. The full quote is given there. By no means Muhammad's motivations were restricted to these. The prose of the sentence is also non-neutral. Your comments also border incivility. --Aminz 10:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we use this section to lay out the views of the referenced scholars, in order to judge whether it's fair to state that "contemporary scholars" believe this?Proabivouac 11:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, please read Watt before accusing other editors of misrepresentation: "Perhaps it was on the way back from the pilgrimage manqué that the idea occurred to Muhammad of attacking the rich Jewish oasis of Khaybar. The Muslims were disappointed at the apparent fruitlessness of their expedition to al-Hudaybiyah, and it was only natural for an Arab like Muhammad to feel that virtue should not be allowed to go unrewarded. So when he set out for Khaybar some six weeks after his return from Mecca, he allowed only those who had made the Pledge under the Tree to accompany him." (Prophet and Statesman, pp. 188-189) Beit Or 11:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Separate opinions of contemporary scholars and the narrative a bit. They all have just one primary source, the Qu'ran, or is there anything I'm not aware of? My suggestion is to base the narrative of events on this primary source. Where necessary we can comment the events by 'Foo says that', 'many Foo interpret/see it as', 'from this the Foo group of Islamic belief derieved a law based on Foo's fatwa'. It would however greatly benefit if we split the article in a narrative of events (with small comments), a section or several subsections with the interpretation of events by modern scholars(See Pericles), and a chapter where we discuss the different religious interpretations of this event. Wandalstouring 12:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I share Wandalstouring's opinion. Any other thought? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the approach I find most logical. In this case, the main primary source would be the biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. Beit Or 15:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Ibn Ishaq is a primary source, but there are others too. Aside from some of the medieval biographies, there are the hadith collections (but they are discontinuous). But I generally agree that we should split the narrative from the interpretation of events. Infact, Khaybar has far more significance in the development of Islam, than it has otherwise.Bless sins 16:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No other biography of Muhammad comes even close to the status of Ibn Ishaq. Beit Or 07:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 has (with minor errors) put the Watt quote in quotes. Should the quotes of all scholars be put in quotes?Bless sins 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't advise this step if you have many scholars. If you have a few authoritative works or something that must be quoted word for word, than use some kind of blockquote. See Hannibal, Erwin Rommel or blue-water navy for comparison. Wandalstouring 17:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess you would disagree with the edit[10] that exclusively puts Watt's opinion into quotes.Bless sins 19:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Considerations of appropriate weight and conciseness also apply. Anyway, quotes must never be so long and numerous as to overwhelm the article (unless the article is written in the form of a scholarly debate). For this reason, I usually prefer brief paraphrases. See, for example, Rus' Khaganate, a featured article, which was written mostly as a paraphrase. Beit Or 20:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is, why do we put one scholar's opinions in quotes, but not do that for other scholars?Bless sins 20:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Direct citations must be put in quotes. If you paraphrase a statement you don't put it in quotes. Wandalstouring 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So should we use direct quotations for all scholars or paraphrase them all? Going one way with one, and another with othrs doesn't seem right to me, esp. since they reperesent opposite views.Bless sins 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

First things first, get all of these scholars out of the narrative and use only small paraphrased comments or footnotes if it is absolutely necessary. Create a different chapter where you discuss their opposing views in detail and cite their stuff in quotation marks. Wandalstouring 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree.Bless sins 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

EoI says:"Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu 'l-Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood. So Muhammad had not only a just motive for attacking them, but there was also the positive necessity to destroy these enemies, more formidable even than the Quraysh because of their adherence to their own religion, their intelligence and their superior culture."

So, the contemporary scholars say that Muhammad attacked exactly money. There are two types of misrepresentation of a text: censoring some part of the text, or distorting the part mentioned. It also seems that Beit Or has asked all contemporary scholars about their views. --Aminz 23:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems the EoI was wrong about Watt's view on this. Arrow740 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, we wouldn't be citing him second-hand, anyhow. I think what is needed is to follow up to the cited Watt portion. It does seem probable to me that Muhammad would have found the presence of the Banu Nadir objectionable, as he did in Medina, and it would hardly be surprising, after all that had occurred, that they'd be "intruguing" (a.k.a. diplomacy) against him. Who wouldn't be? But we should take care that our wording isn't prejudicial, and that we're focussing on substantial points. I can't see any part of the sentence "So Muhammad had not only a just motive...superior culture" which would be necessary here.

Actions often reflect several motives, and I don't see how wishing to pursue the Banu Nadir contradicts the desire to raise his prestige among his followers. Judging only from the material which has been presented here, Watt doesn't either.Proabivouac 02:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. In Prophet and Statesman Watt cites two reasons for the attack, one of them being the necessity to raise his prestige after the Hudaybiyya. As usually, Aminz keeps ignoring this quote from Prophet and Statesman, which doesn't fit his POV. Beit Or 07:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There are various points which might have motivated Muhammad. All of them must be stated, not just a portition of them. This should be addressed in a section in details. We shouldn't fill the intro with various interpretations.--Aminz 23:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

<reset> BTW, How do you know that all the contemporary scholars believe that? --Aminz 23:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All the leading scholars, who expressed position on this issue, agree on this. No dissenting view was ever found. If you claim that a different opinion exists, you must find it. Beit Or 07:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's also see Proabivouac's view. --Aminz 21:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Per the other Watt quote, there does seem to be broad agreement on this point. We can all agree that other motives attributed by reputable scholars, such as the desire to preemptively strike or otherwise pursue the Banu Nadir, may also be included.Proabivouac 21:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Instead of saying "Modern historians" or something similar, we should jsut name the scholars, to avoid any sort of ambiguity. THat way we are being exact and to the point.Bless sins 16:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

All the scholars are named, so your comment is beside the point. Beit Or 21:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly the version you reverted to misquotes Watt. His quotation is on this page, so verify yourself. Secondly, why is Watt's opinion in quotes, yet others' opinion not? Thirdly, "Modern historians" are not named. I only removed the ambiguous statement and replaced it with a more accurate one attributing the views to thier proper scholars.Bless sins 22:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the consensus opinion, as has been demonstrated by the quotes from the leading historians. You have failed to find a single contradicting opinion. Beit Or 22:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)