Talk:Banu Qurayza

Archives

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6

RfC Arbitrator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear guest, we have not failed not mention that. This is a very contentious and problematic claim. We have discussed it in the past and will do so in the future. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite. We are re-hashing old material here. See, e.g., [1]. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, this RfC is not regarding the Torah issue, but rather regarding a different issue (i.e. whether the Qurayza agreed and chose the Sa'd). I don't expect you to know what you're talking about considering your opinion is solicited in an attempt to vote-stack, and that the solicitor mislead you about the topic of the discussion (by claiming the discussion was about the "Deuteronomy issue").Bless sins (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

BS, I was clearly responding to the comment above, by the unregistered user, claiming that the BQ were killed "according to their own law." Your personal attacks are entirely out of order. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I had two things on my mind - probably because they were linked your edits and because these two items really serve the same goal: blame the victims for their death - and hence the headline was wrong. I rectified that mistake. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So, does that mean that you judge the merit of inclusion of a point of view mainly based on whether it agrees with your view rather than whether it is sufficiently sourced? Wikipedia should ideally include "all" point of views that could be sufficiently sourced. Wikipedia:Verifiability says:

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

--Be happy!! (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. O judge information on its own merit. I foyu haven't noticed it is not about my POV but about BS's and others POV pushing I am concerned. The POV involved being to blame the victims for their own death not only through the charges under which they were killed (that is hardly avoidable and no problem, as long as these charges are presented in a neutral manner) but also through rubbish claims that the Jews chose their hangmen and that they were killed by their own law.

The threshold or inclusion in Wikipedia is not apologetic value to Islam nor falsehood. "No Undue Weight" is a WP policy too. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the reliability of these three reliable sources is already established by the consensus here there is a clear consensus for their inclusion.

I think we should apply similar standards through the whole article. By the same standards, the view of Michael Lecker should be included (which is already included). We should not act based on what one of us think is falsehood; and in fact to say that something is falsehood requires such a high degree of confidence is rare in historical studies. I think we should only care whether the content is verifiable. If there are differing views, we should mention them all. Also as you can see on the reliable noticeboard, your claims of John Esposito being unreliable is not accepted. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus! This is not tit for tat (and if anything Lecker is already paired with a "massacre was normal then" crowd). Undue weight should not be given. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is completely unacceptable Str. The consensus is clear in this section. Can you see anybody here agreeing with you on the RfC point? --Be happy!! (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I can see that. Ah, and consensus connot override our need for accuracy. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So, do you think there is a problem with Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability (e.g. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth") and WP:Consensus? --Be happy!! (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with editors misusing that statement to make WP into a den of POV pushing and falsehood. You can spare yourself (and me) repeating that sentence again and again as it doesn't solve the issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

What is a location for consensus?

• RSN cannot say anything about this issue.
• The mediation never yielded a result on this. You are forgetting that I was part of the mediation and I certainly did not agree to your claims. Certainly the mediator cannot dictate consensus.

So after clearing up the smoke produced by BS, there remains only this section. Again, a consensus has not been reached here either when two editors disagree. You are using sources (some lacking expertise for this subject) in contravention of other sources. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSN is an oft used avenue for generating consensus on the reliability of sources. Consensus was generated there that the sources are reliable.

You are forgetting that only you opposed the sources at the mediation, while everyone else supported this. Even the mediator, who wasn't a party to the dispute (and thus an outsider) supported the inclusion.

Finally, here, you are again the only user opposing this. (Briangotts was responding to the Torah issue, which you mislead him to believe was the issue here).Bless sins (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, consensus was not achieved here. RSN cannot solve the issues of this article, only issues like reliable sources.

Hey, a mediation is about getting disputants to agree. Since I did not agree there was no consensus.

You are mistating things. Brian clearly restatet that he was not misled by mistake in his last posting and stated that he opposed your views. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Every user here, except for you, believes in the inclusion.

WP:RSN established that these sources are reliable, something you have yet to admit.

During the mediation every wikipedian agreed except for you.

Thus I'm restoring it since consensus has been established at every venue. You don't have a single good argument, and continually present your original research.Bless sins (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Last time I said you mistated things. After my correction , I can only take it as a lie. I was not the only one speaking against your claims here (not getting into those that disagree with you without speaking up).

And of course, you are still missusing the mediation. I hereby vow that I will never enter into mediation with your again because of your evident bad faith stance.

I restore and I revert because there is no consensus. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"I can only take it as a lie" In light of such remarks discussion becomes quite difficult, still I'll try to persevere.

Whether you will ever enter into mediation again or not, is beside the point that you did enter into mediation. The mediation did produce results that have been confirmed by consensus here and on WP:RSN.Bless sins (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey look, BS. It is your bad faith behaviour that's the problem here. The first time you made your claims about the mediation I assumed good faith but the second time, after I corrected you, I have to deduce bad faith.

I did enter mediation with you and the Master Jedi. Mediation yielded some results, mainly the solution to the word "massacre". It did not yield results on what you claim. Mediation is strictly voluntary, based on the agreement of all parties (me, you, Mik). The mediatior is merely a tool bring this about. I disagree with how the mediator ended the mediation. Nothing gives you the right to mispresent the mediation or use it for your POV pushing (for which you are quite notorious). Mik is honouring the mediation's results and I have nothing to complain about him. You are misusing the mediation and this is why I will not go to mediation with you ever again. But that doesn't mean that I'll accept your wrongdoing in this case. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

During the mediation we had agreement of every user except you, correct? You can't deny the fact that every user accepted the inclusion of the sourced content except you. I'm not claiming that you agreed, only that everyone else besides you agreed. Consensus doesn't require that everyone agree, only that the vast majority do.Bless sins (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"During the mediation we had agreement of every user except you, correct?"

That's a nonsense statement. Mediation requires the consensus of ALL parties to have a result. I do not claim the support of mediation in things where Mik and I agree but you didn't. Stop your extremely bad faith behaviour.

Also remember: WP is NOT a DEMOCRACY! Str1977 ^(talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't require that every party agree, only that the vast majority agree. That is what I'm claiming. I know that (currently) you don't agree, that is why you are reverting me. But as this section, and others listed above, show everyone except you agree with the addition. Please don't use straw man arguments.Bless sins (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In mediation, agreement by ALL parties is required however.

On this page, I was not the only voice of disagreement. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not a requirement for consensus, which is what I'm claiming.

On the issue of the above (Qurayza choosing Sa'd) you are the only voice of disagreement. Bless sins (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Still, you are misrepresenting things. I am NOT the only dissenter. Don't forget Merzbow (not mentioning any silent ones). Str1977 ^(talk) 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Merzbow has not commented once in this section. Now please don't go storming off to Merzbow's talk page, dragging him into this - because if you do, I'll have to report you for canvassing (you've already stated that you think he's opposed to me).

regarding the "silent" ones: they don't count as "silence implies consensus", per WP:CONSENSUS. Now please stop flouting it.Bless sins (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I confounded Merzbow and Briangotts. My mistake. But your mistake, that you inentionally try to ignore his voice of opposition.

Your constant threats will get you nowhere. You won't expell or massacre me.

Silence does not imply consensus - at best it means indifference. I don't bring them up (as I said) because they are not countable. But be sure they do exist. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

From what I can read the sources do say this. What leads you to believe that they don't?Bless sins (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, what sources say that Muhammad and the Qurayza together chose Sad? Most sources (including the most reliable) say that Muhammad chose him. Some say that the BQ accepted him. A lone one (which I think careless wording), I think, sad the BQ chose him. It is your OR combination that results in the above statement which - given the circumstances - is nonsense. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

" what sources say that Muhammad and the Qurayza together chose Sad?" The three sources I quoted above. Look carefully and again.Bless sins (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, do you mean these:

"For example, in the incident of Aws and Khazraj tribes of Medina, the Prophet acted as a mediator according to Arab tradition, and ended their enmity; in arbitration between the Prophet and the Banu Qurayza, (a Jewish tribe) both agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them." ::::Source:Mohammed Abu-Nimer (2000-2001). "A Framework for Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam". Journal of Law and Religion 15 (1-2): 247.

I don't see your claim in there.

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

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

Not here either. Oh, and wait. Isn't that thehe identical text? Who copied whom? Clearly, one os not an independent source.

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

Source:Hashmi, Sohail H.; Buchanan, Allen E; Moore, Margaret (2003). States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries. Cambridge University Press.

This also merely says taht the BQ chose the arbitrator. This of course controdacicts aour earlier, more reliable sources.

You want to mix up contradicting sources! Str1977 ^(talk) 19:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again (sigh), here is the text that supports that the Qurayza chose Sa'd:

"...in arbitration between the Prophet and the Banu Qurayza, (a Jewish tribe) both agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them."

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

"...the tribe [Banu Qurayza] agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing."

Tell me one thing: do you see the words "Banu Qurayza" and "choosing"/"chosen"? Yes or no. I'd really appreciate if you answered that question.

"This of course controdacicts aour earlier, more reliable sources." There was consensus on WP:RSN that the sources above are reliable. Thus reliability can't be an issue.

Bless sins (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Once again (sigh), here is the text that supports that the Qurayza chose Sa'd:"

Only that you didn't claim that before. Only that you didn't put that into the article. You fabricated a claim that Muhammad and the Qurayza together agreed on an arbitrator. Which is not in the sources.

And the claim that the BQ had any say in this contradicts our most reliable sources.

Badly visited discussions at RSN cannot eliminate policies like "no undue weight". And they cannot remove the sources that oppose your claim. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So you agree that the above sources state that Qurayza chose Sa'd. I also not that not a single source contradicts the above sources. Even if they do, we do what Nick Graves has suggested: mention both.

'our most reliable sources" The above sources are one of our most reliable sources.

Again I urge you to respect consensus at WP:RSN. I'm not sure what "badly visited" means, but I don't think that's something from wiki policies.Bless sins (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some sources say that but they are not our most reliable sources. Hence, we msut proceed as I stated below. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so assuming that we have two sets of sources making directly opposing claims (i.e. some saying Qurayza chose Sa'd or were happy with him as arbitrator, and some saying they didn't chose Sa'd), then why not just mention both claims alongisde eachother? This is of course assuming we do have the sources saying explicitly that Qurayza had no say or right of approval in the selection (as opposed to making inferences from general statements like 'unconditional surrender'). ITAQALLAH 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

These are not merely inferences as you want to put it. "Unconditional surrender" is a clear term with a meaning and your suggestions contradict that term. The most reliable and most longstanding sources speak of that. The BQ agreeing to him formally does not contradict that but the "chose him" does. Any mentioning of this must be treated accordingly as per no undue weight. I never opposed that. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unconditional surrender means surrender without stipulated conditions. If we say that their captors gave them the liberty to choose an arbitrator, then it doesn't mean the Qurayza necessarily demanded it (which would make it a condition). So saying the surrender was unconditional and that the tribe was allowed to choose an arbitrator aren't necessarily contradictory. ITAQALLAH 16:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Which source does say that Muhammad gave the BQ such a liberty? I see not a single one. Those that claim the BQ chose Sad simply ignore the fact of the unconditional surrender. Those that include the unconditional surrender do not talk about the BQ chosing anything.

As I said, we may include the books that state the BQ chose Sad (even though I think them badly mistaken – but that, as you'd rightfully note, is no valid criterion) but only as an alternative view, e.g. "Some sources/scholars report …" Str1977 ^(talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no source that contradicts the view that the Qurayza chose Sa'd. You have yet to provide a "Banu Qurayza didn't choose Sa'd" (or something similar) quote from a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is no requirement to provide such a direct, negative statement. If you chose not to think so be it. But I will not turn off reason. "BQ chose" and "BQ surrendered unconditionally" do contradict.

I already stated an acceotable way for inclusion of both views but as long as you do not take it up, we cannot go there. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, most reasonable people won't necessarily see a contradiction between surrendering unconditionally and choosing an arbitrator after the surrender. To choose something, and to demand it, are two different concepts. No one is saying the Qurayza demanded Sa'd, they simply chose him.Bless sins (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most if not all reasonable people would agree with me. Chosing and demanding are actually quite close - consider that in French "demander" means "to ask". A different thing would be "to accept" or "to submit". Str1977 ^(talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the people of the preceding RfC didn't agree with you. Nor did the people participating in the mediation (you excepted ofcourse).

Simple example: when given the choice I can go to a shop and choose the ice cream I want to have. I can choose chocolate, vanilla, etc... A different situation would be me demanding chocolate ice cream, and threatening of some sort of consequences if my demands are not met. In a society where I'm simply an ordinary citizen I can easily do the "choosing". But it would very difficult for me to do the "demanding", as I have no special powers to threaten others with.Bless sins (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's too bad for them if they don't agree.

Stop bringing up the mediation (yes, Mik agreed with you) - it ended without result on this.

I don't need your explanations. I never said that "demand" and "ask" meant the same. I said they were close. Hence I can only restate my posting above. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Aminz and Shell were no party to the mediation. I grant you that Aminz agreed with you here.

Stop your bad faith remarks about things being close. You give explanations that nobody asked for while ignoring actual issues. The BQ chosing Sad contradicts their status as having "unconditionally surrendered". Str1977 ^(talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you need to acknowledge that Shell also agreed with me. After that you will have, in effect, said "everyone at the mediation (except Str1977) agreed with Bless_sins".

"The BQ chosing Sad contradicts their status as having "unconditionally surrendered"." According to your original research, definitely. No scholar says that though.Bless sins (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell was no party either and hence doesn't count. She was a mediator aiming at bringing us three to agree.

So you do deny simple common sense? Str1977 ^(talk) 17:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But Shell was/is a wikipedian. Consensus can be formed amongst almost any group of wikipedians (restrictions such as sockpuppetry etc. apply).

I explained "common sense" to you in my post dated 13:22, 3 June 2008. You, however, said that you "don't need [my] explanations". Fine. In that case we use exactly what the sources say. No source explicitly denies the Qurayza choosing.Bless sins (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Shell has no interest in this issue. She was merely trying to help to get the three of us to agree. That unfortunately didn't work out. Stop bringing up hte mediation. It is of no consequence here.

Apart from the sources that state that Muhammad (with noone else mentioned) chose Sad. That is a contradiction. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because a source doesn't mention something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist! If a book talks about China, but fails to mention nearby Mongolia, doesn't mean that Mongolia doesn't exist! Only if the source says that "Muhammad chose Sa'd alone", "only Muhammad chose Sa'd", then we can infer a possible contradiction.Bless sins (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Just because a source doesn't mention something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist!" True but irrelevant. If Muhammad chose Sad that contradicts the statement that the BQ chose Sad. No "alone" is needed. Your combining the two is Original research. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

If one wants to contribute to a discussion, one should first inform oneself about all points. The issue (on my part) is not to exclude any mentioning of sources that claim the BQ chose Sad. I am open to mention this as an alternative claim. But I oppose making it the claim #1 or constructing some kind of a mish-mash. That would really be OR - in contrast to a common sense deduction about what unconditional surrender means. The contradiction is there. Also, the most reliable and longstanding sources say Muhammad chose Sad - which also contradicts the claim the BQ chose him. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to attempt to belittle other editors in order to get your way, please stop with the personal remarks. If you have no objection to putting both in, then how about suggesting a way to word it that would suit both viewpoints? (Or Bless sins, did you have a wording suggestion for this that would incorporate both?) And no, a "common sense" deduction about unconditional surrender is exactly what is meant by OR - instead of reporting what a source said, you are using what they said to support further theories - WP:OR does not allow this; we don't interpret. Shell ^babelfish 03:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am really sick and tired of being told what to do by someone who has obviously a grudge against me. Please do stop this.

I am open to include this but it is BS who is insistent on it. He should make a suggestion. "Both viewpoints" - that is hardly possible if one viewpoint is to blame the Jews for their own death.

I am also amazed about the popularity of the view that wikipedians should be robots merely repeating the exact words of a source. Unconditional surrender has a meaning and hence conflicts with other ideas. Quite apart from the fact that you ignore that it contradicts other sources as well. I can no longer attribute this ignoring to a failure to have read the discussion as I have mentioned it to you before. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are making personal comments. Please read WP:NPA - this is not an acceptable mode of behavior if you want to continue editing Wikipedia and will lead to escalating blocks if you insist on continuing. I have no grudge against anyone here; I understand that you feel upset at having been blocked but please remember that the block was reviewed and upheld -- this is about your incivility and attacks against other editors, not some personal feelings I have.

Both sides in a dispute need to work together to resolve an issue. Reverting simply because you don't like a wording isn't productive (and this goes for both sides, not just you); try editing the statements to make them more acceptable or discuss how to change them. Again, you're equating the fact that they chose or agreed with the arbitrator (and remember, they may not have really been in a position to refuse) as advocating that they caused their own death -- that's an extreme jump in logic and shows that you have strong feelings or a POV on this material as well.

The reason that view of "parroting" sources is popular is because its policy and therefore non-negotiable. You can continue to think its wrong, but until you can convince the community at large that a change in policy needs to happen, we need to abide by policy. I understand if you don't like my arguments, but continuing to belittle them by claiming I haven't read the discussion isn't going to help your case. Instead of getting personal, try addressing what people are saying to you. Shell ^babelfish 15:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already replied on your talk page.

If both sides should follow the rules, you should also admonish both sides, not just me.

"Again, you're equating the fact that they chose or agreed with the arbitrator ... ... as advocating that they caused their own death" - well it is clear that I do not hold that view but that some are. What I have strong feelings about is to slant the article into that direction. I am not the only one who sees that. A fellow editor feels even more strongly about and has stated that he can't stand to even read this discussion because "it leaves a bad taste in (his) mouth" (his words, not mine).

"(and remember, they may not have really been in a position to refuse)" - that is exactly my point. Only that is not what BS would like to add.

"The reason that view of "parroting" sources is popular is because its policy and therefore non-negotiable." - Actually it is not policy. Nowhere does policy say that we must parrot-like quote source A and source B and source C. We must accurately present all notable views in order to create a NPOV and accurate article, which is what I am trying to do.

Str1977 ^(talk) 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And as I replied, I have warned others for the edit warring, but currently I don't see any other parties being incivil. If that is incorrect, please point out the comments to me and I will mention those as well.

I imagine there must be a way to mention that some scholars believe that the people of BQ had a hand in choosing the arbitrator or at least agreed to the arbitrator without making it sound like they caused their own death. If there are other scholars who say they didn't have a choice or they didn't agree, then by all means, that should be included as well.

Actually, yes, policy does say that. Please read WP:OR - accurately presenting views means just that, it does not mean we can infer things that the source does not say. In this example, if the source does not say that BQ had no choice in the arbitrator and only says they surrendered unconditionally, we cannot infer that they meant BQ had no choice in the arbitrator. There are cases in history where people or groups have surrendered and then been given a say in how they were tried and executed, so the phrase "unconditional surrender" does not immediately rule out the possibility that BQ may have been allowed to choose or agree to an arbitrator. Besides, the point of Wikipedia isn't really to prove or disprove any scholar's theory so I'm not even sure that this line of discussion is really going to get anywhere towards resolving this issue. Shell ^babelfish 16:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"or at least agreed to the arbitrator" - I already included this a long time ago but BS is not statisfied with it.

"Actually, yes, policy does say that." Policy is saying what? I don't disagree with what you wrote this time, but last time you said policy required parroting. And this is what policy does not say! WP is defined as an encyclopedia and encyclopediae present information. They don't just parrot sources. By that I mean a article that would read: "A says X and B says Y and C says Z etc.

And I stand by my view that Watt's take about an unconditional surrender means no further say in matters except by allowance on the victor's part. Of such an allowance nothing is seen.

One more point. I want this discussion to end to but but there is a certain limit of quality that I am not prepared to sacrifice for the sake of achieving agreement here. Certain things are non-negotiable. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

My current version is:

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

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

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

I don't consider that to be "overwhelming"

an alternative could be:

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

Other than that, does Str1977 have any suggestions?

Bless sins (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say right off the bat that your wording won't work. It doesn't present both views, it only mentions the view that they agreed. The statement needs to be clear that some scholars believe the surrender was unconditional and others believe that BQ were either allowed to pick their arbitrator or were allowed to agree to the arbitrator (whatever the actual scholars wording is). Leaving out the fact that some scholars don't believe their were allowed a choice isn't a compromise, right? Shell ^babelfish 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a view that suggest they didn't agree? Secondly, if you see my version I never removed the statement that Watt thinks they unconditionally surrendered. I wrote in the preceding section "While Watt writes the surrender was "unconditional",[42] Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore say the Banu Qurayza agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing."

However, the issue was slightly complicated by the fact that we've split the surrender and judgment into to different sections. Perhaps if we merged the sections again, we can include all the views in the same section.Bless sins (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

But in the meantime, the outline should look like:

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

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

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

Large Muhammad quote

Devotus made a valid addition but also added this:

In spite of the religious polemics the following principle was established, in the form of a saying ascribed to the Prophet: < blockquote >"He who wrongs a Jew or a Christian will have myself (Muhammad) as his accuser on the day of judgement."< ref >Ahmad Ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri: Kitab Futūḥ al-Buldān. ed. by Michael J. de Goeje. Leiden, 1866. p. 162; cited in: A. J. Wensinck, J. H. Kramers: Handwörterbuch des Islam. Brill, 1941. p. 18; q.v.: Bernard Lewis: The Jews of Islam. Princeton University Press, 1984. p. 32; Majid Khadduri: War and Peace in the Law of Islam. The John Hopkins Press, 1955. p. 175< / ref >< ref >For similar accounts see: Yaḫyā ibn Ādam: Kitāb al-Kharāj. Brill, 1896. p. 54 (cited in: James Hastings: Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Part 23: v. 23. Kessinger, 2003. p. 367); Abu Dawud: Kitab as-Sunan. Book 19, No. 3046< / ref > < / blockquote >

I think this part of the addition superfluous and wrong:

• Superfluous because it adds nothing on the BQ. The topic of this article is the BQ and not the situation of Jews or Christians under Muslim rule. So any outlook on this should be very brief and concise.
• Wrong because it creates the impression that no Jew and no Christian was ever wronged by a faithful Muslim. This is evidently not true. The Muhammad quote is also probably apocryphical as the addition itself seems to imply ("ascribed to the Prophet").
• Furthermore wrong because giving the quote doesn't really tell us anything substantial about the situation of Jews and Christians. What is "to wrong a Jew" in Muhammad's eye?

Devotus, please respond to this. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, plus that text really makes no sense. Who established such a principle? Was it followed? "In the form of a saying" is meaningless - does this mean the principle was based off the saying, or the saying was established as law? Plus, I checked at least one of the references provided - p. 32 of "Jews of Islam" - and found nothing on this. Given that red flag, I've removed the text until it can be discussed further. - Merzbow (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer to all three of Str1977's points lies in the sources used. If the sources say this, then we state what the sources state. This is what WP:V calls for.Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask both St1977 and Merzbow both if they have viewed the sources, and verified for themselves that the sources are not talking about the Qurayza. Alternatively, Devotus can provide quotes for us here.Bless sins (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

BS, that is of no consequence. We do not include what random books are saying into this specific article. I needn't have to look up whether these books somewhere mention the BQ. If they do, I presume that they say about the BQ what our article already says. What Devotus included however didn't concern the BQ at all. So you can stick your cherished WP:V for once and introduce the actual issues. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I did spot check the one source on hand (Lewis), and there was nothing in there regarding such a principle, let alone the relationship to the BQ. - Merzbow (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• The section concerns the analysis of the Qurayza-incident. Thus I have added the part about the legal judgements concerning this incident. But to avoid misunderstandings I have added, that the Qurayza-incident was no model for normal behaviour toward the ahl al-kitab. And in the ref given (SEI), this claim is clarified by the addition of the quote you have mentioned here. Therefore the quote is not dispensable, since otherwise the claim would become unclear.
• There is no suggestion that this principle has invariably been followed. On the other hand it is a widely accepted fact that this was an important principle. Furthermore it is not the question wheter this account actually is authentic and the term "ascribed to" does not imply it being wrong.
• To wrong a Jew (and dhimmis in general) was generally understood as not upholding the defensive alliance made with them, not fighting on behalf (to protect) them and overburdening them with taxes, just as e.g. Umar is supposed to have formulated it on his deathbed (see [2] and [3]). And this supposed utterance of Umar is an example for how the dhimmis were seen in legal aspects in early Islam, as Cohen puts it (Under Crescent and Cross, p.223).

Merzbow: Lewis cites a similar account, where the prophet is supposed to have stated the same about dhimmis in general.--Devotus (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Devotus, the quote doesn't make matters clear in any way. It is prophetic speak attributed to Muhammad but doesn't say what "wronging a Jew" or "wronging a Christian" is. As amply demonstrated by sources like Ramadan and editors like BS, some argue that the BQ were not wronged at all but had their bloody fate coming. Which results in Muhammad's threads not applying to them.

I agree with the addition that the BQ massacre was not the model for treatment of other religions. But that's as far as it goes. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you are doing original research based on your interpretation of a large number of sources. Can you provide a quote from one of those sources that specifically says "In spite of the religious polemics the following principle was established, in the form of a saying ascribed to the Prophet: < blockquote >"He who wrongs a Jew or a Christian will have myself (Muhammad) as his accuser on the day of judgement.", and specifically ties it to the subject matter of this article? - Merzbow (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research by citing secondary literature? The sources are cited in accordance to the refs provided. Lewis, Khadduri etc. are citing akin accounts, stating the same. The quote is taken from the Handwörterbuch des Islam (as referred to in the article). How it is related to the article and thus is necessary has already been explained - I'm not gonna repeat it again.--Devotus (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Stating the same" is simply not true, as I verified by checking the Lewis reference. If all the other references are like that, then it appears we are left with the "Handwörterbuch" reference, which you still claim says specifically that. It looks to be in German and from 1941, so you'll have to provide us with the original and a translation of the text from there you claim supports your text. - Merzbow (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lewis cites a similar account, as already mentioned; so does the ERE and Khadduri. That's why I wrote "q.v." in the ref. That you don't have the HdI is your problem, not mine; it's a shorter, German edition of the EI1, so you can look it up in there, too, in the article "Ahl al-Kitab".--Devotus (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid it has become your problem, because your other cites have not panned out; Lewis p. 32 says nothing about the principle or the saying in the article text. You need to prove to us what you are quoting is accurate, because so far, that hasn't been the case. - Merzbow (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Before we go on to the debate on "whose problem" it is to provide the quote, let me say some thing.

• Wikipedians are not obliged to provide direct quotes from their sources in order for the material to be included. If this was true, I could force you to spend hours in the library in just providing quotes for all the sources used in this article.
• However, if another user checks the reference (or claims to have), and finds that another wikipedian has misrepresented the material, then quotes must be provided to ensure that there is no misquoting.
• Please note that if you don't have access to a source, and I provide a quote from it, then ultimately you must trust me for accurately giving you the quote. Thus, whether a user provides a quote or not, we trust him/her, unless we have access to the source.

So far Merzbow claims to have checked only the Lewis reference, obliging Devotus to provide the quote to sustain his addition. I don't think Devotus is obliged to provide the quote for other sources that Merzbow hasn't verified.Bless sins (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A short sentence like that does not need a half-dozen cites to support it. The fact that the cite I checked has nothing to do with the text, unlike what Devotus claims, casts serious doubts on his other cites. The fact he is unwilling to spend 30 seconds providing the full quote from EI casts further doubt. If he wants to add controversial material to an article, he needs to go the extra mile. How would you like it if I dug up some book that only those with a $1000 university subscription could read, and used it as a source for "Muhammad tortured X and Y before killing them", and then said "forget it" when you ask me to provide the quote? Think about it. I know exactly what you'd say. - Merzbow (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What you're asking of Devotus can be called a "favor". It'd be very nice of Devotus to do such a thing, but he's not under an obligation. I'm sorry that you don't have "$1000 university subscription" (I don't even know what that means).

"and then said "forget it" when you ask me to provide the quote" You're right that I'd get a bit emotional. Maybe even jealous that you had access to such resources that I didn't. But none of that would be legitimate.

I re-iterate my point to you: even if Devotus provided the quote, you would still be 100% dependent on him and would have to just trust him. Why not trust him now (and save him the trouble)?Bless sins (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys... we're trying to build an encyclopedia here. We're all colleagues - if someone would like insight into the passages cited from sources then providing that shouldn't even be an issue. ITAQALLAH 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that statement. We all should be more forthcoming to each other (and I include myself in this for sure.) Str1977 ^(talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Here the quote: "Trotz aller in gehässigen Sprüchen ausgeprägten fanatischen Gefühle ist in Form eines dem Propheten zugeschriebenen Ausspruchs folgender Grundsatz aufgestellt worden: 'Wer einem Juden oder Christen Unrecht tut, gegen den trete ich selbst (der Prophet) als Ankläger auf am Tage des Gerichts.'" You do not need a "$1000 university subscription" for getting acces to the EI1, neither for the SEI or the HdI. And Lewis cites a similar account, in the German edition (which does not use Roman numerals for the preface) on page 46, in the English edition on page 32; that's why I wrote "q.v." (quod videm).--Devotus (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And from the SEI: "Against all fanatical sentiment expressed in odious terms the following principle was established, in the form of a saying of Muhammad's: 'He who wrongs a Jew or a Christian will have myself (the Prophet) as his accuser on the day of judgement.'". On page 17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotus (talk • contribs) 11:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Established by whom, and what does this have to do with the BQ? And the Lewis ref still doesn't back up that sentence; I see no "similar" account. - Merzbow (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Muhammad quote is not needed in this article. I already explained why it is meaningless. We acknowledge the general fact that the BQ massacre was the model and give references for those scholars telling us this, including the Handwörterbuch, Lewis, Khadduri. I tagged the whole thing as "clarifyme" in case there is still doubt about whether all these say that.

I also tagged the Handwörterbuch as we still need the lemma - assuming that this works like Encyclopedias an and Lexica commonly do. What we do not need is to copy the reference section of that Encyclopedia.

In regard to different editions of Lewis: While I do not object in principle to the German version, the English version is preferred. Especially, if there seems to be disagreement that something is not found in the English version. The English is the original written by Lewis. Str1977 ^(talk)

I already explained why your assumption that it is meaningless is wrong. Refs have been given; if you can't check them it's your problem. The German edition of Lewis' book does not contain any differences regarding the content. Why do you need the lemma of the Handwörterbuch ref? it's the same as in the SEI and EI1: Ahl al-Kitab, written by Ignaz Goldziher.--Devotus (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Lewis: then why didn't Merzbow find the information?

Re Lemma: We need the lemma because that is how an encyclopedia is referenced. No one picks it up and looks for page numbers. Also, encyclopedia often have different authors for different lemmas. The lemma is the article.

One more question is the "Shorter encyclopedia" merely a translation of the "Handwöterbuch"? If so, the Handwörterbuch will have to go as we should not name the same reference twice. 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Merzbow claimed cite-check failed[4], Devotus seems to have changed the reference[5].

Are you saying that the information is not even present in that new reference?

As a side note, can you (Str1977) sign your comments? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the change in the reference BUT Devotus above explains that there is no difference between the two editions. If there is no difference, Merzbow's point stands. I am defending his request against your attempts to censor it.

PS. I do sign my postings. No need to lecture me on that even if I forget it once. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Handwörterbuch des Islam is no translation of the Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, especially since it's been published 12 years before the SEI. Other than that I would like you to explain me why you don't want the quote to be in the article.--Devotus (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

All right. I was just asking whether they were one and the same in two languages. If they are different both may stand.

Why I don't want the quote?

You state the quote is meant to clarify but in fact the quote doesn't clarify anything. I explained above. In the quote, Muhammad warns Muslims to wrong Jews and Christians and threatens retribution on Judgment Day. Only, the quote doesn't say what "wronging Jews and Christians" actually is? Muhammad had the whole tribe of the BQ killed – was that wronging Jews? In his view probably not because he applauded the decision. So any Muslim bent on killing Jews could have taken the massacre as an example and state "I am not wronging Jews but punishing them!"

Furthermore, the quote doesn't add anything on the topic of the BQ. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote is an important addition to the claim that the execution of the Qurayza was no model for later relationship of the Muslim rulers towards their non-muslim subjects. But I do have to admit that it is not clear what "wrongs" means in this context; that's why I'll add another similar account, where Umar is supposed to have told his successor shortly before dying to "abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis of God and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax them beyond their capabilities."[6]. This will clarify the quote.--Devotus (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The Muhammad quote does not add anything to our coverage because it is so vague. I am quite open to any different account and will consider it. However, the "wrong a Jew" quote has to go. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Umar quote is a bit more specific but still quite vague. However, if Muslim jurists quote these I am prepared to include both, the Muhammad and the Umar quote, in a footnote. What do you think? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why only mention them in a footnote? Scholarship generally accepts the fact that this was a principle: See the HdI ref (and accordingly the EI1 and SEI under the same lemma). See e.g. also Muhammad Hamidullah: "Muslim Conduct of State" (p.113f.), who quotes Abu Yusuf (Kitab al-Kharadj, p.69ff.): "O Commander of the Faithful (Amr al-Mu'minin, i.e. the caliph)... It is necessary that thou should treat the people who were protected by thy Prophet and thy cousin Muhammad (i.e. non-Muslim subjects) with leniency, and inquirest about their conditions so that they are neither oppressed nor given trouble nor taxed beyond their capacity, nor anything of theirs is taken from them except for a duty encumbering them. For it is reported from the Messenger of God who said: Whoever oppres a non-muslim subject or taxeth him beyond his capacity, then I shall be the opposite party to him in the litigation on Doomsday." But maybe you can show me scholars who disagree. Otherwise I see no reason for relativizing this simple but important fact. And why are the quotes vague? After I've added the Umar-quote it is clear what to wrong a dhimmi means.--Devotus (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Devotus, I am trying to compromise and you slap me maximalist demands in the face. I can do that too: Why include them at all. Both are vague and meaningless. Even the Umar one who says something about contracts and regulations. How does not contradict the possibility of applying the "BQ solution"? Str1977 ^(talk) 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I too disagree with Str1977 putting them in the footnote. While putting very long and unnecessary quotes in footnotes is alright, these quotes are fine in the article.

I don't find either to be "vague" (if you want a clarification, ask), nor "meaningless". The quotes, in the manner included, seem to satisfy WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Is there any policy that would call for a removal of them?Bless sins (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is so, please explain to me in simple terms how the M quote and the U quote work in the context of this issue. How do they explain that the BQ massacre was not made the model? Things like that.

And because THAT is the issue, you can leave your policyquoting at the door. They don't mean a thing if the things that are "verified", "neutral" and "not originally researched" are not relevant to the passage. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bless sins. Str1977: simply answer the question: are there any scholars disagreeing this? Regarding the context: as I repeatedly have told you, the quotes clarify that the Qurayzaexecution was no model for later behavious toward the ahl al-kitab.--Devotus (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with what?

The problem is that currently there is nothing to disagree with. Aside from view "BQ not taken as a model" - with which nobody disagreees, there is not argument.

The quotes do not clarify that but only give vague instructions "not to wrong Jews" and to "keep contracts with Jews" and "not to overtax Jews". I again ask: Where the BQ wronged by Muhammad? Did Muhammad keep his contract with the BQ? Were the BQ overtaxed?

The quotes don't add anything. My suggestion to keep them in footnotes (where they do not disrupt the chain of thought) was to my attempt to please you.

The alternative is: please explain to me the logical connection between any of the quotes and the statement "BQ not a model". Currently, it doesn't make sense. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree with the fact that the quote represents a principle.
• The quotes are clear enough. Anyone who knows what a dhimmi is will understand what is meant.
• The Qurayza have never been dhimmis. The quote deals with regular behaviour toward the ahl al-kitab, excluding the Qurayza, since it is mentioned in the text that their demise was no model for later treatment of the dhimmis.
• The connection with the principle has already been explained several times.--Devotus (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• How does the quotes relate to the statement that tbe BQ were not the model.
• I know what a dhimmi is but I still don't understand the quote.
• "since it is mentioned in the text that their demise was no model for later treatment of the dhimmis" - what text? Can you quote this text to me? It might be the thing I am looking for.
• No, you haven't yet explained it. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• That's not an answer to my question.
• What part of the quotes don't you understand?
• The text meaning the article.
• Again: to avoid misunderstandings I mentioned - after the mentioning of ash-Shafii and others - that the way the Qurayza had been treated was not the normal way Muslims acted towards the ahl al-kitab. This claim is made in the EI1 unter "Ahl al-Kitab" (and thus in the SEI and HdI); it is clarified in the same ref by the quote in question. Since you are of the opinion the quote is not clear enough I added another quote clearly stating that "wronging" in this context means: a) breaking the defensive alliance made with the dhimmis b) not to protect them (fight for them) and c) to tax them beyond their capabilities. Thus the quotes are necessary, since they clarify on what basis the ahl al-kitab were normally treated.--Devotus (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Devotus,

What was your question?

My question was what the exact question between the statement "BQ were not the model" and the two quotes. Can you explain that to me.

The second quote did not clarify what "wronging" meant very much. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If we wanted to describe the Dhimmis' situation we would have to do it comprehensively or at least give a summary of such a comprehensive treatment.

You say the BQ were not Dhimmis which is true because that concept only fully developed later. But was their situation so completely different? Would they have fared differently had they been Dhimmis? Str1977 ^(talk) 11:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is no spot for argumentation; the only thing to be cleared here is what the technical literature is saying about this topic. You can look up what my question was. Your question has been answered several times now.--Devotus (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I see no question by you and if you cannot repeat it I assume it wasn't that pressing after all.

If you mean by "the only thing to be cleared here is what the technical literature is saying about this topic" that we merely have to quote sources you are dead wrong. Currently, the quotes are included without any link in thought to the rest of the article. We have to include them in a proper form, in order to explain something, not merely for their own sake.

That way my question and my question has not been answered at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The question was: "are there any scholars disagreeing this?"[7] - "this" meaning the quote being a principle. Regarding your question: the reason for including the quotes has been explained several times now. The sentence of mine you just quoted meant that were not here to discuss why what was or wasn't, i.e. not here for discussions about the topic itself. That referred to your questions here.

Since I already explained several times why the quote is necesarry and not vague after the addition, and since you don't seem to be able to name scholars disagreeing the facts described in the text I see no reason for relativising all of this by making it a footnote or even deleting it at all.--Devotus (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. The problem is you haven't explained how the quote explains that the BQ massacre was not model.

A call for "scholars disagreeing" is futile. Irrelevant stuff should not be included.

If you don't like the footnote. Fine. Next time the quotes will be gone alltogether. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you calling it "irrelevant". If a scholar says that the execution of the Banu Qurayza was never taken it sa a model, isn't that relevant to Banu Qurayza?Bless sins (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not irrelevant. I never said that. The statement that the BQ massacre was not taken as a model is certainly relevant, referenced and I support the inclusion 100%. My beef is with two quotes that thus have not been properly linked with that statement and hence with the article. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977: You're repeating yourself. Your question has been answered several times; the HdI itself clarifies the claim by mentioning that principle. The call is not futile at all: since you seem to doubt that the quote in question is a principle I wanted you to name scholars (academics that is) disagreeing that it was a principle. And as I said before, if you can't name such scholars I see no reason for relativising this simple fact.--Devotus (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am repeating myself because you are. My question remains unanswered. How are these quotes linked to the statement that the BQ were not taken as a model? Nothing in these quotes would have saved the BQ from their killers. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it that the sources are that use these quotes are actually making the argument "Banu Qurayza were not taken as models"?Bless sins (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977: the Banu Qurayza were no dhimmis. Regarding the link between the quotes and the statement: "Again: to avoid misunderstandings I mentioned - after the mentioning of ash-Shafii and others - that the way the Qurayza had been treated was not the normal way Muslims acted towards the ahl al-kitab. This claim is made in the EI1 unter "Ahl al-Kitab" (and thus in the SEI and HdI); it is clarified in the same ref by the quote in question. Since you are of the opinion the quote is not clear enough I added another quote clearly stating that "wronging" in this context means: a) breaking the defensive alliance made with the dhimmis b) not to protect them (fight for them) and c) to tax them beyond their capabilities. Thus the quotes are necessary, since they clarify on what basis the ahl al-kitab were normally treated"[8] --Devotus (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Devotus, shall I copy and paste my postings too? And we can do that ad infinitum. Only, that doesn't help anyone. I have read your posting before I replied to it.

So I am asking again: how are the quotes and out "not a model" statement are linked? Str1977 ^(talk) 08:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote is a principle on which the Muslims based themselves in the treatment of the dhimmis. It clarifies why the Qurayzaincident was no model for later behaviour, since normally the ahl al-kitab were not executed but protected. See the ref given.--Devotus (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We are getting nowhere with this. Simply saying that something "clarifies" something does not make it so. Maybe it would be of advantage if you provide a large citation explaining how this whole thing works.

I know that the BQ were not Dhimmis but they had a status in their city allying them to the Arab/Muslim tribes. An alliance in which both pledged to fight for one another against enemies. Still, at the end of the day, the BQ were dead at the hands of the Muslims, which cited treachery as a justification. That is what happened to the BQ - how does this conflict with the principles outlined by the two quotes. I simply don't see it. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. You have absolutely no justification for removing the tag from the section as long as there is doubt about the Lewis source. Merzbow looked up the English Lewis, didn't find what the reference claimed and hence tagged the section. You replaced the English Lewis with the German edition but also stated that there is no difference between them. What is it now. I will also inform Merzbow of this as it was him looking up Lewis. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you have time to revert but not time to explain, Devotus? Str1977 ^(talk) 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tariq Ramadan

As Tariq Ramadan's own biography here on wikipedia states (completely sourced):

In September 2006, a State Department statement said: "A U.S. consular officer has denied Dr. Tariq Ramadan's visa application. The consular officer concluded that Dr. Ramadan was inadmissible based solely on his actions, which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization." Between December 1998 and July 2002, Ramadan had given donations totalling $940 to two charity organizations, the Comité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (CBSP) and the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP). The United States Treasury designated both the CBSP and ASP terrorist fundraising organizations for their alleged links to Hamas on August 22, 2003. The U.S. Embassy told Ramadan that he "reasonably should have known" that the charities provided money to Hamas. In an article in The Washington Post, Ramadan asked: "How should I reasonably have known of their activities before the U.S. government itself knew ?"

I think this alone proves he is not a reliable source for this topic, and shouldn't be included. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok so the American government accuses Ramadan of something, so he is not reliable (according to Yahel Guhan's reasoning). What if the Chinese government accused a scholar of something wrong? Would that scholar be unreliable? What if it was the Turkish government making accusations against a scholar on Armenian genocide?

Secondly Yahel Guhan ignores the fact that Ramadan's book is published by the Oxford University Press.Bless sins (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The US government stated that he financed Hamas, an antisemitic terrorist group; if that doesn't scream bias, I don't know what does. Now maybe NPOV only matters to you if the article opposes your agenda, but otherwise, it is an important policy to keep in mind when editing, something I have never noticed you do in your editing. The US governmet, unlike the Turkish government, has no connection to islam, or statement on it, and is therefore an unbias source to make such a discretion. If a Chinese government accused a scholar of something, it might mean that scholar is bias too. I don't care who the publisher is. Publishers are a business, not a source; they don't matter. Scholars write material, and therefore maters, not the publishers, so that arguement is irrelevant. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yahel said: " I don't care who the publisher is. Publishers are a business, not a source; they don't matter."

Unfortunately for you, wiki policies say the opposite thing: (from WP:V) "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability" (emphasis added)

Besides Ramadan is a research fellow at Oxford University.[9]Bless sins (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

All three, meaning no single one. Thus something can be written by a reliable publisher, and still be unreliable; you seem to be focusing only on one. Anyway, I'll initiate an RFC on this now. Lets get a (hopefully) unbias opinion on this. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You might not care about the publisher, Yahel, but Wikipedia policies do. "Thus something can be written by a reliable publisher, and still be unreliable" -- can you specify where exactly it says this in Wikipedia policy? Quotes about context will be irrelevant, as we know that OUP is a high calibre publisher and has a solid academic pedigree in the field of Islamic studies. ITAQALLAH 16:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read what has been stated above, and decide for us if Ramadan is a reliable source and/or how he/she should be included. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• The source: "In the Footsteps of the Prophet"
• Author: Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan is a Research Fellow at St. Anthony's College, Oxford University, and the Lokahi foundation.[10]
• Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP). WP:V says "the most reliable sources are ... books published in university presses". OUP is the largest university press in the world.[11]

Bless sins (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since BS selectively quoted WP:V, and misrepresent the issue, I'll quote the policy and bold the relevant parts BS missed:

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

A few other notes to be aware of:

1. The U.S. State department said "A U.S. consular officer has denied Dr. Tariq Ramadan's visa application. The consular officer concluded that Dr. Ramadan was inadmissible based solely on his actions, which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization'
2. Between December 1998 and July 2002, Ramadan had given donations totalling $940 to two charity organizations, the Comité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (CBSP) and the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP).[7] The United States Treasury designated both the CBSP and ASP terrorist fundraising organizations for their alleged links to Hamas on August 22, 2003
3. Hamas is a designated antisemitic Islamic terrorist organization.
4. The Banu Qurayza is a jewish tribe that was persecuted by the muslims under Muhammad
5. Context and NPOV are important in determining WP:V YahelGuhan (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

These "few other notes" you raise are red herrings - unless the US State department determines Wikipedia policy, which it doesn't. Bless sins certainly didn't misrepresent the policy, and you have failed to explain why the parts of policy you highlighted are relevant here (in short: they aren't). In fact, both the highlighted and non-highlighted passages seems to confirm that Ramadan should be included- considering that he is a scholar and is published in a top quality academic press renowned for its work in Islamic studies. ITAQALLAH 16:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I didn't know that the U.S. state department is such an expert on deciding who is a scholar on early Islamic history. Maybe I should use Iranian state departments on deciding who is a scholar on Jewish history.

2. When Ramadan gave the donations the organizations were not classified as terrorist. After they were, Ramadan didn't donate to them anymore.

3. Not the links to Hamas are "alleged".

4. Completely false.

5. Sure they are. And I have provided some of Ramadan's credentials in the field.Bless sins (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Is this a joke? I said the US state department called him a terrorist supporter; they never questioned his scholarship directly
2. yeah right.
3. That only means the organizations have not been convicted yet.
4. No it isn't. See the first paragraph, which explains exactly who they are and what Muhammad did to them. Once again, you seem to be misinterpriting basic english.

YahelGuhan (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand Yahel's concerns. They shouldn't be shrugged off.

However, despite Mr Ramadan's leanings and links to certain organisations, he is also a scholar. Scholars maybe all sorts of things apart from being a scholar.

The point I wanted to raise, albeit in maybe not acceptable terms, was that simply counting scholars and adding more and more is not neccessarily ensuring neutrality and balance, regardless of how often BS is sporting that idea in edit summaries. Neither does the size of a page (no matter how he calculates it) of any real importance to its quality. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Yahel makes a good case, but I do agree that a person's personal opinions don't detract from their reliability if they are qualified in the field and the material is published in an academic press. I think we'd all like to ensure that the issues in the article are covered in a way that is balanced, logical, and incorporates all viewpoints of significance. ITAQALLAH 16:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, we're not judge scholars b the way they spend their money. What Ramadan did was perfectly legal, else he would have been charged for his crime. Thus, the scholar is innocent until proven guilty in a fair court of law.

Secondly, regarding scholars. To ensure neutrality we must present fairly "all significant views". If we remove the views 11 different scholars, its hard to call our change as "neutral", as then we are far from presenting "all significant views".Bless sins (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, while is is correct that non-scholarly activities do not affect scholarly notability or reliability, they do tell us something about the personality - something that will also be present in their scholarship.

I agree in principle that we should present fairly all notable views. Nobody is disputing this. Only you claim that others are - you push the article in a certain and also make a few indifferent changes, count scholars and then call that more neutral. That's no valid argument. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"personality" is something we don't care about. We should not judge a source on its, say religion. Anyways, this matter seems settled.

What I count is the number scholars you remove in your reversions. If you removed the opinions of one or two scholars, one could still claim that the article is balanced. But if you don't like the views of 11 different scholars, it means the article has become unbalanced.Bless sins (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course we care about it. It is no reason to exclude someone but we have to take everything into account that could affect the balance and neutrality of the article.

Your calculations are nonsensical as I actually did not remove eleven scholars. At worst I removed references from eleven scholars (as I said, I don't probe into your numbers as the whole case is pointless) without removing these scholars alltogether.

You see, I say your version is unbalanced by adding either voices favourable to your POV (Ramadan being just one example) or by presenting them in such a way. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Then we agree that we shouldn't exclude someone on the basis of color, race, nation of origin, religion, sexual orientation, or other personal, non-scholarly affairs. Bless sins (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This absurd, thinly-veiled accusation is way out of line. Str has provided numerous reasonable explanations for exclusion of certain information (not scholars) based on WP principles. You respond by implying racism. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 hasn't quoted WP policies in the above discussion, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. If he has, please provide the diff.Bless sins (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to quote policies to apply WP principles. OTOH, simply quoting policies doesn't make for a neutral article. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You do when there is a dispute. I claim that your edits and opposition is not in accordance with wiki policies. thus, you need to quote them to justify yourself.Bless sins (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Scholars removed

Here are the scholars who were used as sources to the information you removed:

• Tariq Ramadan
• Montgomery Watt
• Norman Stillman
• Daniel Peterson
• Ceaser Farah
• Shibli Nomani
• Hossein Nasr
• Sohail Hashmi
  • Allen Buchanan
  • Margaret Moore
• Majid Khadduri
• Abu-Nimer

The above is the content that I have personally verified. In addition you are removing content sourced to:

• Mahmoud Ayoub
• Handwörterbuch des Islam

I'm confident that this content belongs in the article, though the sources I haven't personally verified.Bless sins (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said that these should be removed. No one should be removed alltogether if he or she has something notable to say on the topic. Notability in my eyes includes expertise.

As for your list - I never removed

• Tariq Ramadan
• William Montgomery Watt (your unwillingness you use the correct name is distressing)
• Norman Stillman
• Daniel Peterson
• Shibli Nomani
• Sohail Hashmi
  • Allen Buchanan
  • Margaret Moore
• Majid Khadduri

though I removed some content referenced to some these (Ramadan, Watt, Nomani) but these fall into two categories:

• small things that were not actually needed and that were often merely bad stylistic blurbs (e.g. Watt's "practically all" and Ramadan's "the feared the consequences of their treachery" especially - both are not needed and do push a POV)
• larger parts that pertain to the two issues that are still controversial on this talk page: "Deuteronomy" and "BQ chose Sad". You can hardly say that I haven't provided reasons for removing these.

I did removed Abu-Nimer because his expertise is in a different field (and anyway, he falls into the "BQ chose Sad" field as well). In my latest edit, which you graciously destroyed, I even let a glimpse of Abu Nimer stand in a case where he seemed reliable and informative to me.

I removed Ceaser Farah (another misspelled name) because he fell into the Deuteronomy issue about which there is no consensus to include it.

Hossein Nasr I removed, that is, I removed a superfluous quote from Britannica. Britannica! We really do not need to quote another general encyclopedia. Furthermore, the way he was included was nonsense: Nasr's "Muhammad discovered" was contrast with Muslim tradition attributing such a discovery to "Gabriel". Actually, it doesn't. The decision to attack the BQ was attributed to "Gabriel" in tradition, not any discovery about wrongdoing by the BQ.

As for Mahmoud Ayoub and Handwörterbuch des Islam, I am not removing the content that's relevant to the article. That's my dispute with Devotus, who seems unwilling or unable to clearly explain how the quotes relate to the "no model" statement. "How" and not "that". He merely repeats that they do.

As you see I have good reason for each any every of my edits. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 says "I never removed ...Tariq Ramadan..." and then says "I removed some content referenced to some these (Ramadan...". Essentially a contradiction. Make up your mind Str1977, did you remove atleast some content sourced to him or not?

"small things that were not actually needed" Sure they are needed. And if you think these things are "small", then I can remove things under the same pretext.

"controversial on this talk page" For the Qurayza choosing Sa'd we have clear consensus. For Deuteronomy, we have no consensus yet to remove or include. But atleast we have scholarly consensus on both issues.

"I did removed Abu-Nimer", "I even let a glimpse of Abu Nimer stand in a case where he seemed reliable and informative to me." Ok so do you think Abu-Nimer is reliable enough to comment here or not? Make up your mind.

"Furthermore, the way he was included was nonsense..." I understand that Nasr's statements don't agree with your OR. BUt that is no reason to remove him.

Finally, I still stand very strongly behind my list of scholars that you removed, despite your unclear statements.Bless sins (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

BS, you claimed that I removed scholars. To me that means I removed all of their contributions. I never did this to any. I always had a good reason for removing - or changing - a particular, IMHO problematic passage.

"Sure they are needed." - Yes, for pushing your POV.

"And if you think these things are "small", then I can remove things under the same pretext." - Well, you do.

"For the Qurayza choosing Sa'd we have clear consensus." - Nonsense. Even Shell says that you do not have consensus.

"Ok so do you think Abu-Nimer is reliable enough to comment here or not? Make up your mind." - As I have a mind to make up I am not bound to robotically decide whether AN is reliable and then include his every blurb. He is reliable in his field, but not beyond it. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure OR is no reason to remove Nasr. But that was not my reason to remove him. Your comments are made in bad faith ... and you think there can be any informal mediation with someone that makes such statements? I am sick of it!

I know. And you stand very very strongly on the extrem POV you are pushing. My statements are not unclear but reasonable and nuanced. You mistake nuance (something your edits never contained) with for a lack of clarity. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said you removed "all thier contributions". What you removed is information sourced to the scholars that you apparently don't like. In doing so, the article is selectively quoting POVs from the scholars.

"Yes, for pushing your POV." I'm not sure what that means, considering that according to WP:NPOV, "all sources have biases". Thus, yes, any source has a bias.

"Well, you do." As of yet can you point to the soruced information I've removed? If not, i aks you to take your accusation back.

"Even Shell says that you do not have consensus." I don't see anything in the section that suggests that. Perhaps, I'm missing something?

Is Abu-Nimer reliable for facts of 7th century Arabia? Please answer this once you've made up your mind.

Actually your reason for removing Nasr was ambiguous. I've assumed it's because you disagreed with him. However, it should be noted, you haven't cited any policy before removing him.

' extrem POV you are pushing" all the statements I add are sourced to scholars. If you think the views of Watt, Stillman, Ramadan, Peterson Hashmi etc. are "extreme" then there is nothing I can do about it. These scholars are pretty maisntream.Bless sins (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I already explained to you that Abu Nimer is no historian and is per se not reliable for facts. He however is a scholar on conflict resolution and is reliable in that regard. Actually, since Khaduri says almost verbatim what Abu Nimer says, I don't see why you have to fight so urgently about Abu Nimer.

I removed Nasr because he is not needed. He basically says nothing that others don't say. If you really insist we can add him as a ref next to his information already included.

It is not the scholars that are the problem (BTW Ramadan is certainly not "maisntream") but the way they are used. I already explained that to you. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok so you agree he is a scholar on "conflict resolution"? Do you also agree that the Qurayza were ina "conflict" with the Muslims?

"He basically says nothing that others don't say." I don't see the view that Muhammad besieged the Qurayza because he discovered Qurayza's activities during the battle.

I assert that I have correctly quoted the scholars. Unless, you are alleging misquotes (in which case you need to provide evidence), "the way they are used" is the same as what their views are. that might appear "extreme" to you, but's that what the scholars indeed say. Finally, it was agreed above that Ramadan is a reliable source, and since relaible sources are mainstream, the conclusion follows.Bless sins (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He is a scholar on models of conflict resolution. Consider: A political scientist knows all about how politics work but is not neccessarily an expert on politics of the 12th century. And given that Abu Nimer is used for two sentences, one ("arabian customs") I'd allow and the other ("chosen by them") identical to what Khaduri says - why fight about Abu Nimer? (If it makes you happy, I'd allow him as an additional ref).

In a much broader way, our article outlines that Muhammad heard about negotiations, send that man to influence the BQ and the besiegers etc.

Again, you are mistaking an WP article for a quote farm. It is not merely the words that are quoted but also what is left out, where quotes are placed, how they are linked with each other (a recent example is "While Watt ...")

Re Ramadan: you are mistaken. RS means merely that they are reliable for what they say. Mainstream is something else. If only mainstream sources were reliable, minority views would have no place here. WP would be a much thinner encyclopedia. Probably whole articles would be missing.

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins, can you clarify something? Are you saying that this scholar is reliable in this area of history only because its about a conflict? Does that mean that this gentleman is not a historian? On the reliable sources noticeboard, you didn't give any information about how you wanted to use the sources, so yes, in general this person might be considered reliable, that doesn't automatically imply that they are reliable for any subject they happen to write about. When dealing with history, one needs to be careful not to lend too much weight to armchair historians and instead, stick with the experts. Shell ^babelfish 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation?

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

Some of the issues under dispute have been discussed since September 2007 (see this). Any method that transcends mere discussion I welcome, since I think all of us are desperate to find a solution.Bless sins (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

An informal mediation has been going on thanks to the Jedi Master though his recent absence has halted matters. I am open to any efforts to make this a stable and balanced article and I would advise BS to adopt a more compromising and a less "being difficult" attitude. He should start with the Peters/Ahmed figures question.

Any formal medition however has been made impossible due to BS's choice to misuse the recent, unfortunately failed mediation and my subsequent vow. I also don't see any role for Shell in any solution. Too much has happened for that. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You just came off a block for personal attacks and immediately resume discussing other editors in a bad light. You need to find a way to discuss the article content that doesn't require you to bad-mouth other editors. Shell ^babelfish 12:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I am not personally attacking anyone. You should seriously consider your motives for your last posting. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"I am open to any efforts to make this a stable and balanced article " thn why not go through informal mediation?

"I also don't see any role for Shell in any solution." Actually, I think that the more users come to this article the better it is. We need more inputs, more suggestions, more opinions, and, may I say, more mediation, if we are ever to get past us two bickering.Bless sins (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not informal mediation? Yeah, why not. But you see, apart from Mik's absence we're at it.

That depends on who it is. Some people unfortunately have eroded my trust in them. And I don't think a combination that didn't work out in a past mediation is a good remedy for the future. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The mediation did work out in the past: we got over the issue of "massacre" and "execution".

Str1977, here is your choice: accept informal mediation for a chance to end this dispute. Or continue to address this dispute through reversions, and discussion that is fruitless more often than not.

As for me, I choose the former option, I want this dispute to end, so I can move on. What about you?Bless sins (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, the medition yielded some results but then went of the rails. For the very same reasons that our discussion here does not proceed. You are not addressing my points but prefer to use rhetoric to justify reverting me.

In any case, what would be the difference between an informal mediation and what we already have?

I would want this dispute to end to but if that means yielding to each and every of your POV pushing aims I am not able to do it. Maybe it is time for you to realise that you have to move towards the others too, that you cannot turn this into a "Muhammad killed a couple of Jews who had it coming anyway and only have their selves to blame" article. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why, but you seem to interpret by good-willed edits into something about "the Jews". Please let me clear up: emotion may flare up in this article, but we should be objective about it. There is some information in this article that I personally don't like too much, but I let it stay in because wiki policies require me to do that. We must place wikipolicies above our own interests.

Finally, I've tried to convince you to accept mediation. I'd like to know whether you embrace this offer, or will walk away from it.Bless sins (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast. I cannot go to mediation with you. I made a vow and anyway the last mediation doesn't make me confident. But I am open to informal ways of solving this. There is no decision on my part needed - it is you who need to decide that it is better to settle for less than your POV being pushed.

Why do I interpret it that way? Because most of your edits are aimed at hammering the point across that a) the Jews are to blame, b) the massacre was all right and dandy, c) Muhammad never did anything wrong. Compare the earlier longstanding version with want you want and you'll see that most of your additions are about that.

How about showing at least some good will by dropping the most glaringly POV pushing additions like the "practically all" or the "they feared the consequences of treachery" that really add nothing to the article except for POV pushing. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. Also you should not use false edit summaries like "the issues are still very much the same; accept Str1977's and Devotus' changes" - you accept none of my changes but simply blanket reverted.

The first thing you should address is the apparent contradiction regarding whether Ahmad has 600-900 Jews killed or whether they have to be much less. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I did accept some of your changes:[12]. Not much though.Bless sins (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

One - you accepted one change (but only slightly). You blanket reverted all the rest, formatting problems and typos included. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And then you went and reverted him in the same manner, so it appears that neither of you are willing to do much but edit war to enforce your prefereces - has anyone tried just editing what other people write instead of reverting? Shell ^babelfish 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference is during my next to last revert I worked hard to work something of BS's information in. BS doesn't do this. In his last he (more or less) took up my addition and later added them to his blanket revert.

Also, I never reverted typos and un-uniform references back in. Nor do I delete tags.

Str1977 ^(talk) 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is what you are doing, I apologize. That kind of change is exactly what I meant by editing others changes instead of a simple revert. However in your last edit that I was referring to, the edit summary "restore NPOV and accurate version, please discuss things first at talk" makes it seem like a revert and looking at diffs [13] it does appear that you simply restored a previous version you edited.

Bless Sins, could you agree to trying this approach as well? Instead of reverting a change, try editing what is there to make it more acceptable to both views? Shell ^babelfish 16:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"However in your last edit that I was referring to ..." Yes, my last edit was a revert but the one before was carefully aiming at every single diff taking them into account. E.g. for instance I dropped my opposition to the "Jews and Muslims have their own religion except ..." bit. I thought it pointless and irrelevant and I still do but thought it less important to fight about it. (BS should do the same in regards to Watt's "practically all", which I see as a major POV problem). I also introduced the whole complex issue of what Ahmad really says. When BS simply reverted my changes, then I restored my earlier version. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 has so far asked me simply remove information sourced to 11 scholars. That I can't agree with. But for other edits I can make it more acceptable.Bless sins (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be what he's saying at all. He's asking you to consolidate their viewpoints and avoid using extreme adjectives and also gave very specific reasons for each thing he'd like to change. Try addressing that above first instead of reverting. Shell ^babelfish 12:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that is not what I am saying at all. I gave specific reasons in each case for changing your presentation of these. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"avoid using extreme adjectives" If my adjectives are "extreme" is that a reason to remove entire sentences (and in some cases paragraphs) of content. Why can't Str1977 simply fix the adjectives. Secondly, the adjectives I use are similar to those actually used in the sources. the adjective "treachery' is used by Ramadan (and I've attributed its use to Ramadan). The use of "practically all" is straight out of Watt. Nevertheless, I'm open to synonyms for the word "all" and "treachery".

Secondly, I went a significant way to compromise with Str1977 by making my edits one by one, explaining each of them.[14] If you compare this with my previous version ([15]) the difference are very significant. Most importantly, I entirely dropped the "Torah" issue, despite having 5 scholarly sources (Stillman, Ramadan, Nomani, Peterson and Farah). I also accepted Str1977's wordings in the lead, used Str1977's placement of Inamdar, and the discovery of weapons. I also dropped Nasr, Farah and Stillman's analysis of Sa'd's intentions. I dropped my previous insistence to present Ramadan's view fairly. I also dropped the changes insited upon by Devotus (and I agreed with him on that), namely the inclusion of Umar and Muhammad's quote.

Yet Str1977 turns around are reverts every single one of my edits, while keeping Briangotts edit. (This can be seen by comparing Str1977's version[16] before and after: no difference except for accomodating Briangott's additions). I'm now less inclined than ever to drop my insistences (which I consider legitimate) for the sake of stability and compromise.Bless sins (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You said: "If my adjectives are "extreme" is that a reason to remove entire sentences" The short answer is possibly. If you are writing something that comes across as not being in a neutral voice, editing it may include changing words, moving things around and even removing entire sentences. This doesn't mean that removal is always the best way to deal with a problem, but sometimes, editing for tone and clarity does mean removing things.

You said: "I went a significant way to compromise with Str1977 by making my edits one by one" I'm not sure why you think that's some kind of compromise, its still using just your text. To me, all that means is that people have to look through a slew of diffs to see your changes. If there are differences over the edits you're making, try putting the text on the talk page and working out a compromise wording instead of simply re-inserting it into the article. If things still haven't been agreed upon on the talk page, its rather unproductive to be edit warring back and forth over the material. Let it sit for a while and try to get things worked out; material can always be put back in (or removed) when a consensus is achieved.

I agree, reverting isn't helpful, the problem here is that you, Bless sins, are also guilty of the same issue. Stop editing the article and work out your differences first -- continuing to insist that the article look one way or another makes both you and Str1977 appear argumentative and seem like you're trying to either own the article or force your changes in through attrition. The article will not fall apart if it is not in someone's preferred state until the issues are worked out. Shell ^babelfish 17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't a user replace the adjective with another without removing the source and its content itself/ Don't you agree that would further dispute resolution?

I did it so I could jutify one edit at a time.

"work out your differences first" How???? We've tried the talk page for months. Str1977 won't agree to mediation. Except Str1977, those who responded to the RfC agreed for the inclusion of the Qurayze "chose" Sa'd, but Str1977 still hasn't agreed. How do you propose on wokring out the differences?Bless sins (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In regards to why an entire statement might be removed, I can't really guess what another editor might be thinking, I'm just mentioning the fact that there are times other editors will make drastic edits to text you write. Its hard to distance yourself from your own writing, so its natural to feel suspicious or even upset, but remember, the final goal here is to improve the article, so sometimes those tough edits are necessary.

I understand why you did each edit separately, but the idea is to justify it here and get agreement first, not continuing fighting over the article.

I see things working out right now. For instance, Str1977 is willing to include the idea that some scholars believe BQ chose or agreed to Sa'd. The reason I think you've been having problems with this is that your version omits the fact that some scholars don't believe that BQ chose or agreed to Sa'd -- both viewpoints need to be in the article.

I know this has been a very long and heated discussion, but it does look like things can be worked out and if we can settle down and discuss how to compromise, it may all be over soon. Shell ^babelfish 17:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

If I fix the "extreme adjective", which means removing the entire phrase which basically only adds the extreme vocabulary, I am charged with "removing a source". You cannot simply justify this by pointing to Ramadan or Watts - you always have to ask that question: what does this add to the article.

"Secondly, I went a significant way to compromise with Str1977 by making my edits one by one, explaining each of them." - Actually this is what I did without getting a response from you.

"Most importantly, I entirely dropped the "Torah" issue, despite having 5 scholarly sources (Stillman, Ramadan, Nomani, Peterson and Farah)." - Only recently.

"I also accepted Str1977's wordings in the lead" - How so? You actually didn't.

"I dropped my previous insistence to present Ramadan's view fairly." Why? I never demanded that he shouldn't be treated fairly. I only insist that extreme language used by him shouldn't be used here if it contains no informational value.

But let me tell you a real reason: I cannot use your version for any edits because they are riddled with errors regarding form (see the section below).

Brian's edit I did not simply keep. I heavily modified him. I did not keep the "savage acts" passage - hence I treated Brian's scholars exactly as I did treat Ramadan. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While Watt

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

Further explanation

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I explained above, Str1977 is removing the views of 11 different scholars in his/her revisions. We can't hope to achieve neutrality by suppressing the views of 11 scholars when NPOV requires us to present "all significant views".

The references should be in conformity with wiki standards, here is an example: Wikipedia:CITE#Shortened_notes.

It is you Str1977 that doesn't have patience. You are constantly blanket reverting me, removing upwards of 15% of the article.Bless sins (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, this is getting silly. Str1977 is not "removing the views" of 11 different scholars. You and he have a difference of opinion on how that section should be worded. In addition, your text has numerous problems with it functionally which Str1977 outlined above. Please stop reverting to a broken format and work with those people who disagree with you to come up with a compromise before editing the article again. Shell ^babelfish 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of content

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

• Practically all of Medina's inhabitants opposed the 10,000 strong Confederate army besieging the city, except the Banu Qurayza.
  • Sourced to W. Montgomery Watt.
• ...came on the verge of attacking Muhammad in the rear - activities which were considered treasonable.
  • Sourced to W. Montgomery Watt.
• ...as a condition for attacking Muhammad.
  • Sourced to Tariq Ramadan, whom it is agreed is a reliable source. The auhtor is clear why the Qurayza demanded hostages, it was for a very specific reason.
• He did so, Nasr states in the Encyclopedia Britannica, after discovering that the Qurayza had been complicit with the enemy during the battle.
  • Sourced to Hossein Nasr in Britannica.
• according to Ramadan, they feared consequences of treason.
  • Sourced to Ramadan.
• According to Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore, Banu Qurayza agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing.
  • Str1977 simply replaces it with "Banu Qurayza unconditionally surrendered" without noticing a difference of opinion amongst scholars.
  • Sourced to Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore.
• both Muhammad and Qurayza appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a leading man among the Aws, as judge.
  • Sourced to Hashmi, Buchanan, Moore, Abu-Nimer, and Khadduri.
• Shibli Nomani explains that Muhammad's approval was due to Jewish law, as the Islamic prophet had adopted Jewish customs on numerous occasions (e.g. Jerusalem as Qibla, Jewish law of retribution as Qisas). Daniel C. Peterson, Tariq Ramadan, and Caesar Farah all concur that the judgment was in accordance with the Book of Deuteronomy 20:10-14.
  • Sourced to Nomani, Peterson, Ramadan, and Farah.
• Western historians believe that Muhammad was at least informed of Sa'd's decision to kill the men of the Qurayza
  • Sourced to Nasr in Britannica.
• On previous occasions (including the Battle of the Trench), when Muhammad had spared the lives prisoners, he found them fighting against him and killing Muslims soon after. Tariq Ramadan argues that Muhammad's clemency, repeatedly betrayed, was seen as a sign of weakness and madness.
  • Str1977, while keeping most of it, removes the aprt that Muhammad's lenient treatment had been betrayed before. Ramadan, however, mentions it, and even seems to be emphasizing the point.
  • Sourced to Ramadan.
• Daniel C. Peterson argues that this is because the Nadir felt responsible for the fate of the Qurayza, since it was their chieftain, Huyayy ibn Akhtab, who persuaded the Qurayza to go against their covenant with Muhammad.
  • Str1977 replaces it with "the Nadir felt responsible for the Quarayza due to the role of their chieftain in the events", which severly misrepresents what the author is trying to say. everyone played a "role", yet to feel responsible, one's role had to be particularly negative.
  • Sourced to Peterson
• He cites for example Deut. 20:13-14 which enjoins Israelites to mete out a similar punishment on their enemies. He adds that the events can't be judged by modern day standards.
  • While he/she rewords, Str1977 completely removes the part about "for example Deut. 20:13-14 which enjoins Israelites to mete out a similar punishment on their enemies". In this Str1977 keeps the assertion that this was "Arab practice", but blocks out the assertion that also had roots in the Israelite tradition.
  • Sourced to Stillman.
• According to Barakat Ahmad's calculations, there still remained 24,000 to 28,000 Jews in Medina, after the demise of the Qurayza. Reuven Firestone agrees that Jews continued to live in Medina thereafter, but doesn't agree with Ahmad's figure.
  • Str1977 places it in the "notes" section. However, this is a major opinion and can't simply be moved down there.
  • Sourced to Firestone and Ahmad.

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

Its very difficult to deal with these as such a large chunk and so many different reasons. Would there be any objections to dealing with things one at a time? There's already discussion going on in several sections which sometimes overlap - I know I'm getting confused :) Shell ^babelfish 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)