Talk:Banu Qurayza

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Islam Unassessed

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA on hold — Notes left on talk page.

Stillman inference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is clear from the following setences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Or with whom"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA nomination on hold

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

{{subst:#if:|

{{{overcom}}}|}}

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
{{subst:#if:|{{{1com}}}|}}
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
{{subst:#if:|{{{2com}}}|}}
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
{{subst:#if:|{{{3com}}}|}}
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
{{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
{{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
{{subst:#if:|{{{6com}}}|}}
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
{{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General agreements - tribal customs

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

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

Here is the full quote.

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

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

Image caption

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

Archives