"

Replacement

PLEASE DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS NOTE. THE WHOLE SUPRA-SECTION WILL DISAPPEAR AGAIN ONCE I AM ABLE TO POST ON THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE.

This includes you Shell. Had you not blocked me, I would have been able to place my answers there. This will disappear tomorrow so you can put with it until then.

Because Shell falsely blocked me, I cannot save my replies on a certain article talk page. Hence I will save the entire page (minus the archived sections) here.

 POV concerns 

Im surprised this article isn't being called anti-semetic, because it's has a *few* traces of Islamic perspectives in it. You know, as opposed to being a piece of Zionist propaganda being passed off as fair and balanced.

This entire article is full of baseless jewish propaganda. It is well documented the Banu Qurayza were executed for treason. That is what merited them the death penalty, that they commited treason. The Quarash and other tribes the Muslims fought against were outright enemies who were persecuting them from the start. But the Qurayza signed a peace treaty, then broke it by aiding the enemy. This article contains soo much jewish propaganda that you'd think they were executed for no reason (which no doubt is their aim). Here is a great example. Look at this citation

""According to Stillman, Muhammad chose Sa'd ibn Mua'dh so as not to pronounce the judgment himself after the precedents he had set with the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir: ""Sa`d took the hint and condemned the adult males to death and the hapless women and children to slavery."" Furthermore, Stillman infers from Abu Lubaba's gesture that Muhammad had decided the fate of the Qurayza even before their surrender.""

This author is Norman A Stillman, a Zionist Jew who is very biased. Why is he being used as a quote in an Islamic article? And further more, why is his baseless conjecture allowed to be used, as if it's a fact?

There are articles for ""Criticisms of Islam"" where the Jews and others can write whatever they want. But they should have no hand in editing Islamic articles. Because I looked up the Jewish articles and I noticed they dont allow dissent there. You cant put a Muslim perspective on evil acts commited by Jews, without it disappearing instantly. So the same standard MUST be applied to Islamic articles. Islamic articles must be written from the Islamic point of view, and the jews can write their responses in appropriate ""criticisms of Islam"" articles. If not, I will personally edit the Jewish articles and fill them with my conjectures about their history. And I will find a non-Jewish admin to arbitrate over the Islamic articles.

Good day.

  

Please read this talk page, specifically all of the places where ""treason"" or ""traitor"" is mentioned, and if you still believe that we need to mention treason, provide some reliable sources and we can discuss it.  It is easy for our article to be neutral and mention all POVs, but it does require that people like yourself participate.  We work from academic sources, not personal conjecture.   

Changes by Devotus and issues with them

Dear Devotus, 
I have still issues with your changes:
Bat Yeor and Ramadan - while I appreciate that you don't try you shift the balance - removing a book from ""each side"" - I do not agree with your removal. Bat Yeor is an academic scholar and though her books are controversial, she is not beyond the pale - currently she doesn't serve as a reference in the article but if she did, the controversy would be noted. As for Ramadan I have issues with him as well but if we remove him from the literature section, we would have to remove him from the article too, in which he serves as a reference. This is due to the insistence of User:Bless sins. He will certainly not like such a removal. We cannot remove him from the literature section while retaining him in the article.
While your first version was needlessly verbose (""it is to be noted that""), the new one endorses that view by Paret/Watt. The article now says that the BQ were not killed for religious reasons - that is not a fact, since there is a good case that the whole conflict was caused by religious differences.
Also we do not want to repeat things that have already been said in the coverage of the ""siege and demise"", e.g. the claim about attacking M. in the rear.
Also, please abide by the one resolved conflict. We fought hard and long about words like ""massacre"" and ""execution"" and neither should appear unless unavoidable.
The common practice thing is unacceptable as it is s