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 can not save my replies on a certain article talk page Hence I will save the entire page minus the archived sections here POV concerns I m 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 do nt allow dissent there You ca nt 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 can not 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