Replacement  PLEASE DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS NOTE THE WHOLE SUPRASECTION 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 isnt being called antisemetic because its 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 youd 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 Sad ibn Muadh so as not to pronounce the judgment himself after the precedents he had set with the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir Sad took the hint and condemned the adult males to death and the hapless women and children to slavery Furthermore Stillman infers from Abu Lubabas 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 its 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 nonJewish 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 dont 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 doesnt 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  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 ParetWatt 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 eg 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 simply not true Especially the Deuteronomy issue the inclusion of which is still controversial cannot serve as an example since the Deuteronomy refers at best to the time frame  BC to  BC Also the proceedings of Muhammad towards the Qurayza cannot be taken as model for the treatment of Jews under Islamic rule also cannot stand like this Why cant this be taken as a model And who made such a proposal This article is about the BQ not about the condition of Jews under Islamic rule throughout the centuries Since no one made such a claim we need not debunk it  On a stylistic level please do not mess up the footnotes we do not want to have several footnotes pointing to identical pages and notes saying  are useless anyway One more point No I have not read Kisters article If we mention it we should clearly point out the specific arguments Refute is POV IMHO even if I dont agree with Arafats claims      Dear Str The issue with Bat Yeor and Ramadan is not that important we can maybe discuss it another time For now it can stay the way it is By the way it doesnt matter to me which side such a source belongs to Its not the question wheter someone is proislamic or antiislamic its simply a matter of reliability If you have any recognized academic sources Paret and Watt have written basic works in this area for that claim then please refer to them Otherwise we cannot say something unless it is said by scholars in this area see WikipediaNooriginalresearch As far is I know today no recognized scholar in this area is of the opinion that the BQ have actually been executed because they were Jews Maybe I have overseen sth but there is no mention of the BQ nearly attacking Muhammad in his rear Actually the story of Kaab b Asad mentioning three possibilities for the BQ to act is not seen as authentic see Kisters already mentioned article p We should refer to academic sources rather then citing primary sources Well what shall I call it then Killing several hundred men is an execution They actually didnt kiss them to deathEvery single book I have ever read about this has called it an execution it is even mentioned in the title of the article of Kister But if you have an alternative then its no problem Watt Paret and several other scholars refer to the historical circumstances I am refering to Stillman Paret and Watt concerning this claim Stillman himself is mentioning Deut  as an example for this You wont certainly doubt the fact that the Bible is from ancient times which I refered to in general in accordance with Stillman If you have a similar source doubting the claims of Watt Stillman and Paret pls show me Otherwise please let it be as it is for you are not refering to any source I have mentioned a source for that claim EJ Brills first encyclopaedia of Islam  vol p article ahl alkitab by Ignaz Goldziher I hope you are aware of the fact that the Encyclopaedia of Islam is an authority in this matter In general it is a widely know fact that the Muslim conquerers normally did not execute all the male adult inhabitants of conquered territory no matter Jews Christians or of any other religion But as already mentioned above if you refer to any reliable source for your claims then please do Sorry about the footnotes Im new here Well Kisters article is pretty important in this matter and should be read Of course it takes time and especially place to describe how he refuted Arafats and Ahmads arguments Since according to you I should be brief and concise I will probably not be able to summarize an article of more than  pages Read the article then youll know what I am talking about  the article is clear enough That he has refuted their arguments is generally accepted since no one makes similar claims ever since      Devotus is correct in saying that reliability is a factor in removal not proIslam or antiIslam Ramadans book  has been published by the Oxford University Press and I have justified its reliability Bat Yeors may or may not have been published by a reliable source I have yet to see a justification for that Again I agree with Devotus We have sources endorsing a fact or at least what they assume to be fact and no sources contradicting that fact Banu Qurayzas actions during the siege of Medina should be mentioned there I agree with Str on this one However any actions that are relevant to their demise or Sads judgment deserve a mention in the Siege and demise section