Talk:Banu Qurayza

message: It's unclear to me what is meant by the word "client" in the article.  I think the term needs to be introduced or explained.
sbump (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "client" 

message: This is the portion that needs revision;
"Early history
Extant sources provide no conclusive evidence whether the Banu Qurayza were ethnically Jewish or Arab converts to Judaism.[1] Just like the other Jews of Yathrib, the Qurayza claimed to be of Israelite descent[3] and observed the commandments of Judaism, but adopted many Arab customs and intermarried with Arabs.[1]" 
1)  There are customs in the middle east, common to all semitic peoples.  For example arranged marriages, and "equal tribal exchange;" that practice was done by the ancient Hebrews, the Ishmaelites, the Babylonians, the Sumerians basically, everyone who was semitic.  You can't adopt, something that is already part of your culture.  Although there were tribal differences, customs across all semitic groups were fundamentally the same.
2)  Even in pre-Islamic times, the Arabs were a fiercely proud people, and past the time of Jacob and his sons, Ishmaelites did not marry Hebrews.  The Arabs of pre-Islamic times were fiercely proud, and fierce sectarian, so intermarriage was highly unlikely.  Indeed, Arab sectarianism has in fact done a lot to damage the health of Misrahi Jews; because of heavy inbreeding, many Misrahi Jews suffer from genetic diseases, and often have them at even higher rates than ashkenazim.  In Israeli hospitals, the overwhelming majority of still births, tend to come from the misrahi community.  Misrahi babies tend to be stillborn, because they did not mix much with the Arabs, whose considerably larger numbers has let them get away with inbreeding for years.  Within the Arab genepool, the population was large enough, and varied enough, because they absorbed many semitic tribes, that suffering from the effects of inbreeding has been minimal.  Congenital birth defects are common in Saudi Arabia, but not nearly so common, as they are among Misrahi and to a certain extent, Sephardic Jews.  I say that Arab sectarianism has damaged the health of middle eastern Jews, because their refusal to let daughters or sons marry Jews, forced many to inbreed to survive and keep themselves alive as a separate tribal group.  The reason some misrahi Jews have lighter colored skin, has nothing to do with them having European blood but rather, it is albinism that results from heavy, unhealthy inbreeding.  To a certain extent, albinism due to inbreeding also occurs among the Arabs; some even have blonde hair.
3)  A healthy semitic person's skin color, ranges from light olive (roughly the same shade as a southern Italian, or a Cretan or Cypriot Greek), to dark, reddish olive (like with Egyptians).  An unhealthy semitic person, will have a skin color that looks "unnatural."  How can I put this another way?  Light skin, is natural and healthy, to people from northern Europe, but in the middle east, if someone does not have European, Northern Iranian, Kurdish or Armenian blood, then light skin IS NOT healthy, its a sign of heavy inbreeding.
One of the biggest health concerns of the Arabian peninsula outside wounds inflicted in war, are congenital birth defects; in Saudi Arabia, congenital birth disorders are by far the biggest headache faced by doctors there.  Also, for all its rapid population growth, many Arab families in the Arabian peninsula often have women that give birth to babies that are stillborn, that is babies born dead, because of some genetic defect caused by inbreeding.  Year by year, in virtually all Arab countries, the number of stillbirths is steadily increasing.  At the current rates, semites, as a people, will likely become extinct within the next 1,000 years.
Once again the lighter skin seen in the middle east lately IS NOT healthy; a semitic person is supposed to be dark.
Its okay for ashkenazi Jews, because they have European blood in them, the semitic in them is only around 3 to 10%.  In other words lighter skin is normal for them; however its NOT normal for a semitic person with little to no European admixture.
Please look more deeply into Arab sectarianism, and revise the article if you so wish it.
67.148.120.72 (talk)stardingo747  —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Revise 

message: The use of the word "demise" in the heading came after a lengthy discussion and mediation (Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Banu Qurayza). The mediator summarized it as "Everyone agrees to using Demise in the heading". The word was a compromise between "massacre" and "execution" (both of which were objected to by various parties).Bless sins (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That was three years ago, and it appears the mediation was terminated without resolution. In any event, you've reworded it so neither word is used, haven't you? Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The mediation didn't find resolution on several issues, but there was an agreement between Str1977 and I over the use of word demise. That's long-standing consensus.Bless sins (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The mediation was three years ago, and did not appear to discuss the use of the word in the lede. In any event, you've reworded it so neither word is used, haven't you? Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed to have discussed the words' general use in the article (except when part of a title). That consensus, though 3 years ago, hasn't been discussed or challenged since. Also, I don't see either of the words being used.Bless sins (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demise 

message: Why is "(sm.)" included after every mention of the name Muhammad?  This is an encyclopedia, not a religious text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.75.240 (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Only occurrence of (sm) that I can see in this entry is "Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad (Sm.): A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah", which is a book title used as part of a reference. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see it everywhere the name Muhammad is mentioned.  Elchip (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, checked again and it appeared in a few places, but not consistently. Also, it looks like the citation I mentioned above is incorrect as the actual book title doesn't use that mark. I checked and that change was introduced in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=541310040&oldid=541072143, reverted now. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad with "(sm)" after 

message: And it's happening here: Talk:Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza#How_is_this_not_a_POV_fork_of_Banu_Qurayza.3F  Your thoughts are invited!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal to merge [[Invasion of Banu Qurayza]] back here is under discussion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Banu Qurayza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070520021754/http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/misc/qurayza.html to http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/misc/qurayza.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Summarizing" the views of many scholars does not equal misquoting those scholars. What you just called "summarizing" attempt in fact amounts to misrepresentation of those scholars' position. Consider your statement that "Watt argues that the treatment of Qurayza was regular Arab practice," which ignores Watt's very next comment: "but on a larger scale than usual." Surely, anyone can see what huge difference your exclusion of Watt's clause just mentioned entails. 
Ditto with your comment where your treatment of the scholars looks more like driving a herd of cattle: "Similar statements are made by Stillman, Paret, Lewis and Rodinson."
Rodinson, just to give ONE example, has a nuanced judgement on this inhuman incident. After examining the so called mitigating circumstances in his "Mohammed," Rodinson states "Details emerge even from these very texts which make it difficult to accept the Prophet's innocence (pp. 213). Likewise, in his "A Critical Survey..." (p. 77, note 142), Rodinson is critical of Paret's remark that this incident shouldn't be judged in light of our moral conceptions. Thus it is simply WRONG to bracket Rodinson's nuanced judgment in some allegedly "similar statements."
The scholarly way; -- rather the ONLY way; -- is to avoid such "summarizing" attempts altogether and quote the scholars verbatim. Let their views be quoted accurately and presented faithfully.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khasif746 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article doesn't summarize their positions accurately, that's certainly something we want to fix, but the policy-compliant way to fix it would still be to summarize their views, accurately. Short inline quotations are ok if they help to convey the point more efficiently than summarizing it in our own words. Quoting them all at length would lead to a WP:QUOTEFARM, and giving some views more prominence than others through long quotations would also be against WP:NPOV. If you have access to the sources and can provide quotations in the refs or links to online versions, I'd be glad to help summarize them per MOS:QUOTE. Eperoton (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: USER "Eperoton"'s deletion followed by comment @ 20:59, 16 September 2018 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: This article is not considered a good article because of it demonstrates a biased perspective with fundamental deficiencies, both factual and logical. Walid Arafat's groundbreaking 1976 JRAS article, convincingly demonstrates the mythological nature of the account of the massacre of the Qurayza tribe with a thorough exploration of the facts and fallacies, further exemplified by Muhammad Munir's 2016 paper in the Islamabad Law Review which rebuts M. J. Kister's 1986 attempt to dismiss Arafat's thesis. Past Wikipedia contributors, relying heavily and uncritically on orientalist, derivative or dubious accounts, have inexplicably overlooked both Arafat's and Munir's peer reviewed contributions to the literature in the process. In the first instance, almost everyone refers to Ibn Ishaq's biography of the Prophet which is known to be unreliable because of its fabrications - the Banu Qurayza account therein conflicting with the account given in Surah Ahzab in the Qur'an - and reason, besides being contradictory and imprecise. Compounding matters, the motives of the Prophet throughout the Wikipedia article concerned are consistently couched in negative or pejorative terms demonstrating an ideological bias against him and conflicting strongly with what would be fair and just in the case of someone confronted with the same or a similar situation.
This page therefore requires a significant rewrite to update its content - if not then maybe two pages on the same subject might be appropriate; thereby leaving in place the current page complete with major deficiencies as is, supplemented by a second page mainstreaming the mythological nature of the incident based on the findings of modern scholarship. 2A0C:5BC0:40:10E8:CAD9:D2FF:FE15:3A28 (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mythology of the Banu Qurayza incident 

message: the term massacred in the foreword is a mislabelling and unfactual, there was peace negotiations and the majority of the tribe fled to syria, as i tried to edit in, many afterwards seeked refuge with the prophet or even converted, only the men left behind in the fortresses were later killed according to Sa'd ibn Mu'aadhs judgement IyadQadi (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:RS, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWARRING. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massacred 

message: Please mention the pledge of Aqabah in the aws and khazraj section as it is essential to the history and it nonmention gives a distorted picture  IyadQadi (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pledge of Aqaba 

message: historic accounts dont mention that the qiblah was changed because of jews, Prophet prayed for the qiblah to change many months in mecca before the encounter, see 
please verify and change  IyadQadi (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of Qiblah 

message: I just read this page and I must say there is a significant mention of the names Stillman and Watt (like 50 times collectively). It's consistent throughout, whole paragraphs dedicated to what some non-muslims think and then some mention of what muslims say in 2-3 lines; with a caveat added if it's too vindicating, like this " Meir J. Kister has contradicted".This paragraph I find particularly reprehensible: "Tariq Ramadan argues that Muhammad deviated from his earlier, more lenient treatment of prisoners as this was seen "as sign of weakness if not madness", Peterson concurs that the Muslims wanted to deter future treachery by setting an example with severe punishment."It's just baseless speculation, with some name-calling added. Why are these contemporary secondary sources given so much  weight without even providing the underlying basis for their speculation? Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to WP:REPUTABLE that "" And here is what independent source means, according to WP:IIS "" Also, please see WP:YESBIAS that:  — Kaalakaa (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Neutrality 

message: These two authors, in addition to their arguments being WP:FRINGE and having been rejected and refuted by top-quality scholars,Watt, W. Montgomery, "Kurayza, Banu", Encyclopaedia of Islam (1986), Vol. 5 p. 436. are also clearly not independent sources, which is a requirement of our WP:SOURCE policy. W. N. Arafat's argument, in particular, is absolutely erroneous, assuming that all the reports of the massacre of the Banu Qurayza come only from Ibn Ishaq and thus attacking him vigorously. In fact, the two most respected hadith collections, Bukhari and Muslim, as well as Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi, also report the massacre . I am deleting the section that presents their arguments, as the inclusion is also clearly WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE.  — Kaalakaa (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In making this edit, you removed an in-use reference definition that I have replaced. I'm not sure I agree with your reasons for removing the reference, but either it should be removed completely and correctly (and appropriately replaced), or it should remain until some suitable fix is found. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing it and letting me know. I didn't realize that when I removed the passage, the ref was also used elsewhere in the article. And at the time, I was using the "edit source" instead of the visual editor, which usually automatically transfer the definition from a deleted ref into another ref with the same name.  — Kaalakaa (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  W. N. Arafat's and Barakat Ahmad's arguments