Talk:Safiyya bint Huyayy

message: According to this style guide, WP:Style#Article_titles, we should aviod having internal links in "the bold reiteration of the title in the article's lead sentence". 
Regarding the external link, I don't think it provide the readers with much information re Safiyya bint Huyayy, that is not already included in the article. So for now I've replaced it with two new external links, that I believe include more useful information than the previous one. -- Karl Meier 13:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External link and Wikistyle 

message: What is your problem peacher? Spell it out so we can solve it. --Striver 21:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FFS Pecher! Can you grow up? Talk so we can solve this! --Striver 22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what is original research peacher? Talk and do not revert blindly, revert wars are frowned upon. --Striver 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Striver, try to compare the article that you want to use as a ref, with the other three refs that is currently included. It's just not the quality we are looking for here. -- Karl Meier 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont agree. Even if the part did not have any references, then it would merit a fact tag, not deleting. Help me find a better source if you really want that, but do not remove what is obviously a Muslim view from the Muslim view section.--Striver 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe that the same material can be found in reliable sources, why don't you find such sources yourself? Other editors are not your research assistants. Pecher Talk 17:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert war

message: --Striver 01:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hadith

message: From previous comments source is defined as unreliable.
To quote sections of the article:
"Muhammad and his followers tortured Safiyya's husband so that he would give up the treasure of the Banu Nadir and killed him when he refused to do so. Safiyya was assigned to Dihya ibn Khalifa, but Muhammad, struck with her beauty, threw his mantle over her as a sign that he had chosen her for himself."
Seems strongly aimed against Muhammed صلى الله عليه وسلم
The article is at best far fetched and highly inappropriate. The text i quoted as well is also partially missing from the reference, sorry actually just written differently.
The reference itself is written in simple narrative with a lack of explanations expected from such a text, it seems more like a story than a biography.
Also in parts it references Muhammed صلى الله عليه وسلم wealth and large estate (perhaps indirectly) whichis in conflict with the prophets (believed to be) humble lifestyle.
I also have to comment on other islamic articles which are poorly referenced, based on the reference and hence wholly innacurate.
An example would be translation of some Qur'anic verses which are sometimes not even the same as the reference and/or the meaning is wholly innacurate which could have been remedied by the person actually having cross referenced an authentic Quran (yes books still exist) preferably in arabic or at least translated to a good standard.
I think it should be encouraged people check actual texts and not just "the all knowing internet" and on top of that verify the texts (something being published doesnt make it true).
::Please feel free to edit it appropiately to improve the article. All articles are always open to improvement, and this one seems to have generally been a neglected one.--Tigeroo 01:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think article should be deleted 

message: :There is disagreement over what happened with Safiyya, even over whether she was kept by Muhammad as a concubine or a wife. Some think that Muhammad married Safiyya as part of a deal to conclude a peace treaty.[9] Muslim scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali holds that Muhammad married the widowed Safiyya, who had supposedly already fallen into his hands as a captive, as a gesture of goodwill.[10]
It starts by stating " even over whether she was kept by Muhammad as a concubine or a wife" and the proceeds by citing two people who regarded her as a wive. Were does the dissagreement come in? The only thing i see is a dissagreement regarding the motive of the marriage. And again, concubinage is a non-existing term in Islam, the proper term is Ma malakat aymanukum. She was a Ma malakat aymanukum, there is no question about that, and then they married in a Nikah before having any "relations". Please use relevant terms, it makes article and discussion more accurate. --Striver 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. I brought that specific text from another article. Will correct. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: Now, FrummerThanThou has gone on to the MMA article and changed the definition to suite his argument. This is not the proper way to go around if your aim is to remain honest. I did not edit that article to suit my definition. The fact is, you only need to read Concubinage: "Concubines have limited rights of support as against the man, and their offspring are publicly acknowledged as the man's children, albeit of lower status than children born by the official wife or wives.". This is in stark contrast to MMA, since a MMA is entitled to support against the man, and their offspring is NOT acknowledged  of lower status than children born by the official wife or wives. Is FrummerThanThou going to edit that article to, in order to suit his argument? --Striver 03:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted his edit based on WP:V: the burden to provide a source to support a claim, is on the editor adding material to an article. FrummerThanThou needs to find a source in which Ma malakat aymanukum is described a concubinage. Note that I will abide by the one revert rule ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorted FrummerThanThou 06:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing definitions

message: This article suffers from a serious lack of non-western academic analysis. More specifically Muslim historical analysis and paints the speculations of western academic as undisputed facts instead of attributing them as the particular author's opinion on events. I give the benefit of doubt to the article that it is not intentionally POV but POV as a result of a systematic bias. Emotive assertions such as massacre have no place in an NPOV article.--Tigeroo 21:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Aside from that, I can't believe some users have a hard time understanding that Hekmat is not a reliable source. Even Jossi, who once said that Hekmat may be a reliable source, came to the conclusion long time ago that Hekmat isn't.Bless sins 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also please stop removing the reference from Stowassre that I aded. It's relevent and relaible.Bless sins 22:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalize

message: We have two assertions from Rodinson which have been the object of edit-warring. The first states that Muhammad took Safiyya into his bed the first night; the second argues that in doing so, Muhammad violated his own command to wait until the end of the first menstrual period. Obviously, the second of these is quite contentious, and I'm not certain how relevant it is: where/when was this command issued? If it's to remain, it must be attributed, as it is not merely a fact, but an argument. That aside, I am not aware of any controversy surrounding the first assertion; I'd thought this was the standard account from the primary sources. Am I mistaken?Proabivouac 19:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the argument? He stated one thing previously, then violated it himself. No argument. Rodinson is not making a point; if he were to say "Muhammad showed this tendency, here is the evidence" then that would be an argument. That is not what we're quoting here. Arrow740 20:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Rodinson is a scholar in Islamic law (the Shariah). And the Shariah is quite complicated. I'm sure there is an explanation for this, and that Rodinson isn't the only one to have noticed this behaviour. I'll try to look up some scholar who explains this.Bless sins 20:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rodinson material

message: Karl, you need to write something on the talk page regarding edits like this  , particularly if you'd revert-war over it. --Aminz 08:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karl Meier's edits 

message: Please provide the extract from Watt. Arrow740 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watt says: "After Khaybar Muḥammad also took as concubine Ṣafīyah, the daughter of one of the chiefs of the Jewish clan of an-Nadīr; on accepting Islam she seems to have become a full wife." we learn from Rodinson that intercourse was after her conversion. Muir (pp. 377-378) verifies that Muhammad married Safiyya after Kinana's execution and consummated it at Khaybar. ITAQALLAH 09:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rodinson does not state that the sex was after the conversion. He says that Muhammad was able to convince her to convert, but doesn't say when this happened. Arrow740 01:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rodinson is quite clear. he says (p. 254): "The men and women were taken in the first forts and kept as prisoners, among them a beautiful girl of seventeen named Safiyya, whom Muhammad took for himself after killing her husband for concealing the goods. He persuaded her to embrace Islam and, being violently attracted to her, took her into his bed that very night." - it is quite clear that he says the intercourse was on the night of the conversion, thereby occuring after it. ITAQALLAH 13:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "And" likely implies "then" here, so alright. Arrow740 21:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safiyya married the night she was widowed 

message: Explain this edit, itaqallah. How is a fact biased? Arrow740 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can hardly describe such POV/quote-mining, or use of such tendentious language, as 'facts'. ITAQALLAH 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a POV, it is a fact. How is the language tendentious? It is taken almost verbatim from the source, by the way. Arrow740 (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost verbatim doesn't mean neutral. In fact, it doesn't even mean accurate, as we saw with your handling of Rodinson. ITAQALLAH 02:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think my reading of Rodinson was right. Someone could consult the original. How is this language tendentious?Arrow740 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously asking me how "The torture and bloodshed had hardly ended when Muhammad sent Bilal to fetch Safiyya..." is tendentious language? It seems I'm not the only one who thinks this is not neutral. ITAQALLAH 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting ridiculous Arrow but aside that your source by your own standards is not reliable. The author is a sociologist (remember Asma Barlas and others). --Be happy!! (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the passage is not neutral and unnecessary, especially at the other page, which was meant to be a summary of the story. I wish both sides would quit inserting biased material for no other reason than they like the assertion or want to make a point that the other side does the same thing.--Cúchullain t/c 19:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Biased insertion" 

message: Arrow, please do not use the outdated Muir. 19th century scholarship of Islam is widely rejected as biased. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is widely recognized as reliable. Arrow740 (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrow, do you think I am kidding? --Be happy!! (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Muir is a qualified Islamicist. Besides, we're not relying on him. Do you think nothing he wrote can be used? Arrow740 (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe the quote is from a 1912 book, by the way. Arrow740 (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: William Muir is an Scottish 19th century scholar (1819- 1905). Among the 19th century orientalists, the German ones were comparatively less biased; Muir isn't even German. But that was 19th century. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Aminz, it's not simply Arrow's use of Muir that is the issue. The issue is his sifting through sources to find POV material to then insert on Wikipedia. In this case, Muir's personal view about Muhammad's motives here isn't warranted. ITAQALLAH 22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of that and thinking about a way to deal with this. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why are other personal views about Muhammad's motives warranted? Arrow740 (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which views are you talking about? The quote from Muir about Muhammad's motives is purely his own speculation. The "suspicion" cannot refer to Muhammad's contemporaries or a similar view held by other academics, unless other sources clearly corroborate upon it. It instead refers to Muir's own suspicions. As you know, earlier scholarship from ministers like Muir are known to adopt hostile attitudes no longer prevalent in academic thought. His book is a useful source for information, but the clear areas of POV skewing can be avoided, except of course when we are actually discussing the evolution in scholarly approach with regards to this area of study. The same goes for this "torture and bloodshed" language (which, as I read it, is also attributed to Muir). ITAQALLAH 22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maulana Muhammad Ali's POV is included. Why are you not objecting to that? Arrow740 (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he is sufficiently reliable, hence I have removed him. The information sourced to him is quite well known anyway, and there are already better sources being used in the article for the same points. ITAQALLAH 02:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Whether he is reliable or not is independent of whether he is called "Maulana". Whatever decision you come to, it should not be on the basis of his name.Bless sins (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. ITAQALLAH 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're talking about antiquated scholarship we might as well remove Nomani too. Muhammad Ali is clearly inappropriate as a source, so thank you for removing it, Itaqallah.--Cúchullain t/c 19:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't maintain that Muir is unreliable. I think we should be more cautious in representing older scholarship. Information-wise, Muir's biography of Muhammad is relatively close to most Muslim accounts. The last time I researched Nomani was a while back during Bless sins' RS/N query, but as far as I remember I think he is likely a reliable source as his works are discussed in scholarly literature and has been described as a historian. . ITAQALLAH 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that his works are nearly as old as Muir's, so if that's the grounds for exclusion, as Aminz thinks, Nomani would get cut too. I don't necessarily object to using either, though I object to using them to insert overly critical or apologetic material into these articles.--Cúchullain t/c 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nomani was debunked here. Being called a historian is not the same as getting a PhD. Arrow740 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nomani was not debunked, although Arrow certainly fantasizes he was. Historians are historians, and those who have obtain PhDs are reliable in their own regard. Secondly, Nomani was more than a doctor in his field, he was a professor.Bless sins (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At a partisan institution. Was the university accredited by any reputable body? Or was it simply founded to promote the goals of the Aligarh Movement? Arrow740 (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I present to you a body who accredited the institution, you will then say ask "who is the body considered reputable by"? This is getting ridiculous. If someone is from University of Florida, we don't ask "is the university good enough", we just accept it. I have never seen your type of arguments being made anywhere on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it particularly matters to this article now, since Nomani isn't being used to source anything that isn't already attributed to other reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/c 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arrow's using of 19th century scholarship of Islam 

message: It is misleading to state that "Huyayy and his son fought alongside the latter" since the tribe surrendered without a fight. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a siege which lasted for 25 days (hence there was fighting), and then there was surrender. ITAQALLAH 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Really? So what were they doing for 25 days prior to their surrender, if not resisting the Muslim siege? ITAQALLAH 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banu Qurayza 

message: Currently we have in the article a citation like this: "Ibn Hisham. Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (The Life of The Prophet). English translation in Guillaume (1955), pp. 145–146"
Ibn Hisham is not a reliable source. Guillame (a scholar) is merely translating the material not endorsing it. Now we can't include material in the article simply because it appears in Ibn Hisham, because:
*If we did, this article would be extremely long. Besides wikipedia is only to include notable material.
*The author is hardly an undisputed source.
Instead something like this ("Ibn Hisham Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (The Life of The Prophet), translated in Stillman, Norman (1979). The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. . , pp.145–146 ") looks much mroe acceptable, because:
*it shows that the particular passage is considered notable by Stillman.
*Stillman is a reliable source.
Bless sins (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see the issue here, but if there is one, go ahead and fix it.--Cúchullain t/c 22:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm trying to say is that anything that is sourced only to Ibn Hisham is not appropriate and should be removed, unless sourced to a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why it wouldn't be appropriate. We already qualify the sentence with "Ibn Hisham writes..." The only thing that should be changed is sourcing it directly to Guillame's book, but that's just a matter of formatting.--Cúchullain t/c 03:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Becuase Ibn Hisham can't be considered reliable by WP:RS standards, no matter how historically significant.Bless sins (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ibn Hisham

message: Can anybody find a citation in addition to the mentioned one:
"Islam permitted taking women captive and violating their honor in order to justify Muhammad's marriage to Safiya, after killing her husband, her father, and her brother that same night. Can you imagine any woman on the face of this earth witnessing with her own eyes the killing of her husband, her father, and her brother, and accepting the religion of their killer on the spot, and sleeping with him?! Can the human mind possibly accept such a story?"
which talks more about the fact, that she was Jewish, and, therefore, why would the Arabs and even Muslims in general hate Jews, if one of their mothers (religious mothers) was a Jewish girl.
And also cite WHICH sentences in Qur'an give the details of Safiyya bint Huyayy life!? Is the primary document about the Qur'an? Or Hadits? I haven't read any of these, so I'm totally green and this article doesn't answer a single good question of mine...
Please improve this stub!
193.173.39.45 (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  On "Critical View" 

message: The phrase above is not accepted by everyone.
Please refer to the following article:
from NEW LIGHT ON THE STORY OF BANU QURAYZA AND THE JEWS OF MEDINA, By W. N. ARAFAT. From Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland,(1976), pp. 100-107:
"On examination, details of the story can he challenged. It can be demonstrated that the assertion that 600 or 800 or 9007 men of Banu Qurayza were put to death in cold blood can not be true; that it is a later invention; and that it has its source in Jewish traditions. Indeed the source of the details in earlier Jewish history can be pointed out with surprising accuracy. "...
"One authority, Ibn Hajar, however, denounces this story and the other related ones as "odd tales".9 A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik,10 the jurist, denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar"11 and "an impostor"12 just for transmitting such stories. "
 
9. Tahdhib al-tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 17, where the author uses the same words, without giving a reference, in his introduction on the veracity of Ibn Ishaq and the criteria he applied.
10. d. 179.
11. `Uyun al-athar, I, 12.
12. ibid, I, 16. Faro0485 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...together with all the men of the Banu Qurayza" 

message: I had to take out the following since it doesn't seem to cite any sources, and seems like an someone just added it for the sake of rebuttal.
However at the same time this points to the virtue of the Holy prophet Muhammed where he did not discriminate against her because her father and her first husband were among traitors to Medina. At the same time though her father and brother were traitors, Safiyyah herself became an ardent believer of Islam and loved the holy prophet and Islam. He infact followed it and showed it my marrying Saffiyya what he had stated as part of his last sermon, " A father should not be judged for the misdeeds of the son and the son should not be judged for the misdeeds of the father."
The question however remains open that if the exact same treatment was meted out to a Muslim woman and her people by a Non-Muslim religious/military leader, would it still be considered a virtue as explained above.
 Faro0485 (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal to criticism 

message: Recently few sections of article have been removed. These sections were based on Martin Lings' work, reason cited was that Lings is not a historian and was just a writer.
But same article quotes Wafa Sultan who is a psychatriat.
The difference seems to be is that Lings quotation were in support of Muslim view while Wafa's are against.
I think a discussion is needed over this issue.
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the difference is that I noticed one and didn't notice the other. Anything coming from an unreliable source should not be in an article. I have removed both. This is an article on a historical figure, not a collection of quotes from politcally-motivated modern non-scholars.--Cúchullain t/c 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanx, for your neutrality.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like we're getting there already! --Afghana [talk] 00:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

text: That solves the issue. Most things found in Lings can also be found in Watt and Nomani, the two most detailed biographies of Muhammad written by an academic source. Try to quote them, then, and not Lings.Bless sins (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lings was Keeper of Oriental Printed Books and Manuscripts  at the British Museum. this is a position  of distinction, and I would consider it equivalent in stature to almost any academic post in the UK or elsewhere. He has the appropriate training, a doctorate from SOAS. I assume  his work will show some signs of his religion, but so will any work on this subject. He did have some mystical predilections, which may need to be taken into account,  and I would not call his work out of field in shakespeare studies in which he had no higher academic training as of the same academic level.  But calling him a non-scholar is absurd. DGG (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lings would be more reliable than Sultan. I'm not sure what his qualifications are exactly, but a doctorate from SOAS certainly puts him in good stead. This is not to say of course that he is of similar standard to established academics. ITAQALLAH 22:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: This line in the article is contested by other scholars. What is not contested is that her brother, her father, and her husband met their demise by the muslims in one way or another. Faro0485 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "together with all the men of the Banu Qurayza" 

message: Shouldn't this whole article (and others like it) have a huge disclaimer? That all of this is what is understood about Safiyyah FROM AN ISLAMIC STANDPOINT? All the claims in this article are based on religious texts that are notoriously unreliable for knowledge of what actually happened, even if these people actually existed is kinda hard too prove. It is my understanding (from among others Tom Holland's book In the Shadow of the Sword) that the biographies of Muhammed were written at least a hundred years after the fact, that the hadith are unreliable as well because the supposed connections (person 1 hearing from person 2 that he heard the prophet say...) to the past are basically made up. Not that this means it's all just myth, made up. But that is just very hard to know what is myth and what acutally happened.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.93.38 (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity of all of this? 

message: I found Safiyya’s infobox was broken and I tried to fix it. I can not seem to find the problem. Id anyonr could help that’d be awesome, thanks in advance! Voltzz007 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Infobox 

message: @Xjs80 Please understand that on Wikipedia, we must base our content on independent sources, which is one of the WP:RS criteria. I quote,  This is why we cannot accept as a source research by followers of Aum Shinrikyo about their founder, just as we wouldn't consider oil company owners as reliable sources on global warming. Now, does the source you provided qualify as WP:IS? I believe it does not. Even worse, you're using it to cast doubt on material supported by many top quality reliable sources. This also constitutes a violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Also, by the way, in the source you provided, I couldn't find any mention of the story of the torture of Kenana, which occurred during Muhammad's invasion of Khaybar. The source mainly discusses the massacre of Banu Qurayza. These are two different events. However, to cast doubt on the massacre, the source vehemently attacks Ibn Ishaq, whom the author consider the sole source of the story. Since you also regard this incident as originating solely from Ibn Ishaq, you added your conclusion to this article that this story is also "disputed". But we cannot do that here, as it falls under a violation of WP:SYNTH. Moreover, your source is actually completely wrong in thinking that Ibn Ishaq is the only source for the massacre of Banu Qurayza. In reality, respected hadith scholars like An-Nasai , Abu Dawud , and even Bukhari  and Muslim  themselves also report the massacre.  — Kaalakaa (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not disputing the matter of the killing of the Qurazya or Banu Nadir tribes, the matter of dispute is with respect to the torture of Kenana and the Banu Nadir treasure which is recorded in Ibn Ishaq and in none of the respected hadith books you have listed. The majority of scholars discredit the historicity and accuracy of Ibn Ishaq's biography so stating this story as fact is disingenuous at best, thus the disclaimer and source I cited. Xjs80 (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you not aware that the source you're using to support your addition to the article actually discusses the massacre of Banu Qurayza and doesn't mention the torture of Kenana at all, which are two different events? Have you actually read thoroughly what I wrote above and understood my message?  — Kaalakaa (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusion of the source was to highlight the disputed historicity of Ibn Ishaq's biography, including the story of Kenana. As with most histories of early Islam, all of the sources are going to be Islamic in nature as there are no outside reporters. In this case our story is from Ibn Ishaq, the refutation is from another Muslim scholar, so how does WP:RS apply? WP:FRINGE doesn't apply as the majority opinion is that this event never happened, as evidenced by its exclusion from the hadith collections of Bukhari, Muslim, Nasai, Dawud. This is also disputed by one of the most respected scholars in Islamic history, Imam Malik , furthermore there has been significant contemporary scholarship stating the same; from Cheragh Ali "The whole truth in the story is that Kinana was put to death. But it was not for his refusal to give a clue to the hidden treasure", from Sulaiman Nadvi "Story of Kinana’s being subjected to exhortion and put to death for hiding some treasure, for which he had contravened his contact, is altogether a spurious one.", Ibn Taymiyyah says "most of their (early biographers) narrations are of the Maraseel (without reliable companions or successor) type, such as narrations reported ...Ibn Ishaq". The only Wikpidea rule that seems relevant here is WP:SYNTH, in which case I can include the above sources as caveats to the story of Kenana. Xjs80 (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Aum Shinrikyo scholars or followers can reject all the bad facts about their founder all they want and only accept the good ones, even if those good aspects are actually fictitious. However, here on Wikipedia, in writing about their founder, we don't categorize something as WP:FRINGE based on whether it contradicts their opinions, but rather because it departs significantly from the prevailing views of independent (secular) reliable sources that discuss him (i.e., the subject). WP:IS applies here, which is one of the criteria of WP:RS. The same is true for other religions, including Islam. Moreover, there is no reliable secondary source that states that this story of the killing of Kenana and the Banu Nadir treasure is reported only by Ibn Ishaq; in fact, Abu Dawud also reported it  , referring to Kenana as Ibn AbulHuqayq (his full name was Kenana ibn al-Rabi ibn Abu al-Huqayq). But, you made an addition to the article, based solely on your assumption, that suggests that the event only comes from Ibn Ishaq; this is WP:OR. Then you used a source (one that we actually can't accept because it doesn't satisfy WP:IS and WP:RS) discussing different events but attacking Ibn Ishaq, in order for you to insert the conclusion that this event is "disputed"; that's WP:SYNTH. — Kaalakaa (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  W. N. Arafat as a source 

message: Should it not be mentioned that it was her beauty that the prophet married her, because according to sahih bukhari it is. Also would it not make sense to marry because of her status because the jews of Khaibar were now subdued by the muslims? Her family were killed so her status is gone now.
Sahih al-Bukhari 2235
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet (ﷺ) came to Khaibar and when Allah made him victorious and he conquered the town by breaking the enemy's defense, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was mentioned to him and her husband had been killed while she was a bride. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) selected her for himself and he set out in her company till he reached Sadd-ar-Rawha' where her menses were over and he married her. Then Hais (a kind of meal) was prepared and served on a small leather sheet (used for serving meals). Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) then said to me, "Inform those who are around you (about the wedding banquet)." So that was the marriage banquet given by Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) for (his marriage with) Safiya. After that we proceeded to Medina and I saw that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was covering her with a cloak while she was behind him. Then he would sit beside his camel and let Safiya put her feet on his knees to ride (the camel). 81.100.240.135 (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safiyah status or beauty