Talk:Banu Qurayza/Archive 2

message: According to Muslim writings, there was no punishment in Qur'an at that time, which means that they chose a similar punishment in Torah. If Muslim accounts say this, why to completely nullify it using strong words like "in fact". Maybe non of them is right, but it important to write it down. Maybe Arabian Jews were following slightly different version of bible, which we don't have or they changed afterwards, or maybe it has nothing to do with treason at all, as the directive in Torah is regarding believers attacking someone else, I am not suggesting, I am just making assumptions. Hence, I believe that both views should be presented without pushing one more than the other. This is according to WP:NPOV. TruthSpreaderTalk 02:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage linked to does not say anything about the treatment of traitors, but about the treatment of a city that refused a peaceful settlement and was then conquered. Hence, any claim that it did is factually incorrect and hence must be reverted. Str1977 (smile back) 15:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treason 

message: I simply re-organized the information, if you think I've lost some crutial information, we can discuss. TruthSpreaderTalk 04:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The judgement - copyedit 

message: Al-Tabari is one of the main sources for early Islamic history, but no academics trust it to tell the whole truth all the time. There are too many demonstrable errors in it. For example, the al-Muqawqis who is said to have sent Maria the Copt to Muhammad is identified with Cyrus of the Caucasus, but he didn't take office in Egypt until years after the 627-628 date on which Tabari says Cyrus sent tribute to Muhammad. Examples could be multiplied. Citing Tabari doesn't prove anything. Zora 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Tabari 

message: I am going to review all the sources, that talk about using Torah in judgement of Banu Qurayza:
#Ghamidi: Ghamidi's contention is that Qur'an is saga of Muhammad. Hence, absence of prescription of this punishment for Banu Qurayza at that time gives him a good excuse to believe that the decree came from Torah as Ibn Ishaq's statement matches with a ruling in Torah (which talks about treatment of inhabitants of a city at a particular time and space). There is a mistake in his English translation, the original Urdu version doesn't give *treason* as the reason and I have pointed this mistake to the webmaster of the website with the translation.
#Mahdi Puya can be merged with Ghamidi's sentence. 
#John Esposito: His quoted comments are just after the persecution of Banu Qurayza, hence, these comments by Esposito are not *out of context*. His comments might not be related to the decree from Torah, but definitely related to the judgement of Banu Qurayza. Actually, he even goes onto giving the examples of Hebrew prophets who took arms with the permission of the God e.g. Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Samuel, Jehu, Saul, and David. Secondly, discarding a cruitial source from Oxford University Press will not be a good idea, especially when it talks in the context.
#Caesar E. Farah: She is Professor of History at University of Minnesota. She writes in "Islam: Beliefs and Observances" on page 52:
Angered by the betrayal of the Banu Qurayzah in the violation fo their oath, Muhammad submitted them to trial by the chief of the Aws whom they had requested to pass judgement upon them. Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, the chief, decreed all fighting men of the Banu Qurayza be put to death. This was in keeping with the Jewish law (Deuteronomy 20:12), which decreees the killing of every male in such situations, He was convinced that they would have meted out similar judgement on the Muslims had they and their allies triumphed instead. None but four would forsake Judaism for Islam as a price of survival.
Her profile can be read here.
* Even *if* the persecution was done according to laws in Torah, I believe that Banu Qurayza would not have accepted it as a punishment of Torah by the Lord. Hence, I believe that it is irrelevant that what is Jewish interpretation of this law, as the decree was *simply* promulgated by an old Jewish ally.
However, I believe that it is important to write that Ibn Ishaq doesn't explicitly state that the punishment was given from Torah. TruthSpreaderTalk 04:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lolz, I didn't know that! TruthSpreaderTalk 03:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and judgement 

message: The first thing is that giving an example of the interpretation of Torah does not prove that Jews of certain time and place also had that interpretation. Secondly, even *if* the punishment was given according to Torah, it was simply promulgated rather consulted with any of the Jewish tribes, hence, I find it useless and also Original research to say that Torah was *always* interpreted this way. TruthSpreaderTalk 14:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simply your original research that the Jews at that time and place may have interpreted the Torah differently. The interpretation given in the article is a standard one, and it's referenced to standard sources on the Jewish law. Beit Or 20:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Original research is to introduce a "standard interpretation". If it is really that standard, i am sure you will find some scholar that refutes or disagrees with the multiple scholars who have cited the Torah. Just bringing it up yourself is the very definition of OR. --Striver 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Multiple scholars" apparently stands for the two modern Muslim scholars, who are, of course, uniquely qualified to interpret the Torah. You've apparently failed to notice that the current interpretation is referenced to a tractate from the Talmud and to Maimonides: it's difficult to find more widely accepted references on the interpretation of the Torah as these two. Beit Or 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note again that the "scholars" cited themselves cite to no source for their assertion of what is or is not Jewish law beyond quoting verbatim a couple of cherrypicked lines from Deuteronomy. Farah's allegation that Sa'd judged based on what he thought the Banu Qurayza would have themselves done is ludicrous and is Farah's opinion; it is perhaps the most unscholarly of all the many dubious assertions made by him in his tome. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish interpretation of the Torah 

message: Beit or, i applaud you for inserting new material, but i wished you had not deleted other material in the procces. At the same time, your edits have unbalanced the article by inserting one point of view and removing the other. Please correct this, so that others do not feel that you are doing this on purpose. --Striver 17:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article happen to be on their server, but they are not the source. Did you read the article? --Striver 22:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beit or

message: What's up with the pov section names, "Muhammad against Meccans and Jews" being the most glaring one? --Striver 03:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be Muhammads Friendship with Meccans and Jews.Opiner 07:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be a proper section title, the one I chose is definitely open for improvement. However, "battles and expulsions" is quite vague and the format with the year preceding this is ugly (and inaccurate, not all this happened in one year). Str1977 (smile back) 09:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And always remember: this article is about the BQ so that whole narrative, the structure and the headers should be denoting how this is important to the history of the BQ. Str1977 (smile back) 11:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV section names

message: Aminz, are you trying to be disruptive? Before you add something could please have a look whether it is alreay included somewhere? Or is that too much to ask for. The Watt view you included in early history is almost verbatim already mentioned in the section "arrival of pagan tribes", where it belongs chronologically. Please, be more careful. Str1977 (smile back) 17:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reading before editing

message: I want to achieve uniformity in the citation of Encyclopedia articles. How should the references look like? Str1977 (smile back) 17:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedia articles

message: Does Caesar E. Farah say that the judgment was based on Deuteronomy 20:10-18? or just consistent with the semitic practice? --Aminz 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He says explicitly! Please see Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Sources_and_judgement. --TruthSpreaderTalk 18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In keeping with," though stronger than "consistent with," is not yet equivalent to "based upon."Proabivouac 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torah Judgment 

message: Some one inserted the false claim that the BQ men were put on trial. They were not. A trial consists of prosecutors and defendants making their case, evidence and witnesses being considered and a verdict given by a judge. Nothing of this kind happened here. Muhammad accused the tribe, besieged them. After they had surrendered, some of the Aws pleaded for leniency and Sad was chosen arbitrator not between Muslims and Jews but between those pleading mercy and those bent on killing the Jews. And even if this had been a trial, a summary trial of an entire tribe can hardly be presented in such a way. Socrates tried to veto a summary trial of half a dozen generals and here we are expected to let it slide for 700 men (most of which had not decided on tribal politics)? GMAB Str1977 (smile back) 23:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A trial? It was more like giving a verdict, BQ's guilt never came into question. --Striver 01:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly my point: there was no trial. Str1977 (smile back) 08:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Put on trial

message: What is the story of this template? This template can be used when there are a lot of long quotes. Here we are summerizing the views of different scholars which wikipedia should do. --Aminz 02:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Proabivouac's insightful comment above. Not everything that can be referenced is relevant to the article. Thr quote farm tag was placed before a collection of quotes that add nothing informative to the article. Beit Or 08:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you think they add some information to the article, the please let us know what exactly information they are adding and why this information is important and relevant. Beit Or 12:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The comment is as meaningless as the quotes. Please explain how exactly each quote improves the article. Beit Or 12:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He can't explain it to you, you have already maid up you mind that anything that is negative about BQ is irrelevant to the article, no mater if it is scholarly opinions or not.--Striver - talk 13:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote Farm 

message: Moved from Briangotts's talk page
I think it is not proper to add personal editorial comments and criticisms of the works of scholars (e.g. ). Such comments could be found in the reviews of the works of scholars. So, please find reliable sources for them. Thanks,
--Aminz 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying "without any citation he says" implicitly means that he doesn't have any citation. How do we know he doesn't have any? How do you know that he hasn't omit it? And furthermore, such comments produces a negative bias with respect to the scholar. It is not our job to check citations, it is the job of the reviewers, if they feel it is necessary. --Aminz 05:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is such a contentious issue you would do well to quote the passage in Farah and shut his critics up. Str1977 (smile back) 09:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial comments 

message: It is very annoying when some editor repeteadly introduces nonsensical claims , like:
*The Aws asked M. to forgive the BQ ...
:Being expelled is hardly forgiveness. We are talking of allieviating the punishment, not forgiveness.
*...like he had forgiven the Nadir for the sake of Abdallah.
:Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa! Qunayqa!
:Abdallah interced for the Qunayqa!
Also annoying is the complete disregard for formatting issues. I outlined how to cite Encyclopedia articles in the section above, an in comes someone and adds that Britannica article under yet a different format. Grrr! 
Or complete disregard for the rules of English grammar:
"Those of the Aws who wanted leniency for Qurayza seems to have been regarded Qurayza unfaithful only to Muhammad and not to Aws" 
*"Those" > "seem" and not "seems"
*"have been regarded" denotes that the Aws were regarded as unfaithfull. Learn about the difference between active and passive. The wording above makes the next bit "Qurayza" out of place.
Str1977 (smile back) 09:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: "like he had forgiven the Nadir for the sake of Abdallah." As far as I remember the source puts it that way. So, it is not me but Watt. --Aminz 12:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Annoying

message: Do we really need this long and repetitive section on Hadith? It is getting tedious and is much worse than any other quotefarm. Str1977 (smile back) 09:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly we do not. We should briefly paraphrase and footnote them. I may do do at any moment.Proabivouac 09:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hadith look like Wikisource stuff. I suggest simply transwikiing them. Beit Or 09:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I also think that hadith literature is the root case of the quotefarm tendency. Str1977 (smile back) 09:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may also be the predictable result of second-language speakers empowered by cut-and-paste functionality. I don't know how to transwiki, so leave it to you.Proabivouac 09:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've transwikied it, but the Wikisource page requires considerable cleanup with regards to links. Beit Or 09:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hadith

message: Does anyone want to attempt a short, neutral summary of what is in dispute here? There is 100K of argument on this page, far bigger than the article itself. It is very hard for anyone but the parties to the dispute to tell what is going on, unless they want to give it an hour or two. - Jmabel | Talk 01:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, If you ask me, the people on the "other side" of the argument try to depict this as an unjustifiable slaughter of civilian Jews by removing or giving WP:OR explanations to key issues that might give an alternative portrayal of the events, while they presumably view me as somebody trying to justify a mini-holocaust. Sort of... --Striver - talk 01:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. One side, aware that massacres are commonly not seen in a positive light, are trying at the same time to justify the massacre and to dissociate Muhammad from this act. There also stylistic issues on how an article is to be written (see "quotefarm"). Str1977 (smile back) 17:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral summary? 

message: The accounts of the Banu Q, are shrouded in mystery according to the very sources provided in this article, quite simply not enough is known about them by any one source for a proper account to be transcribed. When we touch on any topics covered by Islamic historical scribes, there is going to be allot of debate. I propose the only thing we can do is cut back on as much information as possible simply presenting a well formed stub. When one looks at all the conflicting reports from all the diff sources quoted here, we can see they clearly not reliable in the simple meaning of the word. They are mostly contradictory and poorly chronologised. The accounts depicted in the sources provided here, if anyone cares to read them, make no sense at all. I call for a rewrite by an expert we nominate. Such a person would be renown personality in academia. frummer 09:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have contradictory sources, then we present all sources and explain the contradictions, we don't through them all out as garbage. --Striver - talk 15:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For once I agree with Striver. There is no need to remove large chunks of information to create a pseudo-stub. On a moral note, we owe to those butchered in 627 to not gloss over there fate. Str1977 (smile back) 22:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: I cannot no longer see the point of the "totally disputed" tag. Several editors have put terrific work turning this article into something approaching a coherent and well-grounded historical narrative, free of the irrelevant quips and tendentious hedges by which it once was marred. What issue remains?Proabivouac 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to your edit summary, do you believe it is factually inaccurate because the quotes have been cleaned up? Do we aim to confuse readers with irrelevant material, so, like our frustrated visitor above, they might walk away without understanding what occurred? It is for good reason that there are no templates, "This article may not be cluttered with enough quotes," or "This article may be too clearly presented for an encyclopedia entry;" the "totally disputed" tag should not be deployed as their substitute.Proabivouac 02:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You must state what factual inaccuracies you're disputing if you want to keep the tag. Beit Or 07:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider it an act in bad faith to reinsert the "totally disputed" tag while removing the "quotefarm" tag (by reinserting the passage it referred to without the tag). I will reinsert the quotefarm tag. Turnaround is fair play, at least. Str1977 (smile back) 12:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:POINT|Pointless]] tag

message: Apart from a few stylistic tweaks
I had to implement some necessary corrections:
*It is very annyoing that some editors do not consider whether the same stuff has been said somewhere else, even some lines futher down or up or even with the same reference. Hence I had to merge the two statements about Sad's conflicting allegiances. I also removed the hagiographic "far-sighted". 
*I moved the bit about the "disquieting results" up, to its proper chronological place.
*Once again I removed the inaccurate and apologetic Esposito bit.
*I reinstated the full discussion of the "according to Jewish law" issue. I retained the bit about the command not practised after David, despite certain misgivings: the last time I know of this command being demanded was by the prophet and judge Samuel - in conflict with King Saul. Note this is no matter of time but a question of who the enemy is: Samuel demanded it in case of the Amalekites but in the case of other peoples. 
Str1977 (smile back) 12:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "far-sighted" is too lauding a term to be squared with NPOV. Actually, Sad had his eyes set on two things: his afterlife and his revenge. The conflict you, Aminz, are talking about is not a necessarily existing conflict. Sad could have well stayed loyal to Islam and his tribe's alliance. Abdallah ibn Ubay managed to do that. However, Sad could not square his vengeanc with his tribes's loyalty. Str1977 (smile back) 13:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I used this expression, didn't I? Str1977 (smile back) 13:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, which expression? --Aminz 13:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "consider above all doing his duty to God and the Islamic community" or similar words. "former" alliances BTW is POV. Just because M. and some Muslims think their new religion somehow dispenses them from earlier bonds of family, friendship and alliances doesn't mean that these bonds were factually dissolved. If the non-Muslims of Mecca (be it Abu Jahal or Abu Talib) had thought this way the son of Abdallah wouldn't have made it very far. Str1977 (smile back) 13:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not re-add this stuff on "disquieting" results. "Disquieting" is by definition POV; in this case, it's Muhammad's POV. Furthermore, Watt refers to a minor episode in which Muhammad sent a representative to enquire whether the Qurayza had negotiated with the Meccans. If they had indeed negotiated, the representative was supposed to give Muhammad a secret sign. These are irrelevant minutiae; ibn Ishaq's account of the negotiations is already discussed at length. Also, please refrain from re-adding these "opinions of scholars". Essentially, they just rehash the same story of negotiations as told by ibn Ishaq and have no encyclopedic value. Beit Or 13:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article yet does not explain how negotiations of Qurayza made Muhammad anxious and how important that was to him. That quote explains it well. --Aminz 13:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It explains nothing, actually; only states what we already know. Beit Or 13:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it does makes the context clear. That Muhammad was in a critical position. Enemy armies were 10 times more than his. I think I should find a quote saying if they would have attacked, Muhammad's movement was in complete danger as I've seen it somewhere. --Aminz 13:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. Let's continue discussion about Farah on Muhammad's talk page. --Aminz 13:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay we can continue now that I reverted your bad faith edit with the edit summary "for better I guess". How can you guess your version is better when someone (me) has already contradicted this and tried to include one piece of information from yours. But no, you have to have your version 100%. This is bad faith and a spirit of non-cooperation. Str1977 (smile back) 13:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Necessary corrections

message: Request unprotection when you work out some compromise wording. Tom Harrison Talk 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected