Talk:Banu Qurayza/Archive 1

message: The categorizing of them as Arab doesn't make sense.  If we go by the genealogical definition of Arab that was prevalent during those times, then they are descendants of Abraham.  If descendants of Abraham follow Judaism, that makes them Jews.Yuber(talk) 23:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If they were an Arab tribe that converted to Judaism, they'd be Arab, and it's not clear to me that the "genealogical definition of Arab" you refer to was prevalent in those times. Jayjg (talk) 09:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab? 

message: Please place well-sourced hadith related to this in Talk:Banu Qurayza/Relevant hadith. - Mustafaa 21:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've done something strange to the formatting, do you want to take care of that? Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I've added a dozen or so, but there are close to a dozen more from the Bukhari, did you want to add them? Jayjg (talk) 21:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I added all the Bukhari quotes; did I miss some? - Mustafaa 22:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: This is the full list: 001.008.367, 004.052.068, 004.052.280, 004.053.357, 005.057.066, 005.058.148, 005.059.362, 005.059.364, 005.059.443, 005.059.444, 005.059.445, 005.059.446, 005.059.447, 005.059.448, 005.059.449, 008.074.278. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant hadith

message: "Muhammad appointed Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh as their judge."  Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58 and Volume 8, Book 74 both state that Banu Qurayza "agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh". - Mustafaa 21:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you agree he died before he could judge them, right? Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Who was he, and who says he was appointed?  This part certainly isn't in the hadith. - Mustafaa 00:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aha - I bet someone misread "A former ally of the Banu Qurayza, an Arab chief named Sa'd ibn Muadh, now a Muslim, was chosen as judge. Sa'd, one of the few casualties of battle, would soon die of his wounds. If the earlier tribal relations had been in force, he would have certainly spared the Banu Qurayza. His fellow chiefs urged him to pardon these former allies, but he refused." Saad, of course, is the one who judged them. - Mustafaa 01:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: And both the PBS and Bismikaallahumma articles say that he was an old ally of the Banu Qurayza... - Mustafaa 02:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I would disagree.  The Article as it stands is less about the Banu Qurayza and more a POV attack on the Muslim community of Medina.  An example, following Muhammad's arrival in Medina and the Muslim takeover of the city, two other Jewish tribes, the Banu al-Nadir and the Banu Qaynuqah, were expelled from Medina. In order to avoid forced expulsion, the Banu Qurayza sheikh Ka'b ibn Asad signed a peace and defence treaty with the Muslim community. - That is only one sides POV.  why were these tribes expelled?  What about the Earlier breach of treaty, what about the Constitution of Medina, the  should stay till a consensus is reached. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:47, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I've rewritten this substantially; see what y'all think. - Mustafaa 20:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, why?  He is neither notable nor relevant. - Mustafaa 22:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  The quote essentially acknowledges the existence of W. N. Arafat's alternate view while highlighting its minoritarian status; if the alternate view is notable enough to be discussed here (I'm not sure it is), then it deserves more than just a dismissive summary by an opponent. - Mustafaa 23:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as it stands gives the impression that most Muslims do not believe the account of the Banu Qurayza, so it needs some balance; how are you determining al Umari's relevance and notability? Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "gives the impression that most Muslims do not believe the account of the Banu Qurayza"?  How?  I think that, if it's unbalanced at all, it's against those who don't believe the account. - Mustafaa 19:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  Conversely, I should add that most Muslims do not believe Ibn Ishaq.  He is, after all, the guy who reported the story of the "Satanic Verses". - Mustafaa 20:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, now it's a little better, as it describes what Muslims agree on and what they generally doubt.  I'm still not sure how you established al-Umari's relevance and notability. Jayjg (talk) 20:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems in current version

message: I copyedited the article to make it flow better. I removed one comment, re Saffiya bint Huyyay, as I couldn't find any confirmation that she had married into the Banu Qurayza, which seemed to be implied by the sentences I removed. All the material I found associated her with the Banu al-Nadir. 
If someone has a source that I missed, please supply it and we'll restore the deleted sentences. 
I added one bit, re Sa'd's desire for revenge upon the Banu Qurayza and whether or not Muhammad knew of it. IF the story re the desire for revenge  is true, and not just a later embroidery (or IF any of this is true), then either Muhammad know of Sa'd's changed sentiments, or he didn't. If he did, then it seems somewhat cold-hearted of Muhammad to let the Banu Qurayza choose Sa'd as a judge without telling them of Sa'd's change of heart. If Muhammad didn't know, then it could be argued that by letting the Banu Qurayza choose Sa'd, he was intending to show mercy. If Sa'd surprised him by choosing death, Muhammad could have thought that this was the will of God, thwarting his own intentions, and submitted. 
I just wanted to put the alternatives out there. I hope this doesn't revive the edit war, which seems mostly to have died down. Please note that I am trying to be fair, not to exculpate Muhammad. I find the whole story disgusting and distressing. 
It just struck me ... if the Saudi Arabian government were ever to allow archaeological investigations in Medina, we could dig up the marketplace, see if there were any trenches and bones, and count the bones. Not that I think it will ever be allowed. Hmmm. Zora 06:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Striver added a link to a website titled "The Jews asked for it", as a reference for a late-19th-century English bio of Muhammad. I deleted the reference as inflammatory, and the Muir quote as a secondary source. It doesn't prove anything. Zora 13:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I rewrote intro and introduced sections. I also removed the two hadith from the narrative, which was otherwise all Ibn Ishaq. I didn't think they added anything of note. The reference to Guillaume's version of Ibn Ishaq in English should be added, but I'll do it later, when I haven't been up all night. I think this version reads smoothly now. Hope it's NPOV. Zora 14:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: On Safiya bint Huyayy: her previous husbands were Kinana ibn al-Rabi'a, and prior to that Sallam ibn Mishkam, who had divorced her.  I found a site saying that the latter had been of Banu Qurayza, but apparently it was wrong - other sources agree that both were of Banu an-Nadir. - Mustafaa 20:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm checking, but it's going to take time, and I have RL errands to run today. Will do ASAP. Zora 00:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! - Mustafaa 00:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting, Saffiya bint Huyyay 

message: This edit gives no sources and blames the victims for the massacre. I know little about the topic, but I know enough about the world to make me skeptical when a narrative told from the victor's side (which this clearly is, since it refers to Muhammad as "the Holy Prophet" blames the victims. I am placing a "disputed" tag on this, and it will remain until this passage is either sourced, removed, or appropriately modified. Also NPOV for "…for all that happened the Jews were themselves to blame." -- Jmabel | Talk 19:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed: Blaming the victims 

message: Chaerani (did I get the spelling right) again inserted the theory that the Jews were just being treated according to "Jewish law". At least this time he gave a source, a Muslim scholar. 
I removed that from the body of the article (I think we should hew close to the sources, and not insert much later apologia) but I'm wondering if we might not add a further section to the article, in which the various Muslim theories and apologia are listed. Chaerani's work would be relevant there. 
If I remember correctly, the theories are:
* Ibn Ishaq is untrustworthy and the claims for massacre are dubious.
* The Jews were punished according to Jewish law.
* Muhammad can't be blamed, as the killing was ordered by another man.
Are there any others? Perhaps this would take some of the pressure off the article. Zora 21:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zora, where is your source that all Non-Muslim accedemics are united in their theory that the treaty was a post-incident creation ?--Irishpunktom\talk 23:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi zora! thanks for your response. firstly, i'm a she not a he ;> secondly, I'm OK if the apologetics perspective is removed from Ibn Ishaq's section, let's make that section focused on Ibn Ishaq's sources. However, I think a new separate section focusing and listing the muslim apologetics arguments should be inserted, so that the article presents their point of view too. My addenda can be put there. Moreover, I think it's also important to put on the fact that there is already precedent with regards of treatment of the other two jewish tribe in Medina, where those tribes are exiled rather than beheaded, which implies that Banu Qurayza's case is an isolated case (this does not mean i condone the treatment of Banu Qurayza, i am just trying to be NPOV). I suppose, as you too suggested, this would relief the pressure off the article. thanks! Meutia Chaerani 01:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim apologetics 

message: Irishpunktom, that's a good question. I leafed through the books that I have and find that all of them accept the Constitution as early, but only one author goes into the question of the exact date at any length, and that's Watt. He devotes seven pages in Muhammad at Medina to the document, and comes to the conclusion that all the PARTS of it are early, but that it is very likely a conglomeration of agreements drawn up at different times, starting before Badr and finishing after the Qurayza were killed. Watt also comments in other places that there were likely informal, unwritten treaties in place before anything was written down. He says we don't really know if the Qurayza had concluded an agreement with the Muslims before the massacre, what it might have included, and whether it was written or oral. 
I have the text of the Constitution, from Ibn Ishaq, and Ibn Ishaq doesn't say when the supposed treaty was concluded. It just comes early in the account of the time in Medina. 
Watt is writting in the 1950s and I'm sure that there must have been some discussion of the Constitution since then, but it would probably be found in journal articles, to which I don't have good access. 
This would probably make a good article. Which I would start right now. If Wikipedia weren't eating my life and time and driving me into bankruptcy. Zora 00:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitution of Medina 

message: The titles of several sections include the qualification "per Ibn Ishaq". I think the qualification is redundant; the whole story is per ibn Ishaq, which is already mentioned in the "Sources" section. Pecher Talk 15:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "per Ibn Ishaq"

message: *When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labour and shall work for you.If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle,lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.(Deuteronomy 20:10-16) (unsigned by User:203.170.71.58)
That quotation is from a section of the Torah that discusses the conduct of war in a specific time and place, namely the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. It has no relevance to any later period. No rabbi or Jewish scholar would claim that it is part of "Jewish Law" in a meaningful way (i.e. applicable today or in contexts outside of post-Exodus Canaan); therefore it is absurd to say that the Banu Qurayza were judged according to their own law. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiding reality

message: Regardin this: C'mon, whold anybody had cared for this tribe if they hadnt meet Muhammad? Honestly, how many 7th century Jewish tribe do you know in Yemen? Najr? --Striver 02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "obliterated historical reality"? So, than tell me the names of some Jewish Arabic tribes of the 7th century that ara NOT notable ONLY for interacting with Muhammad. My grammar sucks, no need to hide it, no need to attack it, instead, help me fix it. --Striver 02:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bulk of the article is about their interaction with Muhammad. The intro mentions this connection. There is no reason to remove the reference to their identity as a Jewish tribe of pre-Islamic Arabia, and substitute a link to an incredibly awkwardly-named article that would better be linked (if at all) in a "see also" section. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, if that is all, then ill link it in a smother way in the intro. --Striver 15:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert