| Revision as of 17:47, 3 June 2005 editJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits →Reasons for fact dispute?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:40, 6 January 2025 edit undoDaminb (talk | contribs)97 editsm Fixed dash. |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}} |
|
== Totally POV == |
|
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
Sentences like "Muhammad's delight in their death" are very POV. Not to mention there is no mention here of the veracity of the sources considering most Hadith were written centuries after the events happened.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 22:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action1date=19th July 2007 |
|
:The sentence has been fixed. Shahih Bukhari is considered by most Muslims to be the most reliable collection of hadith. Any other issues? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 13:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action1link= |
|
|
|
|
|
|action1result=failed |
|
:: Bukhari sid that only the Warriors were killed, a number far less than 900. and . This entire article relies on Ishaq's story of events, a man who the 'imam of the imams' described as "reckless", indeed Malik referred to him as "a liar", "an impostor" and one "who transmits his stories from the Jews". Not the greatest of sources, you will agree... actually you won't agree, because it fits your agenda to assume otherwise. --]\<sup>]</sup> 15:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=145304083 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
:::Please read ]'s comments, and please avoid ]. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 17:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
|
|
|
|
|action2date=17th September 2007 |
|
] asked me to take a look at this, but it's a topic I know almost nothing about, so my only comments will be process-oriented. |
|
|
|
|action2link= |
|
|
|
|
|
|action2result=failed |
|
]: Your "actually you won't agree" is totally uncalled for, and approaches the level of an ''ad hominem'' attack. I see nothing that Jayjg has done on this article (or, really, any other article) that indicates bad faith. He and I are not particularly similar in our politics, but our subject-matter interests overlap, so I've found myself working with him on a number of articles. He's generally a pretty cooperative editor. Does he tend, when starting articles, to work from sources close to his own views? Yes. Sure. Almost all of us do: we almost all (except maybe ]!) spend more time reading authors we tend to agree with than those we don't. Has he occasionally been reluctant to accept certain citations by people he disagrees with? Yes, occasionally, though those have tended to be unusual citations, e.g. self-published eyewitness accounts, which I am more inclined to credit than he is, but where I can certainly see how they at least rub up against ]. |
|
|
|
|action2oldid=158425471 |
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|
There is no rule against editors having political views, and no rule against editors having political views different from one's own. There ''is'' a rule against bad-faith edits (but I see no evidence of that: if you think that is happening, you might want to raise the issue explicitly, and possibly start an RfC) and there ''is'' a rule against personal attacks (and, on that basis, I suggest you tone down your rhetoric). |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|
In any event, when multiple, conflicting, plausible, contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous sources exist for historical events, the conflicting versions should almost always both be mentioned in the article, each with an indication of its source. If there are arguments why one version should be considered more plausible than the other, that should typically be mentioned, too. The article need not—in this case, I suspect, cannot—present a single version of events as Truth, but it can truthfully present what the conflicting sources each say, and what factors might be reasonably weighed in evaluating those sources. (On the other hand, if there is real consensus among historians that one version is considered authoritative, or if it can be shown that only historians of a particular political affiliation hold with one of the views, that should be covered, as well.) -- ] | ] 17:00, May 31, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Low}} |
|
:Thanks for your comments, Jmabel. As a point of reference, I will simply point out that I have made exactly one edit to this page, which was to NPOV a sentence objected to above, and fix some minor format issues: ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 17:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=}} |
|
:: It's Not a Personal Attack, it's a simple statement based on fact. ] has his agenda to push, which he does frequently, and repeatedly refuses to accept sources that dispute this agenda. This is evident from a large amount of edits he has made. It's also evident that he has been stalking ] (Amoung Others), reverting his edits without care for their content. It's also evident that when he is outnumbered in regard to any edit he calls in ], ], etc. Why are these people, of all the thousands of wikipedian editors, asked for? The obvious answer is that they have the same agenda. At least ] is honest about it, his user page stating "''I am primarily here to represent the nationalist right wing in Israel''". |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:: Again, that was not a personal attack, it was a simple statement based on many previous examples. --]\<sup>]</sup> |
|
|
|
{{refideas|'']''. Ed. Pr. Dr. Marco Schöller, Leiden: Brill, 2003.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archive box| |
|
:::Please re-read the ] policy; you are engaging in personal attacks, even if you mistakenly believe your statements to be factual. Personal attacks are against policy; please use the Talk: pages for the purpose they are intended, which is to discuss article content, not attack other editors. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 21:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] <small>(May 2005–July 2006)</small> |
|
:::: ], why did you post what you did on the ] talk page if that is what you truely believe? --]\<sup>]</sup> 11:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] <small>(Aug 2006–Feb 2007)</small> |
|
:::::I don't see the relevance of your link, or why it would allow you to make personal attacks or use the Talk: pages for that purpose. Please desist from making them or misusing the Talk: pages. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 17:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] <small>(Feb–November 2007)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
* ] <small>(Sept 2007–Jan 2008)</small> |
|
== Arab? == |
|
|
|
* ] <small>(Oct 2007–April 2008)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
* ] <small>(April–June 2008)</small> |
|
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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 23:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] <small>(April–October 2008)</small> |
|
: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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 09:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] <small>(February 2009–December 2024)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
== Reasons for fact dispute? == |
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
Does anyone actually want to discuss the reasons for the <nowiki>{{totally disputed}}</nowiki> ? --]\<sup>]</sup> 10:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sure. I am up for it. But we have our hands full now. You list your objections and I'll see what I can do. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 11:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Right well, I didn't put the <nowiki>{{totally disputed}}</nowiki> there, ] did, so he might have some other reasons, But from my own knowledge... |
|
|
|
|
|
* ''Banu Qurayza was a Jewish tribe of ancient Arabia'' - Can you define Ancient, becuse I really don't think they were, also unsure about the Gramma' |
|
|
|
|
|
Ancient as in before Saudi Arabia. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I don't believe that qualifies as ancient --]\<sup>]</sup> |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
] 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* ''The tribe was wiped out during Muhammad's consolidation of power over the city of Medina'' - Thats simply incorrect, Ibn Ishaq, the primary source for this entire article, has several recorded dealings with members of the Banu (''Bani'') Qurayza, and that was over 150 years later. |
|
|
|
|
|
There is also the PBS source. It confirms it. ] 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: The PBS piece is sourceless, however the source for the used by this Article tat of Ibn Ishaq's "Life of Gods Messenger", or ''Sirat Rasul Allah'' is also the source I am using to debunk the Myth. Roughly 150 Years after the event, Ibn Ishaq is speaking with members of the Banu Qurayza (Bani Qurayzi). How is that possible if they had been wiped out a century earlier? --]\<sup>]</sup> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
* ''Believing Abu Sufyan would win, the tribe reluctently joined them'' - POV problem, their reluctance is Disputed, I'd rather it just said "''the tribe joined them''". |
|
|
|
|
|
But that wouldnt be correct. The tribe was stuck in a rut. They were forced |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The Banu Qurayza were hesitant to join the Meccan alliance, but when a substantial Meccan army arrived, they agreed." |
|
|
|
|
|
] 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: That does not say how reluctant they were when the armies of the Meccan's arrived, which is where the contention is, skillfully avoided by PBS, but presented in one sides POV in this article. --]\<sup>]</sup> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
* ''Following the battle, Muhammad turned on his reluctant allies among the Banu Qurayza'' - Similar POV problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
See above. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Ditto. Furthermore, they were former allies who had broken a treaty, and committed Treason. |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ''It had been rumored that the Qurayza were going to break the treaty and allow the Meccans to enter Medina through their part of the city's fordifications. '' - Not that I disagree, but Cite sources ? |
|
|
|
|
|
The sources are in the article below. Also supported by PBS article. ] 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: No there is not. It's nowhere. The PBS article is unsourced, and I don't know where 'Rumours' came from. Whats missing too is that the Banu Qurayza physically attacked members of Muhammads army to divert attention from the Front. --]\<sup>]</sup> |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ''Ibn Mu'adh was well-known as a man who hated Jews in general and the Banu Qurayza in particular.'' - POV problem again, you are relying on a Book written over 100 years after the death of the man, and a particularly dogy one at that. |
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have a better source that contravenes what is said? If not then we only have the information to work off that is given.] 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Well, firstly, where is the Source for that. The PBS article you seem to like so much states that he was an ally of thiers. --]\<sup>]</sup> |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* '' He ordered that the adult male population of the tribe, some 700-900 individuals, be beheaded. Ibn Ishaq describes the massacre as follows'' - Thats disputed, and is presented ina POV way, indeed the following quote, that of the Hadith of Bukhari tells a significantly different tale ''I give the judgment that their '''warriors''' should be killed and '''their''' children and women should be taken as prisoners''. Bukhari's version is much similar to that of other similar events during the reign of Muhammad, and Bukhari, as ] highlights, "''is considered by most Muslims to be the most reliable collection of hadith''". |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, but the PBS source, one that is favorable to the Muslim side of the story agrees. Add you r information here and maybe we can find a solution. |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I'm not conteding the PBS article, and I'm sure it was written in good Faith, but the Bukhari and Surat disagree, and clearly disagree, and as ] points out, Bukhari is the Most important source. This article while featuring both passages does not highlight that Bukhari's version is more authorative, that they were written over 100 years later, and that Bukhari tells a different tale. Bukhari's version of Events is the presents a story that is the same as other similar events, where as Ibn Ishaqs story presents a Horrific story of death and mass salughter, similar to stories from the Book of Joshua, out of step with the Majority of the Sirat and Hadiths. --]\<sup>]</sup> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Bukhari is considered to by Sunnis to be the most reliable source, which is not the same as the "most important" source. Shias consider it unreliable, by the way. In any event there are any number of sources on the event; the Sunan Abu-Dawud, for example, says that all males who had reached puberty were killed. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 17:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
: There is also the POV, anti-Islamic (]?) way it is presented, and perhaps ] has other issues too. --]\<sup>]</sup> 14:04, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it is an article written by one person, so it is up to us to make it conform to wiki standards. Thats why we need to work on it. |
|
|
] 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Indeed, But I'll wait for ] to Highlight his problems with it too. --]\<sup>]</sup> 11:37, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
How about you post the version you want '''in talk''' and together we can edit it and construct a version that fits wiki standards? |
|
|
|
|
|
] 23:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==More problems with the article == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article makes use of several contradictory sources and seems to only cite from sources certain passages that support the anti-Muslim pro-Banu Qurayza view. First, I think we need to mention the fact that these sources were written by single authors centuries after the event took place. The hadith of Bukhari may very well be respected among hadith-following Muslims, but its accuracy as a historical source needs to be mentioned. This is just one of the first things I see wrong with the article, I will add more later.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 00:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] brings up a good point. We are relying on two Sources both written Decades after the Event; Ishaq's Sirat which supports the massacre, and the Bukhari hadiths (I've counted six) which do not. Does any primary source exist? I mean, ] were not too far away at the time, do they have anything? --]\<sup>]</sup> 09:33, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Possible, Alternative, Version== |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Banu Qurayza''' (''Bani Quraiza'') were one of several tribes of Jews who lived in Yathrib (now known as ]) in the ]. Little is known about them except for what is mentioned in the ]ic works of ] (''Sirat Rasul Allah'') and ]'s collection of ]s. What is known is that they were involved in a conflict with the Muslims of the area following the ] and were subjected to a severe punishment by the victorious Muslims for thier actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
According to the Bukhari Hadiths, when ] took control of the city of ] two ]ish tribes, the Bani Quraiza and the Bani An-Nadir, refused to pay ] and took up arms against the new ruler, breaching an earlier Peace Treaty. Their rebellion was put down, and the Bani An-Nadir were exiled. The leaders of the Bani Quraiza however agreed to surrender and signed another peace treaty, and again agreed to the ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
In ] an army from ] led by ] attacked Medina. Sufiyan had approached the Bani Quraiza and requested an alliance against Medina. The Bani Quraiza refused this alliance, but when the Meccan army was combined they could see that it was huge and well organised and capable of defeating Muhammads Medinian army, and agreed to form an alliance, thus breaching their treaty with Muhammad for a second time. |
|
|
|
|
|
At the ], it is believed that the plan was that the Bani Quraiza would open their gates, thus allowing Muhammads army to be attacked at the rear. When the Meccan army was close enough members of the Bani Quraiza attacked some of the army of Medina in an attempt to divert some of them from their positions, away from the front, in lieu of the expected Meccan troops. However owing to the series of trenches dug by Muhammads army, the army from Mecca could not enter and the Bani Quraiza were left almost defenseless. |
|
|
|
|
|
One of the ]s of ] maintains the leader of the Meccan Army were actually refused entry into Medina by the Bani Quraiza. Several Bukhari Hadiths dispute this, saying that the Muslims were attacked and that they was an Alliance between the two groups. |
|
|
|
|
|
When the Meccan Army retreated Muhammad turned his armys attention to the Bani Quraiza and laid siege to their fortress, shortly thereafter (less than a month) the Quraiza surrendered unconditionally. Muhammad appointed Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh to become their judge. Sa'ad, now severly injured, had been a former ally of the Quraiza, and had encouraged them to accept the original Peace Treaty with Muhammad. Since then he had converted to Islam, and following the Quraiza's apparent treachery he had a bitter hatred of them. During the Muslim siege of the Quaraiza fortress he is quoted as reciting "''O Allah, seeing that you have appointed war between us and them grant me martyrdom and do not let me die until I have seen my desire upon the Bani Quraiza''". |
|
|
|
|
|
The Judgement ordered by Sa'ad is disputed. There are only two sources, that of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, the other being Several of Bukhari's Hadiths. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ibn Ishaqs series of events is the most respected internationally. His view of events is that all the Post-Pubescent Men of the Bani Quraiza were taken out, trenches were dug and the men were killed and buired there. A figure of 700 to 900 Men would have been killed in the biggest massacre of Muhammads reign. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Surat Rasul Allah says: |
|
|
<blockquote>'' Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off.''</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
The Bhukari Hadiths, usually considered by Muslims to be the most authentic source of the ''Sunnah'', or practices, of Muhammad says that Sa'ad's ruling was somewhat less severe, and that only the "Warriors" were killed. This would still be a high figure, altough only probably half of the figure give in Ibn Ishaqs chronicle. |
|
|
|
|
|
] Volume 4, number 280 (4.280) says; |
|
|
<blockquote>''When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah." )''</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
Bukhari hadiths 5.148, 5.447, 5.448 and 8.278 all give a similar series of events. |
|
|
|
|
|
Both Bukhari and Ibn Ishaq's recordings of events came over 150 years after the events have taken place, and so neither can be seen as a ], however, between them they are the only record of the Jewish tribe of Bani Quraiza. What happened to the entire tribe after that is not clear. If Ibn Ishaqs description is to be correct, then the tribe was essentailly wiped out, if Bukhari's version is true, then the tribe would have been expelled when, following that battle, Muhammad expelled all remaining Jews from Medina. While some women and Children were taken slaves it is known that some feld to Mecca. When Muhammad took over the Khaybar he married the Matriarch of the Bani Quraiza, ] daughter of Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the chief of Jewish tribe Banu Nadir. It is also known that at least some Tribesman survived, for Ibn Ishaq used Jewish members of the tribe as sources for the Surat Rasul Allah. |
|
|
|
|
|
===See Also=== |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
===References=== |
|
|
* The '''''Sahih Al-Bukhari''''' by ] |
|
|
* The '''''Surat Rasul Allah'''' by ]. |
|
