Talk:Siege of Banu Qurayza

Neutrality

All the sources used in the article as of March 2011 are from muslim sources. if you dont think this is neutral, feel free to add non muslim sources with alternative views. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

on 15th april, I have also added a non muslim source, the life of mahomet, by sir william muir, but used it to backup the muslim sources i.e the the muslim version of this event. as of this day i have not added any alternative versions, an alternative non muslim version may be required for neutrality. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a POV content fork, as we already have an article, Banu Qurayza, that discuss the event in depth. I find it problematic that an article on the event is written with a lede that discusses in depth the disputes over the numbers killed but not mentioning whatsoever any of the perceived causes of the event, treason and violating the Constitution of Medina, and any of the arbitration (by Sa'd ibn Mua'dh) that happened after the capture. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

References are very selectively quoted to support a non-neutral view. 173.66.144.197 (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

1. muslim sources i used didnt mention anythign about violating the constituion of medina (this violation probably happened in the battle of the trench)

2. i have mentioned sa'd ibn Mua'dh made the decision that they should be beaheded, and what part he had. the non muslim source "Life of mahomet" mentions sa'd wanted revenge and cursed them. i did not add this and many many more information that may make the article even more controversial.

here are reliable muslim sources, text version of sealed nectar http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch4s10.html --Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Item 1 is not true. The reference of ibn Kathir [2] explicitly states: "Banu Qurayzah broke the covenant that existed between them and the messenger of Allah" you cannot leave out this information for a neutral discussion. 173.66.144.197 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

3. banu qurayza is a tribe, not a battle.and the invasion of banu qurayza needs a seperae article, muslim scholars identify it as 1 of 2 battles related to them. http://military.hawarey.org/military_english.htm

4. i named it invasion of banu qurayza, because this is what muslim sources name it --Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

---

: This sentence mus be deleted : According to Daniel C. Peterson and Martin Lings, this judgment was in accordance with the law of Moses as stated in Deuteronomy 20:10-14.[13][1

See here about Peterson , footer of p 567 note 251. And see here about Lings ( http://www.alfateh.gov.bh/pdffile/muhammad_martin_Lings.pdf ), footer of p 232 note 1

And No Sunni Hadith or Prophetic biography of Muhammad evokes Deuteronomy or any Jewish law. --Dare4 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Original research

This article is poorly sourced and full of original research. I've requested a quote as an example, and it did turn-out to be a false statement, here. I've tagged the article till it gets fixed. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You have the wrong diff. You mean the previous one [1]. I think your tagging before discussion is unhelpful, especially in view of the conflicts elsewhere, of which yuo are fully aware. This current tagging could be viewed as provocative. As to the substance, I think you are wrong: or at least, your example is wrong. You've tagged FV for but states that all male members were killed - but the ref isn't for that, it is for and 1 woman, which it does indeed support. We already have sources for after which all male members of the tribe who reached puberty were beheaded, and behaeding certainly implies death (I hope you will not consider that OR), so no additional source is required William M. Connolley (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I tend to agree with WMC: I'm not involved with this article, but the tagging seems provocative. One hopes this isn't part of a pattern. Doc Tropics 01:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

How s this article poorly sourced, almost all the refs are academic, and are also same as those used in Banu Qurayza ??--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

William, it's not a joke. I don't think that a person in your experience should be judging based on what's written in Wikipedia, and if you ever assumed good faith and listened to others, you wouldn't have to walk away from your previous accusations/investigations with me. I don't care if some other editor, some other place, have a dispute on some other thing. Shall Wikipedia STOP untill that dispute is done?
As a little response to others: If I'm making a trap, I would of massively edited the article (within policies) and got this article heated too. But unfortunately, my slow discussion by giving a simply tiny example led to removing a tag (which means that the remover certify what's in the tag is fixed).
To the point, it still is WP:OR to say that "The Sunni hadith...states that all male members were killed". The sentence you were referring to is not from hadith but a biography book, which is also mistakenly phrased, "all men", when the source didn't declare so. The source said they were going to behead warriors and then said they beheaded them, then stated that some ran away and some converted. Hmmm, does that seem I'm violating any policies by the tag???! It's just a tiny sample of many here. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

you wouldn't have to walk away from - what are you on about? I haven't got a clue what you're trying to say with that.

But as to the substance: please, in future, can you try to discuss this kind of stuff *first* on the talk page before tagging, which you know people are going to react badly to? Now you've actually articulated your objection clearly, we can perhaps resolve it. I agree that the ref for "The Sunni hadith...states that all male members were killed" isn't clearly valid at the moment. But, tagging the entire article for OR is a gross over-reaction. All you have is one unsourced statement. The correct reaction is to discuss it here, and (if you feel like it) tag the statement for . That is what WP:AGF, which you mentioned above, requires. M2: over to you I think: ref for the statement or (I think) remove the assertion that hadith says all the men were killed William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever... I highly suggest that you completely read what others say: I said sample, again, a tiny sample of OR. Do you want me to tag all suspected paragraphs first? The tag means that the article needs attention. In order to respect your view, I'll tag 5 OR sentences, randomly, which is more than enough to add the tag. Afterwards, I'll tag 5 NPOV violations, then add the article POV tags. If that's what you want?

I was planning to keep that tag and work on fixing the article slowly, but I guess I've gotta waste my time by tagging first (then work on the article). I'm OK with that, if it makes everyone happy. Believe me Williams, if it wasn't because of the silly accusations that I'm heating the article, I wouldn't keep the tag off and make a big list of violations here. All I'm here for is to avoid misleading the readers.

M2, don't forget the other OR sentence if you wanna fix it. I'll start to work on the article when I'm finished tagging, as requested. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, please don't go scattering tags; that, again would be pointlessly provocative. Just try to discuss the cases that you think are problematic here, on talk, first. And remember that an unref'd statement is not the same thing as OR. Oh, and User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/The_naming_of_cats William M. Connolley (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's nice to see your pic there, WMC :p. I'm sorry that I disagree with you, as an article is logically tagged when it has too many mistakes to inform readers of what's going on. I know the difference, but most issues are between OR and SYTH. I'm not here to tag the article and leave it, as the article got my attention on the DYK nomination. I'll see what I can do, whenever a get a bit-of-time. The only thing that irritates me is when someone backs-up someone else without reviewing the issue. So, just keep an eye open. Thanks and see you around... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I, in my turn, find it irritating when people tag an article based on asserting loads of problems, but only provide one very weak one, and then don't provide all the other problems when asked to. But there is no hurry William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation

The last name of one of the authors is listed differently at different places (Mubarakpuri vs Mubrakpuri). I belive the one missing the "a" is incorrect. Please update. Thanks184.69.220.66 (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

... in the lede is divinely inspired. That's the only way it can make sense. --91.10.32.194 (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly didn't get-it. Can you please clarify what you're suggesting and/or what you want changed? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP is pointing out that the article's original author was over-fond of commas  : ) Doc Tropics 15:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I removed some overzealous commas, broke up a run-on sentence that was threatening to riot, and even eliminated an unsuspecting semi-colon that was minding its own business. Did I miss anything? Doc Tropics 15:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy and poor editing

There are several inaccuracies in this article. I'll remove them gradually. If anyone disagrees please let me know.

Al-Waqidi

For example: the current version of the lead says "Stillman claims that al-Waqidi made up stories about a broken treaty to justify the attack on the Qurayza" and then sources two sources.

• The first source (Watt's entry at EOI) doesn't mention Stillman. Watt says that the sources of al-Waqidi may be suspected of bias. He never says Waqidi fabricated stories. In fact, in the next sentence Watt says "It is virtually certain, however, that Muḥammad had a general agreement with the Jews that they were not to support an enemy against him (al-Wāḳidī, 176)". In other words, Watt quotes from Waqidi - something that he wouldn't do if he believed Waqidi to be unreliable.
• The second source is by Stillman. He does call the treaty doubtful, but is quoting Ibn Hisham on this (see footnote 27), not al-Waqidi. In fact, Stillman, like Watt, uses al-Waqidi as a reliable source in the very next sentence!

Whoever wrote the lead did a very sloppy job and has clearly mixed up sources.Bless sins (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It is also important to note that the claim that the Qurayza supplied Muslims (footnote 28 in Stillman) also comes from Al-Waqidi. Either we say Al-Waqidi is unreliable every time we quote him, or we don't say it. I opt for not saying this, but we can if we want. We just have to be consistent.Bless sins (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Misconceptions2's POV edits

Misconceptions2 has removed the following cited content from the article, as part of an edit that he/she described as "general fixes, wording and info":

• "this ruling is also to be found in the Jewish Law (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)"
• "According to Daniel C. Peterson and Martin Lings, this judgment was in accordance with the law of Moses as stated in Deuteronomy 20:10-14."
• " though Watt believes the Qurayza had agreed not to assist Muhammad's enemies against him"
• "This stance is supported by medieval sources Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham and al-Waqidi. Both Watt and Stillman believe that no special agreement existed between Muhammad and Qurayza. Watt, however, does agree that the Qurayza had agreed not to support Muhammad's enemies against him."

I think the edit summary was deceptive, hence the revert. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

1." Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable" was sourced by me, but removed by BlessedSins here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza&diff=462951125&oldid=453584460

2. I fixed wording and used wording i beleived was better than this which changed some of my wording http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza&diff=462953656&oldid=462951125

3. this was removed by blessed sins even though it was referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza&diff=462955452&oldid=462953656

4. this was removed by blessed sins even though it was referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza&diff=462955773&oldid=462955452

Hence my edit. I have added back the referenced data he removed but kept the few lines of referenced data he added.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Aha, so your edit wasn't just "general fixes, wording and info" as you claimed. Why haven't you addressed any of Bless sins's concerns in the above section: Talk:Invasion of Banu Qurayza#Inaccuracy and poor editing. I have notified user Bless sins to follow up.

For now, I kept the statements on Al-Waqidi's reception until Bless sins reviews the changes. I have also restored content that you have not given any explanation for its removal. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

References

About Daniel C. Peterson and Martin Lings

This sentence must be deleted : "According to Daniel C. Peterson and Martin Lings, this judgment was in accordance with the law of Moses as stated in Deuteronomy 20:10-14" for these reasons :
- No Sunni Hadith or Prophetic biography of Muhammad evokes Deuteronomy or any law of Moses
- Peterson and Lings are not historians
- Peterson's books and Lings do not mention Deuteronomy or law of Moses
- in footnote page Lings gives his personal POV (Sa'd's judgement was no doubt directed mainly against their trechery...
- in footnote page Peterson cites the POV of the footer Lings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dare4 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reinstated it. They meet our criteria as reliable sources at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. They specifically mention Deuteronomy, I've just checked. It's their opinion so we attribute it to them - most sources here have a pov, that's not a problem. I've deleted " But no Sunni Hadith or Prophetic biography of Muhammad evokes Deuteronomy or any Jewish law." as it is a non sequitur - the sources do not claim that any Hadith or biography does this. There is no contradiction between making a judgment in accordance with Jewish law while at the same time not stating that it is following Jewish law. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

---

I'm totally disagree. I'm on vacation, I will answer next week. --Dare4 (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Hello,

You say that you have checked, but you don't show the links — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.172.235 (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Not only the information is not reliable, but it is false. You can not mention something that does not exist. Here is what Muhammad said: 3895. "...He (the Messenger of Allah) said, 'You have given the judgement of Allah regarding them (or he may have said,.'the judgement of the King.)" http://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhari29.html#maghazi 2878. He (the Messenger of Allah) said, 'You have given the judgement of the King regarding them.'" http://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhari23.html#jihad --Dare4 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Why should I show links? And as I said, they are simply saying that the judgement accorded with Jewish law. That has nothing to do with whether a Hadith or biography says anything about Jewish law. " These are reliable sources by our criteria and are attributed. No one is suggesting anyone stated at the time it was according to Deuteronomy. The article already has " Some sources claim that this sentence was derived from Jewish testimony and law. Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it fair as it was according to the Jew's own laws,". I've removed the claim about no Hadith or biography as unsourced - it's also irrelevant as no one claims they do. Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Why should we show links ? Because We need to show links showing verifiable information. I always give verifiable links to prove what I say. Sources claiming that this sentence was derived from Jewish testimony and law are false. You say that Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it fair as it was according to the Jew's own laws : this statement is false. In addition to the above sources, I give other sources. See Mufassir and historian Ibn Kathir, page 215 ( here). So Sa'd (MABPWH) said : "My judgment is that their fighters should be.. ... should be seized" The Messenger of Allah said: "You have judged according to the rulling of Allah from above the 7 heavens" There is no relationship between the judgment of Sa'd and Jewish law. Why not quote a Chinese or Russian law? The danger is that Lings gives a personal POV and therefore an apologetic information purpose to believe that the Jews were judged according to Jewish law, then necessarily fair. --Dare4 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't need links if you can access the sources in other ways. You may be able to search them but Google searches on books vary in their results from country to country. The sources don't actually say this was derived from Jewish testimony and law. Yes, Lings gives his opinion, which is why we need to attribute it. The fact that it is his opinion is irrelevant. He meets our criteria as a reliable source (if you want to challenge this go to WP:RSN. Lings' book, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources is famous and well respected, eg "In 1983, the book was selected as the best biography of the Prophet in English at the National Seerat Conference in Islamabad." It actually says "Sa'd's judgement was no doubt directed mainly against their treachery; but in fact it coincided exactly with Jewish law as regards the treatment of a besieged city, even if it were innocent of treachery:" (and mentions Deuteronomy) so I'll change the text to say coincided. Perhaps that will be clearer for you. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Yes it was very important that you replaced "was in. accordance" by "coincided" because there can be confusion between "in accordance" and "according to".
I personally do not need sources. The aim is that those who read us can verify.
You say that Lings' book, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources is famous and well respected, and the book was selected as the best biography of the Prophet in English at the National Seerat Conference in Islamabad. This is primarily concerns Muslims. Your links Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources says that the sources used by Lings are Ibn Ishaq. I did not read the book of Lings, but I read The sira of Ibn Ishaq who is the basic work on which base themselves generally the scholars and on which Lings based himself.
I also read another book which was also selected as the best biography of the Prophet in another National Muslim Seerat Conference: The Sealed Nectar ( by Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri) was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League, at the first Islamic Conference . [The sealed nectar]. But Mubarakpuri is a liar when he says that the Banu Qurayza betrayed and they broke the pact. When we read The sira of Ibn Ishaq, we found that there was no agreement between the Muslims and the banu Qorayza. The list of Jewish tribes affected by this agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_pledge_at_al-Aqabah) is available in The sira of Ibn Ishaq. And be selected by an Islamic conference can not be a reference. Lings is not sure of himself when he says: “even if it were innocent of treachery”. Either they are innocent or they are not. It is difficult to remain neutral for a Muslim as Lings or as Mubarakpuri. They are not historians, they are simple writers as there are thousands in the world

The article that concerns us (Invasion of Banu Qurayza) contains a number of lies:
- There has never been a treaty or alliance between the Banu Qurayza and the Muslims.
- Sa'd ibn Mua'dh has never been a former Jew
- Sa'd never consulted a Talmudic Law

---

There is no response the last 48 hours. Without reply in 2 or 3 days, I would remove the false sentences without evidence: - formed an alliance with the Muslim community - This community soon faced a siege - According to the treaty between them, - a former Jew - After consulting Talmudic Law - The Banu Qurayza reportedly signed a treaty with Muhammad - The Banu Qurayza were allied to Muhammmad

--Dare4 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The article does not say Sa'd consulted a Talmudic law - please stop claiming it does. You should not remove material that is reliably source according to our criteria, whether or not you believe it was wrong. You've also added "But nobody shows this agreement." - you need a source stating that explicitly. You can't just say you haven't read any source that mentions it. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

What ? You're not serious! The article does not say Sa'd consulted a Talmudic law ? ...The article says "After consulting Talmudic Law, he ruled that 'the men should be killed...' ". Who, after consulting Talmudic Law, ruled that the men should be killed? We are not in a reliability matter, but in a matter of whether or not. About the treaty : You can not say that something exists if you don't show it WP:VERIFY. I haven't say "I haven't read any sources...", I have say "nobody shows this agreement." In addition, The Banu Qorayza are not affected by such agreement, you can see the list of Jewish Tribes involved by this agreement in the Ibn Ishaq's Sira. The Banu Qorayza are not part of this list. --Dare4 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Pending response Dougweller, here is the list of the tribes involved in the [Medina Charter]. The list of this link is the same as the list of Ibn Ishaq.--Dare4(talk) 20:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Everyone can see that Dougweller is not serious and not rigorous. Our goal is to improve the quality of the articles and remain neutral. I will contact Wikipedia before validating my edits. --Dare4 (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I contacted wikipedia and they explained the procedure. First, other editors (those who read us) must give theirs opinions --Dare4 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The person contacted was me, via IRC. I suggested that in case of a dispute with only two participants wider community input may help; I'll add notes to a the relevant WikiProject talk pages. Huon (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Another possible way to get more input is to redirect and merge the page to Banu Qurayza, as there seems to be an emerging consensus below to do so, and then the disputed material can be discussed there, presumably drawing in editors who are working on that page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I admit I missed that bit of the lead about consulting Talmudic law and have removed it. You can't say "nobody shows this agreement." as that is original research, see WP:NOR. In any case I don't think you understand the meaning of the language used. You can always go to WP:RSN about these issues. The list of tribes is irrelevant so far as I can see, but perhaps you haven't explained your issue sufficiently. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to continue to discuss with you. You never present any argument, any evidence. Reread what you wrote: "see WP: NOR..., I do not think you understand the meaning ..., go to WP. RSN ..., You Have not Explained ..." And finally you lie: "The list of tribes is irrelevant ..." For the rest, I will not repeat what I said above.--Dare4 (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay alf laylah laylah wa for your proposal, but I feel that Misconceptions2 does not answers--Dare4 (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your moving my response - you aren't supposed to to that. And I certainly don't appreciate your calling me a liar - you didn't make any attempt to show its relevance. Why you respond with an insult rather than an explanation is puzzling. I'm trying to explain our policies and guidelines to you and you are ignoring them. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry for this insult. But I was also offended when you said that "I don't understand the meaning ... I haven't explained...". But you still not be honest in saying that I didn't make any attempt to show its relevance and I am ignoring our policies and guidelines. You have all my arguments above. This discussion is sterile.--Dare4 (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

How is this not a POV fork of Banu Qurayza?

I haven't looked at it in a huge amount of detail, but it seems a lot like most of the material at Banu Qurayza was brought over here and then spiced up with material from "Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Saifur (2005), The Sealed Nectar" and "Ibn Kathir, Saed Abdul-Rahman (2009), Tafsir Ibn Kathir Juz'21," neither of which seems particularly reliable for statements of fact. I see that the possibility of this being a POV fork was addressed up-page, but not discussed in detail. Is there any compelling reason I'm missing not to redirect this page to Banu Qurayza and merge anything of value over there so everyone could talk about everything in one place?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

For context, this issue was discussed at the talk page of that article in 2006, and possibly elsewhere: Talk:Banu_Qurayza/Archive_2#Split.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You invited my comments. I must state right away that I am not an expert in this area, but this is what springs to mind.

(1) I think it is rather harsh to state that Mubarakpuri and Ibn Kathir are "not reliable for statements of fact". I agree that they are biased and that this should be allowed for, but I doubt they deliberately fabricate anything. It is more a question of what they (especially Mubarakpuri) choose to omit.

(2) If you want to supplement their work with that of a scholar with a different bias, I suggest you search through the works of Kister.

(3) "Invasion of Banu Qurayza" falls under the category of "Muhammad's military campaigns". Some of these articles are, deservedly, only stubs, while others are longer. I agree that Wikipedia should also include information about the history of this tribe before its demise. I have no strong feelings about whether there should be two articles, carefully designed not to overlap, or only one, but I agree with those who don't want the same information in two different places.Petra MacDonald 20:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If this article is kept, then most of it should be rewritten, as I noticed that some sources are being misrepresented (e.g., Ibn Kathir uses "their fighters" not "all male members"). The same goes for Banu Qurayza. I also wouldn't consider William Muir's Life of Mahomat as reliable. Furthermore, traditions concerning this and other events in early Islam are often contradictory in their details. Thus it may not be feasible to present a single narrative here. For instance, other than the "all men/fighters" issue, some traditions seem to suggest that not all their men were killed: "but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam"[2]. A good article should try to accurately present these contradictions. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I would put Sir William Muir in the same category as Ibn Kathir. Muir is certainly biased. But he marshalled a huge body of information, arranged it coherently and drew conclusions that (when you control for his bias) were perfectly logical. There is absolutely no evidence that he fabricated anything, or even that he deliberately omitted information that he found personally inconvenient. Yes, he was writing 150 years ago, so of course his conclusions are out of date; in the same way, Ibn Kathir was writing 700 years ago, so of course his conclusions are out of date too. But both of them can be trusted for such basic information as "W did X at place Y on date Z."

You may well be correct about the need for a complete re-writing. Maybe we should begin with the facts presented in the early sources (Ibn Ishaq, Waqidi, Baladhuri, Bukhari, etc.), then afterwards graft on the opinions of later historians (Ibn Kathir, Muir, Watt, Lings, etc.). Regarding the "fighters", for example, I'd be interested to know whether Ibn Kathir was quoting an early source or just rewording it - or whether this is simply a paraphrase from a Wikipedia editor! Similarly, "all male members" sounds like a careless paraphrase rather than the exact words of a serious historian; I have never read any account of the executions, no matter how hostile, that denied that the male children were spared. I think Waqidi lists five adult males who were not killed: three who converted to Islam, one for whom a Muslim friend interceded, and one who simply crept past the guard and ran. By all means mention these. In my observation (O.R.), it was Muhammad's general policy to spare anyone who converted to Islam: when he killed "everyone", this means "everyone who did not convert". We would need to find a reliable source that made this point, but I don't think it would be difficult to locate one.Petra MacDonald 03:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't compared the main article with this one yet, just glanced at it, but User:Petra MacDonald I would like your opinion on the merits of both descriptions of this event. IF we are going to have a separate article, and I'm not convinced that's a good idea, they need to be synchronized. @Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: also. Dougweller (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear, I'm sure there are plenty of editors better qualified than I am on this topic!

Real Life demands that I not tackle a project of this scale at any time in the next ten days. If nobody else has responded to your call by that date, I shall take a look.Petra MacDonald 09:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For simple facts, there is almost always a better alternative to Muir, more up-to-date with regards to new fragments, and less biased, etc. In any case, this is a topic for WP:RSN. Concerning your other point, the phrase "their fighters" (muqātilatuhum) is not specific to Ibn Kathir; I checked Bukhari and found at least 4 traditions that use it (3 of which concern Banu Qurayza). See for one example [3]. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I was alerted to this by that pop-up which signals whenever one is mentioned. The article is a wiki disaster, which is unfortunate because it deserves close attention. It goes wrong from the title 'Invasion of', which is silly. Tribal warfare, clan violence and massacres like this are not a matter of 'invasions'. Even 'massacre' would be better, though the punishment exacted was normative for that world at the time. Everything like this in ancient history is a massacre or invasion, however, and nothing is served by such language. The more violent and conflictual the POV investments, the greater the need for meticulous coverage governed by austere factual language.

Secondly, the incident is widely analysed by modern scholarship and either primary sources or dated books should not be used, except exceptionally.

In terms of composition, it screws up regularly: there is no narrative design. The lead at times is more detailed than the body of the text. People didn't 'sign treaties' in that part of the world: bedouin and other Arabian tribal leaders, on agreement, did things like simultaneously holding each other's scrotums and swearing before witnesses to keep an oral agreement.etc.etc.etc.

It strikes me as a needless fork. Without sacrifice to details it could probably be rebuilt back into the Banu Qurayza article or the Battle of the Trench or both. Three articles on the same events are excessive. Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anyone actually saying 'this article must be kept'. Before actually rewriting, we need to decide what we are going to do. I think merge back. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree; merge back. The other article is in better shape and this is a natural subset of it, so it makes a more natural target.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Never seen this done before. I suppose out of page courtesy to the mother article one should adopt some technical merging protocols, such as finessing the report there with anything from this page worth keeping, that can be transferred because grounded in scholarly RS? Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My impression of how it usually goes is that if editors agree to merge page A to page B, they start by redirecting A to B and then whoever's up to it can take stuff out of the history of A and put it into B. But you're right, it does seem like it'd be courteous to notify editors there about this discussion, which I'll do now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I will participate later, I read Ibn Ishaq, Bukhari, Ibn Kathir, etc. in Arabic--Dare4 (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it's better to join the 2 articles in one. There are a lot of errors or facts not in evidence. It seems necessary to define in advance what are the reliable authors (historians or simply writers) and what are reliable sources (muslims sources, earliest sources, POV,...). About BQ (men or fighters) here are some hadiths : - http://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhari23.html#jihad : 2878 - http://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhari28.html#companions : 3593 - http://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhari29.html#maghazi : 3804 - 3895 - 3896 - http://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhari42.html : 5907 It's possible to download the sira of Ibn Ishaq (translated by A. GUILLAUME) [here] --Dare4 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the party, but I've now had time to read both articles, and here are my impressions.

1. Invasion of Banu Qurayza does not contain any significant material not already included in Banu Qurayza. Assuming two articles are wanted, this is not the way to go about writing either!
2. The original Banu Qurayza is better written. Invasion is full of repetitions, poor prose and typographical errors. Both, however, need to be cleaned up for composition, neutrality and grammar.
3. Neither article at present deals adequately with the issue of the alleged treaty between Muhammad and the Qurayza. There are lots and lots of confusing references to secondary historians but no coherence.
   1. According to the earliest sources, there were two or even three separate treaties. Much of the confusion over who broke which agreement arises from a failure to disambiguate which treaty is under discussion.
   2. I think it’s pretty certain that the Compact of Medina was no longer in force as late as 627. Our problem is that the early sources don’t bother to mention this directly because, if you have several hours to sit down with Ibn Ishaq or Waqidi and read it straight through, it’s obvious. We need to locate a viable citation that tells us something like: “The Compact of Medina was no longer in force. That is why Muhammad initiated new treaties with the Jews in 624 and 625.” If we don't find one, we nevertheless need to be very clear about which treaty we mean in this article.
   3. Further, Ibn Saad states that the 625 contract with the Qurayza was “weak and not binding”. What??? It was a “contract” yet it wasn’t “binding”? Possibly this is a problem with the English translation, so perhaps someone who reads Arabic could help us there. As it stands, I've no idea what Ibn Saad meant; but it may turn out to be quite significant. It seems to me that this mysterious contract is the same one described in Abu Dawood 19:2998, but that's only my impression, and I could be wrong.
4. In both accounts, the 25-day siege against the Qurayza is dismissed in a couple of sentences. This seems a rather cavalier treatment of a major section of the story! The early sources do give more details, and these should be included.
5. Obviously an article of this length cannot include everything. But it is important not to cherry-pick details according to one's bias. For example, it is mentioned that the Qurayza verbally insulted Muhammad but not that Muhammad also insulted the Qurayza. In fact the insults went in both directions - and this doesn't seem very important in the light of the fact that they were all setting out to kill one another! Similarly, there is a brief explanation for why Muhammad had previously fought the Banu Qaynuqa, and it makes him look stupid and tyrannical. But in fact the reason is a disputed matter. Arguments about the real reason why Muhammad besieged the Qaynuqa belong in the article about the Qaynuqa; disputed information like this doesn't deserve a mention in the Qurayza article.

In summary: my impression is that other editors want to merge the two articles, and I've no reason to oppose this.

I think the re-writing process could prove an excellent opportunity to tidy up some of the confusions, omissions and biases, and lay out the facts, as well as disputes about the facts, in an orderly and encyclopaedic fashion.Petra MacDonald 10:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be interesting to see the German and French versions. The original Banu Qurayza seems better written. It comprises 85 references (38 in the other). I haven't read Waqidi. You say “Ibn Saad states that the 625 contract with the Qurayza was “weak and not binding” … Could you give us a link. I can read Arabic I don’t see contract between Muhammad and Banu an-Nadir in Abu Dawood 19:2998 :...He told them: "I swear by Allah, you will have no peace from me until you conclude a treaty with me". But they refused to conclude a treaty with him... This hadeeth is interesting because it shows that al-Aws and al-Khazraj were idolaters meanwhile [Medina Charter] mentions : 30. To the Jews of Banu al-Aws … (as section 26). --Dare4 (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Sorry, no link, because the text is not available online. (Haq's translation is still under copyright.) I can quote you from the Tabaqat, volume 2, page 95 of Haq's translation. Amr ibn 'Asim informed us: Sulayman ibn al-Mughirah informed us on the authority of Humayd ibn Hilal; he said: There was a weak and not binding pact between the Prophet, may Allah bless him, and the Qurayzah. When al-Ahzab marched in (great) force, they (Qurayzah) violated the pact and helped the polytheists against the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. However, this tradition does not state in what manner the pact was violated.

I found his full name Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi and his book: The book of The Major Classes (Arabic: Kitab Tabaqat al-Kubra) Arabic: http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=696 . But it is impossible to find ths sentences about a treaty with the Banu Qurayza. I need the full title of the paragraph or chapter - and also the position of the sentences in the paragraph (beginning, middle or end) - and if possible the name of the paragraphs before and after. The paragraph about Banu Qurayza does not mention any treaty. From what I understand, Sa'd ibn Muhammad ibn Mani' is a disciple of Al-Waqidi.--Dare4 (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to return to you. The chapter is called The Ghazwah of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, on Banu Qurayza. It is actually the last paragraph in the chapter, though it is a long paragraph. Our target sentence is the first one (immediately after the isnad) in the relevant paragraph. The subsequent chapter is called Sariyyah of Muhammad ibn Maslamah against Al-Qurata, so if you reach this, you have gone too far.

Don't forget that you don't really know what you are looking for. Haq was not a native speaker of Arabic or of English. Since "a weak and not binding pact" is an odd concept, I wouldn't be surprised if the Arabic term turns out to mean something completely different.

However, if there was indeed something (anything!) odd about this pact, it could throw interesting light on the whole story.Petra MacDonald 04:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen your response; difficult to see the answers in this talk. I wil answer next week. I have two answers below --Dare4 (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I found the chapter "The Ghazwah of the Apostle of Allah, May Allah bless him, on Banu Qurayza." --Dare4 (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The author explains in a footnote that it is an oath (promise) without intention (without aim or goal) and not sure. Others meanings given by arabic dictionaries : low oath (promise), not rigorous, not clear.The word used is certainly dialect as is often the case in the hadiths or even in the Qur'an. --Dare4 (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Waqidi (Faizer's translation, p. 96) refers to Muhammad's 624 contract with the Nadir tribe. It is probably to this contract that Muhammad is referring in Baladhuri (p. 41 of Hitti's translation) since this doesn't sound like the language of the Compact of Medina. It is unclear whether or not the Qurayza were also included in this 624 agreement.

I found the contract that Muhammad is referring in Baladhuri(p. 41 of Hitti's translation) https://archive.org/details/originsofislamic00balarich , but it concerns Huyai ibn Akhtab who belongs to the tribe of Banu Nadir. --Dare4 (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

1. The Abu Dawood reference was supposed to be about a treaty with the Qurayza, not with the Nadir. I see that the English translation of Dawood 19:2998 does not mention the Qurayza, but I think this must be a typographical error. The hadith mentions that Muhammad besieged "the Quraysh" and extracted an agreement from them. Obviously he couldn't have attacked the Nadir in the morning, raced off to Mecca at lunch time, extracted a sword-point agreement from the Quraysh, then returned to Medina to resume attacking the Nadir before bedtime - all in a single day. Nor would there have been any point in doing so. I'm fairly sure that "Quraysh" is an error for "Qurayza". But obviously we'd like a much stronger source than this before we could definitively state that this is the same contract that bound the Qurayza to neutrality and that Kaab ibn Asad broke by negotiating with the Confederates. It seems there were treaties all over the place, and it's so frustrating that we don't know what most of them actually stipulated.

Yes, it's a translation error, In arabic it's written Banu Qurayza, but this translation error does not change anything for us. --Dare4 (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

1. As for the "Jews of the Banu Aws" - I think it's generally understood that there were a few Jewish converts from all the major tribes of Medina. That is why, even after the elimination of the Qaynuqa, Nadir and Qurayza tribes, there continued to be a few Jews living in the city well into the reign of Muaawiyah. But there is equally no question that the majority of the Aws and the Khazraj were polytheists until they converted to Islam. There is no way Medina was a "majority Jewish" city in 622. Petra MacDonald 22:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Can you give me links to the French and German versions that you mentioned? I can read French fairly well and German with more trouble. Are you referring to Wikipedia articles? Obviously we have no guarantee that our European friends have managed the matter any better than we have, but it won't hurt to compare versions.Petra MacDonald 22:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm very busy in this moment, I could not answer before several days. In french, there is a small article on Banu_Qurayza https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza but a great article on the Jewish tribes of Medina: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribus_musulmanes_et_juives_de_Yathrib The German version is better provided: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Quraiza --Dare4 (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The simple answer would seem to be that the subject of one article is an ancient Jewish tribe the subject of the other is an event in the history of that tribe. That would suggest that all of the detailed information on the event should be in the "Invasion" article, which should then be summarized in the main article. EastTN (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Invasion vs Massacre

Why is this page titled the "Invasion of Banu Qurayza" when it is about the massacre of the Banu Qurayza? I suggest retitling this page as the "Massacre of Banu Qurayza" as it's focus is the killing of the men of this tribe. It seems to have been titled this previously, but then changed without much discussion. YodaModa (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It does not fit the criteria of a massacre. Xtremedood (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It surely does, unless you want to whitewash the facts. --179.176.24.41 (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a Massacre

It does not fit the definition of a massacre, which is outlined as "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly." [4]

Does not matter if it does not fit the definition of a massacre, which i think it does. So long as reliable source call it a "Massacre" then the terminology can be used. And reliable sources do call it a massacre. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Martin Lings source does not say that. Reliable sources do not refer to it as that. Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Ali Sina, and the like are not reliable sources. Xtremedood (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Banu Qurayza.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

How the people were beheaded

This article doesn’t mention how the people were beheaded. Jdietr601 (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Page title

This page was recently boldly moved and the move reverted, so some discussion of the page title is probably warranted. At first glance, one obviously better title than the present would be Conquest of Banu Qurayza, since "Invasion" doesn't imply the job was finished, i.e. you can have an aborted invasion. A conquest implies completion and the treatment of the conquered in whatever manner decided upon by the conqueror, which is what we have here. More emotive titles about 'extermination' are not really appropriate or really reflective of the historical context. The Banu Qurayza were perceived as having reneged on a treaty, and honour was everything in Arab society. That many or all of the combat effective men in the tribe were killed after a perceived betrayal is not historically unusual in a medieval conquest setting ... in fact it is rather on the lighter side of the spectrum of medieval revenge-based violence perpetrated by the conquering side against perceived traitors. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you revert to my edit?

Not sure I if I'm allowed to revert back to my edits which expanded on the secular and overall alternate perspectives on this story. I had a mod say that I'd get banned if I revert pages. Said he was warning me so I appreciate the tip! I guess I just ask you guys to do it? Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)