Talk:Banu Qurayza/Archive 1

Totally POV
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.Yuber(talk) 22:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The sentence has been fixed. Shahih Bukhari is considered by most Muslims to be the most reliable collection of hadith.  Any other issues? Jayjg (talk)  13:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Bukhari sid that only the Warriors were killed, a number far less than 900. Read this and this.  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. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please read User:Jmabel's comments, and please avoid personal attacks. Jayjg (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

IZAK 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.

Irishpunktom: 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 Cberlet!) 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 Wikipedia's policy against original research.

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).

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&mdash;in this case, I suspect, cannot&mdash;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.) -- Jmabel | Talk 17:00, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * 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: Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's Not a Personal Attack, it's a simple statement based on fact. Jayjg 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 Yuber (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 Guy Montag, Humus sapiens, 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 Guy Montag 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. --Irishpunktom\talk


 * Please re-read the No personal attacks 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. Jayjg (talk)  21:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, why did you post what you did on the Al-Andalus talk page if that is what you truely believe? --Irishpunktom\talk 11:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 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. Jayjg (talk)  17:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arab?
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)
 * 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)

Reasons for fact dispute?
Does anyone actually want to discuss the reasons for the ? --Irishpunktom\talk 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.

Guy Montag 11:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Right well, I didn't put the there, Yuber 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 --Irishpunktom\talk

Guy Montag 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. Guy Montag 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? --Irishpunktom\talk


 * 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." 

Guy Montag 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. --Irishpunktom\talk


 * Following the battle, Muhammad turned on his reluctant allies among the Banu Qurayza - Similar POV problem.

See above.

Guy Montag 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. Guy Montag 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. --Irishpunktom\talk


 * 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.Guy Montag 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. --Irishpunktom\talk


 *  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 Jayjg highlights, "is considered by most [Sunni] 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.

Guy Montag


 * 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 Jayjg 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. --Irishpunktom\talk


 * Bukhari is considered to by Sunnis to be the most reliable source, which is not the same as it being 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. Jayjg (talk)  17:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, also Shahih Muslim confirms it was the adult males. Jayjg (talk)  18:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And of course, so does Shahia Bukhari itself: Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There is also the POV, anti-Islamic (Islamopobic?) way it is presented, and perhaps Yuber has other issues too. --Irishpunktom\talk 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. Guy Montag 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, But I'll wait for Yuber to Highlight his problems with it too. --Irishpunktom\talk 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?

Guy Montag 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.Yuber(talk) 00:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yuber 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, The Romans were not too far away at the time, do they have anything? --Irishpunktom\talk 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 Medina) in the 7th century. Little is known about them except for what is mentioned in the Islamic works of Ibn Ishaq (Sirat Rasul Allah) and Bukhari's collection of Hadiths. What is known is that they were involved in a conflict with the Muslims of the area following the Battle of the Trench and were subjected to a severe punishment by the victorious Muslims for thier actions.

According to the Bukhari Hadiths, when Muhammad took control of the city of Yathrib two Jewish tribes, the Bani Quraiza and the Bani An-Nadir, refused to pay jizyah 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 Constitution of Medina.

In 627 an army from Mecca led by Abu Sufiyan ibn Harb 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 Battle of the Trench, 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 Hadiths of Musnad Ahmad 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: " 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."

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.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, number 280 (4.280) says; "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.' )"

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 Primary source, 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, Safiyya bint Huyayy 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.

Comments on version
To begin with, it is filled with original research and POV. As well, it is simply inaccurate; there are many sources on the Banu Qurayza, not simply Shahih al-Bukhari and Surat Rasul Allah. This would include Sunan Abu-Dawud, Shahih Muslim, al Tabaqat, al Musnad, al Fath al Rabbani li Tartib Musnad al Imam Ahmad etc. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not original research, it's entirely taken from the Hadith of Bukhari.--Irishpunktom\talk
 * It's filled with original research; it's speculating all over the place about what the various verses might mean, and inserting all sorts of editorials about how reliable the accounts might be, who hated whom, etc. Jayjg (talk) 20:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no Speculation, It's highlighting that one source says "Men", the other "Warriors". one gives a total of Circa 900 men, the other less than 400 - both particularly large numbers, but one less than half the other.
 * It is speculation that there is any substantive difference between the meanings of the two words, and that the accounts therefore "contradict" each other. It seems more likely they are saying the exact same thing in slightly different ways.  Do you have any support for the idea that there was a class of adult men who were not fighters, and therefore were not killed? Jayjg (talk)  20:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sort of yes. What is known is that later on, at the battle for Khaybar there are members of Bani Quraiza present, and apparently fighting.  Indeed, one hadith says that Muhammad tells his soldiers to be most afraid of these. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:35, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Which hadith refers to this? Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading it further, and it is replete with inaccuracies; many sources confirm that it was adult males who were killed, not just warriors. As for what happened to the women, they were simply distributed as spoils, except for one who was also killed; six of the men were not killed. Jayjg (talk) 18:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Six men, for all but one of those killed where men, converted and where then spared. Add it, I didn't - I really should have. --Irishpunktom\talk

Another factual flaw: it selectively quotes one of the hadith Bukhari saying warriors were killed, and implies that others say the same. However, other hadith do not say the same thing; for example, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 362 simply says he killed the men: Jayjg (talk)  18:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, it does, and you are right it should be added. However it is the only Bukhari Hadith that says men, all the rest on this subject use the word "warriors", and you can check it yourself.--Irishpunktom\talk 19:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

This proposed revision couches itself in seemingly neutral terms while totally turning the history on its head. It is in essence an apologetic. The hadiths are nearly unanimous in that all adult males were killed, and the women given as spoils.
 * Well, thats not true, because as pointed out, of all the hadiths in Bukhari to mention the Tribe only one uses the braod "men", while the rest say that it was "warriors". As Jayjg pointed out, Bukhari is the most authoritive source of Hadith in Islam. --Irishpunktom\talk
 * To begin with, I didn't point that out; rather, I pointed out that most (Sunni) Muslims consider it the most reliable. Please quote me correctly, and don't impute words to me that I haven't said.  Next, Briangotts is right; the Bukhari says both "men" and "warriors"; however, other hadith, such as Sunab abu-Dawud and Shahih Islam are unanimous that it was all men. It seems that the distinction between "men" and "warriors" is a false dichotomy; all males of fighting age fought, and there is no indication that any adult males (aside from those who converted to Islam) were spared. Jayjg (talk)  20:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe I Phrased that wrong, but thats what I meant. Of all the sources of Sunnah, Most Muslims Consider Bukhari the most authoritive. I don't know of Shahih Islam.. do you mean Sahih Muslim?  If you did you would be wrong, because Sahih Muslim only deals with the subject twice, on one occasion saying the "fighters" were killed, the other saying men. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:21, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant Shahih Muslim. You're right, one of the hadith there says fighters, I didn't notice that.  However, the point is, you keep suggesting that there is a difference between "men" and "fighters", but I don't see any support for that. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  20:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Then there are two POV's, in such cases we are obliged to put down both, are we not? --Irishpunktom\talk 20:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, it is an assumption that they are referring to different things, or two different POV, rather than different ways of saying the same thing. Is there someone who promotes the POV that "fighters" and "men" are different things? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a side note, I find the assertion made above that Ibn Ishaq need not be regarded as a reliable source because Malik referred to him as "a liar", "an impostor" and one "who transmits his stories from the Jews" as laughable. Why does receiving information from Jews render one an unreliable source, while other hadiths, based on information received entirely from Muslims, are considered reliable? --Briangotts 18:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the Jews of this tribe, who Ibn Ishaq was speaking with - peopl who claim had ceased to exist, would almost certainly tell a tale different than that of the  Muslims.  Of Course Ibn Ishaq was right to get both sides of the story, and that marks him out as being a great Historian for this era, however, as I have stated that does not make it true.  Bukhari and Surat tell two differing tales, and NPOV dictates that both should be presented neutrally. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

They don't tell a different story at all; you are pinning a great deal on your personal interpretation of the word "warrior". Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How many different ways can you interpret Warrior ?


 * You interpret it to mean people who actually fought, versus people who were of a fighting age. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough then, Put both versions down then, yeah? --Irishpunktom\talk 20:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Only if they really are referring to two different things. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Relevant hadith
Please place well-sourced hadith related to this in Talk:Banu Qurayza/Relevant hadith. - Mustafaa 21:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You've done something strange to the formatting, do you want to take care of that? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought I added all the Bukhari quotes; did I miss some? - Mustafaa 22:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 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 <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Mustafaa/Qurayza details gives a timeline of the events listed in these hadith. In putting these in the article, events recorded in hadith should be attributed, not only to the collection, but also to the witness (Aisha or Abu Said, in most of these.) Shia, for instance, do not generally accept the reliability of hadith narrated through Aisha. - Mustafaa 22:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problems in current version
"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)

"reluctantly joined them" - says who?

"some report that the Qurayza had actually refused Meccan requests to enter through their fortress" - the source given indicates that one reports that Abu Sufyan said that "e received from them what we don't like", with "refused to let them in through their fortresses" being editorial interpolation.

"Ibn Mu'adh was well-known as a man who hated Jews in general and the Banu Qurayza in particular" - is there any source for this claim other than Ibn Ishaq? - Mustafaa 22:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The sheik appointed to judge the tribe had amiable relations with the Banu Qurayza tribe, but he subsequently died before he could judge their alleged actions." - source? - Mustafaa 22:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you agree he died before he could judge them, right? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

"Jews in general" - where is the source for this? I thought he just hated the Banu Qurayza..Yuber(talk) 02:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

I've fixed some incorrect and pov wording, not to mention false information about Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh which resulted from poor translation. I removed most visible objectionable words. I believe that the page is now stylistically npov, although the structure of the article and information may be lacking or in dispute. If anyone finds more incorrect wording or false information, add it to the talk page. I've noticed a tendency to erase partially true information instead of fixing it when it is relevent.

Guy Montag 12:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

It is mostly good, there are a few problems, but they should be solved soon.

Guy Montag 21:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * In Yahiya Emericks "A Complete Idiots guide to understanding Islam" (ISBN 1592572723) it is said that those who did not fight the Muslims were spared, but I can find no Hadith to support this, they all say only the Muslims were spared. It still seems more about the Battle of the Trench than about the Banu Qurayza, IMO.  I mean, Muhammad went on to marry the Matriarch, the daugther of the Chief of the Tribe.. thats another thing, why was the Chief of the Bani nadir also the chief of the Banu Qurayza ? --Irishpunktom\talk
 * Why is Akram Diya al Umari's opinion quoted? I can't say I've heard of him.  Does someone who already has a Blue link got a quote on the subject? --Irishpunktom\talk


 * Yes, why? He is neither notable nor relevant. - Mustafaa 22:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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 <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "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)


 * 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)


 * 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 <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  20:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The burden of establishing someone's relevance and notability is on the person who wants to quote them. Their lack of relevance and notability can fairly easily be deduced from a quick Google search. - Mustafaa 20:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa's Version

 * According to this. ancient starts 5,000 years ago. I just don't like the use of such a vague word when we can place a date there. --Irishpunktom\talk

Alright, add a date, it is just that we use ancient Arabia vs Saudi Arabia or the Hejaz or whatever to denote that it was before Saudi Arabia was unified. You can add a date, but people will understand what ancient Arabia means.

Guy Montag 02:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So are we ready to remove the tag at the top yet? - Mustafaa 23:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not have any particular problems with it. It is a good enough version that individual edits can be made to add upon it.

Guy Montag 02:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Yuber put the tag up first, see if he's willing to remove it.
 * Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59 Number 362 says that this was the second time the Banu Qurayza breached the treaty ("Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them (till they fought against the Prophet again)") Should that be added near the top ?
 * I still don't know why the Bani Nadir and Bani Qurayza had the same cheif, and should that Muhammad married the Chiefs daughter not warrant a prominent mention? --Irishpunktom\talk 22:35, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * The first point I haven't yet managed to find more details on. But as for the second, they didn't have the same chief; she was the daughter of the chief of Banu Nadir, and her first husband was of Banu Quraiza.  Her second was of Banu Nadir, and her third was Muhammad. - Mustafaa 23:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that she was married three times, thanks for that, but, using Bukhari, she was considered the matriarch, or Mistress, of the Quraiza.. was she not ? --Irishpunktom\talk 13:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Exact wording was "she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you". I think this just indicates that she was the highest-ranking woman in the two tribes, rather than indicating that she exerted any special authority. - Mustafaa 23:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty NPOV, anything arriving from the accuracy can be solved within talk. I am changing it to disputed.

Guy Montag 04:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Striver
Perhaps this is editing by revert, and BAD, but I've got RL duties this morning, and no time to try to sift through Striver's voluminous additions to find what's useful. Mustafaa had come up with a version that all the warring parties seem to have accepted as NPOV. Striver has arrived to try to "justify" Muhammad, which is going to start the whole edit war all over again. Striver wants a version of the article in which the Banu Qurayza were clearly traitors, their punishment was Biblically just, and besides, Muhammad didn't kill all that many people. I don't think this is going to work.

If anyone else can find something NEW and USEFUL in Striver's edits and restore it, that would be good. Zora 18:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Zora, hope you handle your RL duties in the best maner :)


 * Well, i read the entire talk page, and maybe im not bright, but i didnt find out the answer to my question:


 * A)Why not, is not what i added supported by sources? Maybe some other sources contradict? In that case, wich sources?


 * B)Why are the Bibel quotes not relevant?


 * C)Why is the total death toll not relevant?


 * Peace, --Striver 12:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see many sources for what you put in, in particular the tenuous link to the Bible, which appeared to be pure original research. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A. was addressed by my subsequent edit. B. The Bible quotes are marginally relevant (and, contra Jayjg, not original research - they're cited by the Islamic Awareness link), but, considering that there's no actual evidence whether the Bible's judgement was a factor in the decision, I don't think they're especially helpful. C. Why is the total death toll relevant? This isn't about his whole career. It's not sourced either. - Mustafaa 17:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyediting, Saffiya bint Huyyay
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)


 * 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)

Your edits seem reasonable to me. My main concern with format at this point is that the intruduction is far to long. The introduction should be a sentence or two giving the reader an understanding of what this article will talk about, and then the rest of the information there should be in the main body of the article. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 14:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

On that subject, the sources I can find online say that Qurayza was with Aws against Qaynuqa and Nadir, while a book I've been reading says (more plausibly) that Qurayza and Nadir were with Aws against Qaynuqa. Can you check this in your Ibn Ishaq, Zora? - Mustafaa 20:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Thanks! - Mustafaa 00:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I thought that had to be right. - Mustafaa 28 June 2005 16:55 (UTC)

Question about Third Jewish Tribe in Medina
I noticed in the Medina article that there were three Jewish tribes in Medina - Banu Qainuka'a, Banu al-Nadhir, and Banu Qurayza. From this article, I take it that both al-Nadhir and Qurayza broke the Constitution of Medina and allied with the Meccans. But what about Banu Qainuka'a? Do the hadiths make any mention of them breaking the treaty? Thanks. - Brasswatchman August 2, 2005. 1:36 AM EST.

Disputed: Blaming the victims
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 "&hellip;for all that happened the Jews were themselves to blame." -- Jmabel | Talk 19:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

WTF is this? Is it supposed to be a quote from Ibn Ishaq? If so, the entire thing should be italicized. The next line reads "Ibn Ishaq says" so it appears not to be a quote. If it's not a direct quote from ibn Ishaq it is shamefully unencyclopedic (and morally outrageous) and there is absolutely no place in the article for the outrageous claim that the Banu Qurayza brought their extermination on themselves. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

We had huge edit wars over this article, achieved a consensus, and it held for months. An anon arrived to replace summaries with straight quotes from Ibn Ishaq (not marked as quotes, not paragraphed, unreadable), and removed all the comments re the difficulty of interpreting the sources. I have reverted to the consensus version. I think you guys will find it preferable. Zora 21:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Muslim apologetics
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Constitution of Medina
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)

"per Ibn Ishaq"
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)

Hiding reality

 * 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)

Also, the relevant rules apply to "cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby" - not purported traitors in your own city.

Anyhow, what's the point? That the ancient Jews were, by their own admission, genocidal criminals, then millenia later, so was Muhammad and his followers? I'd have hung them all.

If and when Jews start running around pointing to such atrocities and their perpetrators as an example to emulate today, let us know.Timothy Usher 21:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert
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)

Your change obliterated historical reality and rendered the sentence virtually incomprehensible. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "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)


 * 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)
 * Ok, if that is all, then ill link it in a smother way in the intro. --Striver 15:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)