Talk:Constitution of Medina

Unprotection and earliest constitution sentence
Per this DRN closure, the current consensus is that the "earliest constitution" claim should not be included in the article. I'm unprotecting the article with the caveat that any attempt to add the claim, without a new consensus, will be considered disruptive and the offending editor may be blocked. --regentspark (comment) 13:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No consensus was reached. Patting yourself in the back is not a consensus. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, : not participating in the DRN (with CounterTime also abstaining) is a clear indicator that neither of you were willing to present a case for the addition of the content. You are now engaged in blatant WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:PERSONAL and WP:3RR tactics literally a moment after full protection was lifted from the article. The next course of action will not be a DRN, but a WP:A/R against you. I don't care whether you think that content was a 'mistake' prior protection or not: you bring your concerns here and discuss them here before WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removals. I held some hopes for you in being able to discuss content matters civilly after your fiery beginnings editing, but you repeatedly and remorselessly fall back into the same pattern of attacking and abusing good faith editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have presented my case here, I commit any action towards the DRN, I didn't go ahead and play Hebel's little game as you wanted me to. I have removed my mistake edit that I have added by mistake and he chose to re-state just so he can edit war, like he has done multiple times, but you give him the blind eye as always and in favor of him, I even documented his actions above to showcase his vile attitude and as usual you side with him again. What good faith did Hebel present???? Am I missing something????? This edit has nothing to do with the DRN action he partake just so he can pat in his back. Take any action you like to take. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. You have now overstepped 3RR on another matter and, rather than explaining what you are removing and why (aside from incorrect formatting for CE), your only commentary on this this talk page has been to make personal attacks on the admin who removed pp, and to attack Hebel. Provide the diff when you added it, and explain why you believe it to be UNDUE or whatever the reason is that you have for removing it.


 * Pay heed to the fact that no content issues are a 'game' between yourself, Hebel, CounterTime and myself, and the DRN was not most certainly not a game. DRNs are rejected regularly unless a sysop or experienced volunteer sees merit in a discussion of the content, and the volunteer even reposted a request to join the DRN a second time on your talk page in order to encourage you to discuss instead of being disruptive. I will politely ask you to self-revert and explain what the latest content removal is about... and remember that it doesn't matter whether you added it or not. The moment you introduced the content, you relinquished any ownership if other editors believe it to be relevant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There were also incorrect transliteration of certain words but who should I say that you can't stop lying about me and my edits, there were no personal attacks on my part, you can't conjure things from your own personal gain, to favor certain editors.

It was on first june I told you multiple times. How many more times you want it. In fact you are mistaken I should explain my UNDUE addition and that is why I remove it, that is like getting removals from three years ago and adding by accident and then removing it once I realize but argue that I shouldn't. I was removed long ago. So how is your twisted logic any benefit to the article. >Pay heed to the fact that no content issues are a 'game' between yourself, Hebel, CounterTime and myself, and the DRN was not most certainly not a game. Good for you, you can join him at the DRN. > DRNs are rejected regularly unless a sysop or experienced volunteer sees merit in a discussion of the content, and the volunteer even reposted a request to join the DRN a second time on your talk page in order to encourage you to discuss instead of being disruptive. DRN don't encourage anything, so I don't know why you acting like it's a sign of anything, I was never disruptive. I don't like my talk page to be disrupted by request to go anywhere, I only talk in talk pages, and I don't follow around and play games with people, you should know that. I don't like any filth in my talk page I told him before, repeating it and bothering me with it will not make change my mind. >I will politely ask you to self-revert and explain what the latest content removal is about.. It makes more sense to explain why I add it, since I added by mistake by grabbing a previous dated article and entering it on First of June, you are choosing to have an argument with me about a non-issue not related to Hebel but related to a mistaken edit I have added on first of June that was never there. > ''and remember that it doesn't matter whether you added it or not. The moment you introduced the content, you relinquished any ownership if other editors believe it to be relevant''. Even if the editor like Hebel likes to edit like Hebel who I have documented in doing so. You can revert the edit if you want if that makes you and your friend Hebel feel good. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * >Provide the diff when you added it, and explain why you believe it to be UNDUE or whatever the reason is that you have for removing it.

Look at the History of the article

20:46, 30 May 2016‎ Alexis Ivanov adds content removed by Hebel (+195)

09:44, 31 May 2016‎ Hebels removes it (-195)

09:53, 31 May 2016‎ CounterTime adds one more reference (+726)

09:55, 31 May 2016‎ Hebel ignorantly removes all of them in his next two edits (-726)

14:45, 1 June 2016‎ Hebel (-744)

Here comes the mistake

15:23, 1 June 2016‎ Alexis Ivanov (+4,356) instead of +1470, I captured the wrong edition.

15:26, 1 June 2016‎ Hebel removes the constitutions comment manually. (-741)

and the rest is history

I came back on the end of June after

13:53, 28 June 2016‎ Alexis Ivanov removes the mistaken edit from 1st June. (-3,716)‎ Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Any content that I have added by an accident by capturing an old version of the article. >Who posted it in the first place I don't maybe you look for it, instead of asking ridiculous questions. After you have pat your back very well, hopefully you have no itches.>How was it removed and then reappeared. It was removed months ago it re-appeared because I captured an old version of the article and copied here. >Who did that and how wrong was it anyway I have already said it. Since your nature is to just edit war as I have documented before, you are just going to want to do the opposite of what I do. So explaining it to you how wrong or right is it doesn't make sense after you have corrupted the article and removed my sources. I will just focus on those transgression that you have made against me. Yo want your silly paragraph, have it and enjoy it. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's what happened, why don't you explain what content was involved. Who posted it in the first place. How was it removed and then reappeared. Who did that and how wrong was it anyway. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * >what content was involved
 * Sure, but what about the content of the text involved. I don't even hear you talking about that. Do you even have anything to say about that? You seem to want to remove it. Explain why please or let it be. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no intention in removing it if you want it to stay, no meaning in arguing with you if you are going to revert every work I have done. I already explained why I removed it and it wasn't about the content, it was capturing an old version of the article, since you want the old version, it is here. My priority is bringing back the edits I have contributed in the article since the first day I was here. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You didn't actually explain why it should be removed. You just told us you made a mistake, which is interesting in itself but quite irrelevant since it doesn't touch upon the merits of the text itself or the lack thereof. You don't seem to understand that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I did I said I added my mistake, since it was a mistake I removed. The mistake is very relevant, if you have made a mistaken edits you can remove it, but if you have people like Iyna and Hebel who are here to undermine your work and cry wolf, you can just let it leave and count your blessins. I understand already what you don't understand is I have captured an old version with your logic if I captured the first edition you would still cry that I should leave it. So your logic is not exactly viable in this situation. Since you want the portion, I have let it go, so what more do you want, I have no intention in removing and starting another 3RR edits and receive some new threats from your Lady Iryna every-time I edit this article. While you hide while she does the dirty work for you. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , the fact that you may have unintentionally restored text on the "Expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa" is irrelevant. What is at issue is that the content had been in place since early in 2014, but only recently removed by Al-Andalusi on 2 April 2016, then again by Xtremedood on 19 May 2016. It has served to draw the attention of other editors to the fact of its unexplained removal twice without any discussion, with the removals being buried in the edit warring over the status of the constitution. From my reading of the content and sources used, it is indeed relevant to the subject, so I'd like one of the editors who is adamant that it doesn't belong here to explain (courteously and civilly) why they don't think it should be included. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

''>What is at issue is that the content had been in place since early in 2014, but only recently removed by Al-Andalusi on 2 April 2016, then again by Xtremedood on 19 May 2016. It has served to draw the attention of other editors to the fact of its unexplained removal twice without any discussion'' You don't ave to disrespect Xtremedood and Al-Andalusi and paint them in this negative light as you have done. They contributed to the article and have done great jobs, they don't have to explain anything if people agreed with it. Since you and Hebel are here to just play games and corrupt this article, I'm just making sure you guys enjoy your time. > From my reading of the content and sources used, it is indeed relevant to the subject, so I'd like one of the editors who is adamant that it doesn't belong here to explain (courteously and civilly) why they don't think it should be included Surprise surprise, everything for you that goes against me is relevant, please don't make me laugh Iryna with your despicable attitude that you have show these last days. You are just here to cause problems and ignite old rivalry. All I have done was remove content that I have added by mistake, you want it, you can have it, I just don't want to see you cry both of you Hebel. You have already ruined this article. Good job. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems you are still holding to an old grudge, don't be angry Iryna about the Hetmanate, you are taking thins way to personally.
 * How am I painting Xtremedood and Al-Andalusi in a bad light? The section was removed, but the sources certainly make it clear the Constitution of Medina has been cited as a primary factor in the expulsion of the Banu Qaynuqa from Medina. The only manner in which you've addressed justifying the removal of the content has been through the edit summaries "Wasn't there before" here, and "Before the edits you have done, Countertime removed it long ago, it has nothing to do with the Constitution that occurred on 1 AH" here. There may certainly be excellent policy and guideline based reasons for removing the content, but no one has presented it. As long standing content, it is subject to WP:BRD. What is being asked is why what certainly appears to be salient content has been deleted. You were wrong is claiming that Countertime removed it. I am only asking that or  explain the removal. Asking for an explanation is by no means disrespectful. What is disrespectful is that you still have not explained why that content is not relevant to the article, but have continued your WP:THROW tirades both here and on my own talk page. Hurling abuse at other editors ≠ discussion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * user:Iryna Harpy, rather than revert something without proper discussion and based on your own understanding, it is first important to try and discuss the matter. As for the Constitution of Madinah playing any alleged role in the so called "Expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa", the source indicated is Watt's " Muhammad at Medina", which on page 209 does not make any mention of the Constitution of Madinah. The other source is Ibn Ishaq's Sirat, translated by Guillaume, which is a primary source not indicated by the Watt reference and constitutes OR. I have none-the-less examined the Guillaume source on page 363 and did not find any mention of the Constitution of Madinah (not that it matters a whole lot since it is a primary source). To add, it is such a minor incident in a series of exchanges between the Muslims and Jews that mentioning it alone does not give a holistic view of the matter. Xtremedood (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you care to track how the text was resurrected, you'll find that it was restored by another user who has been unable to explain why it was removed in the first instance, but has levelled abuse left, right and centre at editors when asked why the content is inappropriate. He didn't even know which editor had removed it.


 * The best course of action in removing content is to actually leave a salient explanation on the talk page as you have finally done. The sequence of removals were (for the umpteenth time) as such: Al-Andalusi removes the content with an edit summary of, "the constitution excludes the 3 major Jewish tribes of Medina". Alexis Ivanov restores the content with an edit summary of, "Lost of extensive amount of information". You remove the content again with an edit summary of, "Has nothing to do with the document.". Alexis Ivanov restores the content with no edit summary. You'll have to excuse my finding these edit summaries substantially lacking in anything edifying as to why content does or doesn't belong here. Any other editors trying to work out what the explanation for the removal have also found it as clear as mud. If you wish to lecture me on 'holistic approaches', allow me to suggest that the holistic approach to editing any article is to assume good faith (otherwise, why would I have gone to the trouble of finding out who removed the text, then have pinged both you and Al-Andalusi for edification). In this much, you are correct: matters should be discussed on the talk page in a timely manner. Thank you for your input. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't memorize the names of the editors that I have contacted 2 months ago. You can check the history of the article and stop being a smartass and accusing me of not knowing. >You'll have to excuse my finding these edit summaries substantially lacking in anything edifying as to why content does or doesn't belong here You are just talking non-sense since the editor that I have reverted from clearly explained it in the summary and clearly explained here in the talk page. Yet if he tries to remove it you will go and cry wolf as you always do. I assume his explanation sufficient then.Alexis Ivanov (talk)
 * It seems you are suffering from mid-life crisis because there was no abuse towards you you need to stop lying right there, lie on top of lies and I have explained my removal, and after that I let it go, so I don't understand what more do you want?>He didn't even know which editor had removed it.

Translation of Umma
Hi, I dont't think that "nation" could be a good translation of Umma... the correct translation is community... "nation" is a very Western and modern concept --Hallkall (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

broken link
The link to the text itself is broken in:

The division of the constitution into numbered articles is not in the original text but added later by scholars. The numbering of clauses differs in different sources, but there is general agreement on the authenticity of ---the most widely-read version of the charter---, which is found in Ibn Ishaq's Sirah Rasul Allah. LeesOtter (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)