Talk:Kenana ibn al-Rabi

Untitled
4/16/2011: Found this page stating that Ibn Hisham's account is of torture followed by an almost bare accusation section - how misleading. This is not Ibn Hisham's account (he was just an editor), it is Ibn Ishaq's; Ibn Ishaq is one of the most notoriously unreliable historians and hadith narrators (see his page here for more). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2jw020 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's really sad to see that this article has been written(copy-pasted) from only one source (which is a Jewish encyclopedia by the way). More references must have been given to cross-check the facts since this is a religious article which may offend a lot of people throughout the world.

He is erroneously confounded by Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari with Kinanah ibn Rabi, the brother-in-law of Mohammed's wife Zaynab bint Khuzayma.
 * Reference to al-Tabari:

Wrong. Kinanah ibn Rabi is the brother-in-law of Prophet's daughter Zaynab, not his wife's. The writers of the encyclopedia must have done an error in that sentence. Sorry but I haven't yet checked al-Tabari's book. Will do later.
 * The murder of Mahmud bin Mesleme was not told which clearly shows that the referenced encyclopedia has some neutrality problems.
 * The actual name of the Jewish leader is Kinana Ibn Al-Rabi Ibn Al-Huqayq. Using it as Kinanah ibn al-Rabi will lead to errors as in the example above.

I have given the references that were in my bookshelf. Will try to check the other books since this is a extensively studied topic; lots of references around which may have not been indexed by Google yet :) --Right1 01:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Having multiple sources is good but we shouldn't be so worried about offending people. Thanks for the contribution and providing another source on this topic.Comatose51 03:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any source for the proposed changes. Jewish Encyclopedia is far from perfect, but better than original research. Pecher Talk 09:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the artcle is pov, as for accuracy, i leave it to the above editor. --Striver 19:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not an argument. Pecher Talk 19:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * PEACHER!!! Will you quite removing genuin taggings?! The tone of the article is clearly anti-islamic. Im not going to fight regarding the accuracy, since its nothing i know anything about, but the tone is obviously anti-Islamic. --Striver 23:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

torture
the torture story is unreliable. please read

http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_silas_4.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unixer (talk • contribs)


 * What is unreliable is this website. Pecher Talk 20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

rv
Arrow740 wrote "Ibn Ishaq via Ibn Hisham is viewed as a good source for history, if not for other things, by Muslim scholars.". Arrow740, I would like to disagree, to my knowledge, there are several stories in that collection that Sunni's do not appreciate, although i don't have anything on top of my head. peace.--Striver 13:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Arrow740 your latest revert has referred to Kinana as "Ma malakat aymanukum"!! You know that only applies to women?Bless sins 19:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Arrow740 20:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. The quran says men have have intercourse with Ma malakat aymanukum. It obviously refers to women.Bless sins 20:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Quran isn't the best written book in the world. Look at the article on mma. Arrow740 04:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Arrow740, MMA is a Quranic/Islamic concept. look at the article on MMA now that I removed unsourced statements.Bless sins 21:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, what prorblem do you have with the material I added quite some time ago? It is sourced to reliable sources. Please justify your edits.Bless sins 04:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Info Dump
I found this information in the article on the Kinana tribe. It is very obviously about an individual and not a group, so I have removed it. It is not necessarily suitable for Wikipedia, but in case any of the information is usable and not already used, I have dumped it here for the time being. Petra MacDonald 07:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Opponent of Mohammed; son of the poet Al-Rabi' ibn Abu al-Ḥuḳaiḳ, who flourished at Medina in the seventh century, prior to the appearance of Mohammed at that town. He had two brothers—Al-Rabi' and Sallam; all three were declared enemies of the Prophet. Kinanah is said to have urged Mohammed to give up the custom during prayer of turning his face toward Mecca ("ḳiblah") in favor of Jerusalem, as had been the custom in Islam at first. After the expulsion of the Banu al-Naḍir, of which tribe he was a member, he and his family retired to Khaibar, where they possessed a castle called Ḳamus. The Jewish strongholds at Khaibar were soon after conquered by Mohammed, and Kinanah was made a prisoner of war. There were two reasons why Mohammed desired Kinanah's death: Kinanah was accused of having hidden the treasure of the Banu al-Naḍir, and Mohammed coveted his wife Ṣafiyyah, the daughter of Ḥuyayy, a rabbi who had been murdered on a previous occasion. Kinanah died under torture. He is erroneously confounded by Ṭabari with Kinanah ibn Rabi', the brother-in-law of Mohammed's wife Zainab.

Bibliography: Hirschfeld, in R. E. J. x. 29.

Content elaboration.
@Kawrno Baba, Do note that the source does not state that Muhammad took Safiyya as a concubine after his death. It states much earlier that she was chosen by Muhammad after he conquered the forts much earlier, and that she "had been" the wife of Kenana. Not that "was the wife of".

Nevertheless even if she was, the inclusion about Safiyya's, whose status as a wife or concubine to Muhammad is unclear anyways, goes off the tangent does not satisfy core WP:Relevance for this article.

The matter about Safiyya is much better dealth with in her own article. StarkReport (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * //the source does not state that Muhammad took Safiyya as a concubine after his death. It states much earlier that she was chosen by Muhammad after he conquered the forts much earlier,//
 * I did not get what you tried to say here.
 * Are you saying that, Muhammad took Safiyya as a slave/concubine after conquering forts, before Kenana was tortured to death? Kawrno Baba (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not me, but the content of the source itself gives that impression. But again, like I stated above even whether before or after Kenana's death, or whether she was a wife/slave/concubine afterwards, this article is about Kenana himself. The best place to address Safiyya's issue is in her own article, which already does so. Not in this place. StarkReport (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Kenana's custodianship about the treasure and related matters
@Kawrno Baba, You've reduced the essential context to merely mentioning torture and execution without delving into the background. This overlooks the significance of Kenana's custodianship. On an important note, the story had already been summarized.

I'm thinking of reverting it, but just for the sake of WP:CON, pinging @Toddy1, for his take.

Also, I can't see the necessity of the rhythmic torture description: "kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead". To me, it seems somewhat questionable with regards to WP:Gratuitous. The previous content "Muhammad ordered a man to torture Kinana to extract the treasure" effectively described the situation. StarkReport (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The article on Safiyya bint Huyayy seems to have more information on Kenana ibn al-Rabi than the article on Kenana ibn al-Rabi.


 * I think that there ought to be a "death" section. I can see that you both disagree, so I propose to take the "death" section in the version by Kawrno Baba 06:09, 23 March 2024, and follow it with a second paragraph taken from a more recent version starting "Al-Mubarakpuri maintains that Kenana ibn al-Rabi was bound by agreements..." that you both seem to agree on.  A problem with the second paragraph is that it ends "(see section below)" - but there is no section below.  So I think the words "(see section below)" should be deleted.  I think that would make a good starting point to build on - it has elements by both of you.  Then instead playing revert-ping-pong, please could you both discuss changes here, and try to get consensus.  Even if you cannot get the other person to agree, you could at least explain to the rest of us what your point is.


 * Regarding the "kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead", that resembles the modern idea of putting an electric iron on a captured person's chest, and turning on the power. That seems a good reason not to censor that.


 * By the way, it seems bizarre for Wikipedia to have an article on Kenana ibn al-Rabi and not talk about his marriage. It would also seem sensible to have a third paragraph saying about what happened to Kenana ibn al-Rabi's wife after her husband's death. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the second paragraph: "Al-Mubarakpuri maintains", there have been no alterations made in either version, indicating a consensus. I find no issue with relocating the last two paragraphs(which is currently one) to a 'Death' section. However, the recent revision omits crucial background on Kenana's custodianship and the events preceding his demise. I have no idea why @Kawrno Baba has removed it. StarkReport (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kawrno Baba, when you wrote in your edit summary "The ruin excavation part is unnecessary for this article as it brings no additional value to it. If it does, then all the contents regarding his death mentioned in this article should be elaborated"
 * Can you explain what do mean by that? Because, in my expansion, we covered just about everything in we could have according to the source. How would you have elaborated it? StarkReport (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Toddy1, I do agree that when you wrote that: "The article on Safiyya bint Huyayy seems to have more information on Kenana ibn al-Rabi than the article on Kenana ibn al-Rabi." Given that the Safiyya bint Huyayy article includes information about Kenana's custodianship and the events leading to his demise, so wouldn't it be WP:Due for this article incorporate that info. StarkReport (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * what do you think? -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you go ahead. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @StarkReport, Then please summarise like this: "asked about hidden treasure under his custody" or something like that. The details is unnecessary.
 * As for the the method of torture, it is important to mention it to disprove the common idea that 'Muhammad was kind'. If there is a general statement, and there is only one example against it, that exception should be mentioned as it nullifies the general statement. The fact that he allowed that level of torture to happen makes it clear that he was not kind even if he showed kindness in some cases, just like any other human.
 * @Toddy1, my arguments are given above. If 'custodianship' is important, then it can be expressed in few words only, no need for extra words. Kawrno Baba (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kawrno Baba, your statement: " it is important to mention it to disprove the common idea that 'Muhammad was kind', " goes against WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NPOV. Furthermore, the content about torture was revised as it contained archaism words like "flint" and "kindled." The current content "applied hot steel to Kenana's chest until he was nearly dead" effectively communicates the brutality of the act.
 * Additionally, you have not responded to my earlier question. StarkReport (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No it does not. It is written there explicitly that '...if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles.' Read WP:RGW carefully. However I do not disagree with your version of rephrasing of the torture right now. I need time to think if your rephrasing anyhow alters the real incident.
 * I disagree with 'flint and kindle' being archaic. If people use it again, then it is no longer archaic. There is no capital punishment for using archaic words. There is no true archaic word, it's all about perspective.


 * And which question? Please re-state. Kawrno Baba (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Why would people think that "flint and kindle" are archaic? I don't think they had cigarette-lighters at the time - so talking about flint must be OK.  "Kindling wood" is present-day British English. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @StarkReport, @Toddy1, I have given it a thought. The present version rephrases the torture method as // Zubayr applied hot steel to Kenana's chest until he was nearly dead.//
 * This rephrasing has some issues. Firstly it mentions hot steel for torture, which is a standard torturing method at present. This dilutes the uniqueness of the torture. (Please see a video how flint and steel in used and how it would feel if that action was done on a human chest.) Then to make that steel hot enough to put a person near-death you need a large amount of fire, which may imply that there was abundance of wood in the desert to make that kind of fire.
 * So this rephrasing diverts from the original narration, and hence in the future this mention of the brutality might get edited out of the article because of irrationality of it.
 * Adding what have been discussed above with what I just have written, I say the old phrase needs to be in the article.
 * Also it is written in a manner that it was Zubayer and Muhammad ibn Maslama that caused all the pain to Kenana, the prophet had no say in this. Before the torture started the prophet said, 'Do you know that if we find the treasure we will kill you?' (Refer to citation no 2 in the article.) The passive voice may imply that there was a vote to handing him over to Muhammad ibn Maslama which dilutes the fact that prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah by his decision handed Kenana over to companion Muhammad ibn Maslama to carry out the execution.
 * Mentioning their names in this article brings no value as they are not important in history of Islam.
 * What I point out is, some unnecessary details are being put in the article and some necessary details are omitted. I find this fishy.
 * Marriage of Safiyya:
 * A concubine/slave taken from the defeated side has no free choice to marry someone. So //Safiyya later married Muhammad// needs to be written as "Muhammad later married Safiyya". Who had the freedom and power in this regard hugely depends how you phrase it. Kawrno Baba (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Using friction between iron/steel and flint is a standard method of creating sparks that can start a fire. A cigarette-lighter works by releasing a stream of methane into the sparks. It is harder to get ignition if the sparks have to ignite paper or dry leaves - but it works. Some modern kindling wood is coated in tar so it ignites better. That they kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead probably just meant that they had some dry leaves and some kindling wood (possibly tar-coated) on the victim's chest and set fire to it. We should not assume that the victim had a piece of hot steel on his chest unless the cited source explicitly says so. Once you have a small fire burning, you can just keep adding bits of wood and keep it going as long as you like - 52 weeks if you wanted.


 * I would therefore prefer a quotation from the source, rather than an interpretation - because a quotation is defensible. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If there is no problem I am going to bring these changes:
 * kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead
 * Muhammad delivered Kenana to Muhammad ibn Maslama (just as the source says)
 * Muhammad later married Safiyya (just as the source says)
 * Kawrno Baba (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Please change the title of this discussion which can be recognisable even after 2 years, such as - 'Kenana's custodianship about the treasure and other matters'. Do you mind if I do that? Kawrno Baba (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Groundless accusations.
Hello @Toddy1, apologies to bring you back here. @Kaalakaa has left a message on my talk page, alleging source misrepresentation in the Death section of this article. After reviewing both the accusation and the source cited in the article, I am still unclear about the specifics of what Kaalakaa is actually trying to say. Can you take a look? StarkReport (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)