Talk:Safiyya bint Huyayy

External link and Wikistyle
According to this style guide, WP:Style, we should aviod having internal links in "the bold reiteration of the title in the article's lead sentence".

Regarding the external link, I don't think it provide the readers with much information re Safiyya bint Huyayy, that is not already included in the article. So for now I've replaced it with two new external links, that I believe include more useful information than the previous one. -- Karl Meier 13:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert war
What is your problem peacher? Spell it out so we can solve it. --Striver 21:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * FFS Pecher! Can you grow up? Talk so we can solve this! --Striver 22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is original research peacher? Talk and do not revert blindly, revert wars are frowned upon. --Striver 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Striver, try to compare the article that you want to use as a ref, with the other three refs that is currently included. It's just not the quality we are looking for here. -- Karl Meier 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont agree. Even if the part did not have any references, then it would merit a fact tag, not deleting. Help me find a better source if you really want that, but do not remove what is obviously a Muslim view from the Muslim view section.--Striver 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you believe that the same material can be found in reliable sources, why don't you find such sources yourself? Other editors are not your research assistants. Pecher Talk 17:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

torture
the source is unreliable: please read this: http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_silas_4.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unixer (talk • contribs)


 * Brother Sami (who according to the website scored two sound AUDIO-debate victories on "Is trinity a valid belief?" with a Christian preacher) isn't a useful and reliable source that we can use for anything, when we are discussion the neutrality of this article. If you want to dispute any information that is currently in the article, you'll have to find a better source. -- Karl Meier 19:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Concur, this particular part is referenced to the semi-sacred biography of Muhammad by ibn Hisham; one cannot rebut it with the help of a murky website. Pecher Talk 19:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The source is fake! This text does not exists in the Arabic version of ibn Hisham's book, not the printed version, not the online version. It is inserted by the translator who is well-known for his strong anti-Islamic ideas. --67.135.235.10 04:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Semi-sacred biography ? there is no such thing. However, the reliable sources about the life of Muhammad are hadith books. And none of them talks about this. They tell precisely in the prophet's words how he forbade torture. So if you want to keep the torture thing in this article, also keep the accuracy tag, and ponderate the affirmation Unixer 23:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "the reliable sources about the life of Muhammad are hadith books": that's OR and Islamic, but not encyclopedical POV. "They tell precisely in the prophet's words how he forbade torture": wikipedians inferring from hadith are indulging in OR. Speaking of which: there are as many contradicting hadith than Suras. It follows that you are not the one to draw conclusions - editors never are. Inferring from Muhammad by ibn Hisham, however, would be OR too - but the text doesn't: it relates accurately based on his account. The tag is unwarranted, as you dispute the article's accuracy merely based on your OR and an poorly written  website, whose author has no academic reputation: this is abuse and complete disregard of RS - as it has become a standard for any Islam related articles. --tickle me 02:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about this; however, the proper way to do this is to report the view and properly attribute it. I.e.

"'The silas(?) history says that after the torture and refusal to give up the treasure, Muhammad and his followers killed x'"
 * Provide a proper reference, etc. If the hadith books mention the episode then you can say something like:

"'However, the hadith books only say that x was killed'"
 * If they don't mention it specifically then you have much more limited options. -- Trödel 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This kind of disputed information should be referenced to a page so that others can verify the information. -- Trödel 01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's referenced to a page. Pecher Talk 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My bad - thought it would be on a different page -- Trödel 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hadith
--Striver 01:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

--Striver 03:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

--Striver 03:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

--Striver 04:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

this one has a interesting detail--Striver 16:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

--Striver 16:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think article should be deleted
From previous comments source is defined as unreliable. To quote sections of the article: "Muhammad and his followers tortured Safiyya's husband so that he would give up the treasure of the Banu Nadir and killed him when he refused to do so. Safiyya was assigned to Dihya ibn Khalifa, but Muhammad, struck with her beauty, threw his mantle over her as a sign that he had chosen her for himself." Seems strongly aimed against Muhammed صلى الله عليه وسلم The article is at best far fetched and highly inappropriate. The text i quoted as well is also partially missing from the reference, sorry actually just written differently. The reference itself is written in simple narrative with a lack of explanations expected from such a text, it seems more like a story than a biography. Also in parts it references Muhammed صلى الله عليه وسلم wealth and large estate (perhaps indirectly) whichis in conflict with the prophets (believed to be) humble lifestyle. I also have to comment on other islamic articles which are poorly referenced, based on the reference and hence wholly innacurate. An example would be translation of some Qur'anic verses which are sometimes not even the same as the reference and/or the meaning is wholly innacurate which could have been remedied by the person actually having cross referenced an authentic Quran (yes books still exist) preferably in arabic or at least translated to a good standard.

I think it should be encouraged people check actual texts and not just "the all knowing internet" and on top of that verify the texts (something being published doesnt make it true).


 * Please feel free to edit it appropiately to improve the article. All articles are always open to improvement, and this one seems to have generally been a neglected one.--Tigeroo 01:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Concubine
The adition of her being a concubine is OR, please do not add unsourcable views as if they were facts. --Striver 16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comment on my talk page is addressed. --Striver 03:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * no it was not addressed, as is clear from the article itself, she was captured which makes what is called in English a concubine, if later she was OK with that, then so be it, but it remains that the first period of their relationship was her as a concubine. It also says wife so don't think like its not included at all. Therefore concubine shall go in and stay in. If you cannot present a logical argument for reverting my edit, you will be reported on the incidents page. Chavatshimshon 13:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To me it is not clear whether or not Safiyya was a concubine or not. Had she been merely a prize of war, calling her a concubine would be perfectly reasonable: concubine, definition 2: "A slave-girl or group of slave-girls, mostly prominent in ancient cultures." However, consider this sentence from the article: "Muhammad gave Safiyya the option of embracing Islam, which she chose to do, and thus she could become Muhammad's wife rather than remain a slave girl [emphasis added]."

Since Chavatshimshon has suggested that we look at a dictionary, I will take him up on his suggestion and analyse Wiktionary's four other definitions:
 * 1) A woman who lives with a man, but who is not a wife.
 * This is clearly not applicable to Safiyya's case, because she was, legally at least, Muhammad's wife.
 * 1) See above paragraph
 * 2) Signifies a relationship where the male is the dominant partner, socially and economically
 * Perhaps the definition that is closest to Safiyya's case. However, it is worth noting that this was true of just about any European woman during the middle ages.  Do our articles on European notables of the time refer to their wives as wives or concubines?  Please note that this is not a rhetorical question: I don't have time to investigate it at the moment, and I want to here others input.
 * 1) A woman attached to a man solely for reproduction, and who cares for the resulting children without any romantic relationship
 * This does not seem to be the case for Safiyya either. Muhammad chose her to be his wife because of her beauty—this is clearly stated in the article.

Thus, I think that there is no need to call her a concubine. Please be aware, however, that I have never read the Quran or any peace of Islamic literature, so I can base my opinion solely on this article. Please feel free to correct me with citations from the Quran or perhaps some of the biographies mentioned in the article. It is also worth considering whether Muhammad's other wives are referred to as concubines in their respective articles.

And to all parties involved, please try not to edit-war; you are all aware, I hope, of the potential penalties for doing so. Karl Dickman talk 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, you did indeed check a dictionary as i proposed and you have made four good points. I make one point which as you will hopefully agree resolves all four of yours. I therefor am re-including the term for the second time in 24 hours.


 * The article below describes the massacre of her family, whole tribe by Mohammad and his men. It is taken from the Banu Nadir article, some of it is even in this article. My one point is that is impossible to call her "marriage" a choice anything other than an attempt to save her life, her captor killed her husband, her whole family, tribe, not only did she accept his version of Godly events she as his slave no doubt did anything he wished, from cooking or cleaning to fellatio. Looking back from a very different more civilised world we can acknowledge that her so called 'conversion' and 'marriage' does not rob her of her title concubine.


 * Battle of Khaybar: 627-629


 * After their expulsion from Medina, Banu Nadir, along with the other Jews living in Khaybar, understood that Muhammad might attack them again. The Nadir chief Huyayy ibn Akhtab together with his son joined the Meccans and Bedouins besieging Medina during the Battle of the Trench. Huyayy ibn Akhtab attempted to recruit Banu Qurayza within Medina to fight against the Muslims. Both of them were killed by order of Muhammad alongside the men of the Banu Qurayza.


 * Muhammad and his followers attacked Khaybar in May 629. Although the Jews put up fierce resistance, the lack of central command and their unpreparedness for an extended siege sealed the outcome of the battle in favor of the Muslims. When all but two fortresses were captured, the Jews managed to negotiate their surrender. The terms required them to hand over one-half of the annual produce to the Muslims, while the land itself became the collective property of the Muslim state.


 * The agreement, however, did not cover the Banu Nadir tribe. Muslims killed all the men of Banu Nadir and divided the women among themselves. Safiyya bint Huyayy was the daughter of the killed Banu Nadir chief Huyayy ibn Akhtab and widow of Kinana ibn al-Rabi, the treasurer of Banu Nadir, whom Muhammad's followers first tortured, demanding that he reveal the location of the tribe’s hidden treasures, and then killed. Muhammad took for wife Safiyya bint Huyayy.


 * I made these last words bold just to show how ambiguous it is to say 'took for wife'... Might I also say... in the middle ages too, women in Europe were abducted and held as concubines, and yes it was considered normal then and yes they had the word concubine then too but didnt use it, so what?! Therefore in the case of an article about a european women abducted in the middle ages, whether she apparently subscribed to her captor's religion or not, the term concubine should be mentioned.


 * Chavatshimshon 04:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I could counter argue, but why bother when we have WP:OR? --Striver 08:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Things like the Bible and the Quran are so spare in detail and so open to interpretation that it would be impossible to enforce WP:OR as zealously as you propose. Given the information available in the article, I would be quite surprised if Chavat was the first person to articulate the idea that Safiyya was Muhammad's concubine.  But frankly, I'm finding it hard to make up my mind any more on this subject.  On the one hand, I find Chavat's interpretation of Safiyya's status to be extremely convincing; on the other hand, including that interpretation in the article makes us run the risk of supporting a particular point of view, and of including original research.


 * Perhaps the best thing to do would be to file an RFC? Or we could wait for a few days for other editors to comment; I can see from the page history that more editors have been involved than have commented here.  Karl Dickman talk 09:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is not even based on the Qur'an, her name is not even mentioned there, and i think neither is her person. The information comes from Hadith, and they are explicit about her not becoming a slave. For example, the status of Maria al-Qibtiyya is dispute, some argue that she wanted to remain a Christian, but that is not the case with Safiyya. Further, she was never threatened with any death sentence of any kind. But all of that is redundand, since the entire line of reasoning is OR, he needs to come up with a notable scholar using that reasoning. I mean, i can argue all day that Bush is a jackass, but it does not matter how merited my arguments are, in the end, it is only OR. --Striver 15:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had quite a bit of time to think this over, and my opinion is now leaning towards Striver's. To be honest, I find Chavat's viewpoint that Safiyya was a concubine to be extremely convincing; but in the end it is still just that: a point of view.  The article itself provides enough information for a reader to draw their own conclusions from the information presented.  I really see no way to justify inserting the "concubine" phrase without violating the article's neutrality.  Karl Dickman talk 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Another disputed sentence If I may suggest it, how does this change look to those involved?

The version to the right is less informative. With strive to add info, not delete it. --Striver 15:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I still maintain that Safiyya was a concubine and am awaiting the input of other editors to have it put back in, I see no point in an edit war. I deleted one sentence as you show above, since it ran along the same lines of my view of the nature of their 'marriage'. Let's not digress, I'm putting it under the title of our current discussion. FrummerThanThou 00:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This should be an easy dispute to resolve. Just find how Safiyya is described in reputable sources. If there are conflicting descriptions, i.e. concubine and slave girl, use both descrptions and attribute each to the corresponding source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, if there is only one description, we can simply use that description attributing it to the source and not asserting the description as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My take is that she is an obvious concubine. I'm not sure why there's a fight over this; the word concubine is used throughout the Old Testament of the Bible as well. That being said, if we can find a decent source connecting the two, then it should be included. -Patstuarttalk 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Found this:

"The other marriage of the Prophet that was controversial was the one with Safiyya Bint Huyayy, a young Jewish captive whom he married after the taking of the city of Khaybar in year 7 of the Hejira. 'Khaybar was held by the Jews; it was the strongest of their fortresses. It was composed of seven forts of different sizes surrounded by date groves.' Safiyya was the wife of Kinayna, one of the chiefs of the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir. Safiyya's relatives had fought at the Battle of the Trench on the side of the Meccans. Attracted by the beauty of Safiyya, who had fallen to him as part of his booty, the Prophet 'suggested to her that she convert to Islam'; he freed her and married her when she agreed to this condition. 50 According to al-Tabari and Ibn Sa'd, when the Prophet threw his cloak over the new captive after the taking of one of the forts, his entourage understood that he intended to keep her for himself. But Ibn Sa'd adds that 'the people asked if he was going to marry her or keep her as umm walad.' Umm walad, 'mother of a child,' is a slave with whom the master officially maintains sexual relations and whose children will be free. Apparently Safiyya was the exception because her religion was Judaism. The two other women who were not Muslim and with whom the Prophet had a sexual relationship were Maria the Copt, who was given to him by the governor of Alexandria, and Rayhana of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. Despite the fact that Maria had borne the Prophet a son, Ibrahim, who died at a young age, she was classed with Rayhana among the Prophet's saraya, wives who had the status of slaves."


 * Fatima Mernissi, The Veil and the Male Elite: A Feminist Interpretation of Women's Rights in Islam, trans. Mary Jo Lakeland (Reading, MA: Perseus Books, 1991, ISBN 0-201-63221-7)

I could not find any sources that describe Safiyya as concubine. But this source describes the term umm walad that may be synonymous with concubine, asserting that Muhammad did not take her as such. Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an excellent example. For me, the biggest problem with using the word "concubine" in an article is that it pushes a point of view more than I'm comfortable with.  However, if we were to merely borrow phraseology that has been used extensively before, I wouldn't have a problem with that.  Thanks, Jossi.  Karl Dickman talk 05:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just been asked for my opinion on this. I've never read anything on the subject either, but I think that she could be described as a sort of concubine without putting the neutrality or a respectful tone in jeopardy.  Just my two cents' worth. - Lucky 6.9 07:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, its not over yet. Jossi is a sensible person and will realise, the idea he presented was that it is sources that are required to simply rephrase wife with concubine or vis virsa, or to add it ...is a stark mistake. Sources are not requisite... for adapting/improving rephrasing, titles, status or names on an encyclopedic standard. Titles of this sort in this case quite simply require reading the excising content of the article... and from this article one is easily afforded to conclude she was a concubine of Mohammad as well later wife of sorts. If I would have a wider knowledge of WP Guidelines I'm sure I could furnish links to these rules. Also, it may be she got on with life and didn't try to poison him, unlike a certain other Jewish concubine of his, but then that's called Stockholm syndrome, not tell me was Natascha Kampusch her captor's concubine or wife? She thinks she was. I hope this extends your view at this point. FrummerThanThou 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If there was no dispute about the subject, I would agree. But as there is a dispute, the best is to keep with the spirit of out content policies and simply describe what reputable sources says about Saffiya. Now, if the term "concubine" is applicable to Saffiya, there should be at least one such source that uses the term. If no one has used ever that term to describe her, then using the term would be in violation of WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, my two cents, before we go any further: I'm not sure how people are missing this: a google search,, clearly comes up with a good search. Second, I know this argument seems a little dirty, but it's valid, I think: many people who have been in the pro-Islam crowd have repeatedly been making the argument that, it doesn't matter if it sounds somewhat POV, as long as there's a good academic source, it should be included. It's undre the "reforms 611" article (I can't find it). And, most of these sources look reputable enough for inclusion, I would say. If people claim they're not notable, I wouldn't be sure they weren't wikilawyering in an attempt to keep the reference out. Patstuarttalk 14:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A Google search is not any better than researching scholarly sources. I did not check all the google hits (some are Wikipedia articles or WP mirrors), but I could not spot any specific source that would be considered reliable enough. OTOH, I am sure that there must be such source, so I would encourage editors to find it, and put an end to the dispute by attributing the mention of concubine to that source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Another quote that may be useful:

"Anas narrated [as follows]: The prophet stayed for three days between Khaybar and Medina, and there he consummated his marriage to Saffiya. The Muslims wondered, "Is she considered as his wife or slave?" Then they said, "If he orders her to veil herself, she will be one of the mothers of the believers [meaning Muhammad's wives], but if he does not order her to veil herself, she will be a slave-girl." Muhammad threw his own mantle on her in front of everyone, and took her to his own harem."(1) Assyrian law ordains the veil for the captive girls and prostitutes who get married; Koranic law requires the same thing. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Muhammad perpetuated a pagan law under the banner of monotheism.I n any case, the very law once practiced by the ancient Assyrians found its way into the Koran and is being applied even today by all Muslims.


 * (1) Al-Bukhari, Al-Sahih, vol. 7.1, as cited Hekmat, Anwar, Women and the Koran The Status of Women in Islam (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1997) pp.209, ISBN 1-573-92162-9

I think this is from the Hadit:

"The prophet stayed with Saffiyya bint Huyai for three consecutive days on the Khaibar until he had consummated his marriage with her. Saffiyya was amongst those on whom the veil was imposed. During the Prophet's and Safiyya weeding feats, some of the Muslims asked: 'Will she be one of the Mother of the Faithful, or just a concubine of his?. Others replied: 'If he veils her, then she is one of the Mothers of the Faithful, but if he does not, then she as become a concubine of his. When it was time to saddle up and depart, the Prophet made a place for Safiyya to ride behind him, and spread the veil.' (5/730)"


 * As cited in Women in Islam: An Anthology from the Qur'an and Hadits, pp.90, Routledge (UK) 2000, ISBN 0-700-71012-4

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

eeh... maybe you didn't read your own quote: "If he veils her, then she is one of the Mothers of the Faithful, but if he does not, then she as become a concubine of his.... When it was time to saddle up and depart, the Prophet made a place for Safiyya to ride behind him, and spread the veil" ... was that to complicated? --Striver 20:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh? He spread the veil, so he veiled her, hence not a concubine.... I am missing something?


 * See also this:


 * "In pre-Islamic Arabia not only was conversion from one religion to another frequent, but so was marriage between Jews and Arabs. The most famous example concerned the prophet Muhammad, who married Safiyya, the daughter of a Jew, and who had at least one Jewish concubine, Raybna."


 * Corcos, Alain F., The Myth of the Jewish Race: A Biologist's Point of View, pp.100, 2005, Lehigh University Press, ISBN 0-934-22379-3


 * Clearly there is a distinction made here between two Jewish women, one that he married and one that he took as a concubine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, ´sorry, i shought you were presenting that to argue that she was a concubine. Yes, i agree that the narrations prove that they made a distinction, and that she does not fall in the "concubine" category. Further, the correct term is not concubine, it is Ma malakat aymanukum. --Striver 03:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problems, Striver. Would you be kind enough to introduce some of the material I found into the article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * :) Ill do that in the future. My mode of editing takes focus, and i am not ready to commit that to this article right now, i need to finish some other articles first. Bu i can give a comment if you edit. Peace.--Striver 04:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In talking to some friends that are more knowledgeable than me on these subjects, I understand that all people born from a Jewish mother, are Jews as per the Halacha, even if the mother converted to another religion. If this is the case, there is a possible political/theological POV here at play, as all the descendants of the marriage between the Prophet and Safiyya, would be Jews. Is it known if Safiyya had any children? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge.--Striver 04:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Historians report that only Khadijah and Maria al-Qibtiyya bore him sons, but I am not sure that records of daughters were kept at that time... I may be wrong, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To my present knowledge, those same persons were the only ones who bore him children.--Striver 05:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

?

 * ''There is disagreement over what happened with Safiyya, even over whether she was kept by Muhammad as a concubine or a wife. Some think that Muhammad married Safiyya as part of a deal to conclude a peace treaty.[9] Muslim scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali holds that Muhammad married the widowed Safiyya, who had supposedly already fallen into his hands as a captive, as a gesture of goodwill.[10]

It starts by stating " even over whether she was kept by Muhammad as a concubine or a wife" and the proceeds by citing two people who regarded her as a wive. Were does the dissagreement come in? The only thing i see is a dissagreement regarding the motive of the marriage. And again, concubinage is a non-existing term in Islam, the proper term is Ma malakat aymanukum. She was a Ma malakat aymanukum, there is no question about that, and then they married in a Nikah before having any "relations". Please use relevant terms, it makes article and discussion more accurate. --Striver 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right. I brought that specific text from another article. Will correct. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Concubine... not
My original quest was to have this article view Safiyya from a global perspective. That was a Mother of the Believers may be important for Muslims, but that she was a concubine is just as important for Jews who don't like their daughters being captured as booty.

As it stands now, it is clearly mentioned in the LEAD that she was captured so perhaps my quest has been fulfilled. I am still very disappointed by the exchange above which took various points which where entirely irrelevant to the argument. What she may be considered in islamic terms, in islamic sources is what matters in wikipedia.

FrummerThanThou 01:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What matters in Wikipedia is that we report what reliable sources say about a subject. So far, we have found ample support for the viewpoint that Muhammad married her. I am researching this further, as the subject picked my curiosity, to see if I can find any sources that describe Safiyya as a concubine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Source "Concubine", Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. FrummerThanThou 03:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, esp. one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress.
 * 2) (among polygamous peoples) a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank.
 * 3) (esp. formerly in Muslim societies) a woman residing in a harem and kept, as by a sultan, for sexual purposes.


 * Sure. I can also give this dictionary entry from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
 * 'Concubine. Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin concubina, from com- + cubare to lie
 * a woman with whom a man cohabits without being married: as a : one having a recognized social status in a household below that of a wife b : MISTRESS
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See also Concubine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * An open source wiki article is not a qualifiable source for another wiki article. FrummerThanThou 04:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that. In any case as you can see above, there are competing definitions of "concubine", and we are describing what scholars say about Safiyya, that as a far as the sources we have found is not described as a concubine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The term "concubine" usually signifies a woman who of her own free-will made a decision to cohabit with a man without a formal marriage. As I understand it, there was an Arab concept of concubinage (albeit not universally practiced by all Arab tribes), but this is unrecognized in Muslim law; at what point Muslim law coalesced into this differentiation, I do not know — although it may hold the key to what her marriage to Mohammed may best be described as. In any case, there was a formal marriage (although some sources suggest there may have been a brief interlude of concubinage preceding the marriage). And, of course, one may certainly question the degree of free will with which Safiyya entered into the marriage given the recent slaughter of her kinsmen, family and husband, as well as the fate awaiting a widow in that time and place. In short, "concubine" is a rather inaccurate description of her, although concubinage is way her "marriage" to Mohammed is most often described in English-language texts.


 * There are three forms of legal marriage in Muslim law: nikah (which is essentially the same thing as we mean by "marriage"), nikah mut'ah (a "temporary" or perhaps "trial" marriage), and ma malakat aymanukum (marriage to a captive or slave) marriage to a ma malakat aymanukum (a captive or slave). The last-mentioned would seem to be the most probable form of marriage which Mohammed and Safiyya contracted; the most accurate description in Western terms would probably be "slave-wife." A slave-wife would be of higher status than a common slave girl (with whom the man could also have sex, if he chose, whether consensual or not), but lower than a "regular" wife. Either nikah wife was a spouse, while the ma malakat aymanukum was, literally, what your right hands possess.  One difference is that it was not required to provide a dowry to the ma malakat aymanukum, whereas it was mandatory for spouses.  If she became pregnant by her master-husband, her status became essentially the same as the spouses, except that she was not freed from her slavery until and upon the death of her husband.


 * No few Muslim commentators insist, however, that Mohammed gave her the freedom to make a free-will choice and that their marriage was, accordingly, nikah. I am not sure that isn't a case of "backwards interpretation," especially given the situation Safiyya was in, but it is not impossible.  Perhaps those here who are fluent in Arabic can identify what term was used for the marriage and whether or not a dowry was provided by Mohammed. Hope this info helps. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Acctually, you got it almost right: a man or woman becomes ma malakat aymanukum the moment s/he becomes a captive. No contract is required, ma malakat aymanukum IS the term of being a captive. Saffiya WAS a MMA. Now, she choosed to get out of that status and become a Nikah wife. Her dower was her freedom. You need no contract to be legally allowed to have sex with a MMA, while you need a contract and dower to engage in a Nikah/Nikah Mutah. Note that being a MMA does not neccesarily mean that one has sex with the captor. If woman is a MMA and becomes pregnant with the captor, she is uppgraded to a oh... lvl 2 MMA? whateverr... among the perks is that your children will not be MMA, you can not be sold, you must be treated like other wifes and if your captor dies, you will be free. Now, Safiyya could choose to remain a MMA, but she choose to rather be a Nikah wife. She was no coerced to be a Nikah wife, and her captor was already in position of being able of legally cohabit with her the moment she became MMA. So, why did she choose to be a Nikah wife? Well, you get a cool title, mother of belivers, and you get to be looked up to, instead of looked down on as a captive. On the "downside" you had to accept Islam and get veiled, but i guess she considered it was worth the "sacrifice". --Striver 05:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's late here and I'm not being as lucent as I usually am. You are correct, MMA is the term for being a captive and it can signify either a man or a woman – or, for that matter, a thing.  However, I've always seen this third form of marriage called by the same term, hence my sloppiness; if there is a separate word for it, I've not come across it.  (Do you know of one, Striver?) Hopefully, though, my explanation will make it clearer to those here who are struggling with the issue yet lack insight into the cultural differences. Salaam, Askari Mark (Talk) 05:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem that we're running into, I think, is that concubine has a different meaning today than it did historically. Older definitions were definitely more strict. Did she meet the older definition? I would say not; certainly not according to most pieces of Islamic history, from what I can tell. Does she meet the more modern definition? Yes: this is readily apparent from reading the article.

Here is where we run into our points of contention. Frummer maintains that because the term "concubine" is self-evident, there's no harm in including it. I am strongly inclined to agree. In his excellent article, "Can History Be Open Source", Roy Rosenzweig argued that Wikipedia's policy against original research and its approach to neutrality hampers its ability to write history well. Of course, I don't see how it could be any other way without opening the door to a lot of problems. In the end, we'll have to fall back to Fox's tired slogan: "We report, you decide." We present the facts of Safiyya's life, and these facts make her status quite clear. In the end, that's the most we should do within the bounds of current policy. Karl Dickman talk 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Then the best that can be done is probably to describe it as "what would today be called a form of 'concubinage'", and explain the kind of relationship it was then through a brief description in the text or as a footnote or possibly with a link (if there is a suitable article on Muslim marriage customs). Then the Wikipedia version of Fox's mantra would be "We explain the best we can; you decide." :-) Askari Mark (Talk) 06:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One thing that could be very useful, would be to expand Concubine so that it includes all these descriptions and nuances. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be creating a commonsense barnstar for karl for his surmise of a very trivial exchange in his opening words above. As I have been trying to say, there is no WP:ISLAM and therefore she would be considered a concubine since we go by what karl called 'modern definition'. WP does not regard historical connotations and the process in which they evolved into today's standard dictionary definitions as guidelines. Askari suggests a good point, and as I've said I'm already satisfied since the lead includes the fact that she was captured after a bloody massacre, I was all along disappointed in how my points of argument where not contended intelligently. I think we have come to a consensus. I will shortly write up a summary.''' FrummerThanThou 07:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not found any points of arguments to have been not contented intelligently. On the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed one occurrence of the word "concubine" in the article, and found out that there are several more. I have to object to this, this is not accurate. The term concubinage does not include all the rights and obligations that MMA has. Why are we choosing the less accurate term? --Striver 12:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * her rights are not the issue here, was the manner in which she was captured, the whole saga in our part of the world sounds like what we call a concubinage, we are estranged to the idea of a concubine with rights having the dual status of both slave and wife. FrummerThanThou 12:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for "the whole saga in our part of the world sounds".--Striver 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is one conclusion our readers may reach, sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * FrummerThanThou asked me for my input. First of all, thanks for the invite -- this is a fascinating discussion of a topic I know nothing about -- new knowledge, exactly what I come to Wikipedia for. I'm thinking that the term "concubine" is itself sufficiently complicated that it shouldn't be used without qualification. Forgive me if I'm asking for a repeat of information already provided. Is there indeed a specific word in Arabic that is being imprecisely translated as "concubine", and that historians writing in Arabic would generally use to refer to Safiyya? And, more important, what term is predominantly used by contemporary historians in English? We don't get to use our own analyses of history, nor our own analyses of language; we don't get to write history, we get to report what has been written on history. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks jpgordon. I also came to this article by invitation, and although I did know absolutely nothing about it, it picked my curiosity enough to do some research. The sources I found, that are all in English, do not refer to Safiyya as a concubine, but as a captive which Muhammad decided to take as a wife rather than to keep her as a slave (Muhammad had the option. Other women in Muhammad's life were indeed kept as concubines, such as Rayhana Bint Zayd). Editors knowledgeable in Arabic, give in the discussion above quite an erudite response about how Safiyya is refered to in Arabic (ma malakat aymanukum) and the meaning of the word. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Islamic term is ma malakat aymanukum, and it has it's own article were it gives a full definition of the term. There is no merit in using the general term "concubine" when there is a more specific term. Furhter, i argue that "concubine" is not only too general, but even misleading in some sense: some definitions of the word "concubine" is downright Zina, a punishable crime in Islamic law. --Striver 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is Saffiya described as ma malakat aymanukum, or is that your interpretation? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * MMA is the Islamic term of POW's, and she was a POW, right? Now, MMA is more specific than both POW, concubine and captive, right? Could you please dispute one of my statements, or give an argument for why POW, concubine or captive would be more accurate. All the other terms have uses that is not compatible with being a MMA, right? --Striver 00:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was only asking a simple question: Is Safiyya described as a ma malakat aymanukum in sources in Arabic, or not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly: i would'nt know, i can't read Arabic. Is she called "concubine" in Arabic sources? --Striver 06:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (Scratching head) Wait a sec. Why are we worrying about interpretation here? That's not our job. If modern scholars use the term "concubine", we may consider it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you seen any Islamic scholar call her a concubine? Some non-Islamic scholars have limited insight, and using concubine instead of MMA is clearly an example of translating into a less informative term and more ambiguous term. There is no fourth category of people one is allowed to have intercourse with, its only MMA, Nikah and Nikah Mut'ah. It's that simple.--Striver 11:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It so happens to be there is an arabic word for Concubine, it is 'surriyya'. As for ma malakat aymanukum, it appears only twice in the quran, in a context to vague to understand, google it. quite clearly whatever it is, is not a POW which if you look up in a dictionary means a fighter of an enemy being held as captive. Why are we discussing arabic terms? JPGordon, which WP:rule requires us to provide a ref of her having been referred to as a concubine, when considering the reffed material available, she by our definition fits the bill? thanks FrummerThanThou 16:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The burden is on you to be more specific as to which exact rule within WPNOR. This is a unique case since nearly all the material is in Arabic, 99% of the English materiel is from a Muslim perspective and the idea of Muhammad's capture of a 17 year old girl after having slain everyone she knew to them doesn't resemble concubinage. We as westerners believe it to be concubinage and nothing less, based on the very details in the article. The only difference me and Striver have are culture not opinion. FrummerThanThou 18:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Listen, i KNOW that westerners view MMA to be concubinage, that is not were the dispute lies. I am stating that the term MMA is more specific than MMA concubinage [Edited for obvious intended meaning by Karl Dickman] . Are you disputing that? Or are you stating that she was not a MMA? --Striver 21:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "We as westerners believe it to be concubinage" -- we who? You're analyzing. You're synthesizing. You're concluding. We do not get to do that on Wikipedia. We get to cite analyses from other sources. We get to cite synthesis from other sources. We get to cite conclusions from other sources. That's WP:NOR in a nutshell. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The source of one of Rosenzweig's criticisms of Wikipedia, and a policy I don't entirely agree with. But this is an absolutely correct summary of Wikipedia policy.  Karl Dickman talk 23:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"ma malakat aymanukum, it appears only twice in the quran"' is simply wrong, the article about it clearly states it, and this supports it. My argument is not that there is not Arabic word for concubine, my argument is that what you refer to as concubine is referred to as MMA in this specific context. Concubinage, as stated by others above, can include a range of activities that is not covered by MMA, and a concubine does not per default merit a set of rights that is granted as an MMA status. Concubinage is simply a much more generic and un-specific terms than MMA. As for stating that it was MMA, that is very simple: all captives of the Muslims, male and females, became MMA. There are no exception to this rule. Even if a captor would not execute his obligations, the captive would not lose their MMA status, it simply would mean that the captor is erring. I repeat: there is only three modes in were a Muslim may have sex: In a Nikah,  in a Nikah Mut'ah and in a MMA. The fourth form is Zina, and that is punishable. In chess, you don't call it a "wooden thingy" even if it may appear so, it is a "pawn". And regarding English speaking scholars, they could not hyperlink to the MMA article, and could not be bothered with explaning the consept, and it is understandingly so much easier to just go for the more generic and western-understood term "concubine", as wrong as it may be: I can not stress this enough: There is Nikah, Nikah Mut'ah and MMA. Even "marriage" is a more generic form than "nikah", but most people do not bother to specify it: Nikah has some distinct rules that is not covered in the western understanding of "marriage". But in this case is the stretch so big that i can not ignore it.

Do i get my message through? Is there anyone arguing that she was a "concubine" in contrast to a "MMA"? Do i get my message that English writers choose the term "concubinage" in contrast to "MMA" in the same manner that they choose "marriage" instead of "nikah"? --Striver 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For example: By stating that she was a "MMA", one is stating that in the theoretical case that she would get pregnant and her captor would die, she would be free. And do notice that being a captive is not even necesarily included in the term "concubine", this must be stated separately. And then, if one states that she was a "Captive concubine", then one would need to add that she would . By omitting that and only writing "concubine", one is simply either misinforming or being unnecessary ambiguous. We say "daughter", we dont say "offspring". We only say "offspring" if the distinction of being a "daughter" is either irrelevant or not clear. In this case, it is out of the question that she was anything else than a MMA, writing that "x is the offspring of y" is simply un-infomative when one can write "x is the daugheter of y". And i repeat this for yet again: There is Nikah, Nikah Mut'ah and MMA. --Striver 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Question if the George W. Bush article opened saying "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) was inaugurated on January 20, 2001 and re-elected in the 2004 US presidential election"... would you not be able insert "is the current President" based on the fact that there is sourced information of him being elected in 2004? Now with Safiyya, we are not argueing whether she was a concubine or not since we have it sourced very well, Striver only has the problem with Concubine due to the fact that from where he comes from there is a more exalted term for captured booty of men of God. Which exact line in WP:NOR does not let me deduce "concubine" as a title from the fact she was "captured"? FrummerThanThou 22:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm being too much of a follower of the rules by bringing it up, but Avoid statements that will date quickly has led some people to argue that, in fact, the former statement regarding Bush is preferable to the latter. They are in the minority, but it shows that even common sense, empirically demonstrable deductions are not always preferred—not by everyone at least.
 * NOR doesn't disallow you, as a reader, from making that conclusion. What it disallows is for the article to make the deduction, because that deduction has been made by a Wikipedia editor and not brought in from outside.  Karl Dickman talk 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing definitions
Now, FrummerThanThou has gone on to the MMA article and changed the definition to suite his argument. This is not the proper way to go around if your aim is to remain honest. I did not edit that article to suit my definition. The fact is, you only need to read Concubinage: "Concubines have limited rights of support as against the man, and their offspring are publicly acknowledged as the man's children, albeit of lower status than children born by the official wife or wives.". This is in stark contrast to MMA, since a MMA is entitled to support against the man, and their offspring is NOT acknowledged of lower status than children born by the official wife or wives. Is FrummerThanThou going to edit that article to, in order to suit his argument? --Striver 03:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reverted his edit based on WP:V: the burden to provide a source to support a claim, is on the editor adding material to an article. FrummerThanThou needs to find a source in which Ma malakat aymanukum is described a concubinage. Note that I will abide by the one revert rule ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * sorted FrummerThanThou 06:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing definitions and contradictory histories
Along the lines of my earlier suggestion, I have been researching MMA and Safiyya in the hope of determining the exact sequence of events from her capture to her marriage to Mohammad, with the expectation that this might resolve the issue of her status. Although I looked at commentaries by various experts from several Muslim traditions, which they claim to be based on the Qur’an, the haditha, and various reliable early histories and commentaries, but discovered that you can basically choose your scenario.

Mohammad may have noticed Safiyya’s beauty sometime before (back in Medina?) and orchestrated the battle at Khaibar to obtain her as a prize. Or he may have personally captured her in the aftermath. Or she might have been among the spoils of one of his warriors (at least two different men are named) when he first saw her — and her owner immediately offered her to the prophet out of devotion as a gift, or Mohammad demanded her of him, or gave Safiyya’s cousin (or two cousins) or 7 slave-girls or 7 camels in exchange (or in payment of a slave price?).

Mohammad had sex with Safiyya the same day as the battle, as was permitted with MMA and slaves. Or he held off until a three-day sojourn at their next camping place where they celebrated a wedding feast (but with no mention of an abd, the actual ceremony, having taken place); her status remained uncertain during this stop, leading his companions to speculate, until Mohammad veiled her upon their departure from that place. Prior to this marriage, he had — at some uncertain point between capture and marriage — taken her profession of faith and (per some sources, but not all) given her her freedom as her dowry. Thereafter, he appears to have treated her as a nikah. I have found no claim that she secured her freedom only upon Mohammad’s death.

It would appear that from at least the wedding feast on, Safiyya was a nikah wife. Certainly, upon her capture she was an MMA. Whether she might, as some scholars suggest, have been taken (temporarily) as a concubine is dependent on whether or not the prophet had sex with her prior to the wedding feast. On the other hand, Miryam the Copt would certainly seem to have been a concubine. For one thing, Allah had told him he could take no more wives, but could still enjoy his rights with his slave-girls. When Miryam became pregnant, she remained a slave (although elevated in all other ways to a status equal with his nikah wives) until he freed her — and reportedly married her — after the birth of her child (who later died in infancy). (Oddly, slaves who converted to Islam were supposed to be freed, so her story is fraught with murkiness as well.)

Since I cannot find firm evidence that Mohammad actually had sex with her before their marriage, I feel I have to deprecate the use of the term concubine for her unless and until someone turns up reliable testimony to the fact. With all the conflicting stories, that may well be impossible — as would finding evidence to firmly contradict the Muslim claim that she had wanted to embrace Islam prior to her capture (consonant with her purported dream).

Furthermore, because of its long history of monogamy, the West is rather confused about the concept of concubinage. In Western and Muslim tradition, it is a free-will cohabitation without marriage (usually with the woman being from a lower social status than the man). The closest Western equivalent is a “mistress”, but a mistress completely lacks the rights a concubine has. Technically, “living together” (formerly known as “living in sin”) is concubinage — however, I’ve never heard this term used in relation to it, even though there is a certain awkwardness over what to call one’s partner who is more than a “friend” and yet not a “spouse.” To the Western mind, stories of the harem have led to the perception of concubinage being a circumstance of polygamous societies, with the concubine having a lower status than a full wife, and usually (if not always) a slave. To Muslim beliefs, “living together” should be called “concubinage” and that is anathema, and if there never was a “temporary concubinage” (free-will or not) before the wedding feast, then Safiyya was never a “concubine” — as it is properly defined. Likewise, if she actually did agree to the marriage of her own free will (and not a tactic for self-preservation) as Muslim sources maintain, then neither the popular Western concept nor the accurate (dictionary) definition of “concubinage” would be an accurate description of the relationship. Frankly, if there was an undesired and reluctant pre-marriage concubinage, in Western terms it would be described as rape — and I do not think it wise to accuse the prophet Mohammad (or anyone else) of rape based on such flimsy and contradictory evidence.

For the purposes of Wikipedia, I believe that the way the marriage should be handled is by describing what the various authoritative texts have to say — capturing the different stories — and from the wedding feast on, at least, treating it as a nikah marriage. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think i followed you until "Furthermore", but i lost you there. Unless you from then on, you by "Concubinage" meant "MMA". I get confused when you ascribe "concubinage" to the Muslim view, since Muslims do not have a fourth opition, its Nikah, Nikah Mut'ah and MMA, everything else, including "concubinage", "mistress" or whatever is Zina. Regarding timing, i quote this: "The Prophet came to Khaibar and when Allah made him victorious and he conquered the town by breaking the enemy's defense, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was mentioned to him and her husband had been killed while she was a bride. Allah's Apostle selected her for himself and he set out in her company till he reached Sadd-ar-Rawha' where her menses were over and he married her.". I interpret that as a clear sign of waiting out the Iddah period in order to determine pregnancy, considering she was already married earlier. The feast you are referring to is the Nikah ceremony that took place after the iddah was over.--Striver 13:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mark for the useful explanation. I agree with you that we should describe "what the various authoritative texts have to say — capturing the different stories" and leave it at that. The conflicting narratives is the story and provides a fascinating insight into the reasons the narrators used certain words and avoided others in their stories. I would leave it at that, without attempting to draw any type of conclusions: it is fascinating enough for the reader to appreciate without these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Striver — that's why I said it was confusing! :-) It's difficult to be precise about the nature of confusion. Basically, I was trying to outline the fact that the modern Western reader has a confused and incorrect perception of what concubinage really is — to the point that they don't recognize it when they see it around them. What I found is that when Muslim writers refer to concubinage, they are using the correct definition — and correctly state that it is zinah. Based on the proper definition, IF Mohammad had sex with her before the abd (as some assert), then it was concubinage if she was willing, or rape if not. In the modern, colloquial Western sense of concubinage, a concubine was normally a slave — and a woman who was a slave or captive (also looked at as a sort of slave) accepted marriage in order to escape their unfree condition, then they were a "slave-wife" and, hence, a concubine. This is why some of our editors here consider Safiyya to have been a concubine; properly defined, though, a concubine and a slave-wife are two different things. In fact, a lot depends on whether Mohammad gave Safiyya her freedom first, before she accepted his marriage proposal — which is information we apparently do not have — as it is not the same thing as being given manumittance as a wedding gift (dowry).


 * It would help if the definition of MMA was clear, but it is not. Some Muslim sources I read made it synonymous with slaves, or captives only, or both slaves and captives; still others state that MMA comprise only believing slaves and captives, or Muslim men's spouses (depending on which of 12 different ways the conjunction wa is taken to mean), or captured or emigrant women married to non-believers who accept the faith, or "those who you have a pledge (or duty) to care for" (slaves, captives, orphans, etc.). Some sources also insist it cannot refer to slaves, because Allah, through the prophet, intended to put an end to slavery, and since Allah would not allow his prophet to err in this regard, Mohammad could only have married free, believing women.


 * While I had understood that the story of Mohammad and Safiyya ran more or less along the lines of the Bukhari hadith you quote, it appears that this is not the case at all. If the story cannot be gotten straight and there is confusion over what "concubinage" means, I don't believe that we editors can properly call Safiyya a concubine. We can — and should — report what different respected authorities (Muslim and non-Muslim) have to say about the issue (and what they call the relationship between Mohammad's and Safiyya's relationship), but we cannot apply the term "concubine" to her as being broadly accepted as an accurate description. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC) -- You're welcome, Jossi! I thought it better to learn more than just debate it.
 * That's the spirit! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... im open to suggestion, if you make some edits, then i can comment on them. Regarding what you wrote;
 * What I found is that when Muslim writers refer to concubinage, they are using the correct definition — and correctly state that it is zinah. Based on the proper definition, IF Mohammad had sex with her before the abd'' (as some assert), then it was concubinage if she was willing, or rape if not.

This makes it unclear to me if we understand eachoter. I get the impression that you mean "sex with concubine = zina". I can agree with that, if i am married and i get misstress whom i have sex with without marrying her (May God protect me from such), then i would be doing Zina in Islamic terms and i would be having a concubine in western terms. However, if somebody gets a already married MMA, what westerners would refer to as a captive, then we have some different situations:
 * If i had sex with her straight away, i would be violating iddah rules. Now, i don't know what that means if one ignores iddah rules with an MMA. But i know that if a free Muslim just had a divorce, and then i disregard the iddah and straight away marry her and have sex with her, that would be Zina, since the marriage contract would be invalid, at least to my understanding.
 * If i had sex with my MMA after her Iddah period, it would be fully legal in the Islamic sense. In the western sense, it might be .... i don't know, bad (?) to have sex with a captive. This, since being a captive in a western sense has lesser rules and regulations.
 * If westerner has a captive, and makes her a "captive-wife", Islamicly, one of two things my have happened. 1) Nothing, she is still a MMA, still being legally allowed to her captor and still not being a real wife. 2) She is considered married and no longer a MMA, thus getting more rights than a "captive-wife".
 * If a Muslim inpregrants her MMA, she becomes a "uppgraded" MMA, thus her captor no longer might sell her and she will be free on his death. Maybe this "uppgrade" from normal MMA is comparable to being a "captive-wife"? The "uppgraded" MMA is not a real wife though, she may not file for divorce to a judge for example.
 * If i have a MMA and marry her in a Nikah or Nikah Mut'ah, then she is no longer an MMA. There is no direct gain for the captor in marrying a MMA, only that he is losing her as a MMA and is no longer able to sell her. However, by doing that he is at the same time freeing a MMA, and freeing MMA's (your own or others) is considered a very pious act.

I would like to note that i am not 100% sure regarding loosing MMA status on becoming a Nikah or Nikah Mut'ah wife, but that is my current understanding.

Now, having said this, if i take a captive/MMA and have intercourse with here prior to marrying her, it would not be Zina, since i am legaly entitled to her. But i am not legally entitled to somebody else's captive/MMA, that would be Zina, a punishable offense. While in western eyes, it does not matter who you are having sex with, your own captive, your friends captive or some third person, it's all called concubinage. You see the big difference?

Maybe in some sense it would be correct to say that what is regarded as "my captive" in western view is termed "my MMA", and "my MMA" has the same conotation as "My captive wife", ie, in Muslim view, all your MMA are automatically "semi-wedded" to you. See? That is why westerners distinguish between "captive" and "wife-captive", while Muslims do not, since Muslims view all captives as "wife-captives", "semi-married" to their captor.

Now, in western view, it is not a tabo to have sex with your friends "captive", but it would be a tabo to have sex with your friends "wife-captive". Muslim view it as always a crime to have sex with your friends MMA, since she is always automatically her "wife-captive".

Now, westerners refer to "wife-captives" and captives that you just happen to have sex with and third parties that you happen to have sex with as "concubines". This is an abomination in Muslim view, in Muslim view, you don't get to have sex with your friends "captives" or "wife patives" or third parties that you are not married to.

Now, some Muslims refer to MMA's as concubines. When they do so, they are refering to the a very narrow western definition of "concubine", only the "i have sex with my captive, wife or no wife". And here comes the inaccuracy, they are fully aware of this narrowing down of the term, but when somebody else reads it, they might miss this sensitive difference. Therefore, it is wrong to claim that Saffiya was Muhammad's "concubine", since in western terms, that could mean "Mummad's friends slave that he happens to have a relation with" or it could even mean "some girl that he is having a relation with", and this two additionl meanings is regarded as higly offesive by Muslims, since doing them is punishable criminal offesnse...

Man, that was a lot of text, i don't know if anybody benefited from reading it.... --Striver 14:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I claim responsibility for the following edits: Bless sins 21:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Muslims stole their land
Please don't remove this fact. Arrow740 00:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You edits have messed up the section. For example you have put in "In May 629 the Muslims attacked Khaybar and triumphed over the Banu Nadir in the Battle of Khaybar" twice. I am reverting your edits as well as removing the parts referenced to "Hekmat, Anwar," an unreliable source.Bless sins 21:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You also messed up the marriage section and wrongly accused me of putting in Maududi's commentary, though I will certainly consider putting Maududi's opinions.Bless sins 21:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain why "Hekmat, Anwar" is an unreliable source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Anwar Hekmat isn't in an academic position to comment on Islam. A google search of him turns this article as the first link to him. Reading a summary of his book on amazon shows that his views are extremist.
 * "Anwar Hekmat tells us of the brutality inflicted on women in the Islam religion".
 * "Mohammed is also depicted with insatiable sexual appetites that knew little boundaries"
 * "Much of the Islamic religion, claims Hekmat, is clever propaganda simply created to allow Mohammed to do as he pleased."
 * Jossi, the burden is on you as "the editor who adds or restores material", to prove the reliability of this material, per WP:Verifiability.Bless sins 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting policy. The burden is about providing sources, and a bonafide book is provided. The fact that she has a specific POV only means that it can be described as per WP:NPOV. The fact that you consider her "extremist" does not make it so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't just provide "sources", you must present reliable sources. You have to show that Anwar meets the criteria as outlined in WP:RS.Bless sins 23:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Also note that we are not using the book as a source. It is in the further reading section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes we are. Reference number 6 is sourced to the book.Bless sins 23:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, we should direct the reader to a book that is not scholarly.Bless sins 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you disputing the statement cited from that book? "A massacre ensued and all the all the males of Banu Nadir were slain, the town was pillaged, women were raped and taken as slaves with the surviving children". In any case, a book such as this one is as a reliable source, as any other book on the subject. Amazon reviews, BTW, are not a measure of reliability or lack thereof. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not all sources need to be "scholarly" to be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think i understand your argument. Are you saying we don't need reliable source (WP:RS) in order to make an addition on wikipedia? Are you implying that I can pick up any book, and start adding information from it to wikipedia? Yes, I'm disputing the statement quoted above. Please show that Anwar's book is a reliable source.Bless sins 23:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (a) It is a published book; (b) it is on the subject; (c) It is published and available in bookstores and libraries. What else do you think is needed to assert reliability? Please read WP:ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And yes, you can pick up a published book and use that a source for an article in Wikipedia. Absolutely. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So anything that is published, is on the subject, and is available in a bookstore can be on wikipedia? I am totally astounded, by your thoughts (which I find revolutionary). Since you're an admin, I must take your opinions really seriously.
 * You asked "What else do you think is needed to assert reliability?" On Talk:Banu Qurayza, I was told that I couldn't put statements on the article unless,
 * "The [source] has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.WP:RS"
 * Thus I've been under the illusion that the source needs to be peer-reviewed, praised in a scholarly journal, and the author needs to be distinguished in his/her field or be a professor in a university, and the book needs to be published by a university press etc.
 * Tell me one last thing: can I go to Islam and insert "Islamic is a clever propaganda simply created to allow Mohammed to do as he pleased", source to Anwar?Bless sins 23:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, you were under an illusion. Articles in Wikipedia are based on a myriad of sources, and not only on peer-reviewed articles. Of course, scholarly sources are most welcome and in many instances, preferred. But that does not preclude other less "scholarly" sources. You may want to read in detail our two core policies: WP:NPOV, and WP:ATT. After you have done so, I will be happy to continue this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability and WP:RS (something I probably read too much of). But I've read read WP:ATT, is it a new policy? I'll read and then comeback.Bless sins 23:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately WP:RS is a bit of a mess of a guideline. Read just the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. It is all there. ATT replaced WP:V and WP:NOR as of yesterday. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I go to Islam and insert "Islamic is a clever propaganda simply created to allow Mohammed to do as he pleased"?. yes, you can try, although you may find some opposition in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You asked: So anything that is published, is on the subject, and is available in a bookstore can be on wikipedia?. Well, that requires some context. Most important is "it is relevant"? Is it pertinent to the subject? Does add value to the article? Does it contain material that is not available elsewhere? Does it disagree or agree with other sources? Doe it represent a significant viewpoint? Is the author known? etc. etc. etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But all the opposition I find will be illegitimate, since I am doing something clearly legal in wiki policies. Right?Bless sins 23:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has policies, but you have to collaborate with others in their application. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by collaborate with others in their application? If a book is reliable it is reliable, that doesn't really change.Bless sins 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I read WP:ATT. I found the following quote relevent:  All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

As to what is reliable I found this:Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

Can you show me how Anwar is regarded "as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand [i.e Islam/Islamic history]"?Bless sins 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? Hekmat wrote a book about Women in Islam. Quite an interesting one at that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But just because one has written a book doesn't mean one is a reliable source on the topic. Hitler wrote a book on the Jews and his distorted view of the world. That doesn't make him a reliable source. Please show hwo Anwar is a "trustworthy or authoritative". Bless sins 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the book is controversial, but we are using it as a source for an historical fact that is not disputed. I would not object if you replace the source with another one, if you can find such a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes so please show how Anwar is a "trustworthy or authoritative" source on history. It is really hard to beleive that a person with a perverted view of historical figures can be considered a "reliable source" by default.Bless sins 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not really care for your assessment of Hekmat to have "perverted view of historical figures". As I said, if you have a different source for that material, you are welcome to replace it. But until then, this source is usable for the specific material in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why use Hekmat, when he's not a reliable source for history? Should we use David Irving, a known holocaust denier, as "reliable source" for the Holocaust?
 * "if you have a different source for that material, you are welcome to replace it" So, in other words the material will stay but I can only replace the source. It seems you have already decided the fate of the article before debate.
 * You said: "but you have to collaborate with others in their application." Then why are you making decisions unilaterally?Bless sins 02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is, you have no reason to believe the statement attributed to him is false. In fact, you know it to be true. Arrow740 02:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On teh contrary there isn't any reason that this source is reliable.Bless sins 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We are discussing this, aren't we? I would like to ask a simple question: is the massacre a disputed fact? If it is we ought to describe the dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's disputed since no other scholarly source relates it. The reason most sources I've read don't dispute this, is because they don't even know about this claim. If Anwar said that Muhammad was the king of Persia (he wasn't), I doubt there is a a scholarly work that says "Muhammad was not the king of Persia".Bless sins 04:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * :) I see your point. You seem much more familiar than I ever be with this subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The exact quote please
Please paste below the exact quote upon which this claim of "massacre" is based.Bless sins 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Added as a footnote. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken. The quote you've been adding on this page and others relates to the Banu Qurayza, whose men were indeed killed. The statement "The arbitrator, Sa'd, gave his verdict as follows:" attests to this fact. Please re-check your sources.Bless sins 04:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be right. I will re-check. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What a mess... Hekmat seems to mix apples and oranges in that book. I just found this, that contradicts that completely. OI shall leave this article to those that are more familiar. Please delete the cite from Hekmat and use this one instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The continued strife with the Jews provided the faithful with a convenient opportunity for replenishing their fortune. Barely one year after the battle of Uhud, Mohammed disposed of the second Jewish tribe, Banu Nadir. After the Jews had been besieged for a while they were permitted to withdraw unmolested. They departed to the accompaniment of drums and the music of strings. Their wives were decked in festive costumes, and they dazzled the warriors of the Prophet by their beauty and elegance. A people that could not be crushed! The tribe of Banu Nadir migrated to Khaibar, fifteen miles north of Medina, and the plantations which they had possessed in Medina were divided among the emigrants.


 * Andrae, Tor, Mohammed: The Man and His Faith translated by Theophil Menzel, (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1960), pp.152
 * This refers to the explusion of the Nadir from Medina, an event that happened years before Khaybar. Anyways, I suggest that you remove statements and references which you (re-)inserted in this and Battle of Khaybar. I'm afraid my removal may lead to an edit war.Bless sins 04:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The slaughter of the Banu Nadir can also be found in Vaglieri's article on Khaybar in the EoI. I am removing Mubarakpuri; his speculations on history are not relevant, because he is not a historian. Arrow740 04:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The massacre of the Nadir men is mentioned in Norman Stillman. Beit Or 22:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I get the relevent quotes that suggest this?Bless sins 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "I am removing Mubarakpuri; his speculations on history are not relevant, because he is not a historian." - you neglect to mention that he is an Islamic scholar, commenting on Islamic history, and more importantly in a field where he has published a highly popular publication, and has previously been employed by an eminent Islamic university to research in this field.  ITAQALLAH   00:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If Stillman is making this claim then it indeed appears to be exceptional and is not to be found among the main stream accounts of the Nadir and seemts to be a mix up. No account of Khaybar, which is where Saffiyah was captured, seems to mention this unlike that one of the Qurayzah.--Tigeroo 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I got the book and indeed it seems to be mixed up.Bless sins 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Anwar Hekmat is not a reliable source. Please stop re-inserting him. In addition, this artcile is about Safiyya, therefore it is not a place to discuss what happened to Banu Nadir after Safiyya left it. We should also not be going into tremendous detail about her husband.Bless sins 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Globalize
This article suffers from a serious lack of non-western academic analysis. More specifically Muslim historical analysis and paints the speculations of western academic as undisputed facts instead of attributing them as the particular author's opinion on events. I give the benefit of doubt to the article that it is not intentionally POV but POV as a result of a systematic bias. Emotive assertions such as massacre have no place in an NPOV article.--Tigeroo 21:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Aside from that, I can't believe some users have a hard time understanding that Hekmat is not a reliable source. Even Jossi, who once said that Hekmat may be a reliable source, came to the conclusion long time ago that Hekmat isn't.Bless sins 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also please stop removing the reference from Stowassre that I aded. It's relevent and relaible.Bless sins 22:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough
Arrow740 (and others) are edit-warring agaisnt concensus on talk page. None of the parties opposing the version that I (and Tigeroo, Itaqallah...) support have edited the talk page since February.

I am stating my objections against your edits, one last time. Please respond to this before reverting.Bless sins 20:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Verification that the Nadir were killed has failed. I asked for the quote months ago, yet received nothing.
 * You are removing content sourced to relaible sources (Stowasser, Watt and Nomani). Stop it.
 * You are insert content sourced to Anwar Hekmat. Yet the concensus in this talk page has been (for several months) that Hekmat is an unreliable source. No arugment has been put forth to suggest otherwise.
 * Finally you can't use primary sources (e.g. hadith) to push a particular argument. Please cite reliable secondary sources.
 * "relaible sources (Stowasser, Watt and Nomani)."
 * That's awfully self-conscious of you. "Watt and Nomani," yes. Re Anwar Hekmat, you have a point, but not one with which I'm likely to sympathize so long as you're pushing partisan sources of your own (including Mubarakpuri and "Maulana" Muhammad Ali.)Proabivouac 05:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no content sourced to Hekmat. Arrow740 05:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed there isn't. Meanwhile we have, "Muslim scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali holds that Muhammad married the widow, who had already fallen into his hands as a captive, as a gesture of goodwill." Um, well, naturally, of course.Proabivouac 05:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How repugnant. Arrow740 05:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * About "partisan sources". Please link me to the wiki policy that says we can't use sources by Muslim scholars. Secondly, is Ibn Hisham not partisan? Is Bukhari not partisan? Infact, Watt, Stillman etc... all get their information from these "partisan" sources who insist upon calling Muhammad as "Allah's Apostle". Finally, why do you get annoyed by the title "Maulana"? It is a title of respect given to one who has studied Islam in depth.Bless sins 05:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact of their partisanship aside, who else would describe what Muhammad did to her as "an act of goodwill?" Arrow740 05:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This should go without saying, but we wouldn't use either Ibn Hisham or Bukhari if more neutral observers or near-observers of these events were available.
 * As for "Maulana," you are no doubt aware of titles accorded to academic scholars, such as "Doctor" and "Professor," which are not used in mainspace per MOS.Proabivouac 05:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but we don't. Any content about Muhammad (and his family) comes from Muslim sources. Thus there realy is no problem in sourcing content to Muslim scholars as long as we attribute opinions.
 * I see your argument. Thus in my future edits, I'll remove the word "Maulana".Bless sins 06:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Rodinson material
We have two assertions from Rodinson which have been the object of edit-warring. The first states that Muhammad took Safiyya into his bed the first night; the second argues that in doing so, Muhammad violated his own command to wait until the end of the first menstrual period. Obviously, the second of these is quite contentious, and I'm not certain how relevant it is: where/when was this command issued? If it's to remain, it must be attributed, as it is not merely a fact, but an argument. That aside, I am not aware of any controversy surrounding the first assertion; I'd thought this was the standard account from the primary sources. Am I mistaken?Proabivouac 19:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the argument? He stated one thing previously, then violated it himself. No argument. Rodinson is not making a point; if he were to say "Muhammad showed this tendency, here is the evidence" then that would be an argument. That is not what we're quoting here. Arrow740 20:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Rodinson is a scholar in Islamic law (the Shariah). And the Shariah is quite complicated. I'm sure there is an explanation for this, and that Rodinson isn't the only one to have noticed this behaviour. I'll try to look up some scholar who explains this.Bless sins 20:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Stowasser
Stowasser is a valid source, so far as I can discern, and the information sourced to her seems relevant enough. Could someone share here the relevant quotes from the referenced paper?Proabivouac 04:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the husband quote, "She also dreamed of ”a moon that drew close from Yathrib wedina] until it fell into my lap,” to which her Jewish husband replied, ”You want to be married to that king who is coming from Medina’ and hit her in the face; the mark was still visible when the Prophet married her after the conquest of Khaybar."Bless sins 05:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And you extracted as the essense of this quote that he hit her and it left a mark. Arrow740 05:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Bless sins, re your question, I don't find that at all, though due to past conversations I can see why you might think that that's what I meant. I was just asking. To whom does Stowasser attribute this tale? I find it dubious on its face, but if it exists in the literature, I have no problem including it. It needs attribution, though.Proabivouac 05:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally I wouldn't bother pulling out the quote (if I was asked to give the quote for every source, I'd go insane). But because I hope you will put an end to the continuous removal of reliable sources for months, I will go ahead.
 * At the end of the quote it says "(IS8, 86)". However, I can't find a references section. Judging by the title I'm assuming it comes from the hadith.Bless sins 05:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I find this story very interesting. I'd like to include it in its entirety (it's not long), attributed to hadith, if we can verify its ultimate source, or to "one tradition" if we can't, citing Stowasser.Proabivouac 21:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * the same story is mentioned in "The Wives of Prophet Muhammad" by a "Bint al-Shāṭiʼ", "Gorgias Press" - i don't know the reliability of the author nor the publisher, but some indication of the corresponding primary sources is given therein (full passage is not viewable unfortunately):
 * "She said that on the night of the wedding with Kinana she saw in a dream the half moon fall in her lap. When she woke up she told the dream to Kinana who angrily said : 'You have seen this dream because you desire the king of the Hejaz, Muhammad,' 15 And he slapped her face so hard that a remark remained to that day. The Prophet looked at her seeing the trace of a bruise in her eye and was pleased by her account..."


 * citation 15 reads "Ibn Hisham, III, 250; Tabari, III, 93 and Simt, p. 120" i'm not able to view the continuation of the narrative onto the next page (restricted by google books), although it's likely the subsequent passages also have relevant citations to the primary sources.  ITAQALLAH   22:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I myself have heard this story. I'm sorry Proabivouac for not being able to find a source. But I think Itaqallah has.Bless sins 21:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Karl Meier's edits
Karl, you need to write something on the talk page regarding edits like this, particularly if you'd revert-war over it. --Aminz 08:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Safiyya married the night she was widowed
Please provide the extract from Watt. Arrow740 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Watt says: "After Khaybar Muḥammad also took as concubine Ṣafīyah, the daughter of one of the chiefs of the Jewish clan of an-Nadīr; on accepting Islam she seems to have become a full wife." we learn from Rodinson that intercourse was after her conversion. Muir (pp. 377-378) verifies that Muhammad married Safiyya after Kinana's execution and consummated it at Khaybar.  ITAQALLAH   09:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rodinson does not state that the sex was after the conversion. He says that Muhammad was able to convince her to convert, but doesn't say when this happened. Arrow740 01:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rodinson is quite clear. he says (p. 254): "The men and women were taken in the first forts and kept as prisoners, among them a beautiful girl of seventeen named Safiyya, whom Muhammad took for himself after killing her husband for concealing the goods. He persuaded her to embrace Islam and, being violently attracted to her, took her into his bed that very night." - it is quite clear that he says the intercourse was on the night of the conversion, thereby occuring after it.  ITAQALLAH   13:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "And" likely implies "then" here, so alright. Arrow740 21:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Biased insertion"
Explain this edit, itaqallah. How is a fact biased? Arrow740 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can hardly describe such POV/quote-mining, or use of such tendentious language, as 'facts'.  ITAQALLAH   02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a POV, it is a fact. How is the language tendentious? It is taken almost verbatim from the source, by the way. Arrow740 (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost verbatim doesn't mean neutral. In fact, it doesn't even mean accurate, as we saw with your handling of Rodinson.  ITAQALLAH   02:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think my reading of Rodinson was right. Someone could consult the original. How is this language tendentious?Arrow740 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously asking me how "The torture and bloodshed had hardly ended when Muhammad sent Bilal to fetch Safiyya..." is tendentious language? It seems I'm not the only one who thinks this is not neutral.  ITAQALLAH   02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous Arrow but aside that your source by your own standards is not reliable. The author is a sociologist (remember Asma Barlas and others). --Be happy!! (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the passage is not neutral and unnecessary, especially at the other page, which was meant to be a summary of the story. I wish both sides would quit inserting biased material for no other reason than they like the assertion or want to make a point that the other side does the same thing.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we care what type of field lady Safiyya walked through when she went to get married?Bless sins (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow's using of 19th century scholarship of Islam
Arrow, please do not use the outdated Muir. 19th century scholarship of Islam is widely rejected as biased. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is widely recognized as reliable. Arrow740 (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrow, do you think I am kidding? --Be happy!! (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Muir is a qualified Islamicist. Besides, we're not relying on him. Do you think nothing he wrote can be used? Arrow740 (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the quote is from a 1912 book, by the way. Arrow740 (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * William Muir is an Scottish 19th century scholar (1819- 1905). Among the 19th century orientalists, the German ones were comparatively less biased; Muir isn't even German. But that was 19th century. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aminz, it's not simply Arrow's use of Muir that is the issue. The issue is his sifting through sources to find POV material to then insert on Wikipedia. In this case, Muir's personal view about Muhammad's motives here isn't warranted.  ITAQALLAH   22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that and thinking about a way to deal with this. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are other personal views about Muhammad's motives warranted? Arrow740 (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which views are you talking about? The quote from Muir about Muhammad's motives is purely his own speculation. The "suspicion" cannot refer to Muhammad's contemporaries or a similar view held by other academics, unless other sources clearly corroborate upon it. It instead refers to Muir's own suspicions. As you know, earlier scholarship from ministers like Muir are known to adopt hostile attitudes no longer prevalent in academic thought. His book is a useful source for information, but the clear areas of POV skewing can be avoided, except of course when we are actually discussing the evolution in scholarly approach with regards to this area of study. The same goes for this "torture and bloodshed" language (which, as I read it, is also attributed to Muir).  ITAQALLAH   22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maulana Muhammad Ali's POV is included. Why are you not objecting to that? Arrow740 (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think he is sufficiently reliable, hence I have removed him. The information sourced to him is quite well known anyway, and there are already better sources being used in the article for the same points.  ITAQALLAH   02:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether he is reliable or not is independent of whether he is called "Maulana". Whatever decision you come to, it should not be on the basis of his name.Bless sins (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely.  ITAQALLAH   19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're talking about antiquated scholarship we might as well remove Nomani too. Muhammad Ali is clearly inappropriate as a source, so thank you for removing it, Itaqallah.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't maintain that Muir is unreliable. I think we should be more cautious in representing older scholarship. Information-wise, Muir's biography of Muhammad is relatively close to most Muslim accounts. The last time I researched Nomani was a while back during Bless sins' RS/N query, but as far as I remember I think he is likely a reliable source as his works are discussed in scholarly literature and has been described as a historian. .  ITAQALLAH   19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant that his works are nearly as old as Muir's, so if that's the grounds for exclusion, as Aminz thinks, Nomani would get cut too. I don't necessarily object to using either, though I object to using them to insert overly critical or apologetic material into these articles.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nomani was debunked here. Being called a historian is not the same as getting a PhD. Arrow740 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nomani was not debunked, although Arrow certainly fantasizes he was. Historians are historians, and those who have obtain PhDs are reliable in their own regard. Secondly, Nomani was more than a doctor in his field, he was a professor.Bless sins (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At a partisan institution. Was the university accredited by any reputable body? Or was it simply founded to promote the goals of the Aligarh Movement? Arrow740 (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If I present to you a body who accredited the institution, you will then say ask "who is the body considered reputable by"? This is getting ridiculous. If someone is from University of Florida, we don't ask "is the university good enough", we just accept it. I have never seen your type of arguments being made anywhere on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it particularly matters to this article now, since Nomani isn't being used to source anything that isn't already attributed to other reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza
It is misleading to state that "Huyayy and his son fought alongside the latter" since the tribe surrendered without a fight. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a siege which lasted for 25 days (hence there was fighting), and then there was surrender.  ITAQALLAH   22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the tribe decided to surrender without fighting. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? So what were they doing for 25 days prior to their surrender, if not resisting the Muslim siege?  ITAQALLAH   15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

They were negotiating the terms of their surrender. They even went beyond the other tribes and offered all their belongings in addition to their mansions but to no avail. There is no basis to claim that they fought let alone that "Huyayy and his son fought alongside the latter". 80.179.192.75 (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ibn Hisham
Currently we have in the article a citation like this: "Ibn Hisham. Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (The Life of The Prophet). English translation in Guillaume (1955), pp. 145–146"

Ibn Hisham is not a reliable source. Guillame (a scholar) is merely translating the material not endorsing it. Now we can't include material in the article simply because it appears in Ibn Hisham, because:
 * If we did, this article would be extremely long. Besides wikipedia is only to include notable material.
 * The author is hardly an undisputed source.

Instead something like this ("Ibn Hisham Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (The Life of The Prophet), translated in Stillman, Norman (1979). The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. ISBN 0-8276-0198-0., pp.145–146 ") looks much mroe acceptable, because:
 * it shows that the particular passage is considered notable by Stillman.
 * Stillman is a reliable source.

Bless sins (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see the issue here, but if there is one, go ahead and fix it.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to say is that anything that is sourced only to Ibn Hisham is not appropriate and should be removed, unless sourced to a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why it wouldn't be appropriate. We already qualify the sentence with "Ibn Hisham writes..." The only thing that should be changed is sourcing it directly to Guillame's book, but that's just a matter of formatting.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Becuase Ibn Hisham can't be considered reliable by WP:RS standards, no matter how historically significant.Bless sins (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

On "Critical View"
Can anybody find a citation in addition to the mentioned one: "Islam permitted taking women captive and violating their honor in order to justify Muhammad's marriage to Safiya, after killing her husband, her father, and her brother that same night. Can you imagine any woman on the face of this earth witnessing with her own eyes the killing of her husband, her father, and her brother, and accepting the religion of their killer on the spot, and sleeping with him?! Can the human mind possibly accept such a story?"

which talks more about the fact, that she was Jewish, and, therefore, why would the Arabs and even Muslims in general hate Jews, if one of their mothers (religious mothers) was a Jewish girl.

And also cite WHICH sentences in Qur'an give the details of Safiyya bint Huyayy life!? Is the primary document about the Qur'an? Or Hadits? I haven't read any of these, so I'm totally green and this article doesn't answer a single good question of mine...

Please improve this stub! 193.173.39.45 (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all Muslims and Arabs hate Jews. You seemed to have made a horrible generalization and have accepted an ugly stereotype. Voltzz007 (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"...together with all the men of the Banu Qurayza"
The phrase above is not accepted by everyone.

Please refer to the following article: from NEW LIGHT ON THE STORY OF BANU QURAYZA AND THE JEWS OF MEDINA, By W. N. ARAFAT. From Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland,(1976), pp. 100-107:

"On examination, details of the story can he challenged. It can be demonstrated that the assertion that 600 or 800 or 9007 men of Banu Qurayza were put to death in cold blood can not be true; that it is a later invention; and that it has its source in Jewish traditions. Indeed the source of the details in earlier Jewish history can be pointed out with surprising accuracy. "...

"One authority, Ibn Hajar, however, denounces this story and the other related ones as "odd tales".9 A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik,10 the jurist, denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar"11 and "an impostor"12 just for transmitting such stories. " 9. Tahdhib al-tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 17, where the author uses the same words, without giving a reference, in his introduction on the veracity of Ibn Ishaq and the criteria he applied. 10. d. 179. 11. `Uyun al-athar, I, 12. 12. ibid, I, 16. Faro0485 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Rebuttal to criticism
I had to take out the following since it doesn't seem to cite any sources, and seems like an someone just added it for the sake of rebuttal.

However at the same time this points to the virtue of the Holy prophet Muhammed where he did not discriminate against her because her father and her first husband were among traitors to Medina. At the same time though her father and brother were traitors, Safiyyah herself became an ardent believer of Islam and loved the holy prophet and Islam. He infact followed it and showed it my marrying Saffiyya what he had stated as part of his last sermon, " A father should not be judged for the misdeeds of the son and the son should not be judged for the misdeeds of the father."

The question however remains open that if the exact same treatment was meted out to a Muslim woman and her people by a Non-Muslim religious/military leader, would it still be considered a virtue as explained above.

Faro0485 (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits
Recently few sections of article have been removed. These sections were based on Martin Lings' work, reason cited was that Lings is not a historian and was just a writer.

But same article quotes Wafa Sultan who is a psychatriat.

The difference seems to be is that Lings quotation were in support of Muslim view while Wafa's are against.

I think a discussion is needed over this issue.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the difference is that I noticed one and didn't notice the other. Anything coming from an unreliable source should not be in an article. I have removed both. This is an article on a historical figure, not a collection of quotes from politcally-motivated modern non-scholars.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanx, for your neutrality.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we're getting there already! -- Afghana [talk]  00:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That solves the issue. Most things found in Lings can also be found in Watt and Nomani, the two most detailed biographies of Muhammad written by an academic source. Try to quote them, then, and not Lings.Bless sins (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lings was Keeper of Oriental Printed Books and Manuscripts at the British Museum. this is a position  of distinction, and I would consider it equivalent in stature to almost any academic post in the UK or elsewhere. He has the appropriate training, a doctorate from SOAS. I assume  his work will show some signs of his religion, but so will any work on this subject. He did have some mystical predilections, which may need to be taken into account,  and I would not call his work out of field in shakespeare studies in which he had no higher academic training as of the same academic level.  But calling him a non-scholar is absurd. DGG (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lings would be more reliable than Sultan. I'm not sure what his qualifications are exactly, but a doctorate from SOAS certainly puts him in good stead. This is not to say of course that he is of similar standard to established academics.  ITAQALLAH   22:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"together with all the men of the Banu Qurayza"
This line in the article is contested by other scholars. What is not contested is that her brother, her father, and her husband met their demise by the muslims in one way or another. Faro0485 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Historicity of all of this?
Shouldn't this whole article (and others like it) have a huge disclaimer? That all of this is what is understood about Safiyyah FROM AN ISLAMIC STANDPOINT? All the claims in this article are based on religious texts that are notoriously unreliable for knowledge of what actually happened, even if these people actually existed is kinda hard too prove. It is my understanding (from among others Tom Holland's book In the Shadow of the Sword) that the biographies of Muhammed were written at least a hundred years after the fact, that the hadith are unreliable as well because the supposed connections (person 1 hearing from person 2 that he heard the prophet say...) to the past are basically made up. Not that this means it's all just myth, made up. But that is just very hard to know what is myth and what acutally happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.93.38 (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The Infobox
I found Safiyya’s infobox was broken and I tried to fix it. I can not seem to find the problem. Id anyonr could help that’d be awesome, thanks in advance! Voltzz007 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the infobox! Voltzz007 (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

W. N. Arafat as a source
@Xjs80 Please understand that on Wikipedia, we must base our content on independent sources, which is one of the WP:RS criteria. I quote, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective." This is why we cannot accept as a source research by followers of Aum Shinrikyo about their founder, just as we wouldn't consider oil company owners as reliable sources on global warming. Now, does the source you provided qualify as WP:IS? I believe it does not. Even worse, you're using it to cast doubt on material supported by many top quality reliable sources. This also constitutes a violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Also, by the way, in the source you provided, I couldn't find any mention of the story of the torture of Kenana, which occurred during Muhammad's invasion of Khaybar. The source mainly discusses the massacre of Banu Qurayza. These are two different events. However, to cast doubt on the massacre, the source vehemently attacks Ibn Ishaq, whom the author consider the sole source of the story. Since you also regard this incident as originating solely from Ibn Ishaq, you added your conclusion to this article that this story is also "disputed". But we cannot do that here, as it falls under a violation of WP:SYNTH. Moreover, your source is actually completely wrong in thinking that Ibn Ishaq is the only source for the massacre of Banu Qurayza. In reality, respected hadith scholars like An-Nasai, Abu Dawud , and even Bukhari and Muslim  themselves also report the massacre. — Kaalakaa  (talk)  07:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not disputing the matter of the killing of the Qurazya or Banu Nadir tribes, the matter of dispute is with respect to the torture of Kenana and the Banu Nadir treasure which is recorded in Ibn Ishaq and in none of the respected hadith books you have listed. The majority of scholars discredit the historicity and accuracy of Ibn Ishaq's biography so stating this story as fact is disingenuous at best, thus the disclaimer and source I cited. Xjs80 (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you not aware that the source you're using to support your addition to the article actually discusses the massacre of Banu Qurayza and doesn't mention the torture of Kenana at all, which are two different events? Have you actually read thoroughly what I wrote above and understood my message? —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  02:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the source was to highlight the disputed historicity of Ibn Ishaq's biography, including the story of Kenana. As with most histories of early Islam, all of the sources are going to be Islamic in nature as there are no outside reporters. In this case our story is from Ibn Ishaq, the refutation is from another Muslim scholar, so how does WP:RS apply? WP:FRINGE doesn't apply as the majority opinion is that this event never happened, as evidenced by its exclusion from the hadith collections of Bukhari, Muslim, Nasai, Dawud. This is also disputed by one of the most respected scholars in Islamic history, Imam Malik, furthermore there has been significant contemporary scholarship stating the same; from Cheragh Ali "The whole truth in the story is that Kinana was put to death. But it was not for his refusal to give a clue to the hidden treasure", from Sulaiman Nadvi "Story of Kinana’s being subjected to exhortion and put to death for hiding some treasure, for which he had contravened his contact, is altogether a spurious one.", Ibn Taymiyyah says "most of their (early biographers) narrations are of the Maraseel (without reliable companions or successor) type, such as narrations reported ...Ibn Ishaq". The only Wikpidea rule that seems relevant here is WP:SYNTH, in which case I can include the above sources as caveats to the story of Kenana. Xjs80 (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, Aum Shinrikyo scholars or followers can reject all the bad facts about their founder all they want and only accept the good ones, even if those good aspects are actually fictitious. However, here on Wikipedia, in writing about their founder, we don't categorize something as WP:FRINGE based on whether it contradicts their opinions, but rather because it departs significantly from the prevailing views of independent (secular) reliable sources that discuss him (i.e., the subject). WP:IS applies here, which is one of the criteria of WP:RS. The same is true for other religions, including Islam. Moreover, there is no reliable secondary source that states that this story of the killing of Kenana and the Banu Nadir treasure is reported only by Ibn Ishaq; in fact, Abu Dawud also reported it , referring to Kenana as Ibn AbulHuqayq (his full name was Kenana ibn al-Rabi ibn Abu al-Huqayq). But, you made an addition to the article, based solely on your assumption, that suggests that the event only comes from Ibn Ishaq; this is WP:OR. Then you used a source (one that we actually can't accept because it doesn't satisfy WP:IS and WP:RS) discussing different events but attacking Ibn Ishaq, in order for you to insert the conclusion that this event is "disputed"; that's WP:SYNTH. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  00:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Safiyah status or beauty
Should it not be mentioned that it was her beauty that the prophet married her, because according to sahih bukhari it is. Also would it not make sense to marry because of her status because the jews of Khaibar were now subdued by the muslims? Her family were killed so her status is gone now.

Sahih al-Bukhari 2235 Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet (ﷺ) came to Khaibar and when Allah made him victorious and he conquered the town by breaking the enemy's defense, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was mentioned to him and her husband had been killed while she was a bride. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) selected her for himself and he set out in her company till he reached Sadd-ar-Rawha' where her menses were over and he married her. Then Hais (a kind of meal) was prepared and served on a small leather sheet (used for serving meals). Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) then said to me, "Inform those who are around you (about the wedding banquet)." So that was the marriage banquet given by Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) for (his marriage with) Safiya. After that we proceeded to Medina and I saw that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was covering her with a cloak while she was behind him. Then he would sit beside his camel and let Safiya put her feet on his knees to ride (the camel). 81.100.240.135 (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)