User:Bless sins/SandBox

This is my sand box, where I experiment.

Battle of Khaybar
According to Ibn Hisham, Muhammad inquired Kinana al-Rabi about the tribe's treasure, but al-Rabi denied knowing where it was. Mubarakpuri states that al-Rabi was bound by agreements between Khaybar and Muhammad to reveal the location of the treasure. A Jew told Muhammad that he had seen Al-Rabi near a certain ruin every morning. Muhammad asked al-Rabi if he knew that he would be executed if he was found to be in possesion of the treasure, to which the latter responded in positive. When the ruin was excavated, it was found to contain some of the treasure. Muhammad ordered Al-Zubayr to torture al-Rabi until he revealed the location of the rest, then handed him to Muhammad ibn Maslamah, who beheaded him in revenge for his brother Mahmud.

Response to Str1977's post (19:32, 4 February 2007)
Allow me to construct a response.

1. Is Maududi's work cited here a piece of scholarship or is it a non-scholarly book (which is not the same as asking whether Maududi is a scholar)?

Answer: Firstly, if Maududi is a scholar, then it generally (though not always) follows that his work is reliable. Wikipedia puts in emphasis on the scholarship of the author. I will be answering this question in more detail below.

1.1 ''The material 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.''

Answer: Many other scholars have read Maududi's work and deemed it acceptable. One translation was made and endorsed by Professor Zafar Ishaq Ansari, the Director General of the Islamic Research Institute and the International Islamic University, Islamabad. Other translations such as that from Muhammad Akbar (the one I own), were published under the supervision of Professor Muhammad Ameen Javaid.

Maududi is also often cited, as searching "maududi quran" with Google scholar would show. For example he is cited by a paper published by Islamic Research and Training Institute (of the Islamic Development bank). A journal considered Maududi's work in question as "Mawdud'i's magnum opus" and further says "Apart from setting the verses/Suras in the circumstances of its time...", which is directly related to what we are talking about (the circumstances under which Ahzab was revealed).

1.2 In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs...It says that such scholars (scholars on a religion, not scholars espousing a religion) are RS for the religion's pratices and beliefs and NOT for details of history.

Answer: Notice it says "articles on religions and religious practices". Is this article on religion and religious practices? Also, where does WP say that a "scholar on a religion" is "NOT for details of history."

The Banu Qurayza incident has been reported to us primarily through ibn Ishaq and other medieval Muslim sources. Moreover, the incidents weren't reported historically by Ibn Ishaq, rather they were details to ibn Ishaq's Sira, which is a religious piece of work. Ibn Ishaq himself wasn't interested in history, rather only Islam. We know about Ibn Ishaq's work primarily through Ibn Hisham and Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari an exegetes of the Quran. Thus the story of Banu Qurayza falls in the category of Islam (amongst other categories).

2.1 ''Attributability—The more we know about the originator, either organisation or individual, of source material, the better. This helps us measure the authority of the content. Unfortunately, we know some unpleasant things about Maududi. See his article.''

Answer: There are unpleasent aspects of every human's life! No human is free of sin and error. You'll have to be more specific if you want to discredit Maududi. However, this point is totally irrelevent since Maududi is already a scholar. This is shown explicitly on User:Bless_sins/notes.

2.2 And an Islam scholar is more reliable when writing about Islam (see the definition above) than when writing about history.

Answer: Maududi may not be a scholar on Near East history but he definetly is one on Muhammad's life. Consider Asbab al-nuzul, and discipline in tafsir, which is the interpretation of the Quran. Thus a scholar who has written a tafsir (such as Maududi) will definetly be an expert in this field. Asbab al-nuzul means "occasions/circumstances of revelation". This studies the life of Muhammad while he was said to have been receiving revelations. The Surah Ahzab was revealed to him during and after the Battle of Ahzab, which saw the end of Qurayza. Thus as far as the historical events in Muhammad's life are concerned Maududi is an RS.

By analogy, a scholar on Christianity is an RS on Jesus' life (as it is known).

2.3 ''Declaration of sources—A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not. Ideally, a source should describe the collection process and analysis method. Note, this is included under non-scholarly because citing your souces is a must for scholarly writing. For non-scholars it is a bonus. He does not cite his sources and hence cannot be considered reliable on this.''

Answer: Again, this criterion is for non-scholars. I doubt wikipedians are about to challenge the way Stephen Hawkings reaches his conclusions in Physics and Mathematics. Infact, any wikipedian doing that will be accused of OR, since Hawkings is world famous expert in his field. Similarly Maududi is a scholar in his field (Islam and Quranic exegesis).

Besides I'm not quoting a fact from Maududi, rather an analysis of the situation. That the Qurayza wanted to use their weapons against Muslims is not a fact - nor is the conclusion made by Donner that Muhammad turned against the Qaynuqa because they were in close contact with Meccan merchants (see Banu Qaynuqa article). Scholars have the right to make analyses and speculations. Challenging such specualtions is OR.

Merge
(tag removed) mergeto |Article 1 |Talk:Article 1#Merge proposal |date=May 2007 |User:Example}}