Talk:Banu Nadir

An entry from Banu Nadir appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 16 June, 2006.

Wikipedia

Disputed

This article is currently claimed by some to violate the Neutral Point of View policy.

There is currently a dispute over the accuracy of some statements in the article.

Discussion follows.

don't believe it! where are your sources?

Need to see the sources of this story...first time hearing this! At least google it! can't believe this was futured on the main page. Do you have sources for this?

• See all the references under the References section... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 16:06

why cant we believe it..we dont need any sources to believe in the glorific(read horrific) exploits of mohammed.just a look at any islamic country of the intolerance of muslims in general might say what their revealed prophet might have been like....

• I'm trusting that wikipedians will not take the bait on this inflammatory and anonymous comment. We'll continue to focus on the article and what can be done to make it as good as possible. Anon Y. Mouse 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Don't forget that everything has a source isn't true. There are good and valid sources but also we face hundreds of bad and false sources. In my opinion, the section about Muhammed is a total dust. Muhammed wage many wars against the local tribes(and of course many people died in these wars) but he didn't go and loot anywhere. With respect, Deliogul 20:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• This article has been poorly written and is not objective at all. The use of emotive language is unjustified and i cannot believe that this is featured on the main page. I am not muslim and i already find this offensive. The writer(s) should be ashamed if their intention is to attack another religion with the ulterior motive to build on the hatred and prejudice against the Islamic faith. Clemondo 06:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone really needs to look at this article...

I'm no expert but this doesn't seem to be very subjective.

• Isn't that a good thing? Or did you mean objective? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 16:09

people seem to get too confused with these two words.....no offence at non english speaking people or anyone else...

External links

Looks like you've got two bad links there - might want to investigate them. Interesting article, though. Tony Fox (speak) 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• They were just improperly formatted. Should be fixed now. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 16:34

Jewess

"Jewess" isn't an anti-Semitic term. At most it might be considered sexist, as explained at dictionary.com, but then why isn't "Latina" considered offensive? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 17:16

Uh... what are you talking about... it says in the link you provided that it is "now a highly offensive term." It's anti-Semitic and most often used by Russians. Latina is a hispanic word. Jewess, like Negress, is an outsider's pejorative epithet. Tchadienne 17:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read the Usage note? It is not anti-Semitic; it is at most sexist, for the reasons explained in the Usage note on the link that you claimed to have read:

"Like many other English nouns in which the suffix -ess is added to a gender-neutral word to indicate femaleness, the terms Jewess and Negress are now widely regarded as offensive. It is interesting to note that the objection to words formed with the -ess suffix does not apply to words such as Latina and Chicana, whose contrasting forms Latino and Chicano are not gender-neutral but rather refer even in English primarily to males."

Also read the Usage note at -ess, which clarifies that the source of the offensiveness is the added gender to a term that normally referred to both genders. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 17:26

I cant figure out what you're point is... it is anti-Semitic. Whether or not, it's still "highly offensive" so dont use it. Theres nothing to discuss here. Tchadienne 17:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it's offensive is not the point; it's that it is not anti-Semitic. It is sexist. You can claim it is anti-Semitic if you want, but you have simply been misled. If you read the Usage note at -ess, you'll understand why:

"Many critics have argued that there are sexist connotations in the use of the suffix -ess to indicate a female in words like sculptress, waitress, stewardess, and actress. The heart of the problem lies in the nonparallel use of terms to designate men and women. For example, the -or ending on sculptor seems neutral or unmarked. By comparison, sculptress seems to be marked for gender, implying that the task of sculpting differs as performed by women and men or even that the task should typically be performed by a man."

Read the above, and you'll understand why it may be sexist, but it is not anti-Semitic: "Jew" implies either male or female Jewish person; "Jewess" appends a gender to the word, for no particular reason, which is seen by people as offensive because there was nothing wrong with referring to a female Jewish person as a "Jew" in the first place. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 17:47

To make Brian's job easier I will simplify the basic statement: "Jewess" is generally considered an offensive term. Form your own conclusions why based on some of the citations. I think it does not belong in a wikipedia article. Anon Y. Mouse 18:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 18:54

Why can't we just use the term "Jewish woman"? It conveys the same information without offending anyone (women or Jewish people). No need to discuss it ad nauseum. If there is a less-offensive way to say something, why not use it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.88.199.98 (talk • contribs) .

Re: "Expulsion of the Banu Nadir from Medina" Section Rewrite

There's a couple of sentances in brackets that need to be expanded on, and moved into the main body of the section, or removed. Mr Minchin 17:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Where? I think you're referring to previous vandalism that was removed. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 17:58

Clearly biased perspective.

Brian, are you by any chance a Jew? Maybe not. Doesn't really matter, as falsehood is false even if spoken by an honest man, and truth is truth, even if it is spoken by a liar. Which are you? I believe the former. This article, I'm afraid, mixes fact with opinion, blurring the line between truth and falsehood. I like the fact that you quote alot of Arabic sources, translated by one Mr Stillman. Have you read the original Arabic sources, or relied purely on the translation of one man who seems to have an agenda. The article, I'm afraid is flawed. It is not written in an objective manner at all. It's an article that should not be read seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redahmeid (talk • contribs)

• I had no part in writing the article. Why are you going after me? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 18:19

• You need to be specific. What is flawed about the article? What is wrong with the translations of Professor Norman Stillman? Why do you think he has an agenda? Which sections or sentences are false? Why shouldn't the article be read seriously? What is not objective about it? Right now, your post looks like nothing more than FUD. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 18:23
  • Brian, are you serious? This is the most blatantly non WP:NPV I've seen in a long time. Even if the facts were completely NPV, which seems extremely unlikely, the article itself is obviously not. Even if "the Jews of Medina, guilty only of hard earned wealth, innocent of any wrong doing throughout, were repeatedly set upon by the dastardly Mohamed and his supporters, murderous and scandalous, motivated always and only by treachery and avarice" were accurate history, which seems inherently implausible, a NPV article would at least have to put such vile criminals in a cultural context. As it is, having this article on the front page is an embarrassment. Some administrator really screwed up here. Oh, it looks like it was you. Might I respectfully suggest that you ask an administrator colleague whose judgement you trust to double check your call that this article is NPV. - Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.119.55 (talk • contribs) .

• And this is the part where I start heating up my popcorn. Anon Y. Mouse 18:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, the drama! :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 18:48

Negative Light

This article - and the first paragraph in particular - appears to have been written in order to deliberately display the Prophet of Islam in a negative light.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SafetyFirst (talk • contribs) .

• You need to be more specific. Which parts are biased, and what changes can be made to fix this bias? Please assume good faith by not claiming anything was deliberately done for whatever reasons. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 18:46

If we could find a middle ground between this article and the first part of [1], I'd be satisfied. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable sources do not provide grounds for compromise. What can be the purpose of directing our attention to such nonsense?Timothy Usher 05:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"These intrigues of the Jews", "Jewish conspiracies"...oh my.Timothy Usher 05:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to some more suggestions here on the Discussion page for how this article can be improved. This is a great opportunity for Wikipedians to show how controversial topics can be handled. Anon Y. Mouse 19:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Can you find a neutral, reliable source, such as a book on Google Books, or better yet, a paper on Google Scholar, or a page on a .edu site that you agree with? I'm not sure about trusting a website, especially one called "The Way to Truth", to depict events objectively. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 19:09

• ok brian i have a question here which might be silly/naive but i still have.why are references from .edu sites or professors from univs considered unbiased or most reliable.they can have an agenda too..after all professors do have religious affiliations.- an atheist
  • It's not going to be easy to respond to an anonymous statement that has an inflammatory comment embedded in it like this one. If you genuinely want more info I'd refer you to the Wikipedia NPOV policy for details on how Wikipedia defines bias, and how to avoid it. Anon Y. Mouse 19:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • how was that inflammatory.it was an honest acceptance of reality.anyway if mentioned the inflammatory part wud be eliminated and you can answer the question abt veracity of .edu sites.
  • I didn't say they would be unbiased. It's just easier to find the unbiased entries when you're not searching all the intarwebs. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 21:14

changes have been made to the question now.

Ok, here's ny neutral view, if any would care to hear it: the article, as a whole, seems put into a negative fashion. Ill start adding them slowly to the talk page. BUT, the article can easily be simply toned down a bit and you can take only the info thats included in the POV sources and the NPOV sources.--AeomMai 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, it is possible that Norman Stillman has a biased POV. Most of the negative parts came from his worls. It might be good to use info that eceryone agrees is fact, since no one can go back to 622 and say that he saw the looting. The killings during war are obvious. Is it true that ALL the men were killed?Even the old men? Bit of a surprise, seems a bit harsh. You guys vcan discuss the rest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AeomMai (talk • contribs)

I understand your surprise, but most of the Western research of the early history of Islam is based on Muslim sources and the scholarly sources used in this article are no exception. Pecher ^Talk 21:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought I may contribute some opinions -

• The article portrays that the Banu Nadir were innocent of any wrongdoings in their dealings with the Prophet and his followers. However ibn-Hashim stated that the tribe's behaviour had become increasingly insulting/provocative after a particular incident. The incident in question, which occured after the Battle of Badr, happened when a Muslim lady went into the shop of a Jew to make some purchases. The shopkeeper behaved insultingly towards her, whereupon she called for help. Her call was answered by a Muslim man, who arrived on the scene. A scuffle broke out and the shopkeeper was killed, whereupon the Muslim man in question was set upon by some Jewish men and was murdered. Upon investigation, none of those accused of the killing of the Muslim man was ready to admit his guilt. This incident, ibn-Hashim tells us, was not isolated.

• The article states that Ka'b bin Ashraf wrote 'erotic poems' about Muslim women. It is my understanding (and I'm sorry I can't reference this) that he wrote scurrilous poetry, degrading and insulting about ladies in the Prophet's family.

• Ka'b bin Ashraf also went to Mecca, after the Battle of Badr, and visited the Quraish (who were defeated in the Battle), and roused them into taking an oath, with the skirts of the Ka'bah in their hands, that they would know no rest until they had destroyed Islam and it's Founder. This has been taken from "The English Commentary" of the Qur'aan, a heavily researched, well referenced essay, by Maulawi Sher Ali, Mirza Bashir Ahmad amd Malik Ghulam Farid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafetyFirst (talk • contribs)

Replies:

• (I presume that "ibn-Hashim" is ibn Hisham) A Jew being murdered by a Muslim doen't sound like much of an evidence of provocative behavior on part of the Jews. Anyway, this incident was not used as a pretext for the attack on Banu Nadir.
• The perception of any verses is POV by definition; the article says that Muslims found them offensive.
• Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf talks about him calling for the Quraysh to fight against Muslims. The call was quite understandable, I must say. Pecher ^Talk 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Reasons

here are some reasons why i feel that this article is not of NPOV status

... a qualification which provided Muhammad with a convenient pretext for nullifying his obligations toward Jews at a later time.

• POV - i don't think i have to explain why. implication that he would implement this pretext when he wanted to nullify obligations towards the jews, which is inherently false. the jews violated the conditions of the pact that they signed, which resulted in further steps being taken.

... Infuriated at Muhammad's execution of a number of Meccan notables who had been captured after the Battle of Badr, Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf wrote a poetic eulogy commemorating the slain Quraysh prisoners of war; later, he also wrote erotic poetry about Muslim women, which Muhammad and his followers found offensive.[4] Because the norms of the Arab society of that period demanded retaliation for a slight to a group's honor,[3] Muhammad called upon his followers to kill Ka'b, and Muhammad ibn Maslama offered his services, collecting four others.

• POV - factually incorrect - this is more of stillman's speculative POV. Ka'b went to Quraysh to incite them to fight against the Prophet references provided here

"He went to the Quraish weeping over their killed (at Badr) and inciting them to fight with the Prophet."1

(The Prophet said): "He (Ka'b) has openly assumed enmity to us and speaks evil of us and he has gone over to the polytheists (who were at war with Muslims) and has made them gather against us for fighting"2

"And according to Kalbi, he united in a league with the Quraish before the curtains of the Ka'bah, to fight against the Muslims."3

"And he prepared a feast, and conspired with some Jews that he would invite the Prophet and when he came they should fall on him all of a sudden."4

therefore, he himself violated the pact (conditions of which are highlighted in ar-raheeq al-makhtoom), to which he was also required to adhere to, and thus his killing was due to his incitement of war, as well as his insulting. stillman opines that it was merely a matter of honour.

... Muhammad felt himself strong enough to finally move against the Jews of Medina.

• POV. as said above, the jews violated their pact. there is no citation for this suggestion and is merely speculation of someone's intention.

"As his first target, Muhammad chose Banu Qaynuqa, the weakest of the Jewish tribes, who were the clients of the Khazraj, and forced them to surrender unconditionally after a short siege.

• POV. he went to the marketplace calling upon banu qaynuqa, calling them to accept islam lest they ended up like the quraysh who were just defeated. the implication is that he chose this tribe for the greater aim of expelling all of the jews, so he would start with the weakest first. throughout the article this unfounded notion goes unreferenced to any early or primary source. this was not a threat of expulsion, and neither was it a threat of war, as it can be interpreted in a number of ways due to the indirect and rather ambiguous language. qaynuqa responded with hostility and an open challenge, and due to their hostility they were expelled. from bismikaallahuma:
  

"Addressing them, he said: "O Jews! Become Muslims before what befell the Quraysh befalls you." They said: "O Muhammad, you seem to think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you vanquished a contingent of Quraysh having no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for, by God, if we fight you, you will find that we are real men, and that you have not met the like of us". Their answer clearly contained a challenge and a threat, despite the fact that they had accepted his leadership according to the terms of the treaty. This report comes through Ibn Ishaq[2]. Ibn Hajar said that it was hasan.[3] But the isnad includes Muhammad ibn Muhammad, the freedman of Zayd ibn Thabit, whom Ibn Hajar himself said was majhul (unknown).[4]

Even if we accept Ibn Hajar?s suggestion that the report is hasan, that does not mean that the reason for the expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa was their refusal to accept Islam, because at that stage Islam still allowed the Muslims to live in peace with them, and the Prophet did not make entering Islam a condition for any one of the Jews to stay in Madinah. Rather, the Document[5] ensured the religious freedom of the Jews. The reason for their expulsion was the aggression which they showed. This resulted in a breach of the internal security of Madinah." end quote.

"The Banu Nadir remained passive during the whole Banu Qaynuqa episode, apparently because they failed to grasp Muhammad's intentions at that time and viewed the conflict as a usual tribal struggle."

• POV, a continual plug of the notion that the ends was justifying the means in that the aim was to kick all the jews out, as opposed to jews attempting to debase the muslims and convey hostility resulting in their expulsion.

"... Muhammad needed a victory to regain his prestige. The Banu Nadir were a suitable target ..."

• POV, stillman's speculation, not factual in the least.

"... when Muhammad ordered the felling of their palm-trees"

• - citation needed.

"Muhammad easily found a casus belli. Claiming to have received a divine revelation, he accused the Banu Nadir of plotting to assassinate him"

• implies that he was looking for a casus belli in the first place. this is compounded by the above allegations that expelling of the jews was an ulterior motive when such is POV and speculation.

"Muhammad reserved a share of the seized land for himself, which also made him financially independent.[8]"

• from a factual perspective the statement of stillman, a relatively recent orientalist, is by no means sufficient. please provide some references from primary sources or early historians.

these are a few of the concerns i have highlighted with this article. unfortunately many of the articles concerning early islamic history seem to be a bit misrepresented (i.e. marriage to safiyya, expulsion of qurayza) also, perhaps muslims can spend more time dispelling speculation, POV and factually incorrect material? i propose the language used in this article is reviewed and expressed with neutrality, highlighting stillman's perspective as opinion and not fact. Itaqallah 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Can you suggest alternate wordings for each of the statements you highlight, with proper sourcing, to be implemented into the article? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 22:15
  • much of the statements require factual proof for them not to be considered POV, so the burden of proof is upon the claimant. else, that which has not been properly referenced to early historians or primary sources should be removed as it is not proven to be correct, or factual, as of yet. as for rewording of certain parts then i do hope that i would be able to contribute and provide a viable alternative where i am able, although much in this article overlaps into other ones. will do so soon if possible insha allah Itaqallah 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not claiming the current article is accurate, but we need something to put in place of the current content before we can make a change... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 22:33
      • absolutely. and to that end i will attempt to propose rewordings where possible, although myself and some others believe that the whole tone underpinning this article (especially re: style of language used) requires review, so it may take some time. Itaqallah 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
        • We can only there is a dispute over an article when at least two editors quote reliable sources saying contradictory things and cannot arrive at a consensus. bismikaallahuma.org doesn't qualify as a reliable source, and I don't see anything else being cited. The argument boils down to an editor's disliking the article and proceeding to say "give me time to find sources". I understand that an editor may disagree with Stillman, but as long as there are no other high-quality academic sources disagreeing with him, there is no basis for a dispute. Pecher ^Talk 23:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
          • bismikaallahuma does not qualify as a reliable source in and of itself, that is correct. however i have provided the links so that one may take a look at the references they have given where i have quoted from their articles. as stated earlier, the burden of proof is upon the claimant, not on the one trying to refute the claimant. the POV of stillman is of no relevance (and most certainly should not be stated as fact), the correct resources must be referenced, else the POV statements should be removed. secondly, i have not requested time to find sources, i have requested time to re-express much of the article while adding the relevant citations where possible, and i assume that those who have done such understand that it does not occur immediately. similarly, i am not requesting immediate change of the article until a viable alternative is apparent- the point of this discussion is ascertaining whether or not POV is present, and if so to what degree. regardless, a person's argument regarding POV cannot be disregarded on the basis of his asking for some time. Itaqallah 23:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia coming to?

Muhammad took a share of the booty -first paragraph! This article is heavily bias and definitely uncited and lacks credibility. How it is featured on the main page is suspect. Wow..this is the biggest dent Wikipedia has put in its credibility in my eyes, outrageous. - Sohailstyle 2006-06-16 21:43 (UTC)

I agee 100%, this article is a joke. It leaves out most important facts which caused friction between the Banu Nadir and early Muslims. I am really surprised it made the front page. Fkh82 21:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to be more specific. What is left out? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 22:06

It's really important when taking issue with facts that you think are misrepresented or missing that you provide what you believe to be the accurate information. It's not enough to just say "most important facts" are missing. Wikipedia needs your help to fill in the blanks and correct inaccuracies, not just express an opinion on whether or not you approve of the article. Anon Y. Mouse 22:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncited? What about the 13 sources under the References section. Are you denying that Muhammad took Safiyya bint Huyayy as a wife? You have to be more specific. Which parts are uncited? Which parts lack credibility? Without these details, your post looks like nothing more than FUD. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 22:06

Regarding the external resources listed...

Okay so let us see. It is an article written about the history of Islam and Mohammad (PBUH) and the resources quoted include Bearman (who is Jewish) and Stillman (who is also Jewish). Arabic sources that are "translated" by Stillman (Jewish). Very nice! History of Islam written by Jews.

Oh and one more thing, the external resources cited, in fact, seem to give us another POV. This is quoted from http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml which is listed as an external resource.

"At Muhammad's insistence, Medina's pagan, Muslim and Jewish clans signed a pact to protect each other, but achieving this new social order was difficult. Certain individual pagans and recent Medinan converts to Islam tried to thwart the new arrangement in various ways, and some of the Jewish clans were uneasy with the threatened demise of the old alliances. At least three times in five years, Jewish leaders, uncomfortable with the changing political situation in Medina, went against Muhammad, hoping to restore the tense, sometimes bloody-but predictable-balance of power among the tribes.

According to most sources, individuals from among these clans plotted to take his life at least twice, and once they came within a bite of poisoning him. Two of the tribes--the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qaynuqa--were eventually exiled for falling short on their agreed upon commitments and for the consequent danger they posed to the nascent Muslim community."

The other site quoted, managed by Ali Sina who has made it his life's mission to "help muslims leave Islam". http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/b_nadir.htm

The third site http://www.shodalap.com/Jews_in_Madina.htm#_ftnref4 quoted says, "The Jews were NOT innocent at all. The punishment they got was an inevitable outcome of their horrendous and heinous crime. The crime was not ‘rejecting Islam’, but something more fatal, homicidal, and severely atrocious. It’s very absurd to claim that the prophet (peace be upon him) maltreated them; rather, the prophet (peace be upon him) was maltreated by the Jews in every step of his life in Medina."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, now it should make any intelligent human think that first of all the article is written using the words of Jews. One of the external links is managed by a guy who has made it his life's goal to "help muslims leave Islam." The other two sites CLEARLY tell us another point of view. Mohammad(PBUH) was the one whose life was endanger and Jews were the ones who tried to kill him several times even after he gave them a fair chance.

And just because he took a wife, doesn't say ANYTHING about him exterminating Jews. What kind of logic is that? I take a wife who is "not my kind" and all of a sudden everybody thinks I am trying to exterminate her entire clan. I'll tell you what kind of logic is that. It is called twisted logic, biased logic, more like propaganda. If anything, by taking a Jewish wife, Mohammad (PBUH) was trying to patch things up. He was trying for peace.

Its pretty funny how from literally thousands of books, journals, articles, and various publications (may they be online or on paper), the author of THIS article chose to cite things written by Jews and a guy who has made it his goal to "help muslims leave Islam". The other two don't even belong here as external resources.

Oh and I almost forgot. You don't need to "brag" about those 13 references that are listed. If it is only the number of references that matters, I will provide you with hundreds, if not thousands, references from published works that say otherwise. I know, as impossible as it may sound, there just might be a Jew or two who might agree with me. So tell me, will you be willing to edit this page then???????? 137.78.140.190 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.78.140.190 (talk • contribs)

The attack on scholars as being Jewish is too disgusting to merit an answer. Pecher ^Talk 23:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But, sadly, pretty typical.Timothy Usher 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed...and its breathtaking hypocrisy is also unsurprising ... It is an article written about the history of Islam and Mohammad (PBUH) and the resources quoted include Bearman (who is Jewish) and Stillman (who is also Jewish). Arabic sources that are "translated" by Stillman (Jewish). Very nice! History of Islam written by Jews. All I can say is... "Qur'an...Very nice! History of Judaism written by a Muslim!"  :-\ Tomer^talk 23:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, excellent... this isn't all too constructive. Often on Wikipedia we have people attacking scholars because of their religion instead of their merits. It's also attacking instead of discussing. That's obviously bad and I have warned the anon on his talk page. Now, let's get back to discussing the article... I hope the anon has gotten the point that he should not do that but... and Tomer... does that really help any...? So, Banu Nadir discussion... go! gren グレン 23:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhhhhhhhhh, have you read the Quran? Quran is not a history book and it is most certainly not a book about Jews. How very typical of an arrogant Jew to assume that Quran is about Jews. Notice how both of these reponses seem to focus on my attacking the merit of Jewish scholars. No one bothered discussing the issue of the resources and external links provided. How ridiculuous is that! The links provided as resources, themselves tell another story than what is mentioned here. And you know what, if anybody attacks Mohammad(PBUH) claiming to do so for the sake of academics, I am going to attack HIS academic integrity. 137.78.140.190 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Ali

Stop, this talk page is about the Banu Nadir... if you must argue then use his talk page. Not here. And if you make any more attacks against Jews like that I will block you for two days. If you wish to discuss the article then feel free to. gren グレン 23:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear anon,

1. Please sign your posts. Typing 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post will do this for you quite easily, and make it possible for the rest of us to keep some kind of perspective on who's saying what here.
2. Nobody was focusing on your attacking the merit of Jewish scholars, we were focusing on the fact that you attacked scholars for the simple reason that they are Jewish.

Cheers, Tomer^talk 23:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Gren, you are right. Scholars are often attacked for their religion rather than for their merit and for a good reason. Usually works are biased even if scholars don't intend do, religion is just so deep and such a sensitive issue within us that it is extremely difficult to stay objective. There is a saying which we have that it takes two hands to clap. I will never believe a Jewish scholar and a Jew will never believe a Muslim Scholar. Jewish scholars give a distorted view of history (in their favor of course) and Muslim scholars do the same. There are very few exceptions. I am a man of science and I try to keep religion and science seperate because they do often conflict BUT I am also a Muslim (alhamudulillah) and I WILL react if there is a pathetic attempt to defame Muslims all over because I am one of them and everything I hold dear is at stake here. But you know what, this battle is an old one. It is at least as old as Islam itself. If anything, history (depends which one) bears witness that Muslims actually treated Jews better than the Europeans/Christians did. We don't even need to go far back. One can just look at World War II. Hitler tried to wipe out the scum of Germany and England tried to throw them into a wasteland of Africa by relocating them there and "finding them a home" which ended up being Israel. Two-for-one...let's take care of Jews and Muslims in one strike and let's get rid of both our problems by making them kill each other and hence the infernal struggle of Palestine vs. Israel was born. 137.78.140.190 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Ali

It's not surprising that there is alot of vitriol in this dicussion. Everyone please do your best to focus on the central issue of this specific topic. We are not going to be settling any eternal struggles on this discussion page so do not make that your goal. Anon Y. Mouse 00:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A reminder of standards

A perfect Wikipedia article... is completely neutral and unbiased; has a totally neutral point of view; presents competing views on any controversies logically and fairly, pointing out all sides without favoring any particular ideal or viewpoint. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views given a somewhat lesser priority, while at the same time giving enough information and references for the reader to find out more about any particular view.

One aspect of a Neutral point of view is Fairness and sympathetic tone.

If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.119.55 (talk • contribs)

Is the Fairness and sympathetic tone standard currently met?

The previously mentioned [2] says Muhammad arrived in Medina in 622 believing the Jewish tribes would welcome him. Contrary to expectation, his relations with several of the Jewish tribes in Medina were uneasy almost from the start. This was probably largely a matter of local politics. Medina was not so much a city as a fractious agricultural settlement dotted by fortresses and strongholds, and all relations in the oasis were uneasy. In fact, Muhammad had been invited there to arbitrate a bloody civil war between the Khazraj and the Aws Allah, in which the Jewish clans, being their clients, were embroiled.

Does anyone believe the article sympathetically presents this complex clan-based characterization of the situation in Medina?

Does anyone believe that the pbs page doesn't have a dramatically more NPV than the current article?

Does anyone believe the article currently meets the sympathetic tone standard? And thus the NPV standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.119.55 (talk • contribs)

Possible todo - Flag the article as having NPV issues

This was recently done. And then someone else removed it. In light of the current discussion, can we agree on some flag to inform readers there is a large divergence of opinion on the quality of the article? Some believing the article is just fine, and others believing it a disaster?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.119.55 (talk • contribs) .

• i believe that there is a POV issue with the article as well as factual errors, some of which have been highlighted. therefore i added to totallydisputed tag. Pecher suggests that as there is nothing opposing the "high-quality" scholarship of stillman as of yet, there is thus no dispute re: POV. i disagree as a POV is a POV (as has been demonstrated here) and not fact until clear references to the relevant sources (primary, or early) have been given. thus making statements and referencing it to stillman's view carries no weight and no guarantee of NPOV. Itaqallah 01:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • From NPOV dispute, How can one disagree about NPOV?
    • The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral. Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.
    • later... To mark a dispute on a page, type {{POV}}...The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasing that are problematic.
  • Does anyone disagree that the test for having a POV flag present has been met?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.119.55 (talk • contribs) .

Possible todo - Remove the article from the front page

The front page is wikipedia's showcase. Where we show the best we have to offer. The Did you know guidelines explicitly emphasize NPOV. Beyond that normally expected of just any article. It is the second test mentioned, after only new-ness.

Does anyone argue that the article currently meets this stringent test?

If not, should it not be removed from the front page as being currently inappropriate for DYN?

• The question is not whether the article can be improved. It is whether it currently meets front page standards. If not, its presence there is a mistake which should be promptly rectified.

• Well, it has been 6+ hours since the current DYK was put up... they can be removed anyways. gren グレン 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• When we're talking about single facts like this, judging neutrality becomes much more difficult. So, the test is not as stringent as you make it sound. In practice, the only cases that are obviously biased are those that use a specifically-biased word, like "harshly" or "wonderful", etc. If there is something non-neutral about the fact, the fact can be changed; there's no reason to eliminate the entry altogether. Suggest an alternate wording, and see what others think. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 03:37
  • Is it a wordsmithing problem? Change a few words and it's all better? Or a pervasive failure of intent? Consider [3]. There are only a couple of possibilities. (1) It represents a tiny minority view which may be ignored. (2) The current article fairly and sympathetically represents the views therein. (3) It doesn't, but that doesn't matter. (4) It doesn't, needs to, and thus is currently a NPOV failure. That's it. (1) is wacko, (2) unsupportable, (3) a misunderstanding or willful disregard of wikipedia policy, and (4) tells you both what needs to be done, and why the article didn't belong on the front page.
  • Similarly, do you believe the article was written in a spirit of fairness and sympathy for Mohamed and Islam? Fairness can be argued with facts. But sympathy is there as a standard to emphasize that the intent must be righteous. Perhaps the reason this article has drawn such visceral objection, is that the spirit in which it was written is not at all subtle. And had little to do with sympathy.

Possible todo - Flag the article as having Accuracy issues

As mentioned elsewhere, a totallydisputed tag was added, and then removed by someone else.

Accuracy dispute says

• if only a few statements seem inaccurate:
  • insert {{dubious}} after the relevant sentence or paragraph.
  • insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem.
  • ...
• if there are more than five dubious statements, or if a dispute arises:
  • insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others.
  • paste {{disputed}} in the beginning of the article to add a general warning. Check dispute resolution for ways to resolve it.

Does anyone believe a dispute has not arisen?

Does anyone believe a disputed tag is not thus now appropriate?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.119.55 (talk • contribs) .

I don't understand how an article that clearly doesn't meet Wiki standards was not only placed on the DYK page, but also as positioned as the first article.

I think there are some accuracy issues here with not only the sources, but with the verbiage in the article. Someone who unfortunately sounded somewhat anti-semitic made the point that most of the sources stem from Jewish writers, and while he went off on a belligerent tangent, this is a point that should be taken into consideration.

The Jewish scholars may not have an agenda or be any less than fine academic scholars, but consider a juxtaposition of a similar religious tension: Would Wiki allow a series of Irish Catholic scholars to make up the bulk of citations in an article written about Irish Protestants? The fact that PBS, a relatively reputable source, had a completely different take on the same series of events should have resulted in an immediate removal of this article from the DYK page.

Pretty alarming, if you ask me. ----—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benplln (talk • contribs) .

• It was placed at the top of DYK because its picture was used. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 03:39

Ok, but there still weren't several thousand other articles that had comparable pictures of which content wasn't being disputed? I don't think it should be left up, especially in the midst of all of this debate. I think it's been shown that the article is less than objective in some areas, and there are immediate contradictions within it. ---- Ben

• Several thousand? Do you know how DYK works? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 06:35

What a sad time in history, and the beginning of all the problems we have today regarding jihad. Monty2 06:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Tempted to revert to revision as of 17:47, May 27, 2006

This was the last version which didn't have absurd bias from loaded phrases. "Booty," my ass. All the academic references in the world aren't going to make up for writing in a style which ascribes all bad acts to only one side in an ongoing tit-for-tat conflict. All you apologists of this article's current state should be ashamed of yourselves. Publicola 06:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The change of "booty" to "spoils" is an improvement.Timothy Usher 06:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Booty" doesn't mean what you think it means, I think. Can you please specify your problems with the article? What sections or sentences contain problems, and how can those problems be fixed? Your rant is unproductive. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 06:36

Wikipedia rules of civility and NPOV permit groups which normally only spit hate at each other to slowly create consensus articles. And permit... things like this, to slowly become useful articles. But that takes time. Something this article didn't get. (I just now found the wikipedia articles on intellectual honesty, jingoism, religious bigotry, and hate, to be of interest).

Specific problems with this article

Yes, I can specify the problems with this article, from this source:

The tribes at Medina were more welcoming, many even converting to Islam. After a military episode, the Battle of Badr, Muhammed and his followers consolidated their power as the ruling party, although much of the population that had remained Jewish was left unaffected. Three of the Jewish tribes - the Banu Qurayza, Banu Qaynuqa, and Banu Nadir - signed a non-aggression pact and military alliance with Mohammed, the Constitution of Medina.

Jews and other non-Muslim people living under the protection of the Muslim authorities were considered dhimmi - in exchange for paying a tax, jizya, Muslims would provide military protection. Such dhimmi had similar rights, and could continue their culture and worship, even being exempted from military action when a military jihad was called by the Muslim group. Female dhimmi were also allowed to marry Muslim males, although the converse was not true without male dhimmi converting to Islam....

After a while, a member of the Banu Qaynuqa was alleged to have murdered a Muslim woman, and was killed in retaliation by a Muslim, leading to a chain of revenge killings. Arbitration failed, and full scale war broke out, until Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul, an old ally of Qaynuqa, interceded on their behalf and persuaded Mohammed to send the entire Banu Qaynuqa into exile, consequently confiscating their land and property. The intersession of ibn Salul saved the Jewish tribe but gained him the enmity of Muhammad. The conflict led to a ruling that such future action by any of the other parties to the Constitution of Medina would constitute a voiding of their benefits under the system, and subsequent punishment.

The fact that that entire prelude (which I remember similarly from a different authoritative source which is currently inaccessible to me) was omitted from this otherwise very detailed and apparently carefully sourced article makes me suspicious.

I need to check the edit history -- back in May, this article, although much shorter, made it perfectly clear that the source of the dispute was controversial, with the truth of the matter essentially lost to history. The fact is that the conflict stemmed from a single disputed murder accusation.

This current article, in the "Arrival of Muhammad" section, completely omits these details, making it seem like the Muslims acted unilaterally, without provocation. I don't think it was a good idea to link this from the Main Page in this state at all. Publicola 06:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your source is itself unsourced. And who's "Jersay"?Timothy Usher 07:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

At least my source doesn't assume that Constitution of Medina was signed before the Battle of Badr, which the editors citing Stillman's book have been falsly implying in their edits to the present version. Use Google, you can find plenty of corroboration of the fact that the Battle of Badr occured before the signing of the Constitution of Medina. The current version of the article doesn't even hint that the Jewish tribes signed on to the Constitution -- in not so many words it implies it was imposed without consent -- what a crock! Publicola 07:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)