Talk:Battle of Khaybar

Blatant copyvio

Most of this article is snipped from this site whose google cache page has been given cuz the site is down. If the article is not removed of the plagiarized version, I'm afraid it has to be tagged as copyvio in a day or two.

Words like "(may Allah bless him and grant him peace)" after the Prophet were obvious giveaways since this is the tone used by non-secular editors. Idleguy 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked your cache link and it comes up with nothing. This certainly concerns me. Please raise it as a copyvio if you have an active link that proves it. Durova 22:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is neutral, for example it doesn't say anything about the tax the jews had to pay.

This article is ridiculous, it blames the entire battle on the Jews even though most neutral historians consider it a battle of conquest against a weaker tribe. I'm deleting everything besides the infobox until somone can rewrite it with a NPOV.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I endorse Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg's revert of 155.13.48.17's anti-Jewish screed. User 155.13.48.17 must address the objections which have been raised towards this article and his proposed replacement.

Timothy Usher 09:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This last version is even more ridiculous than the regular telling.Timothy Usher 21:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, if u disagree with the way i described the battle of Khaybar, then you are free like a bird to make corrections but please don't erase the whole article. If you want, you can create a section within the article about the battle from the Jews point of view. OKAy! Salman Shah

Thats funny, "a section in the article from the Jews point of view", how about an actual article written in a neutral pov. The reason the written part of the article need to be deleted as it currently stands is becasue it is written with an extreme pov in its entirety, deleting a few passages won't help.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Further, it is totally unsourced. Can we start by asking where you are getting all this information?

p.s. as for "violating the women", Muhammad himself violated a woman named Safiyah after torturing her husband and beheading him. Oh, excuse me, married her. No doubt voluntary, eh? Nothing like beheading a woman's husband to get her in the mood. Nor is this the "Jews' point of view", but the Muslims' own records. Only God knows what the victims themselves would have added.Timothy Usher 02:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't you wirite the article and i will add things. Its better then leaving the article blank. OKAY! Salman Shah

Salman01, what's up with blanking the talk page?Timothy Usher 21:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not know enough about the battle to rewrite it myself, so until someone more knowledgebale than me can write a neutral article, the present version is just not aceptable. It is the most bias and un-neutral article I have seen on wikipedia, a POV tag is just not enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur.Timothy Usher 00:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Then it is your job to find out a "more knowledgeable" person than yourself, until then leave the article alone. I have also contacted all of people to some and solve this problem. So just wait till you find your knowledgeable people and the people that will help me solve this problem. OK!!!! Salman Shah

Actually your wrong, it is not "our job". Our job is to make the article the best it can be, so were not going to just leave the article like it is, that is completley ridiculous.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Then instaed of deleting the whole article, edit it! Salman Shah

I think what he is saying is that that's his edit. Why don't we try to build this up from an uncontroversial stub instead? I'll see if I can come up with something. Copying and pasting some outrageously biased, unsourced retelling of events is not the way to go.Timothy Usher 00:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I would venture to say that every single noun and adjective in the article is unacceptable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

To say nothing of the verbs. Even the definite articles are on the strident side. As for the stub idea, it seems Salman has already done it. Great. Now we can start anew.Timothy Usher 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Muslims"

Salman01, "the Muslims" is not specific. Which Muslims? You? The Ottoman Empire? That is why I wrote, "Muhammad and his followers." The link brings one to the page of the prophet in case anyone is confused. This is similarly why "The Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza" is preferable to "the Jews." Please do not revert without joining discussion.Timothy Usher 01:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus they weren't exactly "Muslims" yet. We don't refer to the followers of Jesus during his life time as "Christians".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No guys!! Each and every person who was fighting the war from the side of Prophet Muhammad was Muslim. Because once you say the Qalma you become a muslim, there is nothing in between! Each and every person who fought the war from the muslim side said the Qalma and therefore was a muslim. Salman Shah

Each and every one? Wow. you must know all the people who fought! Can you list them here I think that would be interesting. when we have the total list of every single person who was there then we can checkl just to make super sure everyone said the qalma. Thats the there is no god but God and muhamed is His prophet thing right? I just said it, can i be a muslim now?AgreeToBe

I do bro but they keep on erasing it. Not on this page but on some other page! Salman Shah

You may call them muslims, but it is really anachronistic. Really they were proto-muslims, because the religion hadn't been completley developed yet. Like in christianity people think that Jesus had preached evey single aspect of christianity during his lifetime, but really Jesus had created very little of what we know as christianity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Like just to give one example of what i think youre talking about and im sure there are probablyy a bunch more like this but,suppose you were there when muhammed said that al-Lat,al-'Uzza and Manat were high-flying cranes whose intercession was desirable, before this was taken back. you were a follower of muhammed but were you a muslim yet? does that mnake any sense?AgreeToBe

What are you talking about bro Al-Lat and Al-Uzza were worshiped by the Maccans. Who ever believed in the ideology was not a Muslims. After the people said Qalma, they never worshiped idols; which shows that people that were with Prophet Muhammad were true Muslims and after converting to Islam they never worshiped Idols. Thank You Salman Shah

Banu Qurayza

Wait a minute...I thought there was something funny about this, and there is: the Jews of Khaybar are not the Bani Qurayza. This was confusing me. They were their own tribe. The Bani Qurayza were famously beheaded. Only some of the Khaybar were.Timothy Usher 05:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yea I was wondering why it was the same tribe in this battle.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Those were Banu Nadir, whom Muhammad had previously expelled from Medina, who were massacred after the capture of Khaybar. Other Jews were allowed to live there on condition of paying tribute amounting to one-half of the annual produce. They were subsequently expelled from Khaybar by Umar. Pecher ^Talk 07:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually knew that 50% part. Whereas in the abject depths of serfdom it was what, 33%?

Stick around Pecher. We need you.Timothy Usher 07:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

+++ All that aside, would someone with knowledge of the legends of the region's Jews please rewrite the legend presented at the end of the article for intelligibility?

Cy

DYK candidate? Who posted this?

This article is nowhere near new! I've worked on this months back and this article is so last year. Please check the dates before posting in the front page as a new article (DYK entries have to be no more than 5 days old). This article was created in 2005. please check the dates to avoid such a happenning in the future. Thanx. Idleguy 02:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It was stubbed not so long ago, because the article was a copyright violation, lifted directly from an Islamic site (and unsourced at that). The current version was expanded from the stub only a few days ago, and appears to be based upon Ibn Hisham.Timothy Usher 03:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

re: "Muhammad moved to attack Khaybar in order to raise his prestige among his followers, as well as to capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests.[citation needed] The battle ended with Muhammad's victory which allowed him to gain sufficient money, weapons, and support from local tribes to capture Mecca just 18 months after Khaybar."

Who says this? It needs to be quoted. We can not say these as facts in the article. --Aminz 03:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is very POV and biased. It may be right, but it mis-represents Muslims, and make them appear war-mongering, and only out for booty. Muslims claim they were fighting not for money, but for neturalizing the Jews who they thought were out to get them. The article is good, but it just needs a Muslim POV added in. And Aminz is right, we need some sources to prove the above statements or it has to be taken out.--Silent