Talk:Muhammad

Frequently asked questions, please read before posting

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for answers to these frequently-asked questions (you need to tap "Read as wiki page" to see the relevant text):

1. Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims?
2. Aren't the images of Muhammad false?
3. How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings?
4. Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad?
5. Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article?
6. Why does the article say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam?
7. Why does it look like the article is biased towards secular or "Western" references?
8. Why can't I edit this article as a new or anonymous user?
9. Can censorship be employed on Wikipedia?
10. Because Muhammad married an underage girl, should the article say he was a pedophile?

This section is for mobile-device users who do not see the normal talk page header. This section should not have any comments, so that it stays on this talk page and does not get archived.

GA Reassessment

Muhammad

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: While instability is not in itself a reason to delist, poor quality sourcing is; the discussions on the talk page constitute, in my view, consensus that the sourcing has been degraded. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It has recently been brought to light that this page and its sourcing have been altered fairly wholesale since the page was last reviewed and kept as GA, and that there is little reason to believe the level of former quality has been maintained; on the contrary, recent informal assessments by editors have uncovered significant issues in terms of prior content and source removal, as well as in terms of the quality of new sourcing and the resulting balance of the page and its contents. The sum conclusion of the current state of affairs has already been assessed by several editors as no longer meeting GA standard. For details, see the existing talk page discussion at Talk:Muhammad#Removal of "good article" status, as well as the broader discussion entitled Talk:Muhammad#Recent neutrality concerns, and other subsequent talk page discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Fails Wikipedia:Good article criteria It is not stable due to edit warring on the page....: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Moxy- 04:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Even excluding the wholesale rewriting the article has undergone recently, 2012 is a long time ago, and the article quality standards back then were arguably lower. I do not see a reason to maintain GA status given the current edit warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mistakes in the article in

Poster didn’t read FAQ No. 6

In this article there are some mistakes, In this article it says that Muhammadﷺ. is the founder of Islam and that's not true . Islam existed from the time of Adam(AS) The first human being and the first prophet of Islam. Islam,The religion of The only true God ALLAH(SWT). MUHAMMADﷺ got revelation from God(ALLAH) and he was a Messanger and prophet of God(ALLAH) he Warned the Wrongdoing peopleto go to the right path. BrotherAnasibnmalik (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC) See Q6 in the FAQ at the top of this page. This is an encyclopedia, not a religious text. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Bro it doesn't matter when you are talking about Islam take info from authentic sources of Islam Mahdi2812 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC) @Mahdi2812: Bro we don't use primary sources to make statements in Wikipedia's narrative voice, per policy; see WP:PRIMARY. We use reliable scholarly sources instead. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Il y a une erreur sur le nom

Il est écrit Mahomet alors que c’est mohammed et non Mahomet qui a été changé par l’occident cela est une insulte s’il vous plaît pouvez-vous remplacer je vous en prie. 2A01:E0A:BA7:C090:CDF0:8B54:567:CA80 (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Please use English in the English version of Wikipedia. "Mahomet" is only used in titles of other works, as it must be. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Information not correct

Poster didn’t read FAQ No. 6

When yor are talking about Islam or prophet Muhammad (s.w.a). YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK BY YOUR SELF TALK ACCORDING TO INFORMATION GIVEN IN ISLAM. NOW WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? PROBLEM IS THAT PROPHET MUHAMMAD IS NOT FOUNDER OR CREATER OF ISLAM AS YOU SAY, ACCORDING TO MUSLIM AND IT'S OUR BELIEF THAT ISLAM WAS THEIR BEFORE ANY OTHER RELIGION SO YOU CAN SAY THAT HE IS INTRODUCER OF ISLAM NOT CREATER OF FOUNDER Mahdi2812 (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC) No. See the answer to question 6 in the FAQ at the top of this page. Also, please don't use caps. It certainly won't mean you are more likely to be listened to. DeCausa (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Actually, even though I am the author of that FAQ answer, I have always advocated that this article says he "introduced" Islam (an objective fact that cannot be denied by anyone) rather than "founded" Islam. I composed the FAQ answer with that conflict of terms uppermost in my mind, even though I know that the community would never agree to replace "founded" with "introduced". ~Anachronist (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC) It depends what the objective is. If it's to find a compromise i.e. a form of expression that won't offend Muslim sensibilities but is broad enough to not be inconsistent with secular scholarship, then maybe "introduced" would work. But I don't think that can be the objective. Shouldn't the objective be to clearly represent scholarship per WP:DUE? I don't think that "introduced" is clear enough to do that. Everyone knows what "founded" means but "introduced" is ambiguous, which is why it might work as a compromise, but not the sort of compromise that WP should make. DeCausa (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC) That was my thinking too, which is why the FAQ answer is worded the way it is. My preference for "introduced" was grounded more in a desire to end the complaints we get about Muhammad being the founder. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC) I doubt that would work. If Adam, Moses and Jesus were Muslims, Muhammad can not have introduced it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Appeasing believers when trying to write from a secular perspective is just not going to be possible. Maybe something could be added to the "founder" footnote saying something like "Muslims believe that Islam existed prior to Muhammad/has always existed", though I don't have a good citation in mind. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC) The early lead-statement "...he was a prophet divinely inspired to preach and confirm the monotheistic teachings of Adam..." covers that reasonably IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC) I agree, seeing that the man is creator of the main religious text in Islam and the secondary religious texts are presented as his deeds and judgements. He is a founder and should be explained as such here. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) "YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK BY YOUR SELF TALK ACCORDING TO INFORMATION GIVEN IN ISLAM." Ummm.... no. Your insistence that we must follow your religion is grossly offensive. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"Foretold his prophethood"

Hi @BilledMammal. Thank you for taking part in the monitoring of this article. Regarding the text "who foretold his prophethood" that you deleted, this detail is the main point of the whole Bahira story, so I think its inclusion is quite essential. If it's a matter of wording, will you please suggest how you think it should be written? Just as a note, there's already "Islamic narratives say" in the earlier part of the sentence. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Where is the Mecca of the Article

If the person sent by the Single God, was born in a place called "Mecca", and the Mecca we now call "Mecca" in what is now Saudi Arabia was founded during the first century of the Muhammadanism, does that mean all our early references to "Mecca" in this article should be to "Mecca" of Petra, in Jordan? Mysha (talk) Mysha (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this related to "Recently, Petra has been put forward as the original direction of Muslim prayer, the Qibla, by some in the revisionist school of Islamic studies, namely that the earliest mosques faced Petra, not Jerusalem or Mecca. However, others have challenged the notion of comparing modern readings of Qiblah directions to early mosques’ Qiblahs as they claim early Muslims could not accurately calculate the direction of the Qiblah to Mecca and so the apparent pinpointing of Petra by some early mosques may well be coincidental." (from Petra) ? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. "Oh, yesterday we didn't know how to do that", is always the defense of those who have no better answer. But regardless, do we really have to claim Atlantis lay in the Atlantic Ocean, for no reason than to not have proof that it did lay somewhere else? Likewise, if there is discussion about the identification of Mecca, shouldn't our article reflect that? Mysha (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Petra does mention that. If it is WP:PROPORTIONate to include in this article is another question. You can make a suggestion on what text you want to add where with what refs here on the talkpage and see if people have opinions. Or you can wait until WP:30/500, be WP:BOLD and see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Depictions of Prophet

Poster didn’t read FAQ No. 1

Could you remove depictions of Prophet in the article. There are billions of Muslims in the World. Do you think these are acceptable to Muslims? SaloxiddinTursunaliyev (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC) See Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) There are billions more non-Muslims in the world. Do you think your attempts to control them are acceptable?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC) And not even all those billions of Muslims agree about said depictions. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 19:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC) That's right. @SaloxiddinTursunaliyev: The Persian Wikipedia article on Muhammad, presumably maintained by Muslims, seems to find the depictions acceptable. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC) They have a mural of him in Tehran. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 21:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

genocide perpetrator

I think that we should add this category because he committed Invasion of Banu Qurayza. Sharouser (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Well he is included on the category list. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed that cat per WP:CATVER. Which WP:RS says this was a genocide, and what content do you suggest adding to the Muhammad article based on them? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's an unreasonable notion, but taking "Consequently, 600–900 men of Banu Qurayza were executed. The women and children were distributed as slaves, with some being transported to Najd to be sold." from "war" to "genocide" needs decent sources doing the lifting. That's my view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Well then we may have to add Moses and many others from ancient times. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There were three Jewish tribes that were in a treaty with the Muhammad, and these tribes all violated the treaty, with hostile attitude, communications with the enemy, and an intent and attempt to fight the Muslims and assassinate Muhammad. The two tribes Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadir were merely exiled due to their insistance in hostility and danger to security, but one of them, Banu Qurayza, were a degree higher in treachery, and were incited by Quraysh to oppose the Muhammad and the Muslims, so there was no choice but to fight against it from a security standpoint. Now, in terms of the number that is spread of how many were killed, this is debated, by analysing whether such a number was possible and what the origin of the claimed number is, as well as asking: "who was killed?"; because killing civilians is prohibited in Islam, so this would indicate whatever number was killed were combatants, but we cannot even accurately confirm how many were killed in the first place. Academically, you cannot just mention one thing and conveniently not mention the reason for it, and none can rely on a historian's estimation when he did not witness it as a reliable number of the death toll. In any case, what is expected it a treaty is broken in such a way? Your edit suggestion to me seems ingenuine and has sprouted as a result of modern day events. MahmoudBinOmar (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to mention it somewhere in the article, but I'm not sure I'd use genocide unless this was actually the entirety of their population DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? The term genocide does not refer to the entirety of a population: "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"Dimadick (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I guess if there's a evidence they specifically went after only that ethnic group that's different but if they just did that to anyone in the city that's not the same thing. DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Patronymic name extension on 15 May 2024

Extend the info box patronymic to include what is verified up to Muhammad's forefather Adnan

Ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim ibn ʿAbd Manāf ibn Quṣayy ibn Kilāb ibn Murrah ibn Ka'b ibn Lu'ayy ibn Ghālib ibn Fihr ibn Mālik ibn An-Nadr ibn Kinānah ibn Khuzaymah ibn Mudrika ibn Ilyās ibn Mudar ibn Nizār ibn Ma'add ibn 'Adnān

ٱبْن عَبْد ٱللَّٰه بْن عَبْد ٱلْمُطَّلِب بْن هَاشِم بْن عَبْد مَنَاف بْن قُصَيّ بْن كِلَاب بْن مُرّة بْن كَعْب بْن لُؤَيّ بْن غَالِب بْن فِهْر بْن مَالَك بْن النَّضْر بْن كِنَانَة بْن خُزَيْمَة بْن مُدْرِكَة بْن إِلْيَاس بْن مُضَر بْن نِزَار بْن مَعَدّ بْن عَدْنَان MahmoudBinOmar (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Source? Preferably a modern-day historian, in English if possible, but other languages are fine, as long as the source is WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 19:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Night Journey Information Incorrect

The claim that the Quran does not refer to the ascension into Heaven (Mi'raj) is false. This is a topic discussed in Surah An-Najm, verses 13-18. I will push changes once I've analyzed the relevant content and determined what revisions need to take place. Emperor Ibrahim I (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The cited source clearly supports the content:

Muhammad's night journey. The qur'anic grounding of the ascent (mi'raj) of Muhammad is tenuous in two ways. In the first place, the ascent is not described and the term mi'raj is not used in the Qur'an. Secondly, the Qur'an stresses that Muhammad brings no miracle (q.v.) other than the divinely-wrought miracle of the Qur'an itself (see INIMITABILITY). Even so, key qur'anic passages are woven through the post-qur'anic narrative of Muhammad's ascent.

Here at Wikipedia, we only report what reliable independent sources (see WP:SOURCE), in this case secular academic sources, say. Not users' original research. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The Satanic Verses & Banu Qurayza

Throughout Muslim and Non-Muslim sources, there is not a single "Sahih" (Authentic) report of the Satanic verses incident. Every one of these is either "Sahih Mursal" (Sahih in chain but disconnected) or lower such as "Da'if" (Weak). QcTheCat (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This article states that the most "authentic reports" tell us that there is no evidence of the Banu Qurayza's break of the treaty. But there very clearly is. Banu Qurayza also did not deny the accusation, this is completely false. As we see in Taarekh At Tabari:

Banu Qurayza Leaders to attackers: "There is no treaty between us and Mohammed and no covenant." (The History of Tabari: Events of the Year 5)

There are many more but I'll include one to start the conversation

QcTheCat (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You say sahih this sahih that, then you quote Tabari. Did Tabari give labels to each account of his books, whether they were sahih, hasan, daif, etc.? No, not to my knowledge. Besides, Tabari also recounts the event of The Satanic Verses (vol. VI, SUNY Press, pp. 107-112). Regardless, we at Wikipedia only report what reliable independent sources say (see WP:SOURCE), which in this case are secular academic sources, and as far as I know they don't categorize reports as sahih, hasan, daif, etc. If they consider an event to have happened, then we report it, simple as that. Also, please read our policies regarding WP:OR and WP:NOTCENSORED before becoming WP:TIMESINK to other editors. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Well actually, The "secular academic sources" have to take a bulk of their information from Muslim sources because they were the earliest sources of information about Islam. As for At-Tabari, he was a scholar of Qur'an exegesis (Tafsir) and an Islamic historian. Whenever he provides some information, he gives an Isnad (chain of narrations), meaning he provides the narrators who inform him of the topic and how they received their information. It is then up to the scholars of Uloom al Hadith (Hadith Science) to check whether the Isnad is authentic. For example, for the Satanic verses. Imam Tabari provides this chain of narrators:

Abu Al Aliya > Dawud > Mu'tamir > At-Tabari

Here the primary source is Abu Al Aliya, however he is a second generation Muslim, which means the narration is disconnected. TLDR is that the primary source was not an eyewitness or an earwitness and therefore we cannot rely upon this report. An academic sources may mention this report to show difference of opinions at the time, but the fact is that this report and thus any academic sources that takes from it is not providing authentic information.

However with the report in the History of At-Tabari (Taarekh At Tabari) where he reports on the deceit of Banu Qurayza, he reports it as a fact that is confirmed. The whole narration of Kab bin Assad's (Banu Qurayza's chief) breaking of his treaty with Mohammad can be found in "The History of At-Tabari" Vol. 8 Events Of Year 5, pg.15 QcTheCat (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you actually open and read the links I provided above to some of Wikipedia's policies? If you were writing for an encyclopedia dedicated to spreading Islam, then maybe your original research would matter, but not here. We simply report what reliable independent sources say, which in this case means secular academic sources. And we don't censor things because they're considered offensive to followers of religions. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you even read what I said in my reply. I am not asking you to change the article to make it "non-offensive", I never said that. I have no problem with it not being "Islamic", I am explaining that the information is objectively inaccurate. The article says:

"no evidence substantiates such an attack (by Banu Qurayza), and the tradition had every reason to dramatize the incident as a justification for the subsequent massacre."

Yet, You will see that even the sources quoted in the article such as Maxime Robinson's "Muhammad" quote early Muslim sources and say that the sources they used did not seem to find any evidence for Banu Qurayza's disobedience. But what I am saying is that there is clear evidence for Banu Qurayza's disobedience that perhaps. So, If I can bring an objective historically accurate proof against the position of the current sources then the source should be reconsidered. I quoted you At-Tabari. At-Tabari provides historic proof that Banu Qurayza did in fact break their treaty in his

1. "History of At-Tabari" It seems like you didn't take me seriously and didn't check the source I provided. Vol. 8 Events Of Year 5, pg.15

2. And also there is more proof in Sirat Bin Ishaq.

These are very concrete sources which academic sources quote much, these sources prove Banu Qurayza's responsibility in their execution QcTheCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Tabari, as well as other early Islamic sources, are primary sources that are not independent (having conflicts of interest), mixed with legendary tales from Muslim narrators, and so on. It is the task of independent secondary sources, or, in this case, secular academic sources, to determine which of the stories are facts or mere fabrications, not the task of Wikipedia users. See WP:PSTS: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 07:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

QcTheCat (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There are many secular secondary and tertiary sources which mention the deceit and break of the treaty by Banu Qurayza. One of these is a book by WM Watt, one of the most quoted Historians for Islamic Wikipedia pages. In his book Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman, He said:

They (Banu Qurayza) had been intriguing with Muhammad’s enemies and at one point had been on the verge of attacking Muhammad in his rear. They had thus been guilty of treasonable activities against the Medinan community.

("Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman" Ch.6 pg.171 by WM Watt)

I have provided two primary sources:

1. "History of At-Tabari"

2. "Sirat bin Ishaq"

And now one secondary source too:

"Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman" QcTheCat (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"On the verge of attacking" here simply means "They were close to attacking, but ultimately did not carry out the attack at all." And this report comes from Islamic sources written by Muslims several hundred years after Muhammad's death (they clearly had conflicts of interest there). So I see this as not really contradicting the Rodinson and Gabriel sources, which say more or less "but no evidence substantiates such an attack, and the tradition had every reason to dramatize the incident as a justification for the subsequent massacre". — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 10:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

As WM Watt says, Banu Qurayza were "intriguing with Muhammad’s enemies" and at "The verge of attacking". I have already told you in every one of my responses, Banu Qurayza broke their treaty. I never said they massacred the Muslims, If that was the case, Islam wouldn't exist today. Banu Qurayza had negotiations with the Quraysh, and then were prepared to attack. That is a very clear break of their treaty which states that they were not to share resources, plot against the Muslims or attack, etc. How is punishment for breaking of a treaty that was almost to result in a massacre of the Muslims, considered a "dramatisation". QcTheCat (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Watt seems pretty clear. If there are contradictory sources that present alternative narratives, those can also be mentioned, but I can't see a reason to rule out what Watt plainly states. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

So the Qurayza only "prepared to attack" but did not actually carry out the attack, is that right? Which means that there were no casualties caused by Qurayza to the Muslims at all, right? But Muhammad then decided that all the adult men of Qurayza had to be killed and their women and children enslaved, with some sold to Najd to finance the purchase of weapons and horses for the Muslims, right? And all of this, including the claim that Qurayza was preparing to attack, is based on Muslim sources, right? This does not seem to me to contradict Rodinson's and Gabriel's analyses above, more or less: "But no evidence substantiates such an attack, and the tradition had every reason to dramatize the incident as a justification for the subsequent massacre." Considering that Muhammad had also intended to massacre another Jewish tribe, Banu Qaynuqa, before this, which failed to be realized after the chief of Khazraj, Abdullah ibn Ubayy, threatened him. In the end, that other Jewish tribe was only expelled, with their possessions becoming the property of Muhammad and his followers. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 20:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you are understanding what I am explaining. Breaking of the Banu Qurayza's Treaty took place with "Negotiations with Quraysh" and "Preparation for attack". Negotiations with Quraysh does not mean a little dinner, it means supplying weapons, funding the Quraysh. This funding was going to Quraysh's army to attack Medina.

And this is from secular academic sources themselves, as Karen Armstrong says in her book "Muhammad":

"Initially Qurayza were hesitant, but when they saw the vast Meccan army filling the plain in front of the city as far as the eye could see, their chief agreed to help the confederacy and provide the Quraysh with weapons and supplies."

(Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad" Ch.4 "Jihad", Pg.148)

If a group of people from the USA government started sending funding to the Chinese military during a war, they all would also be executed. Would that be called a "dramatisation" and a "massacre"? QcTheCat (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, as I proved by Sahih Muslim 1766, This kind of act of treason added to what I will mention soon, was considered as waging war and Banu Qurayza knew this, they had done this on a smaller scale before:

"The Jews of Banu Nadeer and Banu Quraiza waged war against the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, so he expelled Banu Nadeer but he allowed Banu Quraiza to stay and he granted them favor until they also waged war after that." (Muslim 1766)

Also, then Muhammad didn't outright put them all to death. He sent Sad bin Muadh to negotiate and make peace:

"He sent Sa‘d ibn Muadh, who had been Qurayzah’s chief Arab ally before the hijrah, to negotiate, but to no avail." (Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad" ch.4 pg.148)

And along with this, Banu Qurayza actually did do some action themselves:

"At one point, the Qurayza actually started to attack the fortresses on the southeast of the settlement, but the effort petered out. For about three weeks, it was quite unclear which way they would go." (Ibid ch.4 pg.148)

Attacking a fortress, supplying the enemy with Military aid, denying peace treaty even when prompted, knowing this to be an act of waging war. This is a clear form of treason, extended to even a war. Almost every country in the world considers this to punishable by death QcTheCat (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Initially Qurayza were hesitant, but when they saw the vast Meccan army filling the plain in front of the city as far as the eye could see, their chief agreed to help the confederacy and provide the Quraysh with weapons and supplies.

This is the first time I have heard of it. Can you provide the early Islamic sources, as you always seem to be keen on doing? Personally, I do not consider Karen a reliable source, but merely an author. If she is considered a reliable source, then Robert Spencer is a super reliable source. I never use Robert either, though, and I do not consider him reliable.

If a group of people from the USA government started sending funding to the Chinese military during a war, they all would also be executed.

Really? Are their children and women also enslaved and sold to buy horses and weapons?

Would that be called a "dramatisation"

You seem to misunderstand. The dramatization here means that the story (the one used to justify the massacre) was probably riddled with fabrications. And Rodinson and Gabriel believe that the Muslims had every reason to do so (fill the story with fabrications to justify the massacre).

A "massacre"?

If they killed them en masse, of course.

Sahih Muslim 1766

Why did you not copy these parts of the hadith as well?

"Then he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, ... The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) turned out all the Jews of Medina."

He sent Sa‘d ibn Muadh, who had been Qurayzah’s chief Arab ally before the hijrah, to negotiate, but to no avail.

This is also the first time I've heard this. Can you provide early Islamic sources that mention the part "to negotiate, but to no avail"? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

1. I already gave you the early source, Sahih Muslim 1766:

"The Jews of Banu Nadeer and Banu Quraiza waged war against the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, so he expelled Banu Nadeer but he allowed Banu Quraiza to stay and he granted them favor until they also waged war after that."

Waging war and breaking the treaty were two different occurences. The treaty was broken by Kab, and war was waged when the tribe sent weapons and ammunition

2. Any source I provide you have just written off. Tabari? He's probably just imagining, and no justification for this explanation was given. Watt? Oh he just meant they were having dinner with Quraysh nothing more, this I disproved too. Armstrong? She isn't reliable either, and all the scholars who have praised her work are just deluded? I get that you likely don't mean to actually deny proper evidence. But you are going to have to give me a criterion for what you consider reliable since you have already written of 3 formal historians.

3. This is ridiculous. Banu Qurayza waged a war as I explained with sources, and in those times, all men were expected to work together to make an army for the tribe. Therefore the militants who were the men were executed, and the women and children were taken as captives of war, and were to be given all the rights a regular Muslim was given according to Islamic law, such as right to continue family, the master was obliged to provide food and water he would expect for himself, etc. the only thing they were excluded from was payment. Some of them would have probably been freed too because freeing slaves was a massive part of Muslim culture.

4. There is absolutely ZERO proof for fabrications in the story. A claim presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Even though, I have already provided you evidence but that's just an extra at this point.

5. Early source for Sad bin Muadh's trying to consolidate the Banu Qurayza and Muslims? I gave you your academic sources that you kept demanding and now you are asking for the early sources that you keep denying? Fine, Here's the early source then:

the Messenger of God sent out Sa'd b. Mu'adh b. al-Nu'man and Imru' al-Qays and said: "Go and see whether what has reached us about these men is true or not. If it is true, speak to me in words that we can understand but that will be unintelligible to others, and do not break the strength of the people. But, if these men remain loyal to the pact between us and them, announce it to the people. So they went out and came to them. They found them engaged in the worst of what had been reported about them. They slandered the Messenger of God and said, "There is no treaty between us and Muhammad and no covenant.""

(The History of Tabari, vol.8 pg.15)

6. Now, explain to me after all this evidence I have given you and you have just denied with very little explanation. What kind of evidence would it require for you to admit fault in the current sources and article? QcTheCat (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

And the proof for Slave treatment laws that were applied to the captives of Banu Qurayza and all slaves in general is found in several Hadith such as:

‘Your slaves are your brethren upon whom Allah has given you authority. So, if one has one’s brethren under one’s control, one should feed them with the like of what one eats and clothe them with the like of what one wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them (in their hard job).’” (Sahih al-Bukhari 2545) QcTheCat (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at this other hadith, it seems that it was Muhammad who started the war after receiving instructions from the angel Gabriel:

Sahih al-Bukhari 4122
... When the Prophet returned from the (battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath Gabriel came to him while he (i.e. Gabriel) was shaking the dust off his head, and said, "You have laid down the arms? By Allah, I have not laid them down. Go out to them (to attack them)." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Where?" Gabriel pointed towards Bani Quraiza. So Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) went to them (i.e. Banu Quraiza) (i.e. besieged them). ...

This further proves that we should not blindly follow sources that have a conflict of interest. Incidentally, I couldn't find what Karen mentioned in the hadith you quoted and the one I quoted, so I'm not sure where she got that information. Karen only majored in English, which is not at all relevant to the subject. Her book is at best equivalent to a novel. Regarding your original research, which includes an apologia for Muhammad's massacre of the Banu Qurayza men and the enslavement of their women and children, some of whom were sent to Najd to be sold to fund the purchase of weapons and horses for the Muslims, I will refrain from commenting on that for now, so this thread doesn't go further deviating from the purpose of making an encyclopaedia. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm now sure what part of Watt's "intriguing with the enemy" is unclear. Within the context this was treasonous conduct, and treasonous conduct, throughout all human history, has been dealt with harshly. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It is important to note that all reports from that time are from the Muslim side. And we don't know for sure whether there really was a treaty between Muhammad and them or not.

Bernard Lewis says that the "treaty" Muhammad enacted, which was also concerning the Jews there, is "not a treaty in the modern sense, but rather a unilateral proclamation."

This publication from Liverpool University Press says that Muhammad fought the Jews “through trickery.”

The Encyclopaedia of Islam, published by Brill, says that the transcription of the conversation between the chief of Banu Nadir and the chief of Banu Qurayza reported by Muslims is “open to grave doubt."

It has already been stated in our article that “Muhammad besieged the tribe, alleging they had taken sides against him, which they firmly denied.” I think that's enough to impartially convey what happened at the time, rather than parroting everything said by Muslim sources who clearly have a conflict of interest. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 02:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It is true that all the reports of this treaty are from the Muslim side. However, histories can only be written on proof. We can speculate on what happened, but history can only be described by whichever claim has most evidence, and in this case, a proper treaty is the most authentic claim, and we have proof of this:

The enemy of God, Huyayy b. Akhtab, went out and came to Ka'b b. Asad al-Qurazi, who was the possessor of the treaty and covenant of the Band Qurayza. Ka'b had made a truce with the Messenger of God for his people, making a contract and covenanting with him on it. (History of Tabari vol.8 Pg.14)

The enemy of God Huyayy b. Akhțab al-Nadri went out to Ka'b b. Asad al-Qurazi who had made a treaty with the apostle. (Sirat bin Ishaq part III pg. 453)

The news finally reached the Muslims that the Banu Qurayza had broken their agreement. Fear intensified and the trial became overwhelming.

(Al Waqidi's Kitab Al Maghazi vol.2 pg.225)

On the same page of Kitab Al Maghazi, Al Waqidi reports with proof via a mention of narrator:

Ibn Abı Sabra related to me from Harith b. al-Fudayl saying:

The Banu Qurayza intended to raid the main part of Medina by night. They sent

Huyayy b. Akhtab to the Quraysh to bring with them a thousand men, and from the

Ghatafan a thousand, to attack them.

Ibn Sad also narrated

Abu Sufyan Ibn Harb sent Huyayy Ibn Akhtab on a secret mission to Banu Qurayza requesting them for violating the agreement (عهد) they had made with the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, and join them (polytheists). (At first) they declined. but subsequently they agreed

Ibn Sad's Kitab Tabaqat al Kabir vol.2 pg.82)

And this claim is also supported by scholars such as R.B. Serjeant who was one of the leading Arabists in 20th century Britain

"Treaty concluded prior to Khandaq among the Arabs of Yathrib and with the Jewish Qurayzah, to defend it from Quraysh of Mecca and their allies"

(The "Sunnah Jāmi'ah," Pacts with the Yaṯẖrib Jews, and the "Taḥrīm" of Yaṯẖrib Pg. 9)

Is it actually possible for this many sources across different time periods to agree on 100% of the details of a fabricated event? No, these sources I have quoted here are the earliest Islamic biographical works in history. And then I even quote secular academic scholars as requested such as R.B. Serjeant who is highly praised in his community. And he completely agrees, because there is simply such a vast abundance of evidence in favour of:

A proper treaty with Banu Qurayza, which was later broken by Banu Qurayza's chief Kab bin Assad after temptation from Huyayy bin Akhtab, and not upheld even after Sad bin Muadh's and other Sahabi's (companions of the prophet) attempts a reconciliation. And that too with physical force from Banu Qurayza too.

There is simply no conflict of interest, otherwise we would expect at least a few early sources which deny the treaty and its violation, but it is simply not there.

And as for the hadith you quoted Bukhari 4122. I appreciate that you quoted an early source. However hadith such as those found in Sahih Bukhari are not histories and often provide simplified explanations. Hadiths (أحاديث) are "narrations" which means that they are quotes from people not full stories. We can only reconcile hadiths with other hadiths to compile a full story, and in this case we have to reconcile it with the hadith in Sahih Muslim which unequivocally states that Banu Qurayza waged war. QcTheCat (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

And another source for Banu Qurayza's violation of treaty is Academic Jonathan AC Brown's book "Muhammad, a short introduction" where Brown writes:

-

The Banu Qurayza Jews, whose compounds lay outside the defences of the town, broke their treaty with Muhammad and sold provisions to the Meccans.

(Jonathan AC Brown's "Muhammad, A very short introduction" Part 1 Pg. 42)

And there is more on the next page

But first Muhammad faced the question of the Banu Qurayza Jews. They had betrayed their non-aggression pact with the Muslims, and as the Meccan army left, they blockaded themselves in their forts and prepared for a Muslim siege.

(Ibid Pg.43)

-

Now I have given 4 modern sources, 3 of them are scholars

And 5 early Muslim scholars QcTheCat (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"Brown is Sunni and follows the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence." So not really independent there. The rest of your argument seems to be mostly WP:OR.

Furthermore, as Bernard Lewis said, the so-called treaty is "not a treaty in the modern sense, but rather a unilateral proclamation."

This publication from Liverpool University Press says that Muhammad fought the Jews “through trickery.”

The Encyclopaedia of Islam, published by Brill, states that the transcription of the conversation between the chief of Banu Nadir and the chief of Banu Qurayza reported by Muslims is "open to grave doubt."

This publication from the University Press of Florida written by military historian Russ Rodgers says:

One piece of evidence that casts doubt on the notion that the Qurayzah had violated any nonaggression pact with the Muslims involves the conduct of Muhammad and his men when the coalition lifted their siege. Instead of turning directly on the treacherous Banu Qurayzah, the Prophet sent his men home and he returned to ῾Aisha’s single-room apartment to bathe. While there, the angel Jibril came to chide him for laying down his arms. When Muhammad asked who he was to now fight, Jibril gestured toward the east and the Banu Qurayzah. This line of conversation, repeated in nearly every early source, raises an important question. If the Banu Qurayzah’s treachery had been so obvious, why was the Prophet so oblivious to it?

Another military historian, Richard A. Gabriel, whose book was published by the University of Oklahoma Press says:

In the absence of any reliable account of Jewish treachery we might reasonably conclude that Muhammad decided to exterminate the Beni Qurayzah because the opportunity had finally presented itself to rid Medina of a major competitor for influence and because it would strengthen the insurgency politically.

One thing that's almost certain is: "Muhammad besieged the tribe, alleging they had taken sides against him, which they firmly denied.” And that has already been stated in our article. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 09:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Before giving a reply, I request you to read the reply, not just quickly glance over, because you seem to have missed every major point I made in my last replies.

1. How does being a Muslim automatically turn you into "not independent". This very same Wikipedia pages quotes Brown's very same book "Muhammad, a very short introduction" more than twice, once for Aisha's age and once for Mohammad's proposal to Fakhita bint Abi Talib. When it is about Aisha or Fakhita, Brown is a good source. When it is about Banu Qurayza, he isn't independent because of Islam? This is simply double standards.

2. This isn't WP:OR, WP:OR states:

"Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."

At Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Al Waqidi, Ibn Sa'd all state that Banu Qurayza had a treaty and it was broken. Which part is "not clear" here?

3. You pretty much ignored all the evidence I gave and just quoted Bernard Lewis (someone who has been accused of Islamophobia by several academics), Liverpool University, Encyclopaedia of Islam again. I brought you evidence specifically to show that the points these sources made are incorrect. Seems like you didn't read my reply, just quoting the same quotes disregarding all the evidence is confirmation bias.

4. Russ Rodger doesn't explain the whole situation like I explicitly told you to look into. Muhammad came to know that Kab bin Assad violated the treaty. After the Quraysh retreated and there was no more threat, Jibreel told him to attack Qurayza for their treachery. There is no contradiction, they are two different events that happened. And Gabriel says that there is no evidence, yet I have given you 9 sources of evidence to disprove his claim.

5. I already asked you once and I will ask again, what proof do you need to change the article's misinformation? I request you to look back at the sources I have provided, they are:

1. History of Tabari

2. Sirat Ibn Ishaq

3. Tabaqat al Kabir

4. Kitab al Maghazi

5. Sahih Muslim

6. Karen Armstrong's, Muhammad

7. Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman

8. The "Sunnah Jami'ah," Pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the "Tahrim" of Yathrib

9. Muhammad, a short introduction QcTheCat (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@QcTheCat: Two things can both be said at once on a Wikipedia page, i.e.: a presentation of what is contained in those nine sources AND whatever other analysis is out there. The first step is not always altering existing information. You can start by simply adding any omitted interpretation. Pages are allowed to present conflicting interpretations. Wikipedia information is verifiable, not true. If there is a significant interpretation in the sources that is currently omitted on the page then it needs to be added for balance. To exclude reliably sourced perspectives that are required for balance would violate WP:NPOV, which is one of the three core content policies. So go ahead and add anything missing from the current content balance. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you forgot that WP:FALSEBALANCE (part of WP:NPOV), WP:NOR, and WP:SOURCE (part of WP:V) are our core content policies too. You might also want to read WP:SANTA — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 23:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

1. You may want to read these explanations from Apaugasma [1][2]

Historical subjects generally require (secular) academic scholarly sources.

In general, authors ... who explicitly self-identify as Muslim scholars and who write from an explicitly Islamic religious perspective should all be treated as primary sources on this topic, i.e. their views should only be given if and as discussed by secular secondary sources.

2. This isn't WP:OR

Perhaps you missed this part

All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

3. I am sure that if a historian provides a critical analysis of Aum Shinrikyo, they will be said to be biased or anti-Aum Shinrikyo. This is a common occurrence in every religion. Certainly, we prefer that historian as our source rather than the adherents of that religion, because clearly the latter have a conflict of interest and thus most likely won't be able to cover the subject objectively.

4. Jibreel told him to attack Qurayza for their treachery

There doesn't seem to be the phrase “for their treachery” in the hadith. And as far as I know, secular scholars do not believe that Gabriel exists.

Sahih al-Bukhari 4122
... When the Prophet returned from the (battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath Gabriel came to him while he (i.e. Gabriel) was shaking the dust off his head, and said, "You have laid down the arms? By Allah, I have not laid them down. Go out to them (to attack them)." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Where?" Gabriel pointed towards Bani Quraiza. So Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) went to them (i.e. Banu Quraiza) (i.e. besieged them). ...

5. I've given my explanations regarding them above, I'm not going to repeat it over and over again. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 01:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

1. I already gave you secular academic sources. I cannot keep piling on more and more because you keep disregarding each and every one without listening to my explanations.

2. Is R.B. Serjeant a secular academic source? Yes he is, he clearly states that Banu Qurayza had a legitimate treaty with Muslims. Is Watt a secular academic? Yes he is, and he clearly states that Banu Qurayza violated their agreement. I don't know what you don't understand. Are these people not secular sources? How many times will I have to repeat these sources? QcTheCat (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The issues with Russ Rodgers as a source have been discussed at length, and Brown, published in the Oxford university press, is absolutely independent. Please don't misrepresent policy on this. Independence = an independent reliable publisher. If there are multiple, conflicting accounts, the page can simply mention both of the conflicting accounts. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Iskandar323, we can just add the story provided in the sources I gave, and also give the views of scholars who reject the idea. QcTheCat (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem adding "and breaking the treaty" to this sentence in our article:

"Muhammad besieged the tribe, alleging they had taken sides against him, which they firmly denied."

So it becomes:

"Muhammad besieged the tribe, alleging they had taken sides against him and breaking the treaty, which they firmly denied."

What I disagree with is changing the entire sentence to "Banu Qurayza broke the treaty, blah… blah… blah…" Because this only parrots what early Muslim sources say, which clearly had a conflict of interest, and contradicts the analyses of various reliable secular sources. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 05:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I have given you 9 sources and I could give you tens more, but because you demanded secular sources, so I gave you four. So far you have ignored them and don't seem to have any answer for them, instead you have just been parroting this idea that "reliable secular sources reject the Muslim position."

So I must question your sources. Starting with Rodinson,

-

He gives many details about the Battle of the Trench and its aftermath. And it is clear he took from the Muslim sources I quoted you, he narrated practically the same story as Tabari and Ibn Ishaq. But the violation of Banu Qurayza's Treaty is the only point he omits, as you noted. So my question is, What proof is there that the Muslim sources fabricated the violation of the treaty? I don't want vague Statements such as:

"The traditional scholars had every reason to add it"

Or

"Reliable sources say so"

According to WP:RSVETTING

"No source is always unreliable for every statement, and no source is always reliable for any statement."

So if these sources, are reliable in saying that Banu Qurayza did not violate any treaty, and not just an instant pass for anything they say, then we would expect to find proof for why they think that this was a fabrication. And we would expect actual concrete proof, not just justifications for why it might have been done, actual objective proof. I request you to bring some proof for this, perhaps this will help us reach a conclusion. QcTheCat (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

So far, you have ignored them and don't seem to have any answers for them

Oh, I have explained it to you multiple times already, but you either do not want to or cannot understand (seems like an indication of WP:IDHT and WP:TENDENTIOUS). Five of your sources are early Islamic sources, which means they're primary, non-independent sources. WP:PSTS says, "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." As for Karen Armstrong, she only majored in English, which is completely irrelevant to this topic. Her book is, at best, equivalent to a novel. Brown is not very independent (you can see why if you read Apaugasma's explanations I quoted above [3]). Mubarakpuri is blatantly not independent. Watt and Serjeant seem to simply parrot what Islamic sources say, that the Qurayza broke the treaty with Muhammad, while other reliable scholars state that it was an accusation from Muhammad and Islamic sources (and indeed, all early primary sources on this are from Muslims). Several reliable modern secular sources (some I've cited above [4]) even doubt or outright reject the notion that the Qurayza took part in the treaty, as also mentioned by the primary source you provided (Tabari, vol.8 pg.15), where the Qurayza stated, "There is no treaty between us and Muhammad and no covenant." The Encyclopaedia of Islam by Brill (full citation above [5]) also says that the Muslim report regarding the meeting of two Jewish tribes' chiefs and the content of the conversation are "open to grave doubt."

What proof is there that the Muslim sources fabricated the violation of the treaty? I don't want vague Statements such as:
"The traditional scholars had every reason to add it"
Or
"Reliable sources say so"

So you mean that we should take everything that Islamic sources say as fact, such as Muhammad really meeting Gabriel, splitting the moon, ascending to the seventh heaven on Buraq, negotiating the number of prayers a day with God, etc., is that it? And if there are reliable sources that doubt any of them, their views are void if you think your WP:OR trumps their analyses, is that it? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 09:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Watt and Brown are both excellent independent sources. If you wish to dispute Brown at WP:RSN, feel free to do so, but be prepared to be chased out of the house with a broomstick. The personal identities of modern are of no relevance alongside their publication by university presses. A British historian is perfectly qualified to write on British history, assuming they have a reliable publisher. Primary sources are meanwhile not prohibited from use. Tabari, for instance, can be used, just not interpreted. The rule here is simply to say: Tabari says XYZ. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You might want to read this explanation from Apaugasma [6]

According to his WP page, Brown "is Sunni and follows the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence". He seems to have more clout as an independent scholar than Barlas, but he too seems to have written at least sometimes from an Islamic religious perspective. I would definitely advise to look for other sources that absolutely have no stake in the game (i.e. who are neither religious nor anti-religious).

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 16:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to trust the Oxford University Press on the matter. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

We're not trying to tell a story here. We're trying to relate what different reliable sources say on the subject. If two sets of reliable sources conflict, we present both presentations. If one set gives a treaty narrative, we explain that narrative as one narrative. And if another set of sources give a narrative that denies the treaty narrative, we explain that as a counter-narrative. If the sources diverge in other ways, such as in the primary sources referenced, that can also be mentioned. Picking and choosing, and slotting in two or three words is not the name of the game. We're not trying to blend different explanations. If there are two different explanations in reliable sources, we provide both explanations. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

I don't disagree with you, You should provide both explanations from the two sets of sources. But that should be after you can make sure that Rodinson, who uses the narrative provided in Early Muslim sources, had objective proof to omit Banu Qurayza's violation of treaty, a key feature mentioned in all the early Muslim sources. QcTheCat (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Anything that is deemed controversial and supported by only one scholar can simply be attributed. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, That will do QcTheCat (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest adding the following information through the sources I provided at the beginning of the section on Banu Qurayza (since these events took place before the encounter with Angel Gabriel According to the majority of sources such Sirat Ibn Hisham 3/337, and acknowledged by modern biographies of Muhammad such as The Sealed Nectar by Al-Mubarakpuri). Here are the events with sources:

-

1. The information on Kab bin Assad Al Qurazi's encounter with Huyayy bin Akhtab first and breaching of the treaty

-

2. Reports of this to Muhammad, and instructions to four companions

-

3. Attempt at reconciliation by the four companions, and it's failure

-

Then at the end of any of these points or each, the alternative position can be provided. And here are the sources:

-

1. Sources for the existence of a legitimate treaty: R.B. Serjeant's The "Sunnah Jāmi'ah," Pacts with the Yaṯẖrib Jews and the "Taḥrīm" of Yaṯẖrib Pg. 9, Jonathan AC Brown's "Muhammad, A very short introduction" Part 1 Pg. 42

-

2. Sources for Breach of treaty (encounter of Kab al Qurazi and Huyayy bin Akhtab: History of Tabari vol.8 Pg.14, Sirat bin Ishaq part III pg.453, Al Waqidi's Kitab Al Maghazi vol.2 pg.225, Ibn Sad's Kitab Tabaqat al Kabir vol.2 pg.82, Jonathan AC Brown's "Muhammad, A very short introduction" Part 1 Pg. 42, Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad" Ch. 4 "Jihad" Pg. 148, (WM Watt also refers to a breach of agreement without mentioning the encounter of Kab al Qurazi: WM Watt's "Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman" Ch.6 pg.171)

-

3. A small scale attack by Banu Qurayza themselves: Sahih Muslim Hadith no. 1766, Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad" Ch. 4 "Jihad" Pg. 148, Jonathan AC Brown's "Muhammad A very short introduction" Part 1 Pg. 43

-

4. Report to Muhammad and attempt at reconciliation: The History of Tabari vol.8 pg.15, Sirat bin Ishaq part III pg.453, Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad" Ch. 4 "Jihad", Pg. 148 (And most of the other sources provided also affirm this event) QcTheCat (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

See my reply above [7] — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 12:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this response of yours before. Here's my response:

-

1. Firstly, I accepted that primary sources are to be interpreted by secondary and tertiary sources. What I was talking about when I said that you were not answering, was my question on why the primary sources aren't being used consistently without any evidence in your sources? Why mention every detail about the Battle from the early sources but just leave out one of the most important parts, the violation of the treaty, without any evidence? I am still waiting for that evidence. And Now for my sources:

-

2. Jonathan AC Brown absolutely is independent. He has served as the editor in chief of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Law. Is Oxford University now also some Islamic organisation? Your evidence against Brown was Apaugasma saying that Brown "seems to have written at least sometimes from an Islamic religious perspective". How is that evidence? Brown sometimes includes his opinions on Islamic topics, sure that is his opinion. He makes his opinion and historical facts very clear from each other. That is no reason to not accept him.

-

3. Serjeant and Watt just parrot Muslim sources? This is the exact problem I faced with your previous responses. If someone uses Muslim sources consistently with evidence, then they automatically are "parroting" them. But if they don't use them, on very specific topics without reason on why they didn't, then they are independent and secular? Serjeant worked as a professor at the university of Edinburgh, Lecturer at Cambridge and more. Watt needs no introduction. Both are independent and very reliable.

-

4. I never said Mubarakpuri was a secular source. I just used his work just to show that Modern Muslim writers also accept the early position.

-

5. I never said that everything in Islamic sources should be taken as complete historical fact from a secular standard. I agree that secular sources will obviously not mention miraculous events. The problem is that these secular sources have been quoting the same early sources that I provided you. In fact, they have given the exact same story for the Battle of the Trench. But in all of those sources there is one detail that is constantly repeated and that is a violation of the treaty. If these early sources are reliable enough to be used to detail an entire event, why then do they all suddenly become unreliable when it comes to violation of Banu Qurayza's Treaty? And I am not saying that their (your sources') research is inferior to WP:OR, of course it isn't. What I was saying was that I find sources which I quoted more correct, since they use the early sources just like the set of sources you provided, but don't mysteriously leave out the violation of the treaty without any actual evidence. I requested you to bring this evidence that they have to remove the treaty of Banu Qurayza completely from their works.

-

And now, when reviewing your sources, the sources you provided don't seem to be any better.

-

1. You said that Jonathan AC Brown was not independent because he was a Sunni Hanbali, however you quoted Bernard Lewis who was much less independent, because he was very significantly influenced by politics. He was an advisor of the Bush administration during the Iraq war, He was a huge supporter of the Iraq war, had many connections to the US Military, despite being a historian he held the view that there was no proof of the Armenian Genocide and was criticised by several academics such as Edward Said.

-

2. You quoted the encyclopedia of Islam by Brill, volume 5 on pg. 436, and took only one sentence, so here's the context:

Both these sources (Al Waqidi and Ibn Ishaq) MAY BE suspected of bias against Qurayza; and it is therefore probable that there was no special agreement between Muhammad and Qurayza. It is virtually certain, however, that Muhammad had a general agreement with the Jews that they were not to support an enemy against him (al-Wāqidi, 176); and something like this was probably implicit in his alliance with the Arab clans of Medina, since the Jewish clans were allied to one or other of the Arab clans.

-

The encyclopedia does not say that Muhammad and Banu Qurayza didn't have any agreement. What is said was that a physical document that Kab tore may not have existed, and it may not have been a formal treaty in the modern sense, but an agreement was certain. And even the belief that a formal treaty didn't exist was based on suspicion of bias, not empirical evidence.

-

3. And finally you quoted Richard A. Gabriel who in his book says that there was an absence of reliable sources for Jewish treachery, this statement is made following this statement made only a few sentences earlier:

-

Ibn Ishaq makes no mention of the Jews acting against Muhammad, something we might be reasonably certain he would have mentioned had it occurred.

-

So his evidence for "absence of reliable sources" was that sources such as Ibn Ishaq never spoke of it. Does this seem familiar? It should because I myself quoted Ibn Ishaq speaking of treachery before:

-

Huyayy kept on wheedling Ka'b until at last he gave way in giving him a solemn promise that if Quraysh and Ghatafan returned without having killed Muhammad he would enter his fort with him and await his fate. Thus Ka'b broke his promise and cut loose from the bond that was between him and the apostle. (Sirat Ibn Ishaq part III pg.453)

-

the "Evidence" seems a bit broken

-

So I ask again, what is the evidence that Banu Qurayza's violation of treaty was fabricated QcTheCat (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

And as for Russ Rodgers, his only argument was that Jibreel told Muhammad to attack Banu Qurayza after the retreat of Quraysh and Ghatafan. This means nothing since all the sources make it clear that Muhammad came to know of the treachery, sent his companions to reconcile with them, but the reconciliation didn't work. After this when the war ended, then Jibreel told Muhammad to go and attack Qurayza because of their treachery. What proof is there of the fabrication of violation of the treaty? The whole narrative that the treaty and its violation was fabricated just seems overly forced, and the evidence is next to nothing, and the theory seems to mostly relies on speculation on why it may have happened, without empirical proof QcTheCat (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If these early sources are reliable enough to be used to detail an entire event, why then do they all suddenly become unreliable when it comes to violation of Banu Qurayza's Treaty?

No, true academics do not consider the entire narrative from early Muslim sources (which were actually written hundreds of years after Muhammad's death) as true. Instead, they analyze what is factual and what might be fabrication. For instance, the miracles attributed to Muhammad are often viewed as fabrications or later additions by Muslims because they contradict the Quran, which states that Muhammad had no miracles and avoided performing them when asked by the Quraysh people. History shows many examples of aggressors sought justifications for attacking others, such as the Mukden Incident, which was a false flag operation used by Japan to justify attacking Manchuria. Therefore, it's not surprising that scholars (especially military historians who are arguably more specialized in this field) doubt the Muslim narrative about the Qurayza breaking the treaty, which Muhammad used to justify massacring their men and enslaving and selling their women and children. And scholars who do not follow the religion they are studying, like those studying Aum Shinrikyo, are clearly more independent in their analysis than the followers of Aum Shinrikyo, as the latter have a conflict of interest and believe in the religion's truth, which hinders their ability to analyze it objectively. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I already said in my response that secular scholars wouldn't consider miracles. As I said in my response:

I agree that secular sources will obviously not mention miraculous events.

But the thing is that a violation of the treaty is not a miraculous event. A miracle can be written off by a simple invocation of standard. Secular writers are not compelled to add miracles even if early sources say so because by definition, secular sources will not affirm religious details. But violation of a treaty is not a miracle, there is no logical problem in the narrative that a treaty was broken. And a justification doesn't meet the requirement of empirical evidence. As I stated:

And we would expect actual concrete proof, not just justifications for why it might have been done, actual objective proof.

I requested empirical evidence for the fabrication of a violation. However, you responded with:

Therefore, it's not surprising that scholars (especially military historians who are arguably more specialized in this field) doubt the Muslim narrative about the Qurayza breaking the treaty, which Muhammad used to justify massacring their men and enslaving and selling their women and children.

Doubting something and omitting it as a fabrication are two different things. One can doubt that something may have happened without any back up, but omitting the information itself requires proof to back up the claim. And justification, does not count as a proof. QcTheCat (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

And I ask once again, Is there any empirical evidence that Banu Qurayza's violation of treaty? Justification for why something may have happened or why someone may doubt it is not considered proof. And how are we to now understand Richard A. Gabriel's accusation, now that we can see that the very source he quotes as evidence for a lack of proof, acts instead as one of the primary proofs for the violation of Treaty by Banu Qurayza. QcTheCat (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

correction:

Is there any empirical evidence that Banu Qurayza's violation of treaty was a fabrication QcTheCat (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Addendum

History of At-Tabari ... Vol. 8 Events Of Year 5, pg.15

If we want to engage in original research, there are many red flags in this narration. This is an account from a Muslim several hundred years after Muhammad's death about a conversation between the chief of Banu Nadir, Huyayy ibn Akhtab, who insisted on inciting the chief of Banu Qurayza, Ka'b ibn As'ad, when he came to his fort to turn against Muhammad. The Muslim clearly had a conflict of interest here. How he came to know about the conversation—whether he planted a bug in the flowerpot there or it was just his imagination—only God knows. Besides, the attack didn't happen at all. Even if, despite how unlikely I think it was, the conversation did really happen, why did the Muslims not just punish Ka'b alone? Why did all the adult men of the Qurayza also have to be massacred and the women and children enslaved, with some sold to Najd, where the profits were used to buy horses and weapons for the Muslims? The narrative just sounds like an overly forced justification to me. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 11:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

As for the "red flags", firstly Tabari was a scholar and a historian. Now, just because a source is written at a later time doesn't mean it isn't authentic. For example, Tabari gets his reports from Imams such as Ibn Humayd and Ibn Hanbal who trace it back to the prophet and his companions. This is how we know he provides authentic information. For example, only two pages before page 15, he provides a chain of narration from Ibn Humayd and Muhammad bin Ishaq from Abu Hurayra (a companion of the prophet).

He came to know of this conversation between Kab and Huyayy because the companions would have narrated reports of the events that would take place in the life of Mohammad. And we know it happened for sure because Kab never rejected the fact that he deviated from the treaty. The fact is that Tabari is among the earliest sources of information and We have even earlier sources such as Sahih Muslim (840 CE),

"The Jews of Banu Nadeer and Banu Quraiza waged war against the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, so he expelled Banu Nadeer but he allowed Banu Quraiza to stay and he granted them favor until they also waged war after that (Before their persecution)."

(Muslim Hadith no. 1766) QcTheCat (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

A better place to start is with scholars such as Watt and Brown and cite Tabari where they cite Tabari. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Also as for the narration in Tabari, that is also confirmed by modern academic sources, such as Karen Armstrong:

Before the arrival of the Meccan army, Huyay ibn Akhtab, chief of Nadir, had tried to persuade Qurayzah either to attack the Muslims from the rear or to smuggle two thousand Nadiris into the oasis to slaughter the women and children in the fortresses. Initially Qurayzah were hesitant, but when they saw the vast Meccan army filling the plain in front of the city as far as the eye could see, their chief agreed to help the confederacy and provide the Quraysh with weapons and supplies.

(Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad" ch.4 "Jihad" pg. 148) QcTheCat (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't want to engage in OR. If you have to preface a comment with a disclaimer that you're about to engage in OR, simply refrain from it. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

References from all posts in the section from all editors

Just have to say that current writing "On the exact day the Quraysh forces and their allies withdrew, Muhammad, while bathing at his wife's abode, received a visit from the angel Gabriel, who instructed him to attack the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza." doesn't work in WP-voice. At all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Your suggestion? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 16:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, if this was an article on a Biblical topic, I would have no objection if something like that came under a heading like "Biblical narrative", because then anything goes. But this is just "Medinan years", implying that the subject is history. The quote sounds to me like something from a WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, so some sort of "according to" seems necessary IMO, if the source is acceptable in context. Apart from the wiki-voice Gabriel thing, it seems WP-unnecessary to me to mention that Muhammad was in the bath. "On the exact day" also sounds weird in my ears, the topic being history. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Using “is said” or “reportedly” perhaps? The problem is that all historical material on Muhammad all originally came from WP:RSPSCRIPTURE (Quran, Sira, Hadith, etc), which is then covered by secondary sources, which are cited for the statement. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If you add "“is said” or “reportedly”", my knee-jerk reaction would be . If "according to the Quran" fits, that's fine by me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems that Sahih al-Bukhari 4122 is one of the primary sources reporting this matter:

... When the Prophet returned from the (battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath Gabriel came to him while he (i.e. Gabriel) was shaking the dust off his head, and said, "You have laid down the arms? By Allah, I have not laid them down. Go out to them (to attack them)." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Where?" Gabriel pointed towards Bani Quraiza. So Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) went to them (i.e. Banu Quraiza) (i.e. besieged them). ...

so how about "according to Sahih al-Bukhari" or perhaps "according to Islamic tradition"? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 20:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

How about "according to the Sahih al-Bukhari hadith"? And I still don't think we need to mention M. was in the bath. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a few weird sentences loitering about. Work is needed to effect an encyclopedic tone. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This is actually exactly the same as stating in wikivoice that “Banu Qurayza broke their treaty with Muhammad ...”

Both parrot what early Islamic sources say, though this one is not so self-serving. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 16:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza + following section

The sources need better balancing in both these sections. There's an overemphasis on Russ Rodgers, who is a marginal scholar at best, and just a single voice. The second section is almost entirely sourced to Rodgers. That's disastrously undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I was going to add tags, but I've trimmed and edited it a bit instead. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

What, you still want to stick with your misrepresentation of this Bloomsbury article [8] that Rodgers “falls well short of subject-matter expert” [9], when that article actually says:

Rodgers is considered a subject matter expert on insurgency movements and early Islamic warfare. ... He is a sought after speaker and has lectured in such diverse venues as the Worldwide Anti-Terrorism Conference, the NATO School in Germany, and to military personnel in the United States as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. ... In addition to his major professional publications, Rodgers has written or edited over a dozen major historical reports for the U.S. Army

Rodgers' book, The Generalship of Muhammad, that's cited in our article, is published by the University Press of Florida (WP:OR states that "Books published by university presses" are among "the most reliable sources"). And he is the command historian of the US Army. That book of his is also cited and well-reviewed by multiple reliable sources [10] (not just any websites or blogs). So no matter what you say, Rodgers is a reliable source. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 22:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

As you said yourself:

WP:OR states that "Books published by university presses" are among "the most reliable sources"

Why doesn't the same apply to the secular sources I provided such as Serjeant and Brown? Serjeant worked as a professor at The University of Edinburgh, Lecturer at Cambridge and more. Brown has served as the editor in chief of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Law. When a source agrees with the position of the early Islamic sources, why would it be considered "parroting" if it is still coming from a University Press which would have edited, reviewed, discussed and only then published the material? And also, do check my response in the section of The Satanic Verses and Banu Qurayza relating to your last response. QcTheCat (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

As an addition to my reply above [11], this is actually similar to the case of "Muhammad was visited by the angel Gabriel." Even though some reliable modern sources might say so, we can't present it in wikivoice just like that because it is an extraordinary, self-serving claim (as the primary sources are all from Muslims), and it might appear as though Wikipedia is endorsing it. Instead, we prefer sources that say, "Muhammad said he was visited by the angel Gabriel." Similarly, in this case, I don't think we should follow sources that simply parrot Islamic sources by saying, "The Banu Qurayza broke the treaty with Muhammad," when there are other sources that state, "Muhammad said/accused/claimed that the Banu Qurayza had taken sides against him", "and broken a treaty." — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 02:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@QcTheCat: As you note, there is some inconsistency here in the way university press sources are being treated. In one instance, being ignored to discount subject-matter experts; here to promote a decidedly non-export voice. The still more nuanced twist to the discussion is that not all university presses are created equal. There is also the WP:CHOPSY test for helping to determine whether ideas and interpretations fall within the academic mainstream. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion about Rodgers has been had before, as well you know. There are hundreds of reliable academic works on Muhammad, and Rodgers' addition isn't even close to being in the top echelons. As before, a promotional Bloomsbury bio doesn't change this. There are some scholarly giants in this field. If you want a highly skeptical viewpoint, Patricia Crone is perhaps the most authoritative voice for that. Most of the scholars in the field are life-long tenured professors, not just random blokes retired from the US army who wrote a single book. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

not just random blokes retired from the US army who wrote a single book.

Are you not aware that the term "military historian" does not refer to retired military personnel who then become hobbyist historians, but rather to a specialization within the field of history, similar to how cardiology is a specialization within medicine? How many historical books about Muhammad written by military historians and published by university presses are there to date? There are only two: Rodgers' "Generalship of Muhammad" published by University Press of Florida, and Richard A Gabriel's "Islam's First General" published by University of Oklahoma Press. Furthermore, Rodgers is a command historian of the US Army, and the book is cited and well-reviewed by multiple other reliable sources [12] (not just any websites or blogs). Moreover, WP:OR, one of our core content policies (not just an essay), states that "Books published by university presses" are among "the most reliable sources." Go discuss it on that policy's talk page first if you want to change it. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 07:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You are now referencing two adjunct (non-tenured) professors, neither of whom are particularly focused subject-matter specialists. Please actually absorb WP:CHOPSY, as noted above. Of the two, Gabriel is nonetheless of some small standing, and is at least featured in academic reviews. More generally, the policy I will simply quote at you with reference to Rodgers is WP:ECREE. One source is not enough for controversial claims, which is the main capacity in which Rodgers is being used. If other RS support Rodgers for a claim then the immediate problem is solved; otherwise, there's a weight issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

"Adjunct professor" in America means an expert whose primary job is not at the university, but who is given the title of professor by the university [13] (Rodgers' main job is as a command historian in the US Army). Your argument is just like saying that a NASA lead scientist is not reliable because he is an adjunct professor at a particular university. WP:CHOPSY is just an essay, not a policy like WP:OR, which states that "books published by university presses" are among "the most reliable sources". Regardless, I haven't found any statements by Rodgers that are ridiculed by these universities. In fact, this publication from Harvard University Press states, "A more measured assessment of Muhammad’s military skills can be found in Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad.". — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if we were to accept Russ Rodgers, he only provides what "he considers to be proof" that Banu Qurayza's violation of treaty was a fabrication. And his evidence is that since sources state that Muhammad was visited by Jibreel before he executed a siege against Qurayza, therefore he must have initiated the conflict first. However, this evidence is fallacious, because the very same sources he gets this information from, refute the claim. The sources he himself quote make very clear that both violation of the treaty and its report to Muhammad, and Jibreel's message to Muhammad, both took place. How can this be considered proof when it is simply a piece of information taken out of context? Why accept this information one authentic, while simultaneously disregarding part of the same event? Once again, he doesn't provide any empirical evidence of Banu Qurayza's violation being a fabrication. Of course, secondary and tertiary sources are supposed to "interpret" primary sources. But if the interpretation of the secondary and tertiary sources can be relied upon, we need evidence for their interpretation, empirical evidence not justification for why it happened. If such an evidence cannot be found, then how can we rely upon such a claim? QcTheCat (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

That's just your original research, and you are not a reliable source, so it carries no weight whatsoever. Nevertheless, if you thoroughly read that Rodgers' book, there are many explanations scattered throughout why he considers the three major Jewish tribes of Medina (including the Banu Qurayza) did not actually participate in Muhammad's Covenant of Medina. This is almost in line with Bernard Lewis's deduction that the covenant is "not a treaty in the modern sense, but rather a unilateral proclamation." Some examples:

p. 56–7
When members of the al-Khazraj and al-Aws met with Muhammad to make the Second Pledge of al-῾Aqaba, some noted that they had certain alliances with the Jews that would need to be broken. For members of the al-Khazraj and al-Aws to indicate that they had to break these treaties makes it very clear that they, and not the Jews, were the ones in a subservient political posture, or at best equals. To understand this in a different way would do violence to the sense of the passages in the literature.

p. 57–8
the most obvious indicator that the three major Jewish tribes were not part of the Covenant is because of their absence from the agreement. Efforts have been made to imply that a vague Arabic phrase, essentially referencing generic tribal groups under the label of the “Banu so-and-so,” was in fact a reference to the three major Jewish tribes. However, this contention hinges on the notion that these tribes were now clients of the two pagan tribes, a notion that cannot be supported by the internal evidence.

p. 58
The purpose of the Covenant of Madinah was to unite the Muslims and any others that would surrender their independence to join them on the terms set by Muhammad, but it was not to create an indivisible unity in Madinah on the terms of other groups. If the latter was the case, Madinah would represent the situation then present among the Quraysh of Makkah. Instead, it was to unite only the Muslims so that they could become their own tribal group that would wage war against all others who opposed them. This contention was clearly understood by those who took the Second Pledge of al-῾Aqaba, which then led to the Covenant.

p. 138
There is little doubt that Muhammad was seeking a casus belli, and with the treachery (either real or imagined) of the Banu al-Nadir, he had found it. What is interesting here is that had the al-Nadir been signatories of the Covenant of Madinah, they could have simply presented the offenders to make amends. But since they were not, as contended in a previous chapter, they had to fall back on any nonaggression pact they may have had with the Muslims with conditions unknown to us today.

p. 145
The statements made by some of the Banu Qurayzah regarding how they had “no agreement or undertaking with Muhammad” again demonstrates that they were not part of the Covenant of Madinah, and at best had a nonaggression pact with the Prophet. Moreover, the statements as recorded in the sources do not imply that the Qurayzah actually intended any offensive action but that they simply planned to sit this one out.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I advocate removing citations to Rodgers. Kaalakaa, you seem to be under the misconception that anything published by a university press should have an automatic presumption of reliability. That isn't the case. University presses have different motivations for publishing, and the peer review process isn't what you apparently think it is. Especially with this book. We have discussed this book multiple times in the past, and each time the consensus seems to be that we shouldn't give it any weight. You seem to be the only holdout. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Anachronist, but that is just an essay written only by you, and many of its statements are not even supported by any reliable source, which means it is mostly original research. Additionally, your essay contradicts our policy, WP:OR which states that "books published by university presses" are among "the most reliable sources". There is no clear consensus about Rodgers; those explicitly against him appear to be just you and Iskandar323, along with some inexperienced editors who seem to want to censor this article. The viewpoint of military historians, such as Rodgers, is essential for this article, as Muhammad's life after moving to Medina was dominated by battles, and one reason the Battle of Badr article was demoted from featured article status was the absence of sources from military historians [14]. If you like, why don't we bring that essay of yours to WP:RSN to be inspected by other experienced editors? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 16:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I might care what a military historian had to say about military formations, manoeuvres and equipment, but the pertinence of such a voice to biographical details and cultural context is non-existent. This is a biography, so the battle of Badr parallel is not useful. Also, essays are not sources to be evaluated: they are community-created signposts. You are confusing the function of RSN, as well as the OR policy, which only applies to mainspace pages. But regardless, not all university press books are created equal (not all universities are equal, hence WP:CHOPSY), and it would be daft to argue otherwise. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I might care what a military historian had to say about military formations, manoeuvres and equipment, but the pertinence of such a voice to biographical details and cultural context is non-existent.

... said the person who previously claimed that a military historian is a retired military personnel [15] who became a hobbyist historian [16] and that adjunct professors are not reliable because they are non-tenure [17], a statement as ridiculous as saying that a NASA lead scientist is not reliable because they are an adjunct professor at a certain university. Regardless, according to our military history article: "The essential subjects of military history study are the causes of war, the social and cultural foundations, military doctrine on each side, the logistics, leadership, technology, strategy, and tactics used, and how these changed over time." So, it is clearly very relevant, even more so when compared to Karen Armstrong, whom you use as your source [18], even though she only has a degree in English.

Also, essays are not sources to be evaluated: they are community-created signposts.

Who said that essays are sources to be evaluated? What I'm saying is that essays do not have the same standing as policies and guidelines and do not need to be followed, especially if their content contradicts policy and contains many extraordinary claims about a subject that are not supported by reliable sources.

But regardless, not all university press books are created equal (not all universities are equal, hence WP:CHOPSY), and it would be daft to argue otherwise.

Again, WP:CHOPSY is just an essay and not a policy or guideline. Regardless, the essay states, "Any claim which would be unequivocally ridiculed at those universities cannot establish facts for Wikipedia." Are there any instances that those universities ridiculing Rodgers or his statements? In fact, this publication from Harvard University Press states, "A more measured assessment of Muhammad’s military skills can be found in Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad." — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you focus on concision in your comments if you expect people to respond to you. As Kecia Ali notes, the only thing Rodgers is competent (possibly) to comment on is the subject of military skills. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Here I quote again what Kecia Ali says about Rodgers' book, "A more measured assessment of Muhammad’s military skills can be found in Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad.” As anyone can see, Kecia's review of Rodgers' book is clearly positive, and she even seems to endorse the book, but you somehow twist it to make it seem as if "Kecia notes the only thing Rodgers is competent (possibly) to comment on is the subject of military skills." Also, please explain. You use Karen Armstrong as your source [19], even though she only majored in English. How is an English degree relevant to Islamic history? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Now who is misrepresenting? And for what purpose and audience? Karen Armstrong is a celebrated, knighted (OBE) author of comparative religion. In this review article, the author of the Encyclopedia of Islam lays out the serious authors in the field of the reconstructon of Muhammad's life through the critical analysis of early Islamic texts: "A. Sprenger, Julius Wellhausen, Leone Caetani, Henri Lammens, A. J. Wensinck, Frants Buhl, Rudi Paret, W. Montgomery Watt, and Alford Welch are all party to this tradition of scholarship, as are E. Dermenghem, Tor Andrae, Maxime Rodinson, Michael Cook, and, more recently, Karen Armstrong." So she's very much established in the field. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Where did I misrepresent anything? Karen Armstrong only majored in English; is that true or not? Also, that Encyclopaedia of Islam is not the one that was published by Brill, though. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 00:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Kecia Ali is reliable, and yes she was a research associate at Harvard Divinity school. And you quoted her book "The Lives of Muhammad" to say that Rodgers was reliable. So if her work can be used as a proof for Rodgers' reliability, then we must also say that Jonathan AC Brown and Karen Armstrong are also reliable, in fact they would be more reliable. She says in the very same book:

-

In Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, Armstrong describes Muhammad’s actions, contextualizing them but without exculpating him. (Pg. 227)

-

She recommends Karen Armstrong in her Book 14 times.

-

She also recommends Brown who she actually includes for his research on Banu Qurayza:

-

Brown writes that

Muhammad “faced the question of the Banu Qurayza Jews,” who “had betrayed their non- aggression pact with the Muslims.” (Pg. 299)

-

And again, praises him for his contribution to her work:

-

Jonathan Brown, Mimi Hanaoka, Ruqayya Khan, Michael Penn, and David Powers generously shared forthcoming work. (Pg. 329)

-

And she recommends Jonathan AC Brown's work over 25 times in this book.

-

And it is also worth noting that Rodgers was not quoted for his stance on Banu Qurayza, yet Brown was. This shows that according to her, Brown's stance on Banu Qurayza is more worthy of reviewing. QcTheCat (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You seem to confuse mentioning with recommending. On around pages 189–190, Kecia Ali points out that Karen Armstrong references the primary source, Tabari, for a particular statement, but that statement does not align with what Tabari actually said.

P. 189
[Karen Armstrong] writes later that the wedding occurred when Aisha was nine but “made little difference to Aisha’s life. Tabari says that she was so young that she stayed in her parents’ home and the marriage was consummated there later when she had reached puberty.”

Kecia Ali then states on page 190:

(Tabari includes several reports that that the marriage took place when she was six or seven. He once notes that “when he married her she was young, unfit for intercourse.” However, he says nothing about puberty and consistently states that consummation occurred when she was nine.)

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 01:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course I am not a qualified source myself, I never said I was. Saying someone hasn't provided evidence is not original research. A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof.

-

However seems like you have brought forward some evidence from Rodgers for his claim so here's my response:

-

1. For the first point, Rodgers doesn't provide any evidence to back up his claim that Al Aws and Al Khazraj were to break any treaty with the Jews. This doesn't even matter because Muhammad would go on to renew any treaties the Jews had before with the Arab tribes with the covenant of Medina which I will go into detail later. But besides, this isn't empirical evidence anyway, what does Al Aws and Al Khazraj disbanding their previous ties with the Jewish tribes have to do with Banu Qurayza breaking their treaty with Muhammad?

-

2. For the second point, The context as you yourself quoted was of the second pledge of Aqabah which took place before the migration. And of course the three major tribes were not part of the Second pledge of Al Aqabah, because that wasn't where they were even supposed to meet with Muhammad. It was the treaty that came with the covenant of Jews of Medina, which is supported by RB Serjeant in his research which I quoted before. The covenant took place after the migration. The context was that Medina used to be occupied by several conflicting tribes. Muhammad came and made a treaty with all the tribes to defend Medina together with them according to the very sources Rodgers himself used, yet left out the details of without any evidence why once again. Rodgers basically said that since the Jews were not part of the agreement of Muhammad becoming the ruler of Medina, uniting the conflicting tribes, therefore it is inconceivable for them to have a treaty later on. How does that make any sense? Neither the Aws or Khazraj nor the Jews had rulership over Medina, they were all in conflicting tribes. It is just that two of these tribes reached out to Muhammad to sort out the conflicts, were he planning to settle there.

-

3. Obviously the covenant of Medina would benefit the Muslims, but that doesn't mean that it would not unite the tribes of Medina. This is made clear in the treaty which makes statements such as:

• The Jews of Bani 'Awf are one community with the believers
• If attacked by a third party, each shall come to the help of the other.
• Neither shall commit sins to the prejudice of the other.
• The wronged party shall be aided.(Quotations from Ibn Hisham 1/503, 504)

Seems quite the opposite of what Rodgers wants to portray. And the evidence he brings for his view is Sirat bin Ishaq page 204 which says:

-

'O men of Khazraj, do you realize to what you are committing yourselves in pledging your support to this man? It is to war against all and sundry. If you think that if you lose your property and your nobles are killed you will give him up, then do so now, for it would bring you shame in this world and the next (if you did so later); but if you think that you will be loyal to your undertaking if you lose your property and your nobles are killed, then take him, for by God it will profit you in this world and the next. They said that they would accept the apostle on these conditions.

-

How is telling people to accept a leader only if they believe in his abilities to fight against his enemy considered one-sided? I would say it's quite the opposite

-

4. Rodgers claims that Muhammad was trying to provoke Banu Nadir, I don't agree with him. But that doesn't matter because this is a response on Banu Qurayza, not Banu Nadir.

-

4. His source for Banu Qurayza saying "we have no treaty with Muhammad" is the very same page I myself already quoted, Sirat Ibn Ishaq pg. 453:

-

How can we even seriously say that the Banu Qurayza didn't have a treaty quoting the page which begins with Kab bin Assad breaking the treaty? If we actually look at the context which has been constantly dodged in Rodgers' work, Banu Qurayza were saying this as insults to Muslims and Muhammad, and made the statement that they "had no treaty" right after refusing to acknowledge even knowing Muhammad. This is clear satire by the tribe as both Tabari and Ibn Ishaq note. This "evidence" just looks like cherry picking out-of-context statements to prove something that the quotations themselves disprove. And this was the only "empirical evidence" that Rodgers actually puts forth for Banu Qurayza's violation of treaty being a fabrication. The rest of the points are merely, once again justification and not evidence for Banu Qurayza's case.

-

And none of this in my response would be OR because everything I have stated is simply quoting the original quotations from the sources provided by Rodgers. If Rodgers is quoting them, then that shows he finds them to be authentic, and thus there shouldn't be any problem quoting them in a refutation. If you want any sources for any information I brought then I can provide it QcTheCat (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You seem to still not understand what original research is. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 16:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. OR is a policy that applies to mainspace content. Editors are supposed to use their brains to assess sources on talk pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@QcTheCat: If you had to pick one example of an instance where Rodgers misrepresents the primary sources, if that what you are claiming, what would it be? If there is genuine misrepresention present then it might be worth taking the text to RSN for scrutiny. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

It seems that there are quite a few examples of misrepresentation of primary sources in Rodgers' text. However the most clear one is likely his claim on Banu Qurayza's statement that "they had no treaty with Muhammad". On page 145, he states:

-

Regardless, Muhammad was certainly concerned about the status of the Banu Qurayzah who were positioned within the city and behind the Muslim defenses, and he sent a small reconnaissance team to secretly ascertain their status in the upcoming battle. The statements made by some of the Banu Qurayzah regarding how they had "no agreement or undertaking with Muhammad" again demonstrates that they were not part of the Covenant of Madinah, and at best had a nonaggression pact with the Prophet. Moreover, the statements as recorded in the sources do not imply that the Qurayzah actually intended any offensive action but that they simply planned to sit this one out.

-

He provides the reference which is "Sirat Ibn Ishaq" pg. 453, And this is what the text of Sirat Ibn Ishaq actually provides information such as:

-

• The enemy of God Huyayy b. Akhțab al-Nadri went out to Ka'b b. Asad al-Qurazi who had made a treaty with the apostle...
• Huyayy kept on wheedling Ka'b until at last he gave way in giving him a solemn promise that if Quraysh and Ghațafăn returned without having killed Muhammad he would enter his fort with him and await his fate. Thus Ka'b broke his promise and cut loose from the bond that was between him and the apostle...
• They went forth and found the situation even more deplorable than they had heard; they spoke disparagingly of the apostle, saying, 'Who is the apostle of God? We have no agreement or undertaking with Muhammad...

-

The original arabic of Sirat ibn Ishaq for the first statement says:

وخرج عدو الله حيي بن أخطب النضري حتى أتى كعب بن أسد القرظي صاحب عقد بني قريظة وعهدهم، وكان قد وادع رسول الله ﷺ على قومه، وعاقده على ذلك وعاهده

Translation: And the enemy of Allah, Huyayy ibn Akhtab al-Nadri, set out until he came to Ka’b ibn Asad al-Qurazi, the holder of the treaty of Banu Qurayza and their pledge. He had bid farewell to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ on behalf of his people, and had made a covenant with him and pledged to it.

-

The word for treaty/covenant here is "عهد" (Ahd) which is always used to signify a legitimate treaty or covenant. The Oxford essential Arabic dictionary defines عهد on page 178 as "Treaty".

-

It is clear that Ibn Ishaq was affirming a legitimate treaty, yet Rodgers used this as a declaration of a "non aggression pact at best". And he claims that Banu Qurayza genuinely claimed to have "no treaty with Muhammad" even though Ibn Ishaq clearly states that this was satire, he says:

"they spoke disparagingly of the apostle, saying, 'Who is the apostle of God? We have no agreement or undertaking with Muhammad"

-

Did Banu Qurayza actually not know who Muhammad was? Of course they did, Ibn Ishaq mentions this as a ridicule made by Banu Qurayza, yet Rodgers uses it as proof of Banu Qurayza's innocence, quoting the same page which details their breach of treaty. This seems like very clear and deliberate misrepresentation. A regular reader who does not look up the primary source would read this text and get the idea that Banu Qurayza seriously declared that they had no treaty and that the early sources don't speak of the treaty, when in reality it is the quite opposite. QcTheCat (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to bring this argument to WP:RSN. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

What is quite interesting here is how Rodgers appears to self-contradict. In one breath, he defers to a single primary source doubting the presence of an agreement, while also admitting that there may have been a non-aggression pact, which is of course an agreement. As you note, the quotation from the primary source in question clearly leans on the satirical in its style, which makes it a poor substitute for a more declarative statement. If this the sole evidence upon which Rodgers relies then it is poor sustenance indeed. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it is interesting. And it seems to happen over and over again

-

Another example of this can be found right before Rodgers mentions Banu Qurayza's satirical remarks. He provides another "evidence" for Banu Qurayza's innocence. He stated:

-

For their part, elements of the Qurayza provided shovels, picks, and baskets to help the Muslims dig the trench, a point not consistent with ones intent on engaging in hostilities.

(Generalship of Muhammad Ch. 5 pg. 145)

-

His reference was Al Waqidi's book, Kitab al Maghazi. However Al Waqidi's work clearly denies his claim. Al Waqidi actually says:

-

The Muslims began to work hurriedly to confront the daring of the enemy. The Messenger of God continued to work with them in the trench urging the Muslims. As they worked, they borrowed many tools of iron, hoes and baskets from the Banu Qurayza. They dug the trench with him, for they were at that time at peace with the Prophet and they hated the bold daring of the Quraysh.

-

Al Waqidi makes it clear that this event took place before the breach of treaty. This is because even he mentions the whole event of the treaty's violation in the same book and agrees with the narrative:

-

The news finally reached the Muslims that the Banu Qurayza had broken their agreement. Fear intensified and the trial became overwhelming.

(Al Waqidi's Kitab Al Maghazi vol.2 pg.225)

-

And later on, Rodgers provides a quotation which outright contradicts his own theory. He provides a quotation from Abu Sufyan which goes as follows:

-

Abu Sufyan, angry that the Banu Qurayza had refused to join the coalition, mounted his hobbled camel to depart. “O people of the Quraysh! You are not in a position to stay. Hoofs (i.e., horses) and fat (i.e., camels) are destroyed, the plain became dry, Banu Qurayza deserted us and the wind played havoc which you have seen, so you should ride (your camels) and I am also riding (mine).”

(The Generalship of Muhammad Ch.5 pg.148)

-

How could Banu Qurayza desert the Quraysh if they never made any agreement with them? This would only make sense if Banu Qurayza had an agreement and was expected to help Quraysh. Which in turn would mean that their treaty would have been violated. QcTheCat (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Like I already said, feel free to bring those arguments of yours to WP:RSN. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 01:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Conflict with the Jewish tribes

"Following the Battle of Badr, Muhammad revealed his intention to expel the Jews from the land." Does anyone know which source says this? And can they quote it? Aside from the tone issues, I don't trust this as correct paraphrasing one bit. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Rodgers, Russ (2012). The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah. University Press of Florida. pp. 109–110. ISBN 978-0-8130-3766-0.

So what was Muhammad’s motivation? The seeds for this can be found in his earlier declaration after the battle of Badr that he intended to exile the Jews from the land.

• Sahih al-Bukhari 6944

Narrated Abu Huraira:
While we were in the mosque, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came out to us and said, "Let us proceed to the Jews." So we went along with him till we reached Bait-al-Midras (a place where the Torah used to be recited and all the Jews of the town used to gather). The Prophet (ﷺ) stood up and addressed them, "O Assembly of Jews! Embrace Islam and you will be safe!" The Jews replied, "O Aba-l-Qasim! You have conveyed Allah's message to us." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "That is what I want (from you)." He repeated his first statement for the second time, and they said, "You have conveyed Allah's message, O Aba-l- Qasim." Then he said it for the third time and added, "You should Know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to exile you from this land, so whoever among you owns some property, can sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."

• Sahih Muslim 1767a

It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say:
I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 22:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Banu Qaynuqa segment

Pinging editors who recently edited this article: @Omnipaedista, @Anachronist, @Freeman501, @Sumanuil, @Nardog, @Sharouser, @Johnbod, @VenusFeuerFalle, @Scientelensia, @BilledMammal, @Dronebogus

---

So, Iskandar323 recently made a number of edits to this article, but some of them just seem to me to constitute WP:CENSORSHIP. One example is his deletion of this cited material: At first, Muhammad planned to annihilate the surrendered tribe, with an edit summary “Copyediting" [20]. The material itself is supported by the reliable sources cited (I can add more if needed)

• Rodinson, Maxime (2021-03-02). Muhammad. New York Review of Books. p. 173. ISBN 978-1-68137-493-2.

Muhammad wanted to put all of them to death

• Brockopp, Jonathan E. (2010-04-19). The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad. Cambridge University Press. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-139-82838-3.

Following their capitulation, their men were almost beheaded, but Abdallah ibn Ubayy forced Muhammad to spare them and let the tribe go into exile.

• Glubb, John; Glubb, Sir John Bagot (2001). The Life and Times of Muhammad. Cooper Square Press. p. 198. ISBN 978-0-8154-1176-5.

The phrase attributed to Abdulla by Ibn Ishaq, "Would you cut them down in one morning?" implies that the Jews were about to be put to death.

• Rodgers, Russ (2012). The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah. University Press of Florida. pp. 109–110. ISBN 978-0-8130-3766-0.

It is clear from this exchange that Muhammad planned to implement the extreme consequences of the victor in those days by executing the warriors and selling the women and children into slavery.

So, what do you all think, does the removal constitute WP:CENSORSHIP? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

None of those online links show me the relevant pages, so I cannot verify anything. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Here are screenshots of the pages for those who don't have access to the books:

Rodinson p. 173 [21],

Brockopp p. 72 [22],

Glubb p. 198 [23],

Rodgers p. 110 [24] — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

From the outset, words like "annihilate" are simply not NPOV or encyclopedic in tone. And, as you have evidenced, none of these sources use these terms. When one, as an editor, encounters such terms, it is immediately clear that it has been produced by someone with a weak grasp of NPOV and encyclopedic tone, and so yes, I edited it out – not having immediate access to the sources to enable a more precise re-scripting. If your want to add back in after "Following their surrender" that "Muhammad had intended to execute the men" then that would actually be supported by the Cambridge Companion and be encyclopedic in tone. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The page is currently populated with a large volume of sources with no quotes, no direct links to sources with page numbers, and often no links at all. While none of this is technically necessary, the page currently presents a considerable verification burden due to the sheer lack of judicious quotation alongside the references. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

According to this publication by Cambridge University Press, regarding what happened to the Qurayza, "He ordered the Jewish men killed and the women and children sold as slaves or given as booty—in other words, he ordered the annihilation of the tribe." This is something that, according to the sources above, would also have happened to the Banu Qaynuqa if Abdullah ibn Ubayy had not intervened. Thus, using the word "annihilate" to describe this action (and as an effort to avoid copyvio) is not unacademic. If you believe the word is not NPOV, you can discuss it on the talk page instead of deleting it outright, although I couldn't seem to find the word in MOS:WTW. Additionally, you also changed [25]:

Muhammad thus spared their lives, stipulating that they must depart Medina within three days and relinquish their property to the Muslims, with Muhammad retaining a fifth.

to:

Muhammad spared the Qaynuqa, stipulating that they must depart Medina within three days and relinquish their property to the Muslims, with a fifth being retained as khums or Islamic tax.

The latter part of your version, "a fifth being retained as khums or Islamic tax," is not supported by any cited sources, thus constitutes WP:OR and WP:CENSORSHIP. To prevent this from happening again, if you do not have access to the sources, please refrain from making significant changes to the article, especially those that alter its meaning. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 07:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I've added a slightly badly formatted reference for this that will have to do for now based on my access. Is it genuinely true that none of Brockopp, Glubb, Rodinson or Rodgers elucidate this detail or provide the relevant terminology? That would be especially remarkable for Brockopp. Glubb and Rodgers are not experts, but Brockopp is, and Rodinson is an eminent scholar, even if coming at the subject from a very specific sociological perspective. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it genuinely true that none of Brockopp, Glubb, Rodinson or Rodgers elucidate this detail or provide the relevant terminology?

You're the one who changed it, so the WP:BURDEN is on you, not anyone else. And please stop making false claims that Rodgers is not an expert; I have explained this multiple times in the section above [26], [27], [28]. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your comment:

The page is currently populated with a large volume of sources with no quotes

I checked several featured articles on historical topics [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], and many, if not all, of their citations do not contain quotations. Sometimes, when writing articles, we also condense the content of one or several pages, so providing quotations in the citations for each point can make the article's bytes too large and overloaded.

no direct links to sources with page numbers, and often no links at all.

This article uses the sfn reference format, which only displays the authors' names, years, and page numbers. When the authors and year are clicked, it will show book details such as the title, publisher, etc. This is a common reference format used in historical articles where the same books are cited repeatedly with different pages. While Google Books provides previews for some pages, most other pages are not accessible. And WP:V states: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible." — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 09:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: While the inclusion of the content is under discussion, keep in mind that if a content is found to be undue or unencyclopedic, even if well-sourced, it can be removed. (See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:ONUS). More importantly, impulsively accusing other editors of censorship is unconstructive and is not really going to resolve the issue.(See WP:YC). StarkReport (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Maxime Rodinson Is Not A Valid Source

Let me clearly note that Maxime Rodinson, a Marxist, is not a valid source here nor on any page of major religious figures. He should not be cited nor referenced. This is not a place for ideologies, be it Marxism or otherwise--it is a place for accurate and unbiased factual reporting of information, adhering to neutrality (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), and from reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Rodinson is not a reliable source. Wikipedia does not promote a certain ideology nor narrative, be it Marxist or otherwise. If you want to add Marxist comments, create a new page for "Marxist Views of Islam" and move it over there, please. DivineReality (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me clearly reply that before you make such dogmatic pronouncements you should read the policies you cite. From WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." The way we handle this is in our WP:NPOV policy, specifically WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." So, no, Wikipedia is not just "a place for accurate and unbiased factual reporting of information". DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Although, I don't agree with dismissing Rodinson, but the current content seems to be written in a skewed and incomplete manner and comes off as WP:GRATUITOUS. It would benefit from expansion and additional context without taking up significantly more space. Therefore, I am considering proceeding with these improvements for better WP:PROPORTION.

Additionally, there's no need to include the word 'sex' unnecessarily. 'Took her to bed' effectively conveys the intended meaning, and readers can easily understand. StarkReport (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:EUPHEMISM, "had sex" is more preferable on en-WP if we're going to mention it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, "had intercourse with her that night". It seems more formal and encyclopedic and avoids euphemisms, if any. StarkReport (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No, sounds Victorian. "had sex" is the appropriate and encyclopedic language. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Consider views on Rodinson's work like [34][35]. Historians (and others) can have all sorts of backgrounds. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

He's listed up there among the big Muhammad biographers by the author of the Encyclopedia is Islam, so I would say he passes muster as an influential voice. The key thing to remember with Rodinson is that he was a Marxist sociologist, so he always came at the topic from a highly specific (and quite off-piste) perspective that can in places be rather exceptional and warrant attribution. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)