Talk:Battle of Khaybar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Blatant copyvio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Muslims"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Banu Qurayza

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cy

DYK candidate? Who posted this?

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page reversion

This page was gamed onto the DYK list; reverting to keep the notice up is a farce, and will not be tolerated. — JEREMY 09:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, it was gamed? There doesn't seem to be much more to it than simply posting it. If there were some sinister mechanations behind the scenes, I've not been made aware of them.

Gamed = promoted under false pretences. It was in clear violation of the rules for DYK, and inaccurate statements were made in order to misdirect others not to recognise that fact, and thereby allow it to be promoted to the front page. — JEREMY 10:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What inaccurate statements? Help me, I honestly don't know who/what you're talking about.Timothy Usher 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To depersonalize this [1], why is it important to revert the talk page? What are we trying to accomplish?Timothy Usher 09:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to avoid people coming to the mistaken impression that this had legitimately been a "Did You Know" article. — JEREMY 10:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The notice didn't make any claim of legitimacy, only that it appeared on DYK. Why is it important that this fact not appear on the talk page? What's the downside?Timothy Usher 10:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What, people being misled isn't enough of a downside for you? It's currently off; please justify any replacement of the banner here first. — JEREMY 10:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it'd be terrible to mislead people. But how is a note that it appeared on DYK misleading?Timothy Usher 10:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Safiya

Looking through these excerpt of Ibn Ishaq [2], there's a lot here, about Safiya and her poor husband that might be added.Timothy Usher 09:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Extremely odd history

Can anyone (an admin, perhaps) explain to me why the edit history of this article looks (in part) like this:

1. (cur) (last) 18:11, 6 May 2006 Pecher m (→Massacre of Banu Nadir - fix wikilink)
2. (cur) (last) 18:09, 6 May 2006 Pecher (unstubbing)
3. (cur) (last) 03:49, 1 May 2006 Timothy Usher (rv from totally unsourced, totally POV)
4. (cur) (last) 01:11, 1 May 2006 Salman01
5. (cur) (last) 15:30, 6 April 2006 Pecher (not tribe, simply Jews living their)
6. (cur) (last) 13:13, 6 April 2006 Timothy Usher (Khaybar, not Bani Qurayza - let's keep our victims straight)

I know admins can delete selected edits from an article's history, but how have these gotten shuffled? — JEREMY 10:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem? It looks in order to me. Note 6 May v. 6 April.Timothy Usher 10:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

HeHe. Nice one. Even I was ponding over the puzzle posed by Jeremy for a few moments until Timothy pointed out. Optical illusion. Our eyes do play tricks, don't they :-) Idleguy 13:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. OK, I think I've spent too much time staring at wikipedia pages. (I checked the diffs too; they support the discontinuity.) My bad; please ignore. :) — JEREMY 13:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

18 months later

<<The battle ended with Muhammad's victory; increased prestige, authority, local support, and supplies no doubt contributed to his ability to capture Mecca just 18 months after Khaybar>> -

why the fact tag? the same thing is stated more forcefully in After the battle - Strengthening of Muhammed, and there it is not in question. The sentence does not say that Kahaybar is why it only took 18 months more, it states that the listed items where likely contributory factors, which is almost a motherhood statement - is the argument that these things did not contribute? or that he did not gain these things from Khaybar? even if that was not the intent, that was almost certainly the result - no one can argue that the success at Khaybar had implications for rep, auth, support, etc etc..Bridesmill 22:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bridesmill,

I see your point but my main concern was with the other sentence though I believe this sentence also needed to be referenced. Of course this connection seems quite plausible to me and to those familiar with the history of Islam this may seem like a common sense fact but having a source substantiating this connection was useful. --Aminz 03:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Could someone please specify what is not neutral & accurate about this article? Bridesmill 02:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Bridesmill, there was a little discussion above regarding this which I am copy/pasting here for your convenience: "This article is very POV and biased. It may be right, but it mis-represents Muslims, and make them appear war-mongering, and only out for booty. Muslims claim they were fighting not for money, but for neturalizing the Jews who they thought were out to get them. The article is good, but it just needs a Muslim POV added in. And Aminz is right, we need some sources to prove the above statements or it has to be taken out.--Silent"

Lack of Muslim POV make the article neutral. Stating quotes as facts: "X is so" rather than "Y says X is so" reduces the accuracy of the article. + Usage of words may make an article POV e.g. usage of the word capture in " ... capture Mecca just ...". Hope I have been able to express myself well.--Aminz 03:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are getting at - sort of - but what is wrong with 'capture Mecca'? I'm not sure how this article represents Muslims as war-mongering - you'd have to be pretty sensitive to read the article in that light. One needs to remember context too - we are talking about society a long time ago in a very different world - can't be totally 'sugar-coated'.Bridesmill 04:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In the case of "capture", I am not actually a native speaker of English and was judging based on the translation of the word in another language. I take it back. thx. --Aminz 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

First, let's specify that we're not talking about "Muslims" generally, only Muhammad and his followers. The vast majority of Muslims lead much more peacable and law-abiding lives than did these men.

Second, divying up booty is a salient theme in Islamic scripture, and in the early history. It is well-known that Muhammad & Co. attacked caravans for the immediate purpose of obtaining booty.

Regarding the Meccans, it was said these followers were owed money for their confiscated properties. How true this was, how much money was actually involved, we can't know, because we only one side of the story survives. Similarly, if the Jews of Khaybar were out to get them.

However, attainment of booty is a known and admitted goal, just as its division was a admitted (and probably constant) problem. Doesn't the Sunni-Shi'a split have its roots in a dispute between Muhammad's heirs over his portion of what was taken in this very campaign?

That doesn't necessarily say it was the only goal.Timothy Usher 05:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Doesn't the Sunni-Shi'a split have its roots in a dispute between Muhammad's heirs over his portion of what was taken in this very campaign?" Timothy, please substantiate this claim. Thanks --Aminz 06:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Fadak.Timothy Usher 06:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there is a dispute on Fadak but please substantiate the claim that "the Sunni-Shi'a split have its roots in Fadak". This is a much stronger claim. --Aminz 06:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it's broadly about succession, but this property was a significant aspect of the struggle. I'd guess it must have been worth a fortune in today's terms - Khaybar was wealthy, and the Qur'an guaranteed Muhammad a 20% share. Worth enough, at least, to be a issue for both factions.Timothy Usher 06:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree up to the point that Fadak was an important dispute but not the most significant ones. Let me write a bit about Ali of whom your theory is that Fadak was his main motivation:

• Have a look at Non-Muslim view of Ali

• Let me add another quote: The seventeenth-century theologian, Henry Stubbe in [An Account of the Rise and Progress of Mohammedanism, 1705, p. 83] writes: “He had a contempt of the world, its glory and pomp, he feared God much, gave many alms, was just in all his actions, humble and affable; of an exceeding quick wit and of an ingenuity that was not common, he was exceedingly learned, not in those sciences that terminate in speculations but those which extend to practice.”

• Ali’s response to the people of Medina beseeched him to accept the mantle of Calipha: "I swear by the Creator of this Universe that had they not sworn unconditional allegiance to me; had they not manifested profound gratitude for my accepting their rulership; had not the presence of helpers and supporters made it incumbent upon me to defend the faith; and had Allah, the Almighty not taken a promise from the learned to put a check upon the luxurious and vicious lives of Oppressors and tyrants as well as to try to reduce the pangs of poverty and starvation of the oppressed and downtrodden, and had He not made it incumbent upon them to secure back the usurped rights of the weak from the mighty and powerful oppressors, I would even now have left the rulership of this State as I did earlier and would have allowed it to sink into anarchy and chaos. Then you would have seen that in my view the glamour of a vicious life of your world is no better than the sneezing of a goat". (Sermon—7, Peak of Eloquence)

• "Indeed Allah has made it obligatory that the true and just Imams should lead their lives in a simple way and keep their souls under check so that they go side by side with the poor people, who may not suffer from a feeling of deprivation". (Sermon—204, Peak of Eloquence)

• "When Imam Ali after assuming the authority of ruling over the people visited a city, he said, "I have come down to your city in my old dress, with this asset and this horse. If after a few days you find that I depart from your city in different clothes you should conclude that I misappropriated the public property"

• Ibn Abbas says: "Once when I visited Imam Ali, he was mending his shoes. The Holy Imam asked me, 'What do you think will be the price of this shoe?' I said, 'It has no value at all'. The Holy Imam then said, 'By Allah! To my mind this torn shoe is more valuable than my ruling over the people provided I enforce truthfulness and eradicate the untruth".

--Aminz 07:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

While Fadak may have been a contributory factor, it was by no means either a motivating or central factor. Methinks this aspect of discussion righfully belongs elsewhere; point here is that economics played a role, almost by definition - it takes resources to conduct a military campaign. Bridesmill 12:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be mentioned, but you're right that this is not the place for a full discussion. My point was only that division of booty was an acknowledged problem, which continued after Muhammad's death; this in turn demonstrates that the acquisition of booty was a proximate goal.Timothy Usher 21:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I only agree to the extent that it was important. --Aminz 23:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Timothy, but your logic appears flawed. Just because they argued about money 'after' the fact, does not mean it was a proximate cause; if anything, had money been a serious, primary objective, it could be argued that serious thought would have been given to future disposition, voiding later quarrels. In any case, I think we are agreed that economics played 'a' role, but was not necesarrily 'the' role. Bridesmill 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But it's not only after the fact as with Fadak, or why would the Qur'an bother to address it? People don't come up with rules where there is no problem. Once we accept that booty was an individual goal of the companions, and of Muhammad himself (whether spent on himself or not, he still claimed 20%), it becomes rather naive to suppose that this wasn't at the forefront of their minds when they attacked a prosperous town like Khaybar, even if it wasn't the main reason.Timothy Usher 02:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, though it is quite okay for us to have different opinions but I expect you to report all evidences regarding the 20% share of Muhammad and his life style, rather than reporting just a portion of it. I showed you the relevant Qur'anic verse and how this money was supposed to spend and traditions regarding the simple life-style of Muhammad and some of his companions. You may want to have a look at Abu Dharr another early Muslim who felt that spending money on luxury was an offense to God. --Aminz 02:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying Muhammad was greedy. If money were his main goal, he would have quit when he got it.Timothy Usher 02:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But he was already very wealthy before claiming prophethood. --Aminz 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He couldn't possibly have wealthy as he was after all this (?). What did he own before, with Khadija? I don't know.

Here is verse ^{[Quran 8:41]}, which states that the money goes to God, care of Muhammad, to be shared with his near relatives and spent on various good causes. Can you recap the other Qur'anic verses directly related to the 20%?Timothy Usher 02:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly he owned either; probably at least a couple of caravans. But he was definitely a very wealthy man compared to others according to traditions.

Thanks for reporting the verse. I think this is the only verse on this issue. --Aminz 03:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll poke around for Hadith, too, at some point...got a few things to do...Timothy Usher 03:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bridesmill. While it is unknown wheter Muslims were truly afraid of the Jews or not, that is what the Muslim biographies say. Some Muslims may object to this article, though if only because it make it seem, rightly or wrongly, that Muhammed fought the battle primarly for economic gain, and it ignores how Muhammed justified his invasion, that is, this fear of Jews (Timothy, many Mulisms venerate Muhammed, and see any attack on Muhammed as an attack on themselves). In other words, it does not reflect the Muslim POV, and hence this tag. I would like to suggest prehaps a sentence that could be added that prevents the article from looking wishy-washy, but still presents that other view, and can hopefully get that NPOV tag away. I post it here, so you can say if it is okay, or not.

"While Muslim scholars believe the invasion of Khaybar was due to a fear of an Jewish invasion of Medina, most Non-Muslim scholars agree that Khaybar was attacked for economic gain, as an example of one large tribe attacking a weaker tribe."

Still, I really did like the article. I learned a lot, and I would like to thank all who edited it to make it this way.-Silent

Thank Pecher, Silent. You should create an account and get a proper username.

Muslims shouldn't see any of this as an attack on themselves, as the Qur'an declared spoils of war (^{[Quran 8:68]}), including women (^{[Quran 23:1]}, ^{[Quran 70:29]}, ^{[Quran 033:050]}), lawful to Muhammad and his followers, and commanded them to attack the unbelievers, including the People of the Book (^{[Quran 9:029]}). The most straightforward Qur'anic response (though one most Muslims wold be loath to make) is not that it didn't happen, but that it was okay.Timothy Usher 02:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Eek - I didn't intend it to come across that 'economic gain' was the reason; rather, that it was one of many reasons. In terms of fear of Jewish invasion; I know that's the story told, but I have yet to figure out why this would have been feared at the time. There needs to be some expression of this though if it is a seriously held belief - there must be something written in a credible source??? Bridesmill 02:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Usher. Thank for the Quranic quotes. I don't think Muslims would object to the divisions of spoils of war, but rather, that the war was fought mostly for said spoils. Also, several Muslims, trying to modernize their religion and protray it as peaceful, claim that Muhammed did not fight unless being fought first...in other words, all his wars were in self-defense.

Bridesmill, I know little about the Muslim viewpoint as well, other than this fear of a Jewish invasion. I also got no credible sources, expect prehaps a Muslim biography "The Sealed Nectar", and a couple of textbooks (which I hope can be considered credible). From what I read, the Muslims and the Jewish tribes did not have very good relations to begin with, with the Muhammed kicking out or killing the tribes for different reasons. On this current article, it says that Huyayy ibn Akhtab, a Jew from the Banu Nadir tribe that was exiled from Medina, helped out the Meccans during the Battle of the Ditch, which I am sure made the Muslims a little angry. Prehaps this is what led to the Battle of Khaybar? After all, the Jews helped the Meccans beseige Medina...surely, the Jews can lead another assualt?

In the article, it suggests the Jews were fearful of an invasion by Muslims, while the Muslims, in thier POV, claim they were being afraid the Jews were out to get them. I could just mark it down as a bad case of paranoia on both sides, though both people had reasons to be scared. (After all, the Jewish tribes were rich. If the Muslims didn't steal the money, then the Jewish tribes might use it against them...) Maybe it is just a whitewash attempt. Still, there has to be some way to reflect this POV.--SilentScope 02:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

's not easy. Agreed. My take is that article is reasonably neutral as it stands if you accept that in those days, what the article says Muhammed did was perfectly reasonable & everybody did that. Nowadays, that type of behaviour is not exactly the most humanitarian, diplomatic way of solving conflicts, so yes, it does make Muhammed in a modern context come across as a little warlike. But this is about the old context; so I agree that all it needs is somewhere to state what the Muslim scholarly perception of cause was - a decent text, hadith, whatever, which can be used as a bit of a counterpoint - note that Badr is an FA {and a good example of good refs}, while this place is an argument; there must be a reasonable solution - your input is good food for thought. Anyone with decent Islamic sources out there? Bridesmill 02:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

More evidence that taking booty was the goal

These verses show that the taking of booty was a main goal of battle: ^{[Quran 48:15]}Timothy Usher 04:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have gathered the relevant verses:

48:10 Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to Allah: the Hand of Allah is over their hands: then any one who violates his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul, and any one who fulfils what he has covenanted with Allah,- Allah will soon grant him a great Reward.

48:11 "The desert Arabs who lagged behind will say to thee: "We were engaged in (looking after) our flocks and herds, and our families: do thou then ask forgiveness for us." They say with their tongues what is not in their hearts. Say: "Who then has any power at all (to intervene) on your behalf with Allah, if His Will is to give you some loss or to give you some profit? But Allah is well acquainted with all that ye do"

48:12 "Nay, ye thought that the Messenger and the Believers would never return to their families; this seemed pleasing in your hearts, and ye conceived an evil thought, for ye are a people lost (in wickedness)."

48:13 "And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!"

48:15 "Those who lagged behind (will say), when ye (are free to) march and take booty (in war): "Permit us to follow you." They wish to change Allah's decree: Say: "Not thus will ye follow us: Allah has already declared (this) beforehand": then they will say, "But ye are jealous of us." Nay, but little do they understand (such things).

48:16 "Say to the desert Arabs who lagged behind: "Ye shall be summoned (to fight) against a people given to vehement war: then shall ye fight, or they shall submit. Then if ye show obedience, Allah will grant you a goodly reward, but if ye turn back as ye did before, He will punish you with a grievous Penalty."

Here is my understanding: Some people had oaths with Muhammad. They didn't join Muhammad when they were called for the war they didn't come thinking that Muhammad and his followers would never return to their families. By breaking their oath, according to Qur'an, they sinned to God. They came to Muhammad asking him to ask God's forgiveness for them but only by the motivation of having a share in the booty. The Qur'an tells that disobeying Muhammad will result in punishment (blazing fire in hereafter) and obeying him will result in goodly rewards (that includes both worldly and heavenly rewards but mainly worldly rewards here + avoiding heavenly/worldly punishments).

I see that the bootie is proposed as a reward for obeying God. I have no doubt that Muslims were happy of the booty and viewed it as God's reward. I believe that when God in Qur'an talks about punishments/rewards, it considers both worldly and heavenly punishments/rewards. Frightening of punishment and promising rewards is a general theme in Qur’an and not specific to here. Timothy, I think your argument is that viewing booties as a reward for obeying God will imply that in fact taking booties was "the goal". It may have been the motivation for many and I have no doubt that this verse encourages people to follow God by promising rewards (which are again not specific to here). But I am afraid I can not agree with you that “the above verses” show that Muhammad and all of his follower’s initial motivation has been taking the booty rather than obeying God. --Aminz 05:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean that it was the only motivation for the entire enterprise. At first, they had it tough, and there was nothing to be gained. Muhammad was peacefully inviting people away from idolatry, and these people were then persecuted. Later on, they viewed the takings as their reward for sticking with the mission (and ill treatment of opponents as their collective just reward). It is a fact of human psychology that there is nothing incompatible about ideological and base motivations, so the question "well, which was it" need not be answered.

Later on, when they were doing well for themselves, others wanted a share, and these verses are rebuking them. However, verse fifteen suggests that by that point, they were attacking places simply for takings.Timothy Usher 06:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The title for the section reads: "More evidence that taking booty was the goal" and your first sentence says that it was a main goal.

I can not synchronize myself with you on verse 15. It is a promise to Bedouins that if they obey God, God will give him rewards which here specifically refers to booties. They were unhappy of the situation and this promise was given to them. --Aminz 06:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But it says they're setting forth in order to capture booty.Timothy Usher 06:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it says to them "Say to the desert Arabs who lagged behind: "Ye shall be summoned (to fight) against a people given to vehement war: then shall ye fight, or they shall submit. Then if ye show obedience, Allah will grant you a goodly reward, but if ye turn back as ye did before, He will punish you with a grievous Penalty."

They were unhappy of missing the current booty and they were promised to have a goodly reward soon if they show obedience to God. Yes, booties was promised to them + other heavenly rewards and getting saved from a grievous heavenly Penalty. But I can not see how this supports that Muhammad himself had this motivation? --Aminz 07:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been staying out of this one, but ... Timothy, you might enjoy reading the Fred Donner book I keep quoting, The Early Islamic Conquests. Donner's analysis suggests that the Muslim armies had two sorts of warriors: the believing Muslims, who would have fought for Muhammad without any thought of reward (and these were generally the Meccans and Medinans, the settled agriculturalists or traders, the early converts) and the nomads, the Bedouin, who had submitted to force, whose Islam was shaky, and who could only be kept in line by turning them against an outward foe and giving them booty. There are several Quranic quotes, I believe, contrasting those whose Islam was purely formal with those who were true believers, or contrasting the city-dwellers and the Bedouin. The booty regulations were for the formal Muslims, who were mainly motivated by loot and glory. The regulations were there to keep quarrels over spoils to a minimum. Note that after Muhammad died, many of the tribes decided that their loyalty was also at an end, and Abu Bakr spent his brief caliphate subduing them in the Ridda Wars. These tribes were not trusted. If I'm remembering correctly, Abu Bakr did not want these rebels in the Muslim armies. Umar, however, changed the policy and sent them against the Byzantines and the Persians. Donner at one point explicitly says that the Muslims could keep the loyalty of the tribes only as long as they kept expanding, as long as there were always more conquests and more loot over the horizon. This was the logic of many empires. (This point is also made by Patricia Crone, who compares the Muslims to the Mongols.)

Donner is not a Muslim. He's a realist. His analysis rings true to me. But I think there's something there for Muslims who do not want to believe that the conquests were all about loot. Zora 06:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zora for your comment. --Aminz 06:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora! You are needed on so many of these pages, it's not even funny. Should read Donner, along with a bunch of others. It's difficult to think of a more fascinating period.

However: what is contradictory about 1) an inner core of ideologues, Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Ali, Umar, Uthman, etc. - which I never doubted existed - for them, it's about ideology and the power needed to propagate and enforce it - and 2) a proximate goal of acquiring booty? For the ideologues, it's needed to pay the troops, and to fund HQ.

And hey, when you really think about it, don't the unbelievers sort of deserve it? It all comes together - we're fighting for God and for the truth, we need the material and the support, they've rejected the truth, they're probably plotting against us anyhow (inner voice: I'd be plotting against us were I them; ignore, reframe...), and Gabriel very recently and very specifically told us that this was all okay.

(dogmatic pronouncement follows:) The notion that self-righteous truly-believed ideology is somehow incompatible with amoral tactics has no sound basis in practical psychology and been plainly contradicted by history at every turn.Timothy Usher 06:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"X is so" vs "Y says X is so"

Timothy, can you please explain your current edits? --Aminz 06:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• The question is not whether these sources appear, the question is where. That's a very important question. Often, we approach these by asking if there is a sustainable case of doubt other than, "well, how do you know?" If it's said that Jafar is holding up the banner after his arms had been cut off, there is cause for doubt. If one source says Jafar was the commander, and that's the only source, there's no cause for doubt. The whole period is poorly documented, and it seems to me that where something sounds reasonable, and is reported without being contradicted, this suffices for the truth.
• The source is Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham. Considering that they had every reason to cast events in the most positive light, and considering these are a primary source of information about these events, there's no cause to doubt it. I misunderstood your post. Apologies.

Thus, while my first point is a good one, it doesn't necessarily apply, as I've not read the sources Pecher used, I can't characterize them.

• If there is cause to doubt it, present it.Timothy Usher 06:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The edit you were actually asking about - again shame on me - was based on the assumption that the Madinan sura was addressing the Khaybar incident. Perhaps that's incorrect?Timothy Usher 06:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy,

let's assume that you are right (the above arguments are trying to prove this I understand). Muhammad had really two motivations: 1. raise his prestige among his followers 2. capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests.

My question to you is that: Is this the Muslim POV? Does writing "X is so" allows Muslims to come and insert their own POV. Unless one writes "Y says X is so", Muslims can not come and present their POV as "W says X is so". The Encyclopedia of Islam is not written by Muslims. It is not Muslim POV. I think Wikipedia is a place that all views can be reported even if they are false. Please correct me if it is otherwise. Muslim POV is that Muhammad's motivations were not summarized in the above two points and you do not believe in it based on some reasons. Timothy, I have my own reasons. Everybody thinks he is right. I still can not agree with your last edits and I have had this issue with Pecher as well. Maybe I am wrong and I am so off that I don't understand what I say. --Aminz 06:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

First, you're free to revert the qualifiers; I won't contest it until I've learned more, to get a better idea if it's warranted or not.

I agree with your point about including Muslim POV, but am not sure that, many Muslims today have trouble believing Muhammad would have acted that way deserves mention as anything more than that. I'm not saying there isn't a counterargument to be made, only that I don't know what it is, and it hasn't been presented here. All the facts come from Muslims to begin with. If someone else has projected something, the only way we can really know is to follow up on the immediate sources and check their sources. All I'm saying is, there are sources here, if non-Muslim, I haven't heard anything substantial from the other side to suggest otherwise. There seems to be this generic resistance.

Re "Maybe I am wrong..." - me as well. Further research is needed.Timothy Usher 07:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, Let's assume that you do a research and end up with Muhammad being a liar and a false prophet. This will mean that those two statements are true for sure. My argument is that even in that case, we should not write in wikipedia that Muhammad had only these two motivations (even if Gabriel tells us it is so). Muslims have their own POV. There are Muslim scholars who say Muhammad was obeying God. I think we should not write "X is so" unless it is the view shared by all POVs. Please let me know what is wrong with this argument. --Aminz 07:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy for adding the sources back. Could you please answer to the above question. Thanks ( i need to go now but will be back soon) --Aminz 07:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It's a collaborative endeavor.

Being a liar only requires that one lie some of the time. Since that's most of us, it's a scalar thing. False prophet implies that none of one's prophecies is true. One can be a liar and an adulterator of revealed scripture without being a false prophet.

One premise of Islam which I've never understood is the idea that, for someone to be a genuine prophet, they must be of perfect, or only formally imperfect, character, and that the revelation they transmit must be unadulterated and unaltered. There's this whole line of completely righteous, infallible people, when it's easy to see some of them were far from wholly righteous or infallible - consider also King David, who is likewise considered a messenger.Timothy Usher 07:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I'll write about your last point but my point was that: assume tonight Gabriel told you or you discovered an ancient manuscript in your house yard saying that Muhammad had only two motivations there. My argument is that even in that case, we should not write in wikipedia that Muhammad had only these two motivations. Muslims have their own POV. There are Muslim scholars who say Muhammad was obeying God. I think we should not write "X is so" unless it is the view shared by all POVs. Could you please let me know what your opinion.

As to your comment, I don't exactly know but one reason for it maybe the reason is that the Qur'an unlike the Bible always talks about the prophets very respectfully. For example, story of David and the story are Solomon:

21. Has the Story of the Disputants reached thee? Behold, they climbed over the wall of the private chamber;

22. When they entered the presence of David, and he was terrified of them, they said: "Fear not: we are two disputants, one of whom has wronged the other: Decide now between us with truth, and treat us not with injustice, but guide us to the even Path..

23. "This man is my brother: He has nine and ninety ewes, and I have (but) one: Yet he says, 'commit her to my care,' and is (moreover) harsh to me in speech."

24. (David) said: "He has undoubtedly wronged thee in demanding thy (single) ewe to be added to his (flock of) ewes: truly many are the partners (in business) who wrong each other: Not so do those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and how few are they?"...and David gathered that We had tried him: he asked forgiveness of his Lord, fell down, bowing (in prostration), and turned (to Allah in repentance).

25. So We forgave him this (lapse): he enjoyed, indeed, a Near Approach to Us, and a beautiful place of (Final) Return.

Solomon's story:

30. To David We gave Solomon (for a son),- How excellent in Our service! Ever did he turn (to Us)!

31. Behold, there were brought before him, at eventide coursers of the highest breeding, and swift of foot;

32. And he said, "Truly do I love the love of good, with a view to the glory of my Lord,"- until (the sun) was hidden in the veil (of night):

33. "Bring them back to me." then began he to pass his hand over (their) legs and their necks.

34. And We did try Solomon: We placed on his throne a body (without life); but he did turn (to Us in true devotion):

35. He said, "O my Lord! Forgive me, and grant me a kingdom which, (it may be), suits not another after me: for Thou art the Grantor of Bounties (without measure).

36. Then We subjected the wind to his power, to flow gently to his order, Whithersoever he willed,-

37. As also the evil ones, (including) every kind of builder and diver,-

38. As also others bound together in fetters.

39. "Such are Our Bounties: whether thou bestow them (on others) or withhold them, no account will be asked."

40. And he enjoyed, indeed, a Near Approach to Us, and a beautiful Place of (Final) Return.

These are the places that prophets made mistakes but the way they are explained are really positive. This may be a reason or may be not. --Aminz 07:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

2nd Battle of Khaybar

Interesting (and somewhat ironic) footnote to history, but not sure where in the page to put it. - just found out about fol book: (review from ebscohost) "The Turkish Battle at Khaybar. By Esref Kuscubasi. Trans. and ed. by Philip H. Stoddard and H. Basri Danisman. Arba Yayinlari, Istanbul, 1999. Pp. 296. Map. Illus. Notes. Appendices. Index. [Available in the Society's Library.] Esref Kuscubasi (1873-1964) was described by T E. Lawrence and by King Abdullah I of Jordan as in turn brigand, assassin, adventurer and revolutionary. He certainly had a chequered career in the last days of the Ottoman Empire, serving at different times both the Sultan Abdulhamid and the 'Young Turks'. In 1917 he was sent by War Minister Enver Pasha on a foolhardy mission to carry gold to the Ottoman troops beleaguered in Yemen by the Arab Revolt. Before even reaching its destination his small band was surprised by a much larger beduin force under Amir (later King) Abdullah. The ensuing battle at Khaybar in the Hejaz was a catastrophic rout from which Esref emerged bloody but unbowed. The gold was purloined." Bridesmill 02:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on how (or if) to insert this tidbit appreciated.Bridesmill 01:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Bridesmill, I think we can have another page with any title; not exactly the same but "Battle at Khaybar (?)" should be good. We can then add a disambiguation tag to the article (Wikipedia:Disambiguation). --Aminz 08:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Pogroms

Cite moved so that it no longer includes last sentence in the para. Although Stillman many have discussed concept of pogroms in this context, to use this line is cherry-picking and applying a very blatantly biased (if admittedly scholarly) POV. It is this type of rhetoric - equating or implying that it was all a big pogrom - that takes it out of historical context. It was a war fought 1000 years ago, when moralities and realities were different - to attempt to understand it in terms of modern theoretical constructs will result in nothing but strong antipathy, apologism, and strong reaction - in other words, this page will never achieve anything more than POV battleground. Let's all recall that this is about more than defending the faith - it is about objective recording and reporting of history, with the aim of developing understanding, whihc involves allowing each other to state our context ('X calls him a martyr' and 'Y calls him a criminal', rather than 'there is dispute over his status', which nobody learns from). And please don't play the WP:NOR to this - synthesis of multiple bodies of work is not OR. Given the complexity of the conflict within which this tiny article conflict is taking place, a dose of realpolitik, pragmatism, humility, & submission by all is probably not misplaced. (except for me of course, I'm not biased) (kidding) Bridesmill 01:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, first it is the Encyclopaedia of Islam, not Stilman, who makes the reference to pogroms. Secondly, we have no reason to hide the connection made here. I've read your comment in its entirety several times, but I cannot clearly see your reasoning behimnd hiding the pogrom connection. If you disagree with this specific scholarly source; it's up to you, of course, but in this situation any editor will have to, as you put it, play the WP:NOR card, as you don't see your "synthesis of multiple bodies of work" anywhere in your edits. Pecher ^Talk 11:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

WStillman or the Encyc of Islam - it is still a cherrypick which serves only one possible purpose: Since the birth of Islam, it has been all about killing Jews just for something to do, because they are subhuman. Muslims are inherrently evil. Is that what we want to say here? Because that is the subtle implication you are giving with that line. Perhaps in opposition we can put in some quotes from the 'Protocols of Zion'. Why can't we just tone done the BS & keep things in context??? Does WP have to be part of the greater dispute or can we try to rise above it?? Bridesmill 14:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop the hysterics, please. I entirely fail to understand why you call analysis done by scholarly source BS. The point made there was that Muhammad, like many people after him, saw Jews as a valuable source of loot. Your cries about sub-humans confuse Nazi ideology with the older pre-Nazi anti-Semitism and perhaps betray a failure to read the article, which says that "...Muhammad's attacks against the Jews, first in Medina and then in Khaybar, had economic roots similar to those which brought about persecutions and pogroms...". So, please do not ascribe to the article something that is not there on Muslims are inherrently evil and Jes being sub-humans. Pecher ^Talk 15:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is in perception of the word 'pogrom' - it just isn't needed and is out of context in any case - we are talking about a military campaign here which had economic facets (as all military campaigns do). So why the insistence on using emotionally charged words just because some scholar used it? Bridesmill 16:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not? The word "persection" is also emotionally charged, but nevertheless descriptive. Pecher ^Talk 16:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere as close to pogrom - sorry, just looked at your user page - In Russian (and I assume Ukrainian) 'pogrom' is in many ways just a word, like persecution (which can be a bit sensitive); but in English it is a much, much more emotional word - as soon as you say it, anglophones have pictures of holocaust etc. I think we have a simple language 'connotation' misunderstanding here - I thought you were being harsh, judgemental and possibly racist, you thought it was just another word. Bridesmill 16:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm...we need to find some non-politically charged word. Or maybe we can add in that other people (mostly Muslims) disagree with the Encylopedia, and claim that the raids were all in self-defense, that the Jews attacked first. But more likely, we can just take that sentence out, and avoid the POV battleground. Different morals, differnet beliefs. If we lived in this time period, we would have done the same.--SilentScope 17:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

We would have done the same? That seems unfair. There were peaceful people then as well as now, but, as now, they didn't make the headlines. Were the history-makers of the twentieth century less morally outrageous than those of the seventh? The twentieth century is close enough for us to recognize where they departed from prevailing morality (as criminals do, by definition), rather than dismiss it as "that's the way people were back then." Not sure. But I'm as wary of that answer as I am of straightforwardly applying contemporary standards, as both are premised to some degree upon projection.Timothy Usher 20:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Standard were very different, value of 'the other' (in anthropological terms) was much different - look for instance at changing atitudes towards slavery, and being able to treat 'the other' as chattel goods. This is not a judgement - it is just an acknowledgement that things were different (sometimes in ways we do not clearly understand) I'm just saying that we should neither condemn those that far in the past, not try to be their apologists. A delicate balance. What is a 'little bit' more do-able though, is to be carteful not to use the actions of the past to substantiate (or legitimize) those of the present. Bridesmill 20:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

These are not relevant issues to discuss here. We are not supposed to make value judgments on Wikipedia, nor is it productive to ponder what we would have done, had we been Muslim Arabs living in Medina in the 7th century. Let's stop at this point because this is not what talk pages are for. Pecher ^Talk 20:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are: when you compare these actions to pogroms, you are most definitely making judgements.Bridesmill 20:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing logical conclusions with value judgments; the comparison with pogroms is the former, not the latter. Pecher ^Talk 21:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you've got to be kidding - categorizing something from 1000 years before the first use of the word pogrom as a pogrom is not a value judgement???? We cannot just put values and politics of 17th C Euroope into that time period, and we don't need to. 'Khaybar related to pogrom' is a logical leap of huge magnitude. Why this obsession with what is (in English) an emotional word which is bound to raise hackles, when the same concept can be expressed in a neutral fashion? The fact that it is in a cited reference does not make it a fact - it is a published opinion, and in this case used in a cherry-picked and out of context fashion. Insistence on using it is I would suggest either due to a (acceptable) lack of grasp on a nuance of the language, or an (unacceptable) purposeful belligerence. We don't need to use it to get the point across, so why use it when all that does is inflames people.Bridesmill 22:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, a value judgment is when we say that something is good or bad, or that something should or should not be done. Neither is the case here. Wikipedia is not bound by political correctness and we are not supposed to protect people's feelings. It is somewhat diferent in Canada, as far as I know, but not here. Pecher ^Talk 13:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of disputed tag

Pecher, what is your reason for removing disputed tag from the article. Isn't the article disputed? --Aminz 22:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What's disputed, factual accuracy or neutrality? The latter is more subjective, but on the former, there seems to be only one fact in dispute, re Muhammad's motivations as per the Stillman reference. Now that you've added the hedge, the "totally disputed" tag is unjustified. Accordingly, I will downgrade it to the neutrality tag.Timothy Usher 22:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Why "X is so"

Pecher, saying that "Muhammad had only those two motivations" is not a POV shared by Muslims. On that basis I included whose POV is that. I think instead of "According to .. and .." we can say "According to many scholars ..."; either way is accurate. --Aminz 22:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me a citation for the Muslim theory on Muhammed's motivation? Hadith, later writing.... If required, I would use 'according to Islamic oral tradition', but that is not a very strong cite; I'm sure there is something out there.Bridesmill 22:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, who, if anyone, are Stillman and the Encyclopedia of Islam citing? As our knowledge here derives almost wholly from Muslim sources, I would be surprised if their opinions don't reflect those of Muslim sources at some point in the chain of scholarship.

Aminz, as with Najis, if you can provide a cite, you will be adding value to the article, and your skepticism will no longer be seen as arbitrary.Timothy Usher 22:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That's part of the job of academic historians to form their own opinions on the causes of historic events taking into account the available documentary material. Encyclopaedia of Islam cites Caetani, a famous orientalist, among others. Pecher ^Talk 13:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, it is. However, the discussion here has placed us in a position of evaluating the sources, and the strength of their conclusions: as modern inference or as documented tradition, and in what measure. If it is but inference, then to attribute it seems lawful and fair.Timothy Usher 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much a consensus view of modern scholars, so attributing it someone specific does not make sense. I've just checked with Arabs in History by Bernard Lewis: he also makes a point that Muhammad needed to "deflect opposition" to him after the treaty of Hudaybiyya. On the other hand, it is not impossible that someone subscribes to the view that Muhammad indeed felt threatened by the Jews; I'd check with Montgomery Watt. This view makes no sense, of course: if Muhammad felt threatened, why did he kill the unarmed delegation instead of negotiating? This action alone demonstartes that Muhammad was not afraid at all, but Jews were. Pecher ^Talk 18:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course he would not have killed the delegation, were his intentions peaceful. Please add the Lewis cite when you get the chance. Meanwhile, I'll change "It is believed" to "Contemporary scholars believe", as it's less weaselly, and well-supported. I agree with Aminz that we must be cautious when attributing motivations - it is of course possible that there were other motivations that we will never know - but it would be absurd at this point to write, "Stillman, Lewis and the Encyclopedia of Islam believe...", as barring some sources in the other direction, we have every reason to believe that there is, as you say, a consensus.Timothy Usher 00:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what is the story of delegation(?)

Timothy, thanks for the change. I appreciate it.

BUT there is something around the word "absurd" and the way this sentence is written that bothers me. That sentence is apparently directed to me. You don't need to make any comment on this, I may have wrong impressions. --Aminz 07:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I can see why the Muslim editors are upset

I finally had a look at the article. It is slanted towards an anti-Muslim POV. Timothy, you keep saying that contemporary scholars believe this or that, but you don't give any cites.

I've got Watt, and I've got Ibn Ishaq, and I will try to rewrite (perhaps Tuesday) to give a neutral account of "what happened", trying to leave aside all questions of motives and justification. (Darn, I wish I had Tabari.) Then we have the usual two sections, one for criticism of the attack, and one for justification. If editors are willing to give the other POV houseroom, this usually solves a conflict. Zora 01:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I'm only trying to moderate between Pecher and Aminz' positions - check the article history and you'll see why I thought this necessary.

Aminz kept adding, "According to Stillman and Encyclopedia of Islam...", which Pecher kept removing. Similarly, with the {{totally disputed}} tag. I wrote "It is believed..." and {{NPOV}} in an attempt to split the difference. Then I changed "It is believed..." to "Contemporary scholars believe..." in accordance with Pecher's anticipated addition of Lewis. As only three sources have been mentioned, and they all agree, that in itself supports "Contemporary scholars believe..."

You wrote, "Timothy, you keep saying that contemporary scholars believe this or that, but you don't give any cites."

Well, I've cited the Qur'an, which demonstrates that spoils of war were a self-admitted motive for Muhammad and his followers. But otherwise, you're right - nearly all the cites are Pecher's. I've been judging the evidence as it's presented.

We've not yet been presented any sources in the other direction, which makes it pretty hard to balance it out. As you're bringing other sources to bear, this now makes it possible to balance it in a non-arbitrary manner. This is why I said, you're needed in these articles.Timothy Usher 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zora for your help! and thanks Timothy for your good intentions though I may sometimes disagree with your proposed "moderate" solutions and the following arguments defending the moderate solution. "Contemporary scholars believe..." is much better than "It is believed..." since this one at least says "this is not a universal belief" and this is what I was repeatedly asking from the very beginning. If it is further specified that these "Contemporary scholars..." are "secular scholars" or "Non-Muslims scholars" or "secular academic scholars" or whatever that excludes Contemporary Islamic scholars from this category, I will have done my homework with this part of the article. Zora can kindly check if all academic scholars think this is true or not, or that how the article is better to be written. --Aminz 06:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I still keep trying to understand how "Well, I've cited the Qur'an, which demonstrates that spoils of war were a self-admitted motive for Muhammad and his followers." supports the sentence there in the article that says Muhammad had exactly two motivations + how it is an answer to Zora's comment + that Qur'anic verse is discussed in the above and according to me that verse alone and by itself significantly comes short of proving that Muhammad himself was "attacking" with the motivation of getting money. But that's what I think. --Aminz 07:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I was only responding to Zora's claim that I'd contributed no cites to the discussion.Timothy Usher 08:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Alleged killing of the Jews

Quoted from the text: "The defeated Jews were killed, enslaved, or reduced to serfdom."

Here's a different statement:

"Muhammad had them hand over all of their property and allowed them merely to keep the clothes they wore; but he neither sold nor killed them, and he did not expel them from Khaybar either, but granted them to stay as a kind of leaseholders, with them having to annually pay half of their income to the believers [= the Muslims]."

(my translation from German)

[Buhl. Frants | 1961 | Das Leben Muhammeds | 3rd ed (1st German ed 1930) | Schaeder HH (trans) | Darmstadt / Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. (293) [Originally published 1903 in Danish]]

So who says the Jews were killed and enslaved? Editorius 21:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to read the article and look at the references. Pecher ^Talk 21:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but unfortunately these are not available to me. Do you have access to the online version of the Encyclopaedia of Islam: http://www.encislam.brill.nl/logincheck.asp ? Editorius 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't check EoI at the moment, but Stillman talks about the killing of Banu Nadir men on 2 pages: 14 and 18; you can easily check it over Amazon, possibly Google books too. If you have Why I Am Not A Muslim by ibn Warraq, you can also check it there, as ibn Warraq reproduces a quote from Stillman. Pecher ^Talk 10:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You quote Stillman as follows: "Stillman (1979), pp. 14, 18/> Muhammad chose for himself Safiyya bint Huyayy, daughter of the killed Banu Nadir chief Huyayy ibn Akhtab and widow of Kinana ibn al-Rabi, the treasurer of Banu Nadir, whom Muhammad's followers first tortured, demanding to reveal the location of the hidden treasures of his tribe, and then killed."

Is it possible that you have misapprehended the phrase "the killed Banu Nadir chief"? It is to be read as "the [killed Banu Nadir chief]", not as "the [killed Banu Nadir] chief". The chief was killed, not all of his men! Editorius 14:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

While reading the Amazon excerpt of Stillman's book "Jews of Arab Lands: a History and Source Book", I just happened to notice that Stillmann himself counts the biographies by Buhl and Paret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Massacre_in_Khaybar.3F), from which I quoted, "among the most signifiant" ones (p. 6: http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-0612643-5431868?%5Fencoding=UTF8&asin=0827601980#reader-link)! Editorius 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what about reading the referenced pages? Pecher ^Talk 15:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no access at Amazon to the pages in question. But your quotation above confirms in no way that all Jewish men were killed! So please present other ones, which explicitly state that all Jewish men in Khaybar (including the men of Banu Nadir) were executed by the Muslims. And remember, I have already offered three weighty sources that explicitly say otherwise! Editorius 15:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not even the Jewish Encyclopedia mentions any mass execution:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=220&letter=B

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=193&letter=K

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=699&letter=M&search=nadir#2376

!!!

Editorius 16:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to (provisionally) delete the section in question, because the statement that there was a massacre does not seem to be warranted.Editorius 16:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I just came across a hadith which states that the non-Muslim warriors in Khaibar (Khaybar) had not been spared their lives:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512:

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her 'Mahr'.

(http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.512)

So, it might have been the case that all but the active Jewish fighters, which of course were all male, were spared their lives.Editorius 19:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a mention of this possibility in the text. Editorius 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's hard to tell how reliable this hadith is.Editorius 19:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, here are the exact quotes from Stillman: "Two year later, the men of Nadir lost their lives, their wealth, and their women when the Muslims took Khaybar" (p. 14). This is an account of the expulsion of Banu Nadir from Medina, hence "two years later". Another one, partially reproduced in ibn Warraq: "The Jews of Khaybar were finally forced to surrender, but were able to do so on terms — except, that is, for the Nadir, who were given no quarter." (p. 18) Pecher ^Talk 21:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As I gather from Amazon.com, the correct (if Amazon is right, of course, since I have no access to the entire page) page number of the first quotation from Stillman's boook is 4, not 14; and the correct page number of the second quotation is 8, not 18.Editorius 01:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't access Amazon at the moment, but the page numbers are correct, that's for sure, as I took them from the printed edition. Pecher ^Talk 08:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid we cannot simply ignore that such distinguished experts as Buhl and Paret, whose books are widely acknowledged by the scholars, explicitly state that the Jews were not killed. So we need to (provisionally) use a more neutral formulation. (And I'm still curious to learn what W.M. Watt writes in his Muhammad biography about the Khaidar case!) Editorius 23:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, we also still need a source confirming that the Jews were enslaved, as you claim.Editorius 23:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Banu Nadir women were enslaved; only Safiyya bint Huyayy was freed by Muhammad who married her, while the other remained slave girls. Pecher ^Talk 08:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just had the opportunity to read Watt's chapter on the conquest of Khaybar:

"Several of their [i.e. the Jews'] chief men were killed in the siege; and two others were executed after the surrender because, contrary to the agreement, they had concealed the family treasure."

[Watt WM | 1961 | Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman | Oxford / Oxford University Press. (190)]

Not a single word about a mass execution or a massacre! Editorius 00:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's about the chiefs only; Watt does not state explicitly that the massacre did not occur. Pecher ^Talk 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not a strong argument because if there is no massacre you don't state that one didn't occur. We're also addressing a part of history (and using Ibn Hasham) which the iconoclasts regard as greatly fabricated and untrue in its apparent written form... and yet we're presenting this as if we have the answer to what happened--which is ambiguous at best. gren グレン 09:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting: when CltFn insists that Muslim sources were one large fabrication, you point out that most Western scholars accept the Muslim narrative as primary sources. Now you have no scruples to say that some dissenters regard Muhammad;s biographies as a forgery and therefore, we cannot present the most widely held view as fact. For what it's worth, if we accept the position of those iconoclasts, then we'll have to say that there was no Battle of Khaybar at all and this article should not be there in the first place or at least, start as follows: "The Battle of Khaybar was a mythical event..." Pecher ^Talk 11:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me that the alledged fabricators of the history were pushing their own POV's into the history. Our problem is that there was no wikipedia in 6th century. ;P. --Aminz 09:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Watt doesn't explicitly say that there was no massacre. But I am sure that he would have mentioned it, if he had known of any such thing. Of course, that Watt knows nothing of a massacre does not necessarily mean that there was no massacre. Prof. Stillman is an expert on Jewish and Islamic History and Culture (http://www.ou.edu/cas/history/faculty_bio_stillman.html), and so I do take him seriously, thinking that he must have some objective reasons for his judgment that in Khaybar all men of Banu Nadir were killed by the Muslims. It is certainly thinkable that Muhammad had those men of Banu Nadir killed which had not already been killed during the fights, merely sparing the lives of the indigenous Jews -- But how does he know that this actually happened? Does Stillman present any further historical sources, on which his judgment is based? The only source (I know) that explicitly states that Muhammad had the Jewish warriors killed is the hadith quoted above. But there no distinction is made between the indigenous Jews and the ones that came from Medina.Editorius 12:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

True, the hadith does not distinguish between indigenous Jews and the Banu Nadir. However, everyone agrees that the Jews of Khaybar surrendered on terms that allowed them to live in Khaybar in exchange for the payment of tribute. Looks like Stillman has made a perfectly logical inference that the lives of the indigenous Jews were spared; otherwise, there would have been no one left to cultivate the land, since women didn't count those days. Thus, the killing encompassed only the Banu Nadir. Pecher ^Talk 12:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, dead men are rather inefficient workers. By the way, I just came across something:

(Footnote 6:)"The mass murder of the Jews at Khaybar is well known. The connection between the agreement with the Medinese at Hudaibiya and the subsequent massacre of the Jews at Khaybar is analyzed in Michael Lecker, The Banu Sulaym: A Contribution to the Study of Early Islam, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1989, ch. 6, esp. p. 126."

(http://www.acpr.org.il/english-nativ/03-issue/nisan-3.htm)

"The cold-blooded extermination of the Banu Qurayza (between 600 and 900 men), the expulsion of the Nadir and their later massacre (something often overlooked in the history books) are not signs of magnanimity or compassion."

(http://www.secularislam.org/jihad/subjects.htm)

"A few years later, in 628, Muhammad also attacked the Khaybar, which after a brief resistance also capitulated. Though the Jews of Khaybar were spared, all the Jews of Nadir were massacred."

(Ibn Warraq: http://www.islamreview.com/articles/islamicintolerance.shtml) Editorius 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know whether Stillman elaborates on his judgement any further?Editorius 12:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, he doesn't, as far as I know. Pecher ^Talk 14:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Then how does he know that he's right? (Of course, you could ask Buhl, Paret, and any other historian the same.) Anyway, I do think you should tone down your formulation in the article, because, apparently, the issue is still too contentious.Editorius 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any source describing the dispute and the arguments of the disputing parties? You know, an argument by silence is not exactly an argument against. For example, there are many aspects in Muhammad's biogrpahy, including those related to his relations with the Jews, that Stillman doesn't mention, but that doesn't mean that he is disputing them. Pecher ^Talk 15:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You could write an e-mail directly to Prof. Stillman and ask him how he knows that the Jews of Banu Nadir were killed after the conquest of Khaybar and what his main sources for his judgment are. (His e-mail address is on his homepage: http://www.ou.edu/cas/history/faculty_bio_stillman.html) Editorius 21:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, don't you have access to the entry in the Encyclopaedia of Islam you referred to? -- Aren't there any further sources listed? Editorius 21:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I can write an email to Mr. Stillman, but why should I? Pecher ^Talk 21:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Stillman provided us with some further information, that would be very helpful for us, wouldn't it?! Editorius 22:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How? We won't be able to use it on Wikipedia anyway. Pecher ^Talk 10:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not?—If he reveales his sources, we may certainly refer to them as well.Editorius 11:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is whether you have a complete copy of Stillman's book. Have you also read the chapter "Muhammad and the Jews of Khaybar" (p. 145+)? (If not, couldn't you read it online at Amazon.com?) Aren't any relevant sources given in the book? I'm asking all this because we still need an answer to the question how Stillman knows that the men of Banu Nadir were not spared their lives in Khaybar.Editorius 12:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I read it; this chapter is a translation of ibn Hisham. There are even references to it in the article. Pecher ^Talk 21:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis in his book "The Jews of Islam" (1984) page 10 writes that only Banu Qurayza were given the choice between conversion and death. Lewis talks about the Jews of Khaybar but only states they were capitulated to Muhammad. No mention of any massacre. --Aminz 19:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting information, since Lewis is not just anybody.

I'm afraid that, for the sake of fairness and objectivity, Pecher's formulation needs to be qualified, for there is hardly any source claiming that the Jews of the Banu Nadir have been massacred in Khaybar just like the ones of the Banu Quraish.

The internationally known German scholar Rudi Paret writes:

"Jedoch liess er [= Muhammad] gegenüber den Juden von Haibar insofern wieder Milde walten, als sie nach ihrer Unterwerfung weder zur Emigration gezwungen noch ausgerottet wurden."

"[Muhammad] was lenient towards the Jews of Khaybar insofar as, after their submission, they were neither forced to emigrate nor exterminated." (my trans.)

[Paret. Rudi | 2005 | Mohammed und der Koran | 9th ed (1st ed 1957) | Stuttgart / Kohlhammer. (164)]

Editorius 00:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to add (PBUH) after "Muhammad" in your recent edits. The defeated Jews were not executed like the people of the Banu Quraish tribe but reduced to serfdom. Praise be to the humane and merciful Muhammad for not killing them all! Seriously, mentioning in the intro another Jewish tribe to show that the fate of the Jews of Khaybar was really great is completely ludicrous. Pecher ^Talk 13:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

???—The only thing that starts being ludicrous is your conduct.

You happen to consider Stillman's opinion the absolute truth, and simply ignore the vast majority of sources that say otherwise or don't mention any execution in Khaybar. This behaviour of yours can hardly be acceptable for a scientific historian.Editorius 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And to call my formulation in the article "apologetic" is bullshit, Pecher!

I'm not a friend of Islam at all, but I'm a friend of historical truth, of objectivity and fairness!

If it is a scientifically well-established fact that Muhammad had the men of Banu Nadir killed, then I'm the first to insist on explicitly stating this fact in the article. But since this is not (yet) a well-established fact, we must not assert it is.Editorius 14:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are highly offensive, Editorius.

???—Offensive to whom?Editorius 14:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you insiting on mentioning Banu Qurayza inth intro? Even if Stillam's opinion is that of a minority, why do you want to reduce it to a footnote? Even minority opinions must be presented within the text (we have not established unambiguously that his opinion is in the minority). Pecher ^Talk 14:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's include it in the text. But that's it.Editorius 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)