This is an archive of past discussions about Muhammad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 4 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion
This article was revised so poorly by an Islamophobic editor. This article used to be a good article GA before some anti-Islam editor made such huge changes and implementing WP:POV. The biased editor just cherry-picked sources, ignoring classical works such as W. Montgomery Watt and relying on people like David Bukay (an Israeli political scientist who is known to be an anti-Arab and Islamophobic person), Russ Rodgers (a U.S. Army military historian), Ram Swarup (an Indian leader of the Hindu revivalist movement), William E. Phipps (a ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and others. There's no way these people are WP:RS and I'm actually surprised how dedicated orientalists like Watt have so less citations now than people like Bukay, Rodgers etc. I request the editors of this article to rewrite the article, and if not the entire article, then at least parts of the article. I would suggest this article be written like FA articles such as Khalid ibn al-Walid, Amr ibn al-As, Mu'awiya I, Yazid I, all of whom are controversial figures between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims, but nevertheless these articles are written neutrally neither from a Shia point of view nor a Sunni point of view and having reliable orientalists and Islamicists such as Fred Donner, Wilferd Madelung, Meir Jacob Kister, Patricia Crone, Hugh N. Kennedy, R. Stephen Humphreys and not anti-Arab political scientists, Hindu revivalists or U.S. military historians. I would request the editors of this article to revise the sources. ProudRafidi (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Sockstrike☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)21:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
The sources you mentioned seem to be mostly reliable. What is your issue with them? Can you give an example for alleged "Islamophobic" claims they allegedly make here? Vegan416 (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The Islamophobic sentences I was referring to got reverted after a talk discussion above. And can you elaborate on how people like David Bukay are a reliable source? He is an Israeli political scientist who has a whole criticism heading on his own article. He is a controversial figure and nowhere close to the Islamicists I mentioned above like Watt, Donner, Madelung, Kennedy etc. Same goes for the U.S. military historian and the Indian revivalist leader. ProudRafidi (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Sockstrike☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)21:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Is there anything in the statements in the article that are referenced to these sources that you object to? Vegan416 (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't seem so from what you said earlier "This article was revised so poorly" and "some anti-Islam editor made such huge changes and implementing WP:POV". So what's really bothering you in the article as it is now? Can you give an example? Vegan416 (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not against using other authors mentioned here as sources if that is the consensus. In fact, it might be preferable to avoid any accusations of cherry-picking sources and to ensure encyclopedic WP:Balance.
Regardless of the outcome of the above discussion on using Rodinson or Rodgers, I am suspicious about using David Bukay as a source in this article. He is the type of person who may be relevant in articles like Counter-jihad and Islamophobia, and even then there are better options. If the issue is about the source's independence, as some have linked in the above sections, then David Bukay completely fails the policy's "expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective."StarkReport (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago51 comments6 people in discussion
A very long discussion
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)
What, you still want to stick with your misrepresentation of this Bloomsbury article [1] that Rodgers “falls well short of subject-matter expert” [2], 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 [3] (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:ORstates 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 [4], 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 [5] (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 [6] (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[1] 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."[2] 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.
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 [7]. 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 [8] who became a hobbyist historian [9] and that adjunct professors are not reliable because they are non-tenure [10], 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 [11], 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[1] 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 [12], even though she only majored in English. How is an English degree relevant to Islamic history? — Kaalakaa(talk)04:51, 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)
The question is that, Since you have repeatedly denied the authenticity of the narrative that Banu Qurayza violated their treaty saying that it just "parrots Muslim sources". So now, when we see that your own source, Kecia Ali mentions Brown's analysis of Banu Qurayza, as well as Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall's explanation which describes the situation mentioning Banu Qurayza as "treacherous" and "conscious of their guilt"
-
Is she, a scholar of Islam at Harvard Divinity School, is she also parroting Muslim sources? Is Harvard University also unreliable, you have already denied Brown's work published by Oxford University.
-
What kind of "reliable" evidence is needed if even the most world-renowned Universities can be written off if they are in agreement with the Muslim sources? QcTheCat (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
You are again confusing/misrepresenting things. What Kecia did in regard to Brown and Pickthall is the same as what she did in regard to Karen Armstrong, which is simply quoting and discussing their statements among many other authors. Here, I quote Kecia Ali on Pickthall, which you omitted:
British convert Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall had already, in the concise biography which prefaced his 1930 English translation of the Qur’an, set the stage for deflecting blame for the slaughter of the “treacherous” Qurayza tribe, who were “conscious of their guilt” for having attempted to betray the Muslims.
The phrase "deflecting blame" from Kecia clearly indicates that she does not endorse the statement, just as when Kecia pointed out that Karen Armstrong's claim about what Tabari said was actually contrary to what Tabari really stated [13], [14]. — Kaalakaa(talk)07:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Since, the discussion on Karen Armstrong and Aisha was put as "off-topic", I will avoid mentioning it here, but looking at your new response.
So your claim is that Kecia Ali only mentions these texts and their narrative but doesn't actually agree with them. In that case, why would she put Banu Qurayza's treachery in the very preface of chapter 3?
-
The Meccans eventually lifted their siege, and the Banu Qurayza were punished for their treachery: an arbiter they chose ordered the women and children enslaved and the men executed.
("The Lives of Muhammad" Ch. 3 Pg. 79)
-
Besides, There are a number of problems with this claim. One of them being that, Kecia Ali never says that. Kecia Ali never disagrees with the narrative. In fact, she never mentions the narrative that the report of Qurayza's violation was a fabrication. She repeatedly says that many non-muslims find the execution problematic or "incomprehensible". She never says that the violation was fabricated. If that was actually her view, then she would have mentioned a source that holds that view, but she never does. Holding a view and then not only providing sources which oppose it, but also neither refuting them nor even denying them clearly seems pretty counter-productive, does it not?
-
Secondly, when Kecia Ali says that Pickthall was "deflecting the blame", she doesn't mean that the event didn't happen. She explains what she means earlier in the same page:
-
In fact, recent biographies by non-Muslims take a range of approaches to the conflict with the Banu Qurayza, from deflecting blame to signaling it as a regrettable but necessary demonstration of political will
("The Lives of Muhammad" Ch. 6 Pg. 227)
-
Firstly, mentioning the situation as Banu Qurayza and Muslims "in conflict" already shows that she does affirm that treachery of Qurayza did take place. And "Deflecting blame" here doesn't mean invoking a fabrication, it means defending the event, not by focusing on the execution, but instead focusing on the context. As in, changing the conversation from, "was the execution problematic" to "whether it was justified"QcTheCat (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
In her title of that chapter, she actually points to the one true controversy in the story, which is the choice of the arbiter. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The part you refer to as the "preface" of a chapter is merely a narrative from the Muslim perspective that Kecia condensed. Look at chapter 6, where she mentions after the "preface": "This story has long been a staple of Muslim accounts of Muhammad’s life." That Kecia Ali's book, titled The Lives of Muhammad (note that she uses the plural "lives," not the singular "life"), is not a book about Muhammad but a book discussing the writings of various authors about Muhammad. Mentioning someone does not mean she agrees with or recommends that person's work, just as when she pointed out that what Karen Armstrong claimed was said by Tabari was actually contrary to what Tabari really stated [15][16]. "Deflecting the blame" means "to attack or blame another person rather than accepting criticism or blame for your own actions." If Kecia considered the massacre justified, she would not describe Pickthall's narrative, which put the blame on Banu Qurayza for breaking a treaty, as deflecting the blame. — Kaalakaa(talk)08:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The preface never says that it is the "Muslim Perspective", she puts the event plainly as it is. If she actually did not believe that treachery had taken place, she would have made it clear that she personally disagreed with the narrative. And as I mentioned before, Why would she never mention a single source that claims that the treachery was fabricated?
-
In chapter 6, she adds the text:
"This story has been a staple of Muslim accounts of Muhammad's life"
-
This is because she mentions a miraculous story In the preface of chapter 6. In the preface of chapter 3, she doesn't mention any miracle. If she added text clarifying that she mentioned a story from Muslim sources in chapter 6, why would she not do the same in chapter 3? Perhaps because they are two very different situations.
-
And the point of noting that she mentions Brown's and Pickthall's works is to show that she believes them to be valid and credible. As I said, if she disagreed, she would put it plainly, but she never does. In the case of Armstrong, she made it clear that she found there to be a difference between Tabari and Armstrong's works. Why wouldn't she do the same or something similar with Brown and Pickthall? Perhaps because they are very different situations.
-
And the term "deflecting blame" is made clear. Kecia Ali says that Pickthall justified the execution, by explaining the context of the treachery. Kecia Ali never disagrees with this point of treachery
-
And whether the execution was justified or not is not the point. The point is that Banu Qurayza had violated their treaty. Whether the execution was justified is a moral question, whether the treaty was violated is an objective historic question. QcTheCat (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Also, it is to be noted that Tariq Ramadan, in his book:
"In the Footsteps of the Prophet", published by Oxford University Press and used in this very article already also mentions Banu Qurayza's treachery in page 140:
-
The Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza mainly lived in that area; they had signed an assistance agreement with Muhammad, but they might constitute the weak point in Medina's unity. Huyayy, the chief of the Banu Nadir clan, insisted on going to the Banu Qurayza fortress to speak to their chief, Kab ibn Asad, and try to convince him to break his alliance with Muhammad. Kab ibn Asad initially refused to receive Huyayy, but the latter insisted so strongly that the Banu Qurayza chief let himself be convinced, first to listen to him, then to betray the covenant. This defection meant that the whole strategy of the Medina people collapsed, since the Banu Qurayza's alliance with the enemy opened a breach from inside and gave the enemy access to the city, which meant certain defeat and no less certain extermination for the Muslims.
And in addition to all the previous sources, Another source for Banu Qurayza's treachery is: "Oxford Dictionary of Islam"
Written by Scholar of Islamic studies, John Eposito, and published by the Oxford University press. On page 36 Eposito writes about Qurayza:
-
Banu Qurayza: Prosperous Jewish tribe of Medina. Initially agreed to support Muhammad; later negotiated with the Quraysh against the Muslims during the siege of Medina in 627.
You still seem to fail to understand that Kecia Ali's book, The Lives of Muhammad, is not about her discussing Muhammad's life but about her discussing the works of various authors regarding Muhammad, including Robert Spencer. That's why she often uses quotation marks when discussing their statements; it doesn't mean she supports their claims. The "prefaces" in the chapters of her book are merely "Muslim accounts of Muhammad’s life," as she wrote on page 200, and they are not her analysis of Muhammad's life. "Deflecting blame" clearly has a negative connotation in English. If Kecia believed that the massacre was a right judgement, she would not use the phrase "deflecting blame" for what Pickthall did, which was to attribute Muhammad's massacre of the Banu Qurayza men and his enslavement and selling of their women and children to the "treachery" of the Banu Qurayza. Regarding "Banu Qurayza:... negotiated with the Quraysh against the Muslims during the siege of Medina in 627," this bit is already explained in considerable detail in the article: "Islamic sources recount that during the preceding Meccan siege, the Quraysh leader Abu Sufyan incited the Quraysh to attack the Muslims from their compound, but the Quraysh demanded the Quraysh to provide 70 hostages from among themselves to ascertain their commitment to their plans, as proposed by Muhammad's secret agent Nu'aym ibn Mas'ud. Abu Sufyan refused their requirement." — Kaalakaa(talk)13:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
So if Kecia Ali's work is a discussion of different sources on Muhammad's life, and the sources she mentions aren't reliable just because she mentions them, then why would Russ Rodgers be reliable when she mentions him? If Rodgers is reliable because she refers to his work as a more measured assessment than that of Afazlur Rahman. Then Brown would be much more reliable since she directly recommends readers to see his work on topics including Aisha (pg. 285 and 269), Khadija (pg.278) and more.
-
And what about the other sources I mentioned, such as Ramadan? She praises Tariq Ramadan, noting him as a doctorate holder and an Oxford professor on pg. 222 which is even more important when we note that Kecia Ali mentions his work on Banu Qurayza:
-
Ramadan interweaves accounts of key events, such as the Battle of the Trench and the retaliation against the Banu Qurayza, with the lessons to be learned from them
("The Lives of Muhammad" Ch.6 Pg.224)
(And Mentioning Banu Qurayza's punishment as a "retaliation" once again confirms she affirms a violation of treaty.)
-
And as I already said before, the preface is not the Muslim perspective and she never says it is. Just because she mentions a miraculous story in the preface of chapter 6 and makes a clarification for that specific preface, does not mean every preface in the entire book is the Muslim perspective. This seems like misrepresentation of her work on your part.
-
And again, the point is not whether Banu Qurayza's punishment was too harsh. That is a moral question, the point I made was that Banu Qurayza committed treachery and had violated their treaty, the execution is a completely different topic.
-
And lastly, the article does not say what the "Oxford dictionary of Islam" says. Firstly, the Oxford Dictionary of Islam is not an Islamic source. And the article denies that Banu Qurayza accepted any negotiation, which the dictionary very clearly says. The dictionary makes it clear, they "negotiated with the Quraysh against the Muslims". If they just denied the offer, that would not be negotiations against the Muslims. The event mentioned in the article took place at the very end of the siege. As I showed from all the sources I provided, Banu Qurayza had made negotiations much before. The article makes no mention of these negotiations and instead denies them. QcTheCat (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
No, Russ Rodgers is reliable not only because his work received a good review from Kecia Ali. But also because his work is published by the University Press of Florida, he is the command historian of the US Army (comparable perhaps to a lead scientist at NASA), an adjunct professor of history, and his work is also cited and reviewed positively by other reliable sources, which are additional factors. As for the issue of Muslim authors, as I have said, this is more about independence. Unlike secondary sources like Kecia Ali, we have the WP:SOURCE policy that says "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Like authors from other religions, when they write about their own religion, they sometimes or often cannot discuss the subject objectively. A writer who adheres to Aum Shinrikyo will tend to exaggerate the positive aspects and defend the negative aspects of their religion and its prophet, as will followers of other religions. Therefore, as @Apaugasma said:
"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."
Regarding the issue of your proposal to write "Banu Qurayza broke a treaty with Muhammad," I have already mentioned that this is similar to "Prophet Muhammad received revelations from the angel Gabriel." Instead of stating it like that, when there are other sources saying "Muhammad said he received revelations from the angel Gabriel," we should follow the latter as per NPOV. Similarly, in this case, because "Banu Qurayza broke a treaty" is a claim made by Muhammad and Muslim sources, and we don't know for sure its veracity (several reliable secondary sources question it), we should instead write "Muhammad or Islamic sources say that Banu Qurayza broke the treaty." Feel free to bring this to WP:NPOVN if you still insist. — Kaalakaa(talk)01:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
That's regarding the same question I asked before, if Rodgers is reliable since his work was published by the University press of Florida, then why aren't Brown, Serjeant, Watt, Ramadan or any of the others authentic when their works were also published by University presses?
-
And a Muslim source is not automatically an unreliable one for Islam, that would go against WP:NPOV, and if Muslims were an unreliable source for Islam, then why does this very article cite several Muslim sources including ones I mentioned such as Brown and Ramadan on several occasions? And on the topic of the sources cited in this article, Karen Armstrong, who you have been arguing against, is also cited in this very article already, her very same book that I quoted is "citation 194". And, If the problem with sources which adhere to Islam is that they may:
-
"exaggerate the positive aspects and defend the negative aspects of their religion and its prophet" (as you explained)
-
Then religious identity wouldn't be a problem in this case because, the Muslim sources I have provided such as Ramadan and Brown have had their works published by University Presses which are supposed to be "among the most reliable sources". It is certain that multiple professors and editors from these universities that don't adhere to Islam would have viewed, assessed and eventually affirmed their works before they were published.
-
The difference between saying that "Prophet Muhammad received revelation from Gabriel" and "Banu Qurayza violated their treaty" is that the former is a statement regarding one's religious belief, and the latter is a history-based statement that is affirmed by several secular sources which have been quoted in scholarly works and Wikipedia several times. Whether or not Banu Qurayza violated their treaty is not a religious question. Watt, Serjeant, Armstrong, Eposito and the others I mentioned are not Muslims, yet they affirm that a treaty was violated, simply because the majority of evidence suggests it.
-
And finally, from what I see, it seems that a large number of secular sources seem to suggest a violation of treaty. I have no problem with the narrative of this event being a fabrication being included as an alternative. But the narrative of an actual violation of treaty could not be mentioned in the article following "according to Muslim sources", because that isn't the case; as we saw with my citation of sources that are Non-Muslim, and sources that were published by University presses. QcTheCat (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I think I have provided a sufficient number of sources to prove that Banu Qurayza's treachery and the interaction between Huyayy and Kab is a very major and the primary narrative, surely qualified for this Wikipedia page. So I will once reiterate my sources:
-
Primary:
-
1. Tareekh At-Tabari (History of Tabari) vol. 8 Pg.14
2. Sirat bin Ishaq part III pg. 453
3. Al Waqidi's Kitab Al Maghazi vol.2 pg.225
4. Ibn Sad's Kitab Tabaqat al Kabir vol.2 pg.82
5. Sahih Muslim 1766
-
Secondary/Tertiary and secular:
-
1. Jonathan AC Brown's "Muhammad, A very short introduction" Part 1 Pg. 42
3. WM Watts’s "Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman" Ch.6 pg.171
4. Tariq Ramadan’s “In the Footsteps of the Prophet” Ch.11 Pg.140
5. John Eposito’s “The Oxford Dictionary of Islam” Pg.36
6. R.B. Serjeant's The "Sunnah Jāmi'ah," Pacts with the Yaṯẖrib Jews, and the "Taḥrīm" of Yaṯẖrib Pg. 9
-
And here are two more oriental sources:
-
1. In the meantime spies brought word to Mahomet that a Jewish tribe, the Beni Koraida (Qurayza), who had a strong castle near the city, and had made a covenant of peace with him, were in secret league with the enemy.
(Washington Irving’s "Mahomet and his Successors" Ch.23 Pg.149)
-
Meanwhile, Abu Sofian succeeded in detaching the Jewish tribe of Coreitza (Qurayza) from their allegiance to Mahomet. Huwey (Huyayy), the Jewish chief, was sent to their fortress, and was at first refused admittance. But, persevering in his solicitations, dwelling upon the ill-concealed enmity of Mahomet towards the Jews, and representing the overwhelming numbers of the confederate army as "a surging sea," he at last persuaded Káb, their chief, to relent. It was agreed that the Coreitza would assist the Coreish (Quraysh).
(William Muir’s “The Life of Mahomet and the History of Islam” Ch.17 Pg.259)
-
And one more secular source for the authenticity of Qurayza's treaty:
-
The talks resulted in a renowned document, the “Constitution of Medina,” the surviving text of which scholars widely view as authentic.
(Muhammad, The Prophet of Peace among the Clash of Empires Ch.4 Pg.52)
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.)
Firstly, Armstrong only quotes Tabari for one narration here:
-
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.
(Muhammad, A Biography of a Prophet Ch. 7 Pg. 157)
-
She only uses Tabari for mentioning that Aisha's marriage was consummated at 9. And Tabari does say that:
-
The Messenger of God married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine;
(The History of Tabari Vol. 7 Pg. 7)
-
As for the word "puberty" Armstrong is doing exactly what is stated in WP:SECONDARY. It states that:
A secondary source contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.
-
Even though Tabari may not have explicitly mentioned "puberty", Armstrong's analysis concludes that she would have reached puberty by the time of her consummation, and that is the whole point of a secondary source. And it also is reasonable, why else would Muhammad wait 3 years to consummate the marriage? Logically he would have been waiting for her to hit puberty which aligns with Arab tradition and Islamic law.
-
Also, Kecia Ali never says that Armstrong misrepresented Tabari's work. She simply states that Tabari's information is different from that of Armstrong. QcTheCat (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Karen Armstrong clearly attributes her statement to Tabari:
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."
That's why Kecia Ali notes:
"[Tabari] says nothing about puberty."
And Karen also says:
"the wedding occurred when Aisha was nine ... the marriage was consummated there later when she had reached puberty."
That's why Kecia points out:
"Tabari includes several reports that the marriage took place when she was six or seven ... and consistently states that consummation occurred when she was nine."
So, what Karen Armstrong did is clearly a misinterpretation of the source. Moreover, why else would Kecia Ali comment on this if not because Karen's statement did not match the source she used?
Regarding your comment
why else would Muhammad wait 3 years to consummate the marriage?
Tabari said, "when he married her she was young, unfit for intercourse." So I don't know, maybe their genitals only fit after Aisha was 9 years old, at which time Muhammad was 53 years old. Clearly, as Kecia Ali noted, Tabari says nothing about puberty. And as far as I know, there is no early Islamic source, not even from Aisha herself, that states she had begun menstruating before being consummated by Muhammad. — Kaalakaa(talk)06:16, 8 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)
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)
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)
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)
I see you (QcTheCat) made this edit. What changes would you like to make with this? Feel free to suggest that edit. Did you present relevant quotes from all the 14 sources? Neutralhappy (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I have provided the quotes from the sources themselves and the quotations I mention in this edit suggestion will be provided below the edit. And, I suggest an edit in two sections: "The Battle of the Trench" and "The Invasion of Banu Qurayza" And these are the edits:
-
The Battle of the Trench
… The Jews of Banu Qurayza assisted with this effort by digging the trenches and lending their tools to the Muslims while they were allied to them.[227][228][229]The Banu Qurayza had signed an assistance agreement with Muhammad.[a][b][c][d] however they may have constituted the weak point in Medina's unity. Huyay, the chief of the Banu Nadir clan, insisted on going to the Banu Qurayza fortress to speak to their chief, Kab ibn Asad, and try to convince him to break his alliance with Muhammad. Kab ibn Asad initially refused to receive Huyay, but the latter insisted so strongly that the Banu Qurayza chief let himself be convinced, first to listen to him, then to betray the covenant.[b][c][e] Muhammad attempted to make reconciliation with Banu Qurayza by sending some of his companions to negotiate with them, but to no avail.[a][d] The approaching Quraysh and their allies, unfamiliar with trench warfare, were drawn into a protracted siege…
-
The Invasion of Banu Qurayza
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.[230][232][233]Islamic sources recount that during the preceding Meccan siege, the Quraysh leader Abu Sufyan incited the Qurayza to attack the Muslims from their compound, but the Qurayza demanded the Quraysh to provide 70 hostages from among themselves to ascertain their commitment to their plans, as proposed by Muhammad's secret agent Nu'aym ibn Mas'ud. Abu Sufyan refused their requirement.[234] Nevertheless, later accounts claim that 11 Jewish individuals from the Qurayza were indeed agitated and acted against Muhammad, though the course of event may have been dramatised within the tradition.[235][232]
-
Citing the intrigue of the Qurayza, Muhammad besieged the tribe, though the tribe denied the charges.[236][237][238] As the situation turned against the Qurayza, the tribe proposed to leave their land with one loaded camel each, but Muhammad refused… The proceeds were then utilised to purchase weapons and horses for the Muslims.[244][245][246][247]Some academics hold that Banu Qurayza may not have violated their agreement with Muhammad, or propose that the tribe didn't have a formal treaty with Muhammad, but only a non aggression pact, which the tribe would not have violated.[f][g][h]
-
Edit 1: I added the text "while they were allied to them (muslims)" because this event took place before the breach of treaty, and this fact can be found in the sources I provided as well as the primary sources quoted by the current sources in the article.
-
Edit 2: I added the breach of treaty, mainly in the words of Tariq Ramadan in his book published by Oxford University "In The Footsteps of the Prophet"
-
Edit 3: I removed the text "Islamic sources recount" because it is not just primary Islamic sources, but also the secular academic sources which I quoted, that report this event.
-
Edit 4: I removed the text "The tribe denied the charges" because this claim can be sourced to each source I have provided which outnumber the current sources listed. The current sources also seem to rely on speculation of why this event may not have happened rather than providing empirical evidence against it.
-
Edit 5: I added attribution to scholars who deny the breach of treaty for WP:NPOV and, any scholars mentioned in the current article can be used as citation here.
-
Citations:
-
a - Ramadan, Tariq. In the Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad. United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2007; Pg.140-141
-
b - Watt, William Montgomery. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. India, Oxford University Press, 1961; Pg.171-172
-
c - Brown, Jonathan A.C.. Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction. United Kingdom, OUP Oxford, 2011; Pg.42-43
-
d - Armstrong, Karen. Muhammad: Prophet for Our Time. United Kingdom, HarperCollins Publishers, 2009; Pg.148-149
-
e - Esposito, John L.. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2003; Pg.36
-
f - Gabriel, Richard A. (2007). Muhammad: Islam's First Great General. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0-8061-3860-2; Pg.141
-
g - Rodinson, Maxime (2 March 2021). Muhammad. New York Review of Books. ISBN 978-1-68137-493-2; Pg.211
-
h - Lewis, Bernard (2002-03-14). Arabs in History. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-164716-1; Pg.39
Latest comment: 4 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Comparing this article to the article on Jesus, I think the structure of this article is deficient, separate from but related to the issues regarding the sourcing in the article discussed previously. It presents the account of Muhammad's life as is known through early biographies and hadith largely uncritically, when many contemporary scholars have questioned the reliability of these sources, particularly the hadith (see [17][18][19][20]). I think the best way to fix this would be to put all of the biographic headings (i.e the contents of the subheadings "Meccan years". "Medinan years" and "Final years") under a new heading like "Biography according to traditional Islamic sources", and then a new section should be creating discussing what scholars consider knowable or probable about the "historical Muhammad". Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think these are comparable examples. There is a wealth of biographical information about Muhammad, certainly relative to Jesus, whose life is extremely tricky to piece back together. The above approach is also not as simple as it sounds. Islamic tradition is not uniform. There is not one narrative. And there are early Islamic sources that are functionally secondary in that they approach the life of Muhammad not just as a religious narrative, but analytically try to tease out the more genuine narratives from the various hadith. Modern scholarly accountings are similarly based on earlier accounts. The upshot of all this is that there is a spectrum of analysis, not some sort of clear-cut religious narrative and something else. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The things that are knowable or probable about Muhammad's life are more than the equivalent for Jesus, enough to give a basic biographical outline, probably enough to fill a Wikipedia article, but probably not a full book-length biography. I'll give you that. But there are stil huge problems with taking the accounts of the early sources at face value as this article currently does, as outlined in Robert Hoyland's 2007 paper Writing the Biography of the Prophet Muhammad: Problems and Solutions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
It might be more preferable to do the historical criticism of facts as they are presented, as opposed to breaking it down into two sections like "According to Islamic sources" and "Historical criticism". It seems that the The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad also breaks down his life into the Meccan and Medinan years, so I would support keeping those two sections, at least. VR(Please ping on reply)12:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Of course! Regarding his biography, it should only constitute a small fraction of this article. The The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad gives only 2-3 chapters (out of 14) to his biography. Thus, lets give only a basic outline here, and refer the reader to subarticles where it is covered in more detail. The rest of the article should be the role Muhammad's life (whether historical or imagined) has played in law, philosophy, personal piety, mysticism, history of the Middle East and European thought. There should also be a section on Muhammad in art (including 21st controversial drawings, but also including music, plays, architecture etc).
Once again, The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad is a good way for us to determine how much weight to give to each section of this article.VR(Please ping on reply)17:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
That would be a mistake. As noted in the introduction, the Cambridge Companion "represent[s then-]current trends in the scholarly study of Muhammad’s life and legacy". Not for nothing does the introduction itself recap Muhammad's biography—that is not the focus of the work, and the three chapters which focus on his life focus on specific events, not a comprehensive biography. The Companion does not seek to be an encyclopedic reflection of the man, as this article must be. Still, it is a top-tier source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
To piggyback off of Talk:Muhammad/Archive 34#Suspect sources where the original post said I have no doubt that there are plenty of other sources of this ilk that have found their way onto the page, I noticed that this book was absent in the status quo May 2023 version but has since entered the article with dozens of citations, frequently bundling or supplementing suspect sources like Rodgers and Glubb; it may have slipped under the radar as it appears to be undiscussed on the talk page and archives. How reliable and WP:DUE is Richard A. Gabriel for this article? Is he in the top tiers of the global Muhammad scholarship community? Or are we dealing with another Rodgers-level author? For what it's worth, it's also a military-focused book published by a university press, and the end of the Google Books description says Richard A. Gabriel challenges existing scholarship on Muhammad's place in history and offers a viewpoint not previously attempted. which makes me wonder if it's a WP:FRINGE point-of-view. pinging eligible participants from the "suspect sources" discussion @Iskandar323, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Anachronist, and DeCausa:Left guide (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I haven't, but this review provides the list of scholars considered competent up to 2009. Rodinson is notably on there, but again, this is a decade-and-a-half-old list and works from the 60s are pushing the limits anyway. On Gabriel (and Rodgers), if they have specific, meaningful input on matters of a strictly military nature, and they agree between themselves, then they can have at it. The problem for me was always the extension of the interpretation of these very niche specialists (whose specialism is tightly confined to military history) to political, sociocultural and religious observations that there are in no position to make, as non-Arabist, non-specialist historians (i.e.: not of the Middle Eastern specialty variety), whose entire corpuses of works consist of hopping about history rather eclectically to focus on the famous past military leaders of history. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, we can use {{refideas}} to make such a list atop this talk page. I currently have access to a version of this book by Karen Armstrong, which recent source discussions both here and at RSN appear to show as one of the top Muhammad biographies. Left guide (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2024
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 months ago13 comments5 people in discussion
Now that the ANI has been resolved, I think it's a good time to aim for a consensus on what to do with material cited to Rodgers. If I was to start purging it from the article, would there be any objections? And if so, what would be the ideal course of action instead? Left guide (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The RfC isn't closed. The in my opinion wrong topic ban on Kaalakaa is closed but to start as you say "purge" the article isn't the right way to improve the quality. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Ip says: Why isn't it the right way to improve the article quality? And what alternative course of action do you suggest instead? Discussions both on this talk page and the last two archives show a consensus that Rodgers is largely unsuitable for this article on WP:NPOV grounds. Left guide (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
That makes absolutely no sense and/or reveals no understanding of WP policy. WP:WEIGHT is essentially about giving due prominence "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in [reliable] sources". That is inherently about reflecting the interpretation of secondary sources. The point of WP:PRIMARY is to exclude the use of primary sources in interpretation. They can be used only for the narrow purpose of say that in "Primary Source Y it says X", nothing more. Whether it is NPOV that that should be said at all is a question of WP:WEIGHT defined by the secondary sources. DeCausa (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Remove this "Following the Battle of Badr, Muhammad revealed his intention to expel the Jews from the land." under section "Conflicts With Jewish Tribes". This is attributed to Rodgers only and apparently primary sources. Neutralhappy (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Presently the following is present in the article:
Islamic tradition states that Muhammad's birth year coincided with Yemeni King Abraha's unsuccessful attempt to conquer Mecca.[49] Recent studies, however, challenge this notion, as other evidence suggests that the expedition, if it had occurred, would have transpired substantially before Muhammad's birth.[1][50][51][52][53][47] Later Muslim scholars presumably linked Abraha's renowned name to the narrative of Muhammad's birth to elucidate the unclear passage about "the men of elephants" in Quran 105:1–5.[50][54] The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity deems the tale of Abraha's war elephant expedition as a myth.[51]
1) "Myth" has multiple meanings. Which meaning is intended here? One is "supernatural" and the other is "false". Such ambiguous words should be replaced with unambiguous words.
2) Can unsuccessful expedition transpire substantially? The incident is about an expedition which failed to achieve its mission. Can such a failed attempt transpire anything "substantially" in the part where it failed? The sentence seems to be illogical.
3) This Wikipedia article says:
The Quran, however, provides minimal assistance for Muhammad's chronological biography; most Quranic verses do not provide significant historical context and timeline.[19][20] Almost none of Muhammad's companions are mentioned by name in the Quran, hence not providing sufficient information for a concise biography.[18]
So it seems confusing to say "unclear" here specifically.
4) I read this. This is the first citation given to show that the Abraha's expedition has not taken place. But this source does not say Abraha's expedition did not take place. But it discusses the year it happened.
5) There is no need of saying in the article it is a myth because it is already known it is a miraculous thing that birds killing elephants.
6) This appears to be unwanted, disruptive edit.
7) This says about likelihood. So should the sentence contain "likelily" even if it is kept in the present form.
8) What about removing the term "unclear" before the term "passage"?
9) Atleast rewriting seems to be necessary.
10) Kindly write about the remaining sources.
So remove:
"Recent studies, however, challenge this notion, as other evidence suggests that the expedition, if it had occurred, would have transpired substantially before Muhammad's birth.[1][50][51][52][53][47]
remove:
The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity deems the tale of Abraha's war elephant expedition as a myth.[51]
11) Does the term "studies" in the said part mean just writings or study papers or archeological evidence or mathematical calculations or something else? When we see or read the term "studies" the first meaning that comes to our mind is "archeological discovery". So it should be replaced with the better term "archeological discovery" if it so. If it is not archeological discovery, it should replaced be with "writings", "academic writings", "publications", "study papers", "analysis", or the like. Thus this part in the current form is confusing, and thus not in the best form. Removal is an option to solve the problem.
12) The two sentences I proposed for deletion in the part are non-biographical information. Hence there is no significant problem with its removal.
13) If it corrected it should be similar to one like "though the year of the expedition does not likely coincide with the Muhammad's year of birth." This is not necessary because it contains "Islamic tradition states".
14) There was a different but better 1 July 2023 version of this current apparent bad faith edit. That would be better than the present one. Note this edit has added the term "Islamic" and the edit did not say the expedition did not take place though several citations were added. It is important and intresting to note that the citations added to say the expedition took place but it must have taken place earlier than the year of birth of Muhammad. The citations used to say this are:
Conrad, 1987
Reynolds, 2023 p. 16
Peters, 2010 p. 61
Muesse, 2018 p.213
Buhl&Welch, 1993 p. 361
The same citations, except that of Johnson, are used to say the seemingly illogical thing of failed attempt transpiring substantially. These are the present sources used to say this seemingly illogical thing and create a notion that the expedition did not take place:
Conrad, 1987
Reynolds, 2023 p. 16
Johnson, 2015 p. 286
Peters, 2010 p. 61
Muesse, 2018 p. 213
Buhl&Welch, 1993 p. 361
15) Use of the term "evidence" in the present version also seems to be misleading since they likely refer to tradion. Overall the edit is of poor quality.
16) The same editor who was later banned from editing on topics related to Islam reworded their own edit but this time giving the opposite notion that the expedition never took place, besides making the article saying the seemingly illogical thing of failed attempt transpiring substantially.
17) Because it contains the seemingly illogical thing of a failed thing transpiring substantially, there needs at least a "clarify" tag.
18) Overall the part in the present form could be said to be illogical, disruptive, unwanted, confusing and not directly biographical.
19) Using the term "myth" to refer to miraculous things is not needed because generally supernatural or miraculous things altogether are apparently considered not possible to happen, by many. Here it is a miraculous thing of the birds killing the elephants. So remove the part saying "myth". This also creates a notion that this use the word of "myth" is done after conducting a study on the subject whereas the source likely have used the term "myth" just because it is a miracle or a supernatural thing. Moreover there should be a clarification why they used it. If it is because of its supernatural or miraculous nature, it might be better to say either "since all supernatural things are myths" or "since it considers all supernatural things as myths" Neutralhappy (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
20) On 1 July 2023 itself, the same editor later added the citation of Johnson to say the expedition of Abraha took place. Again the same editor on 1 July 2023 changed the year "2023" to "2015" which is in the current version.
Going through this book (published: 13 September 2012) I found the following:
Thus it is important to distinguish, on the one hand, the campaign of 552, which allowed Abraha to reestablish his authority over almost all of inner Arabia, and on the other hand, the Battle of the Elephant, which happened later and could be the cause of the collapse of Himyarite domination over inner Arabia. This Battle of the Elephant could be dated between 555 and 565, probably closer to 565, toward the end of Abraha's reign.
... Abraha's reign , probably around thirty years from 535 to 565 , is not easy to define with precision . Dated ... Abraha had two successors , two sons who did not reign very long . It is thus plausible that Abraha died a few years ...
This 2015 book, which is another edition of the book published on 13 September 2012, is the same book used in the article to say it is a myth and to say the illogical thing of a failed thing transpiring substantially and to create a notion that the expedition did not take place.
I find most of what you have written in your WP:WALLOFTEXT rather incomprehensible. Most of your issues seem to come from a rather poor grasp of words in English such as "myth', "substantially" and studies. The two sentences you want to remove are fine and should stay. There is ample scholarship that doubts the Year of the Elephant ever occurred, or if it did it was prior to Muhammad's birth and not per Islamic tradition. And that's all the passage is saying and it's fine. I have no idea why you keep talking about "bad faith". DeCausa (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I said "apparent bad faith", not just "bad faith" edit. I would not like to further discuss these suggestions for edits. I leave it to other editors. I also leave to other editors to consider removing this illogical thing of a failed attempt transpiring something substantially. Neutralhappy (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Look, "if it had occurred, would have transpired substantially before Muhammad's birth" means if it did happen it would have happened mostly before Muhammad's birth. It's not that difficult. DeCausa (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
This discussion has got me wondering. Given that we have already presented the "Oxford Handbook's" view that it deems the expedition to be a myth, would it be possible, for WP:Balance purposes, to include the statement, "Although, some consider the historicity of a failed expedition to be completely plausible.[1]"
Hmmm, well, according to my impression from reading the section, the overwhelming sources address the timing of the expedition. Only one source categorizes it as a myth, so perhaps in that case, the answer is yes. However, if multiple high-quality sources describe it as a myth, then it would be best not to include my proposed addition. StarkReport (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
References
^Robin, Christian Julien (2015). Fisher, Greg (ed.). Arabs and Empires Before Islam. Oxford. p. 152. ISBN978-0-19-965452-9.
Didn't he die at the age of 63?
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Aquarium670154 63 years of age according to one tradition according to the Hijri calendar; not according to the CE calendar. Infobox generally lists births and deaths according to the CE calendar. Khaatir (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2024
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
FAQ No. 6
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Moved to Talk:Muhammad/images
Removed Left guide (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
