Talk:Muhammad and the Jews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Judaism Portal
Muhammad and the Jews is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Damn, five days late, i was just about to create this article... --Striver 17:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

FrummerThanThou, your inclusion of The motivation for Muhammad's actions was political rather than racial or theological.[1] John Esposito writes that the massacre of traitors was common practice, "neither alien to Arab customs nor to that of the Hebrew prophets." is another sign that i might have misjudged you. --Striver 17:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

This article was in very poor shape. The POV that the Jews had it coming was repeated over, and over, and over again, almost the exact same words, multiple times, from various tertiary sources. I took these out. I also removed admitted speculation regarding: what "would have" happened if people had done things differently and; what was going on in Muhammad's mind. Arrow740 05:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

you have been removing sourced material on the grounds that you believe it to be "speculation." the solution is attribution in the text to the person opining, not removal. else, it looks like you're whitewashing, and it may be perceived as vandalism. in the light of that, i have intend to restored those passages, with minor changes as necessary. contrary to the impression you are giving, we can express scholarly opinions and analyses in the article. you referred to a section on the talk page of Muhammad as a diplomat to justify a removal, yet i proved rather conclusively that many of the attributions to people disagreeing were simply false. the majority of scholarship agrees that Muhammad signed with the Jews. academics also pretty much accept that Qurayza had been plotting against Muhammad. lastly, EoI may be a tertiary resource, but it is an exception to the guidelines on WP:RS as it is a specialized, signed encyclopedia written by the most qualified of academics. ITAQALLAH 06:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You proved no such thing. Look at it again. It is clear that the constitution was imposed after the destruction of the Jewish tribes. Do you deny that? We do not need to include speculation of anyone, historian or otherwise. Watt has a reputation, as do those other people cited, but that does not mean that their guesses should be included in an encyclopedia. I don't expect anything better from EoI as it has a decided Islamophile bias. Arrow740 09:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
"Do you deny that?" the majority of scholarship denies that, as i have shown. there is no justification for removing sourced passages and opinions simply because you find the views discomforting - we can and should include relevant academic discussion. what you speculate about EoI is irrelevant. ITAQALLAH 09:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Answer the question. We are editors, not parrots. Arrow740 10:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
true, yet we reflect the relevant academic analyses of scholars in our articles. you don't remove content simply because you think it's false, as you have been doing. and neither can you remove content by dismissing the credibility of a scholar's (clearly) inforamed opinion. i don't need to answer your question, it doesn't matter what i think. academic opinion cannot be ignored as easily, however. ITAQALLAH 10:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The whole point is that there is no analysis of material. There is speculation, conjecture. We cannot balance out their POV because responsible historians, like Lewis, do not engage in pure speculation. The only way to proceed is to not include the speculation. Arrow740 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
(reset) wrong. as they are respected, scholarly, qualified academics, their views in and of themselves contain weight, regardless of whether you think they are "guessing" or "speculating", which is a subjective and unfounded conclusion. they don't have to be analysing or commentating on a text (or even cite their assertions) for their views to become noteworthy. thus, any removal based upon such fragile reasoning is unacceptable. ITAQALLAH 00:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"The Jews would have attacked the Muslims in the rear?" Are you kidding me? That's not history. Arrow740 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
according to you. according to many qualified historians, however, the Qurayza Jews were indeed intent on helping Huyayy's forces. sorry you don't find that palpable. ITAQALLAH 00:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is far too long. It should just be pointers to the articles about the individual tribes, one of which appears to be well-written. I will have to get Stillman, Serjeant, and Peters myself. Arrow740 01:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
i'll take that as a concession then. or should i wait for you to finish your cross-posting? ITAQALLAH 01:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Please provide full context, i.e. full paragraphs, for all the speculation you wish to include so that it can be evaluated more fully. Arrow740 01:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
most of the resources are available online. have fun. ITAQALLAH 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The burden is upon you to provide the context for your additions. If the books are available online (which I doubt) provide links. Arrow740 02:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Things Itaqallah has insisted be in the article

Aside from the speculation of biased historians for which you have yet to provide context:

  • Muslims were also arguing that there was nothing surprising in Muhammad's rejection by Jews, as that had had occurred to other prophets mentioned in Jewish scripture."

This is unsourced apologetics, as I noted when I removed it before.

  • In the Constitution of Medina, Muhammad demanded the Jews' political loyalty in return for religious and cultural autonomy.[1]

This is false as you know well. Read Banu Qurayza.

  • Watt states that there is no need to suppose that Muhammad brought pressure on Sa'd ibn Mua'dh:

This is a rebuttal to an argument that is not being made. It also requires context.

You also need to provide the full context for these guesses:

  • Their opposition "may well have been for political as well as religious reasons".
  • they had almost certainly[11][probably [10]] been involved in negotiations with the enemy [10]
  • and would have attacked Muhammad in the rear had there been an opportunity
  • The motivation for Muhammad's actions was political rather than racial or theological.
  • Watt speculates that had Jews come to terms with Muhammad instead of opposing him, they had become partners in the Arab Empire and Islam a sect of Jewry. They could have secured very favourable terms with him, including religious autonomy. A great opportunity that was lost.

The last one is a blatantly biased and needs to be expunged. It also shows Watt's lack of intellect. This article is largely Watt's POV. This needs to be balanced by removing some of his POV, and by putting in others' as well.

Also the same POV that the Jews had it coming is repeated four times. That needs to be edited. Arrow740 01:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Arrow470, you know there's no point in calling something false, as wikipedia insists on verifiability and not truth. If it is sourced to a relaibale source, doesn't matter what Banu Qurayza says, the quote stays.
"You also need to provide the full context..." If you think a context needs to be provided, then why don't you add one :-). Adding info. to wikipedia is much better than removing sourced statements.Bless sins 15:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Arrow. To rely solely on Watt and include his ridiculous speculation is out of order. Esposito is pure apologetics based on no scholarship but the reasoning dogma "anything M did was common practice so he cannot possibly be criticized for it", even when massacre was plainly not common in pre-Muhammad Arabia. This is bad faith as those including it here know full well the problematic nature of this as we have discussed this in and out on other articles. Str1977 (smile back) 09:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] npov tag

Hi -- the content seems to be in dispute, so I've added a tag (forgot to log in when I added it). Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 12:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)