Talk:Banu Nadir/mpov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 June 2006 2 Changes 3 legacy section 4 Legacy Issue 5 Who deleted the story about the naked Muslim woman in the Jewish jeweler's store? 6 What does "hassan" mean? 7 second para. of arrival of muhammad 8 Further Changes

[edit] June 2006

This "mpov" version of Banu Nadir is a version in progress and is not Wikipedia's official version of the Banu Nadir article. Netscott 10:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-19 Banu Nadir. This is the proposed alternative version offered in mediation. Publicola 05:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I made som changes to the article. I added some detail to the introduction and fixed the sectioning a bit.

I also removed some paragraphs that implied that Muslims got in charge the second they got into the city. I find that statment to be strange, would five tribes in war just give everything up just becuse some poor and defensless emigrants fleed from Mecca? Hardly. The constitution was a pact, and people where granted protection under the pact, it can't have been under Muhammad personaly. Why whould everyone just sign of all their power to Muhammad? As events unfoulded, the Muslims parts of the pact gained control. I changed the article to reflect this a bit better. Or at least not to state the opposite. --Striver 23:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] legacy section

i do not really understand what relevance or application this section has in relation to the article, and i think it strays a little into the field of apologetics. considering that the article is intended to be encyclopaedic, and more specifically an historical account of a tribe, is it really worthwhile with all of this citation from the qur'aan when it seems rather far-fetched? could someone explain to me the relevance and necessity of having this section specifically in this article? ITAQALLAH 22:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Of coarse its apologetic, you expected any group to demonize themself? Are you arguing that the Muslim view of this tribe is not relevant to a article about this tribe? --Striver 22:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

that is not what i am arguing, simply because it is not the muslim view of the tribe of banu nadir but rather an attempt to explain "prosection of Jews" in general (and subsequently why it is "no more considered applicable") and justifications for it, whereas many of the specific justifications of the incidents (from the perspective of muslim and non-muslim historians, excl. expulsion of banu nadir section which i have not properly looked at yet) have already been outlined in the article. therefore i feel that it does not seem to fit in this article and seems a bit far-fetched, perhaps it is more suitable for an article which deals with legacy of tensions between the muslims and jewish tribes in a more general nature. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 23:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Itaqallah, but the problem is that Islam itself has many rights for non-muslims, as it is known. There should be some good explanations available in the article with relevance to the prosecution, otherwise a novice reader will always think that Islam is intolerant against non-muslims. With Divine intervention, people who were evil at heart were identified, and then hence prosecuted through followers of the Messenger, so that people would know that what is truth (Haq) and what is false (Batil). As killing of all males of Banu Nadir cannot be explained through any other reasoning from within or outside the religion. SaadSaleem 01:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... i read it again and now i see the point, it is a bit generic... Maybe it should get a bit trimed. --Striver 01:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy Issue

Why don't we create another article that would explain different actions by early Islamic society, such as

1. The Punishment of Apostasy
2. Waging War against Non-Muslims
3. Dhimmi Status of Non-Muslim Minorities
4. Prohibition of Friendship with Non-Muslims
5. The Superiority of Muslim Blood
6. Greeting non-Muslims in an Inferior Way
7. Non-Muslims to be necessarily Doomed in the Hereafter
8. Assassination of Non-Muslims
9. Cursing Non-Muslims
10. Prohibition of asking for Forgiveness for Non-Muslims
11. Reward of Killing Non-Muslims

taken from [1], [2] and Man slaughter in the name of Islam (excellent article for references) A trimmed version of this paragraph can be left in Banu Nadir article with a link to the new article. SaadSaleem 03:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be sarcastic or facetious? I can't really tell. :-( Publicola 05:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is not! This is a fact that these steps were taken and these are clearly mentioned in Quran at different places. The consideration should be on the reason, why these steps were taken and against whom? If such steps would not be taken, then the question would arise that the people challenged the God by disobeying prophet and they got away with it and today we won't be able to tell that the message and teachings which Prophet Muhammad, a shepard and an orphan with only handful of people in his first ten years of preaching, brought were originally from Almighty God. My aim is not asserting my POV, I just want to say that the steps were taken for a purpose and it is part of Islamic history but has to be presented with explanation, otherwise the facts are written in history and are causing voilence (in some Muslims) and propaganda (from some Non-Muslims), which we see around us. SaadSaleem 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the entire "Legacy" section should be deleted -- the implications are only peripherally related to the subject of the tribe. I'm going to take it out. If someone wants to put it back in, please rework it so that it refers directly to the Banu Nadir in which case it belongs in the article. (Plus, as a practical matter, unless someone fills out the Jewish perspective section, which seems very unlikely since the Jewish advocates are apparently boycotting mediation, then the section will remain unbalanced.) Publicola 05:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who deleted the story about the naked Muslim woman in the Jewish jeweler's store?

I thought that was the whole crux of the controversy. What happened to that account, which was supported by two reliable academic sources? Publicola 05:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

replaced Publicola 05:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does "hassan" mean?

Please note this is the English Wikipedia, and technical Muslim historical terms such as "hassan" should probably be replaced with their English definition. Thank you. Publicola 05:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] second para. of arrival of muhammad

quote:

Muhammed and his followers consolidated their power as the ruling party in Medina, and although Muslims were in a difficult financial condition. Three of the Jewish tribes, the Banu Qurayza, Banu Qaynuqa, and Banu Nadir, joined the non-aggression pact and military alliance with Mohammed, called the Constitution of Medina. Jews and other non-Muslims accepting the protection of the Muslim authorities at that were considered dhimmi. In exchange for paying tax (jizya), the Muslims provided military protection and granted the dhimmi citizenship rights, and were allowed to continue their culture and worship, even being exempt from military conscription at that time. Female dhimmi were allowed to marry Muslim men, although male dhimmi were required to convert to Islam before they could take Muslim brides.

unquote.

this paragraph needs citation. the institution of dhimma was not yet set up at this time as the jews et al. were bound by the terms and conditions of the constituion of medina, not anything else. it is not known whether or not jizyaa was at this time requested from the jews et al (and i am assuming not, because jizyaa is not mentioned in the constitution and there were no conditions outside to the constitution that the jews et al. had to follow), and it is certainly known that the other signatories of the constitution were not exempt from military service when required as highlighted in the constitution of medina, which is why i think it is not accurate and at the moment not verifiable to suggest that they were considered dhimmi at this time. i think the inclusion of this paragraph is based on the assumption that the institution of dhimma was established at this time, which needs to be reliably sourced. any thoughts on this? ITAQALLAH 13:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

will anyone object if this paragraph is provisionally removed? ITAQALLAH 19:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, there is no mention of the jizya at that time. Publicola 11:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to think that way as well that Dhimmi status was given later on, even on Dhimmi article, the first case is mentioned with respect to Khyber. And also from another point of view, Dhimmi status was a degraded status, that couldn't be given unless truth had been made clear to people. --SaadSaleem 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Changes

Under the "Expulsion of Banu Nadir..." (5th & 6th paragraphs), I replaced "passive" with "non-participants". Passive has a negative implication (watching idly as their Jewish brethren were directly involved in an open struggle), that's my logic. Let me know if you agree or disagree. Cheers. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 12:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've also gone through the whole thing and removed unnecessary "the"s. "Banu" is translated into "the sons/daughters of", one of the two plural forms of "bin" (the other form being "Bani"). For the sake of consistency, we'll keep them all as "Banu". My logic: adding another "the" would translate to "the the sons/daughters of". A logical change, no? An obvious exception to having an additional "the" would be something like "the Banu Nadir tribe", since 'the' in this case refers to the tribe, and reads (grammatically/syntactically) smoothly (....the...tribe...).

One more thing: I'm disputing the validity of the claim that '"on his deathbed Muhammad said that his illness was the result of that poison"'. I don't have a reference yet, but I will be working on getting one...I also appreciate the contribution of others with my efforts. I'm just trying to do what I can to help with reaching a sound resolution to this article/subject. Cheers. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 13:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)