Talk:Banu Nadir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Beginning a new section

Accredited, please stop this. Enough, indeed more than enough sources has been provided here. Just stop it please.

  • V. Vacca in Encyclopedia of Islam Nadir article:"From Khaybar, the exiles planned with the Quraysh the siege of Medina".
  • William Montgomery Watt (Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, p.166): "The Jewish clan of an-Nadir, now in exile in Khaybar and eager to regain their lands at Medina, vigorously supported the Meccans in the building up of the confederacy; they even promised half the date harvest of Khaybar to nomadic tribes if they would join the attack."
  • Watt (Prophet and Statesman", p.189): "The Jews of Khaybar, especially the leaders of the clan of an-Nadir exiled from Medina, were still incensed at Muhammad. They made lavish, though no doubt judicious, use of their wealth to induce the neighboring Arabs to take up arms against the Muslims."
  • Encyclopedia of Islam: "...The Jews, already responsible for the coalition which had laid siege to Medina in 5 A.H. and worried by the growing power of the Prophet, continued to stir up the Arabs against him..."
  • The New Encyclopedia of Islam, p.81, "In 5/627 the Meccan Quraysh prepared to attack the Muslims in a massed battle with an army, called afterwards the "Confederates". The Quraysh had made an alliance with certain desert tribes, the Banu Ghaftan, and Jews of the Banu Nadir who had emigrated from Medina to Khaybar. The Meccan army was made up of 4000 from Mecca and 5000 or more from the allies, with a total of 1000 cavalry. The Medinans numbered 3000."
  • Ḥizb article from
    Encyclopedia of Islam
    : "Sūra al-Aḥzāb, deals with the siege of Medina by the Jewish tribes allied with those of Mecca , Nad̲j̲d and Tihāma"
  • F. Donner: Muhammad's Political Consolidation in Arabia up to the Conquest of Mecca, The Muslim World, 69 (1979), p.233: "In 5/627, the Meccans, accompanied by tribal allies among whom were the exiled Jews of the B. al-Naḍīr, again appeared with an army before Medina."

--AAA765 (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Appeared with an army" means that they were not part of the army. Accredited (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says the Meccans and their allies appeared with an army before Medina. Unless you are saying Meccans were not part of the army which would be meaningless. The meaning of this sentence is completely clear.
Please address the above sources one by one in support of your view; in other words say why you think about each quote, i.e. "Sūra al-Aḥzāb, deals with the siege of Medina by the Jewish tribes allied with those of Mecca , Nad̲j̲d and Tihāma" or "In 5/627, the Meccans, accompanied by tribal allies among whom were the exiled Jews of the B. al-Naḍīr, again appeared with an army before Medina." --AAA765 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also repeat Devotus comment which you have left without answer:

Maybe you can show me scholars who maintain that...

  • ...the Nadir joined the siege because they were afraid of being attacked by Muhammad.
  • ...that their participation in the siege consisted only of sending ibn Akhtab and his son.
  • ...that they unsuccesfully attempted to persuade the Banu Qurayza to fight the Muslims.
The fate of the Qurayza has no connection to the battle of Khaybar; there is no need to mention it here, except you want to establish your own theory.--
Devotus (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Please note that persistence in removing sourced material is
WP:OR. --AAA765 (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

It is you and Devotus who have persisted in removing sourced material and adding your own theories. Neither Watt nor any other scholar said that Banu Nadir "had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community" and that this was the reason for attacking Khaybar.

Ahzab means political parties. The Encyclopedia of Islam is obviously describing the scene portrayed by Stillman of Meccan leaders and their allies including Nadir's Huyayy ibn Akhtab and his son who appeared with the Meccan Bedouin army. No source cites any Nadir troops in the army. Accredited (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously answered Devotus as follows:

The long standing text since June 14, 2006, that you keep deleting is sourced and referenced to Stillman (1979), p. 17 in which he states: "The Jews of this rich oasis must have clearly understood the danger they were in. Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the battle of the Trench." Apparently, they were the exiled Banu Nadir Jews among the Meccans, accompanied by tribal allies who again appeared with an army before Medina since no source makes mention of any Banu Nadir troops in the army. Your statement that indicates that Watt had said and modern scholars also agree that Muhammad attacked Khaybar because the Jews had furthermore "participated in attacking the Muslims" is false.

I had repeatedly deleted the obvious that the Jews were afraid of being attacked by Muhammad and that Akhtab was killed alongside the men of Banu Qurayza he unsuccessfully attempted to recruit to join the fight but you still were not satisfied. If you insist on inserting your unfounded assertion "they had furthermore participated in attacking the Muslim community" in the middle of Watt's words "to induce the neighbouring Arabs to take up arms against the Muslims. This was a straightforward reason for attacking Khaybar." we'll have to submit it for moderation to make an appropriate decision. Accredited (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote requested

I have kept and attributed what is referenced to Stillman in the text. i.e.

According to Stillman, this was because they understood that Muhammad might attack them again and that the Nadir chief Huyayy ibn Akhtab together with his son joined the Meccans and Bedouins besieging Medina during the Battle of the Trench.

Please quote what exactly Stillman says in (Stillman (1979), p. 17.) since what is sourced to him appears to be in contradiction with other quotes above. Thanks --AAA765 (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your repetitious text sounds like a broken record.

Here we go again.

The long standing text since June 14, 2006, that you keep deleting is sourced and referenced to Stillman (1979), p. 17 in which he states: "The Jews of this rich oasis must have clearly understood the danger they were in. Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the battle of the Trench." Apparently, they were the exiled Banu Nadir Jews among the Meccans, accompanied by tribal allies who again appeared with an army before Medina since no source makes mention of any Banu Nadir troops in the army. Your statement that indicates that Watt had said and modern scholars also agree that Muhammad attacked Khaybar because the Jews had furthermore "participated in attacking the Muslims" is false. Accredited (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] --

Devotus (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

There you go Accredited. I looked at Stillman. On page 16, he is talking about the aftermath of Battle of Trench. He continues this on page 17 saying: "Muhammad had not forgotten the enmity the Jews had shown him. Neither had he forgotten that many members of the Nadir were now comfortably resettled in Khaybar. The Jews of this rich oasis must have clearly understood the danger they were in. Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the battle of the Trench. He had been killed after having fought alongside the Banu Qurayza..."
He is describing how People in Khaybar felt after the Battle of Khaybar and not before it. They were worried that Muhammad might attack them because Muhammad had not forgotten the enmity Jews had shown him. Part of that enmity is that "Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the battle of the Trench" and continues with what happened to him later. If you continue Stillman is pointing out the consequences of those who shown enmity to Muhamamd. He cites Huyayy B. Akhtab as an example to make his case. In this context, he is not trying to identify who from Nadir joined the siege of Medina. Please read the page completely. Stillman's view should be added in its own context in the aftermath of Battle of Trench and how Jews of Khaybar thought and not before it. --AAA765 (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Banu Nadir realized they were in danger since the murder of Kaab ibn Ashraf. Why did you erase that "Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the battle of the Trench" while reinstating your repititious broken record? Accredited (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That they joined Battle of Trench because of they felt being in danger is your own
Original Research. Stillman doesn't say what you say on his behalf. I have added Huyayy B. Akhtab to the Battle of Khaybar section, exactly where Stillman in his book mentions it and in the context he mentions it. --AAA765 (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The article states that the Jews were terrified at the assassination and as Stillman put it "there was not a Jew who was not afraid for his life."

Why would they promise half of the date harvest of Khaybar if they were not afraid of being attacked?

Huyayy ibn Akhtab and his son joined the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the Battle of the Trench. You are confusing the readers by your repetitions. Accredited (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all
original research. Muhammad did not have the upper hand before Battle of Trench. In any case, your assertion is not supported by the sources you provide. I have quoted Stillman word by word in the place where he said it. Nothing more needs to be done. If the text says what you want it to say, then it does and no further explanation is needed to be given. If it does not say that (which is my view), then we are again done with it. --AAA765 (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Since you did not answer my question, it seems that you have no desire to reason together. I think that the best solution is to restore the long standing text adopted by Islam Pakistanway. Accredited (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read
WP:RS). For God's sake (or whoever you believe in) please let's follow the wikipedia rules. If you can find a new source, we can discuss it, but as of now, what you have written in the article is not supported by the sources. Furthermore, you are removing sourced material. --AAA765 (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Here we go again.

Why would they promise half of the date harvest of Khaybar if they were not afraid of being attacked? The question remains unanswered.

Huyayy ibn Akhtab and his son joined the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the Battle of the Trench. This is precisely where this quote belongs.

You are confusing the readers by your repetitions. Rhetoric but no substance. Accredited (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected again

The edit-warring on this page has gone on too long again.

dispute resolution process, but this yo-yo-ing must stop, or further steps may be taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi Avraham,
I don't really know how we can proceed. We have had a lot of discussion here without any result. What we need is enforcement of Wikipedia policies such as
WP:OR theory is incorrect for it to be excluded. The burden of the proof (that is providing clear and unambitious academic sources) is on the person who claims a theory. Lastly, if one claims a source doesn't/does make a claim, he/she should not remove the verbitum quote and replace it with what the person rather thinks is correct. I would be happy to go over the arguments one by one again only if Wikipedia policies are enforced. Specifically, please no more claim of "islam.pakistanway.com" being a reliable source (P.S. the website "islam.pakistanway.com" is under construction now). --AAA765 (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd have to look at the website you are talking about before I can say one way or another, but yes, wikipedia or any of its mirrors is never considered a reliable source. As for
verifiable. -- Avi (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


If you can help us here, I would appreciate it. This dispute has been active for so long. --AAA765 (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)sking[reply]

I have been repeatedly asking for mediation as appropriate. You did not answer the question but continue in your denial that the Jews were afraid of being attacked.

Why is it necessary to add the whole sentence "tried to induce..." if they clinched a deal on half of the date harvest of Khaybar? The quote obviously deals with the battle of Khaybar in which you already mention the same allegation,"inciting hostilities...".

Why is it necessary to state that the Meccans and their tribal allies among whom Banu Nadir appeared again with an army without identifying the said Banu Nadir? Why did you move Huyayy and his son to the next chapter on the battle of Khaybar and delete the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the Battle of the Trench? Accredited (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • May I suggest that the two of you, and any others involved, use the services of the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal? Perhaps the article should be locked until such time as a reasonable attempt is made to use mediation and work out acceptable compromises? -- Avi (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered to Accredited's question. I am not going to discuss his theories for the burden of proof is on himself, and not me. If he first publishes his theory, we can add it here (though having read several books on this topic, I find it surprising that it gets accepted in a journal). Mediation is a very good direction to go actually, and I agree with your suggestion. --AAA765 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above questions has been answered. If you don't demonstrate a willingness to work together we will have no alternative but submit it to the Mediation Committee. Accredited (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The questions of type "why is my theory wrong?" should not be discussed in Wikipedia. It is none of our business to analyze history. We have to report the analysis done by people. Period. Yes, mediation is a good idea. We should start one soon. --AAA765 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I call on you to address the above questions on your version before we submit them to the official Mediation Committee for a ruling. Accredited (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I'll have a look at the disputed content in question as I have access to the texts of Stillman and Watt, but I should note straight off the bat that 'islam.pakistanway' isn't a reliable source.

ITAQALLAH 14:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


Mediation requested

It is now here [3] --AAA765 (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a lot of this discussion is hung up on the question "Why would they omise half of the date harvest of Khaybar if they were not afraid of being attaprcked?" - can someone explain the context behind this (historically, not necessarily editor POV)?
Xavexgoem (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the question is irrelevant to the content dispute. The aim is merely to repeat what is verified by the reliable sources, not to decipher the intentions of any involved groups ourselves.
ITAQALLAH 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
True, and probably better in the end. Just looking for an opening :-) Nevertheless, an editor feels it's important. Maybe context can help? How would you start? Ah, see you've already started.
Xavexgoem (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi Xavexgoem, thank you very much for accepting to be a mediator for us. I think this question is not within the scope of the discussion. As the quotes from scholarly texts indicate, Banu Nadir planed the attack (part of which was to promise half of the date harvest of Khaybar) because according to Welch Banu Nadir were "worried by the growing power of the Prophet"[same reason for their and other's opposition to Muhammad when they were in Medina - same as the reason for opposition to Muhammad when he was in Mecca], Watt says they were "eager to regain their lands at Medina". Accredited has been adding his theory for the past four month without providing even one scholarly source for his claim. The burden of proof is with him, and not on me. His theory tries to explain events in terms of subsequent developments and is completely
WP:OR. He insists that his question is not answered. In fact I did give my personal answer to Accredited in one of my posts above of why I think Banu Nadir did not plan because they were afraid of being attacked ("the aim of the Battle of Trench was to remove Muhammad and his religion from the face of the earth. The Quraysh, at that time had the upper hand and Muslims were struggling for survival. The turning point was after this battle and the Truce of Hudaybiya that the Quraysh entered into negotiations with Muhammad, and acknowledged him as a party. It was after this Truce that Muhammad attacked Khaybar.") Banu Nadir's actions makes a lot of sense: they opposed whom they saw as a false prophet gaining followers and power - they had also political relations with Muhammad's enemies. once the enmity began, and gradually went to its extremes as one might expect. one person does something, the other retaliates, then the other does something etc etc. --AAA765 (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


You did not answer the question. Why would the residents of Khaybar yield half of their date harvest if they were not afraid of being attacked?

I reiterate my call that you also address the above three questions on your version. Accredited (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were close allies of Nadir (whom they had homed) and were convinced by them that wiping out Muhammad from the face of the earth worth giving up part of their yield if that is needed. It is not clear to me that for how long they were supposed to send their yield. Should one finds any information on that, we can add it. Anyways, for the last time, I do not have to answer your question for this is not what the talk page is about. There are many ot

her forums and websites on the internet where you can present websites like 'islam.pakistanway' as a source and have such general discussions. You need to prove your case. I don't need to disprove it. Suppose you want to add this to the article. Would you source it to our discussion here?

Xavexgoem, I was wondering if it would be better to continue this on the talk page of the Mediation page? --AAA765 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They must have understood that the conquest would continue. Their lives and the fate of their women and children were undoubtedly uppermost on their minds.

Now on to the next three questions concerning your version:

Why is it necessary to add "tried to induce..." if they clinched a deal on half the date harvest of Khaybar?

Why is it necessary to state that the Meccans accompanied by tribal allies among whom Banu Nadir again appeared with an army without identifying the said Banu Nadir?

Why did you move Huyayy and his son to the next chapter on the battle of Khaybar and delete'the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina during the Battle of the Trench'? Accredited (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accredited, "They must have understood that the conquest would continue" may very well be true, but you do know that Wikipedia can only cite what's verifiable (even if it were counter to the truth, in some instances)?
Xavexgoem (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, the long standing text since June 14, 2006 did not even say that they must have understood that the attack would come. It reads: "After their expulsion from Medina, the Banu Nadir, along with the other Jews living in Khaybar, understood that Muhammad might attack them again." I think that this is a fair statement of their perilous plight or an understatement.

I am also awaiting the response to the three important questions concerning his version. Accredited (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accredited, wikipedia itself is not a reliable source; so being a "long-standing" version does not mean anything. But as a matter of fact, I don't remember of a "long-standing" version. Can you please clarify? --AAA765 (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the original long standing version dated June 14, 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Nadir&diff=58608382&oldid=58216429

Here is another link of July 23, 2008, on your talk page that you had chosen to ignore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AAA765&diff=227419617&oldid=225788172

It reads:

Stillman's assertion that "Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina" stands. Neither Watt nor any other scholar has said that there were any Banu Nadir troops in the army that participated in attacking the Muslim community. Quite the contrary, all sources on the detailed composition of the allied army at the Battle of the Trench confirm the absence of any Banu Nadir combatants. Accredited (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is high time for you to respond. Accredited (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link but it does not prove the validness of its content. That someone chose to write that sentence some time ago does not make it true or beyond questioning. A material does not get extra credit if for sometime nobody challenges it. It can be challenged at any time. I have replaced the exact quotation of Stillman in the article. So what more should we add? --AAA765 (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia policies:

Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

--AAA765 (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should address the rules to yourself. The long standing text has been read by the multitude of Muslim readers and scholars for the last two years. It is referenced and continues to stand.

You had moved Stillman's quotation to the next chapter on the Battle of Khaybar while deleting the part that speaks of the Meccan and Bedouin forces during the Battle of the Trench. Accredited (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources. That the text was up for some time does not prove anything. This is just wasting time. I don't have to argue with you over the wikipedia policies.
If you read Stillman, he does not talk about this issue in the context of Battle of Trench or preparation for it, but rather in the context of Battle of Khaybar. And the context makes it clear what he is trying to say. So, I have done exactly the same thing here. According to the policies Wikipedia does not publish ...unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. and that you must cite reliable sources that...directly support the information as it is presented --AAA765 (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification to move the Stillman quotation that speaks of the Battle of the Trench to the Battle of Khaybar. Accredited (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Stillman discusses Qurayza on page 16 and which itself happened after Battle of Trench. He then continues on page 17 with the quote.--AAA765 (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote belongs to the chapter on the Battle of the Trench since it explicitly states that Huyayy and his son joined the Meccan and bedouin forces besieging Medina at that battle. Accredited (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is an example Stillman provides among other examples to show that the Jews of Khaybar were now afraid because of the enmity they showed. To say that they were afraid and so attacked Muhammad at Trench is not there. --AAA765 (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep mixing the question on when did the Jews understand that they might be attacked again with the question on the composition of the army at the Battle of the Trench. Accredited (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you are mixing the issues by saying that they were afraid of attack, therefore financed Battle of Trench. I have added the quote word by word in the place where Stillman says it. If what you read there is there, the reader will see it and why insistence on being interpretive? --AAA765 (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote sheds light on the composition of the army at the Battle of the Trench and the readers should not be deprived of it. Accredited (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is included in a section that chronologically corresponding to that of Stillman's book. It is your interpretation that "it sheds light on the composition of the army at the Battle of the Trench". According to policies however, "you must cite reliable sources that...directly support the information as it is presented" and that "Wikipedia does not publish ...unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." --AAA765 (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote speaks for itself. It needs no interpretation or analysis. It stands on its own merit. Accredited (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is included in my version.--AAA765 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is misplaced and largely deleted. This is quite inadequate. It deserves to be mentioned on topic. Accredited (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is your personal
Original Research
that it is "misplaced." It is placed where Stillman mentions it. To put it elsewhere and creating connections that do not exists to advance a position is against wikipedia policies. ""Wikipedia does not publish ...unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."
You need to find sources saying that Banu Nadir financed Battle of Trench because they were afraid of being attacked unambiguously as according to policies "you must cite reliable sources that... directly support the information as it is presented." This is crucial because none of our sources make the claim you are making. To be sure Stillman says that after the Battle of Trench, Jews of Khaybar were afraid of being attacked because of the enemity they had shown. Nothing beyond this, does he say. Other scholars do not say it either. --AAA765 (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would read as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Nadir&diff=232874232&oldid=232821313

After their expulsion from Medina, Banu Nadir promised half the date harvest of Khaybar to nomadic tribes if they would join the battle against Muslims.[22][23] The Nadir chief Huyayy ibn Akhtab together with his son joined the Meccans and Bedouins besieging Medina during the Battle of the Trench. [24] Abu Sufyan, the military leader of Quraysh, with the financial help of Banu Nadir had mustered a force of size 10,000 men. Accredited (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promising half of the harvest was a particular significant example of preparing the army. It involved a lot of diplomacy, promises of booty in the war they promised they will win, etc--The diff you provided [4] says things about "this was because they understood that Muhammad might attack them again" which I do not agree with. Stillman mentions "Huyayy ibn Akhtab and his sons" together with Huyayy being killed later as an example to say for his assertion that "Muhammad had not forgotten the enemity they had shown to him". The context is not of mentioning who joined the battle but what happened to those who did. On the other hand, the quotes provided above directly deal with the question of who joined the battle. Assume that only "Huyayy ibn Akhtab and his sons" joined the Battle, then can you find a source that explicitly mentions this. If you are right, this should not be hard. But we have provided many quotes from you indicating otherwise, and throughout the process I never run into a source saying that only "Huyayy ibn Akhtab and his sons" joined the Battle. Maybe you can find one if this is really true. --AAA765 (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above does not say "this was because they understood that Muhammad might attack them again". Accredited (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to my comment regarding who joined the battle. --AAA765 (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got access to the first biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. I will quote from him whatever he says on the topic. --AAA765 (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly been advised. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AAA765&diff=227419617&oldid=225788172 It already sounds like a broken record. Accredited (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to that the above sources use the term Banu Nadir, and not one of Banu Nadir's cheifs, e.g. "The Quraysh had made an alliance with certain desert tribes, the Banu Ghaftan, and Jews of the Banu Nadir who had emigrated from Medina to Khaybar" Stillman's is making a point in a certain context. Accredited, both of us are honestly looking at the question of who joined the battle. Do you know any sources who make your point explicitly. If so, I will definitely learn something and accept it. Thank you.
In any case, I have avoided mentioning who eventually participated in the article altogether and have used Ibn Ishaq. --AAA765 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already advised, the said Banu Nadir are obviously none other than Huyayy ibn Akhtab and his son. They were among the Meccans tribal allies or chieftains who appeared with an army.

As to Ibn Ishaq, I think you agree that it is at least permissible to note if he makes no mention of an important event or development. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Nadir&diff=201050875&oldid=201049811 Accredited (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accredited, there are two suggestions: one is not to talk about who joined the battle at all, i.e. remain silent about it. Next, is to contact Prof. Stillman directly. I remember I emailed him once and he did reply back to me. So, maybe we can ask our mediator to help us with that(?) --AAA765 (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may mention the breakdown list on the detailed composition of the army or skip it. Although Stillman twice mentions the Meccan Bedouin army you may inquire with him if you wish to do so. Similarly, we are in agreement on Ibn Ishaq that it is at least permissible to note if he makes no mention of an important event. Accredited (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't been around much - this is a complex sourcing issue and I don't have the necessary access to books - I'll wait for a friend of mine to give his input. As for contacting Stillman, that remains an option of everything else fails to work. But I'm waiting for a third opinion...
Xavexgoem (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Battle of Khaybar

In the Battle of Khaybar article it says 629, here it says 628. Which one is it? Faro0485 (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2a02:c7c:30d9:c400::/64

It is stated in the source:

In the year 3/624-5 Muhammad continued his attacks on the Meccan caravans so that the Kuraysh finally saw the necessity of taking more vigorous measures and revenging themselves for Badr.
And it is "marauding" as it is made clear in the previous page:
The rich plunder was taken to Medina. Kaalakaa (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banu_Nadir&oldid=1198790087"