Talk:Battle of Khaybar/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Issues with article

Here is what I believe are burning issues here:

  • Is Nomani a reliable?
  • Is Mubarakpuri a reliable source?
  • Watt and Stillman need to be "evaluated".

Am I right? If yes, let's proceed to resolve these issues.Bless sins 15:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


In the beginning there's an error..it states that the Bani Nadir were beheaded..that is not true..it was the Banu Quraydah


This may seem pedantic compared to other issues debated here, but there are several typos in the article including bieng instead of being and thrity instead of thirty. I don't seem to be allowed to edit these at the moment so can someone just clean those up? I'm invoking {{editprotected}} (my first time so apologies if I've mucked the phrase) Jonathan Cardy 15:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to unprotect the article, so you will be able to edit it yourself. Everyone should be aware that edit warring can lead to editors being blocked as well as to the article being protected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, thankyou Carl. Jonathan Cardy 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Pogroms

The tone of the article is unbelievable! It suggests the battle is a "pogrom" solely because the battle took place against Jews. I quote: " ... Muhammad's attacks against the Jews, first in Medina and then in Khaybar, had economic roots similar to those which have brought about persecutions and pogroms in other countries in the course of history"

This is a very biased approach since equal attention to Islamic religious aspects of the battle are not addressed. If this article was a part of a description of Jewish sentiments in the context of Jewish history such a biased approach could be accepted but, in this context it should be a neutral historical approach to factual events. It should not be an argument in favour of Jewish sentiments nor an article portraying Islamic dogma. The article itself substantiates reasons for Muslim hostility in prior actions by the Jews thus, the event does not merit itself as a pogrom in this context, if at all.

To fix the anti-Islamic tone claims even if correct must be presented in their correct context! Most importantly statements that suggest relative comparisons to other pogroms must be removed. This is not an article on pogroms. Pogrom is a biased word for atrocity, if killing your enemy counts as that.


This article if it something then it is pro-Islamic bias.We need to give more different opinions and NOT only William Montgomery Watt.I am sure there are other historians that think differently then him.87.69.77.82 18:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm a guy attacks jews,ensklaves the woman and children,kills the men and steals their possesions.I dont know if i would call it pogrom..more like ethnic cleansing,with clear economic thought in it. He hides his horrific deeds behind "orders from god"(heard something similar before? nürnberg?) And somebody is arguing about the tone of this wiki article...Truth can be insulting for some —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.251.215.40 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Only one author has made the assertion that the men were killed and women/children enslaved, everyone else states that they were allowed to live there as long as the Muslims allowed and as long as they payed tribute. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

the torturing Kinana

It should be mention in this article in the aftermatch.87.69.77.82 21:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is, its just not quoted. Jedi Master MIK 16:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nomination as a good article

Do you agree to nominate this article as a good article.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No.It is not good article.It show all the event from Muslims point of view and not from neutral point of view.Oren.tal 16:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats a bit presumptuous considered virtually all the references given are from non-Muslims. Jedi Master MIK 16:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
First it should be evaluated for B-class.Bless sins 17:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Jedi Master MIK,Watt is non-Muslim but consider as apologist of Islam.in wikipedia criticism of islam it say "Responses to critics have come from non-Muslim scholars like William Montgomery Watt".Therefore in oreder to give more neutral poit of view we sould have also other historians that criticise Islam or al least no apologist.Oren.tal 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
First off, Watt is far from being the only non-Muslim author cited on this page; there is also Lings, Stillman, and Lewis. Second, I don't know whose authority or decision your citing to label someone like that but the fact that he is a non-Muslim and defending Islam at the same time doesn't mean he's apologist, in fact using him to cite defense of Islam would be more neutral than a Muslim defending. Third, I suggest you don't label people apologist b/c IMHO it carries both negative and POV overtones to it. Jedi Master MIK 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
neutral point of view on this article is to accurately depict history in accordance with what the scholarly sources relate (Watt is perfectly reliable in this regard). it isn't an issue of piling up pro-Islamic vs. anti-Islamic views. ITAQALLAH 21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Casualties and Losses

The numbers presented here seem to be ridiculous given the nature of the battle. Surely the muslim losses should be much greater? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lampishthing (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Battle or Massacre?

What kind of battle is it when one group suddenly attacks the other, and the other is unarmed? And then slaughters everyone? Sounds to me like a perfect description of a massacre. If I get no response to this in the future, I will change the main page description to Massacre of Khaybar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.32.165 (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Historians have been calling this event a battle, even if it technically seems like a massacre. According to Wikipedia guidelines, we should use the term "battle" since it is documented and sourced. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
So far as I know Arabic (at least back then) had no specific word for "battle". The usual parlance would be "day of Khaybar". Most of the time this would be a battle - like "the day of Badr" - other significant events would also be designated days. The best translation would be "the conquest of Khaybar". I would change the name except that I think the entire article needs to be re-written from end to end. It is hard to recognize Ibn Ishaq's account in this story and, since Ibn Ishaq is the oldest source, it should be the most creditable. An alternative would be to follow al-Tabari (who does use Ibn Ishaq) who was late enough to be aware of all the authentic records. DKleinecke (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Just from the casualties count it's quite obvious that it wasn't a battle. I think, btw, that it should be changed. As it is now, it seems as if the Jews had 10,000 soldiers against the Muslim's 1600 while in fact only a few of these 10k had weapons. I know history is written by the victor, but this is ridicules. TFighterPilot (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

=Did You Know? Template

This article was listed on Did You Know as the result of an error; the template at the top of the page misleads the reader into thinking that it was legitimately listed there. Why is the (presumably honest) mistake being compounded by the restoration of this template? — JEREMY 08:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically it was listed as a DYK on both the 8th and 9th:

22:54 May 8th till 04:40 May 9th

I agree with Jeremygbyrne though that the template shouldn't be there... I've removed it. Netscott 08:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, why shouldn't the template be there?Timothy Usher 08:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Due to the logic that Jeremy has expressed. Netscott 08:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the folks who work on DYK might be the ultimate decision makers over this. Jeremy, I'd recommend you contact those folks. As this'll likely deteriorate into an edit war otherwise. Netscott 08:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. The template reads only a statement of fact, and is accurate in that. It doesn't say it righteously and gloriously appeared on DYK, or anything like that.Timothy Usher 08:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Original research"? Pull the other one. — JEREMY 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I continue not to understand what the problem can be with this perfectly standard template which neutrally reports a fact. Why not follow up on Netscott's suggestion?Timothy Usher 07:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I simply can't make myself believe that you don't understand, Timothy. You might disagree, but you understand perfectly well my contention that the template misleads others into thinking the article was a legitimate DYK entry, instead of being removed from that category because it had been promoted against the rules. (Wow, deju va!) — JEREMY 08:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the listings' last mention on the DYK suggestion page showing no dispute. Please provide a link proving your point. --tickle me 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a completely nonsensical assertion that the article was listed on DYK as a result of an error; furthermore, there is no policy, guideline or whatever saying that the Did you know template should be removed from an article's talk page under certain circumstances. If Netscott or JEREMY thought the article should not appear on the Main Page, they should have stated their arguments on the Did you know talk page. It's silly to raise issues several months after the fact. Pecher Talk 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing "nonsensical" about it. It was listed in error and was subsequently removed for that error (see also section second from bottom on this diff). The situation was rectified immediately, but certain editors edit-warred the template back onto the page despite knowing full well that the error had been made. — JEREMY 13:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Template talk:Did you know says: "Eligible articles may only be up to 5 days old, or significantly expanded beyond 1000 characters in the last 5 days." This article was expanded from a stub before being shown on the Main Page, so it was not shown in error, even if one admin thinks it was. That the article was on the Main Page is a fact, don't try to suppress it. Pecher Talk 13:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It might say that now, but it most certainly didn't then. If you'd even bothered to glance at the page you'd have noticed the big, bold notice saying THESE ITEMS MUST BE NO MORE THAN 120 HOURS (5 days) OLD! I'm not "suppressing" anything, and I'd thank you not to make such ad hominem attacks. — JEREMY 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It had been an unwritten rule for quite long before it was finally codified. If you look through the archives, you'll find lots of articles unstubbed and then featured in the Did you know. Pecher Talk 07:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That would be the secret-handshake unwritten rule known only to the 133ts like yourself, as opposed to the rest of us chumps who took the CAPITALISED, BOLDED WARNING at face value? Bzzzt. Sorry: no credibility for you. — JEREMY 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have context on what the problem was, and wasn't the admin that added the selection or the template but I'm not sure I see the harm in leaving the template on the talk page. You could add a note if you wanted that it was added by mistake. But it's not a big deal, DYK is supposed to be fun and a way to introduce readers to new articles (that they might be able to improve). Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Having apparently exhausted logical discourse after every one of his objections has been addressed with undeniably factual evidence, User:Pecher — returning unrepentant from a 24-hour ban for edit-warring — is now chosing to merely revert my alteration to the template describing the mechanism by which this article was gamed into DYK and thus onto the main page. Perhaps he or his supporters might suggest a compromise they'd be happy with, so we can all move on? — JEREMY 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unstubbed articles are just as valid for DYK as newly-created articles. Regardless, it makes no sense to remove a template specifying that this article was once on the main page, when it in fact was once on the main page. Articles that used to be Featured but were delisted still have a notice saying that they were on the main page when they were featured, simply because removing that notice makes no sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-10 07:26

I suppose, the issue is settled now. Pecher Talk 13:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I was misinformed by Pecher that the article was unstubbed. It was definitely an invalid nomination. I'm neutral about whether the notice should be removed or not. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-10 16:50
Here is the unstubbing diff[1]. The previous version[2] was a stub. How come I misinformed you? Pecher Talk 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Going back a bit more into history shows that the article has experienced lots of changes. --Aminz 20:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The article was stubbed because a prior version was a blatant POV copyvio; see discussion above. Pecher Talk 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I was misinformed by Jeremy that it was not a stub, when it clearly was. Either way, just keep me out of this debate, since I have no clue what any of your motives are. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-10 21:17

Guys, the article was selected, rightly or wrongly. That's all that matters. I'm with Brian on this one, why does this matter in the grand scheme of things? ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


I see this article as anti-Muslim. It is based on western histories which are in fact derived and twisted from Muslim ones. Prophet Muhammad did not actually participate in Khaybar, he sent his cousin Ali as the leader of the army which is a known fact to all Muslims. Why is this stated as a fact->"Kinana ibn al-Rabi, the treasurer of Banu Nadir, whom Muhammad's followers first tortured, demanding to reveal the location of the hidden treasures of his tribe, and then beheaded" This is not true, torture to prisoners is forbidden to the Muslims, I am a Muslim and I know that Muslims especially at the time of the prophet were the most merciful conqueres in history, otherwise not so many people would be muslims today. Sure, booty was one of the goals, but the main reason of the conquest of Khaybar was that the Jews in Khaybar proved to be mortal enemies to the Muslims by helping the Alliance at the battle of the trench, spying, and ultimately attempted to take the life of the prophet. The prophet couldn't deal with them before because he was threatend by Quraish. Banu Quraizah were judged by a dying companion of the prophet named Sa'ad Ibn Ubadah. He was shot by an arrow during the battle of the trench, he was asked by the prophet to judge a suitable punishment for their betrayal of the alliance between them and the Muslims. Hence, he judged their men to be killed and their sons and women to be enslaved. This severe punishment is suitable for allying themselves with the Muslims and when combat starts they try to stab the Muslims from the back. This has nothing to do with them being Jews, it has to do everything with their betrayal

Hamidious 13:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So Ibn Hisham was lying was he? Or is "The Life of the Prophet" suddenly "Not notable" 62.196.17.197 (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Undo revert of "Present use" section 17:51, 15 October 2014

May we reinstate the material from the above?

User:AsceticRose's subsequent revert has the edit summary "Undid revision 629782259 by User:Musashiaharon; the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khaybar Khaybar concluded this to be merged to Khaybar".

I decided to merge to Battle of Khaybar instead of Khaybar for a couple reasons:

  1. Some of this material did previously exist on Khaybar as of July 2013, but the same User:AsceticRose removed it on 23:53, 4 July 2013. (The edit summary was "removed uncited controversial material; added [citation needed] tag", describing two different modifications in the same edit). It appeared to me that since he did not simply add a [citation needed] tag but rather deleted the material, he felt that it was not suitable for the Khaybar article. This I could agree with, especially given:
  2. User:Xevorim's suggestion on Talk:Khaybar that the material be moved to Battle of Khaybar. This makes sense to me, since all the material in question is related to the event of the battle, rather than to the oasis itself in general. This also follows the pattern of other articles about places where battles occurred. Generally, things pertaining to the event are on the "Battle of X" page, while the article "X" itself is merely links to the battle article.

In a nutshell, since the original merge to Khaybar failed so long ago, and for an understandable and easily-remedied reason, I decided to WP:Be bold and do something that I hoped would be agreeable to all. Musashiaharon (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit presenting "reason" for the battle

This edit by Alfikri90 indicates that a historical novelist has made claim that:

"there had been a plan by Jews living in Khaybar to unite with other Jews from Banu Wadi Qurra, Taima', Fadak as well as Ghafataan Arab tribe to attack Madinah. Nevertheless, in preventing the Jews' plan, Muslims had attacked the city of Khaybar before the Jews were able to unite with other Jews and Ghafataan Arab trite to attack Madinah."

I have been unable to find reliable reference to support this claim and suspect that it may be an artistic and potentially damaging/malicious fabrication. The citation also lacks page reference or quotation. GregKaye 09:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Khaybar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

POV content

Islam was destined to win in this battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.240.8 (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

What Margoliouth is alleged to say is clearly a very one-sided story detached from the accepted historical version. Yes, different viewpoints are presented, but here the problem is Margoliouth's arguments appear to promote an specific story not based on fact, but his own propaganda. Hence, it contradicts with WP:NPOV, and seems something like WP:SOAPBOX. And about referencing, today Margoliouth is hardly referenced because of the mentioned reasons. Some pov sources use Margoliouth as reference. Otherwise, he is rather criticized by Muslim writers for his imaginative and pov claims. -AsceticRosé 17:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If what you're concerned about is whether the proposed text accurately represents Margoliouth's view ("[w]hat Margoliouth is alleged to say"), I'm glad to provide the entire section verbatim here on the talk page (the work is now in the public domain). I sense from your comments that this may not be your primary concern, though. Yes, Margoliouth places a different interpretation on events than do the other sources cited in the article, but it doesn't violate the principle of NPOV to include multiple points of view. It's not my intent to get on a "soapbox", and I'm sensitive to your concern about that. That's why in my last edit I did not put any mention of Margoliouth's view in the article lede. But given the length of the discussion in the section on "Banu Nadir" it hardly seems unbalanced to note Margoliouth's interpretation. Certainly he may be criticized by Muslim writers (and if you have good examples of those criticisms, it would be appropriate to include them). That does not make him an unreliable source for his own interpretation of an historical event (any more than criticism by Christian writers would make a Muslim author an unreliable source for his or her interpretation of an event in Christian history). EastTN (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
You raised an interesting point about the extent to which Margoliouth is referenced. As a comparison, I went to Google Scholar and searched for (Margoliouth "Mohammed and the Rise of Islam") and (Vaglieri "encyclopedia of islam"). Vaglieri's "An Interpretation of Islam" was originally published in Italian in 1925, so she's more than a bit dated as well. I arbitrary set the search for references since 1980, so we'd be looking at relatively contemporary references. This gave me 45 hits for Vaglieri and 62 for Margoliouth. Setting the search for references since 1990 I get 41 for Vaglieri and 59 for Margoliouth. Searching for refrences since 2000 I get 36 hits for Vaglieri and 50 for Margoliouth. Doing a Google Scholar search for (Margoliouth Islam) and for (Vaglieri Islam) for references since 2000 I get 347 hits on Vaglieri and 1,400 hits on Margoliouth. If we're simply looking at how often each scholar is mentioned in the contemporary literature, it's not at all obvious that Margoliouth is a less credible source than the ones already cited in the article. EastTN (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I've pulled the relevant sections on the battle of Khaybar from Margoliuth:

"Besides the Meccans the Jewish emissaries had succeeded in stirring up the tribes called Ghatafan, of which three, the Banu Fazarah, the Banu Murrah, and the Banu Ashja’, made their way to Medinah under their leaders ’Uyainah, son of Hisn, Al-Harith, son of ’Auf, and Mis’ar, son of Rukhailah. The tribes Asad and Sulaim also joined.† These tribes had, it was said, been stirred up by Jews from Khaibar, who had promised them a year’s date harvest for their trouble: and the Prophet, to warn the Jews of Khaibar, sent Abdallah, son of Rawahah, to lure some of them away from the city, on the pretence of an honourable visit to the Prophet, and murder them on the way: a mission which was successfully executed, the Arabian Jews being as incautious as they were cowardly.‡ The purpose of the great expedition was to take Medinah and thus stop the mischief at its source. Two years before Medinah had been supposed by its inhabitants to be inexpugnable. Perhaps the feeble resistance made in the Jewish quarter to an attacking party had convinced both Mohammed and his enemies that this was an error. Pickaxes, shovels, and baskets were lent by the Banu Kuraizah." Margoliouth, D. S. (1905). Mohammed and the Rise of Islam (Third Edition., pp. 323–324). New York; London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons; The Knickerbocker Press.

"The triumph over the Kuraizah was completed by the assassination of Sallam, son of Abu Hukaik, one of the organisers of the late attack. He had taken refuge at Khaibar, and five cut-throats went with the Prophet’s blessing to murder him in his bed. They were members of the Khazraj and their purpose, we are told, was to emulate the glory of the murderers of Ka’b, son of Al-Ashraf, who were members of the rival tribe. The Jews of Khaibar, when they heard of the fate of the Kuraizah, had bethought them for a moment of uniting the whole Jewish population of Arabia in an attack on Medinah; but their courage evaporated very quickly." Margoliouth, D. S. (1905). Mohammed and the Rise of Islam (Third Edition., p. 336). New York; London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons; The Knickerbocker Press.

"Each time the Prophet had failed, or scored an incomplete success, he compensated for it by an attack on the Jews; the policy had served too well to be abandoned after the unsatisfactory affair of Hudai-biyah, and therefore a raid on the Jews of Khaibar was speedily planned. Khaibar was famous as the richest village in the Hijaz; it would appear from its name (Hebrew, “community”) to have been originally a Jewish settlement; it is divided from Medinah by about a hundred miles chiefly of harrah, or lava-formation. Rarely visited by Europeans, it was the residence of the great explorer Doughty for some months in the year 1877. The oasis at the edge of which it is situated is luxuriantly fertile, and was skilfully cultivated by the Jews. But the place was also well fortified; many names of fortresses are mentioned by Ibn Ishak; some parts of the old fortifications remaining to this day. The Hisn, or citadel rock of basalt, stands solitary in the Wadi Zeydieh; and upon its southern skirt is built the clay village. The length of the walled platform is two hundred paces, and the breadth ninety. Mohammed by this time knew the Jews too well to fear that there would be any difficulty in storming their fortifications, however strong. Following the principle of his raid after Uhud, he only permitted those to accompany him who had shared the expedition to Hudaibiyah. The route which he followed required three days; the names of the places at which he rested are preserved by the biographers but seem otherwise to be unknown.

Abdallah Ibn Ubayy (whose name the Jews must by this time have heard with curses) is said to have sent word to the inhabitants of Khaibar of the coming storm; and the Jews, from whom this could scarcely have been concealed in any case, sent to the Ghatafan tribes, whose home was in their neighbourhood, requesting their aid. Mohammed, whose guides were skilful men of the tribe Ashja’, succeeded in finding his way between the Ghatafan and Khaibar, and, by a feigned attack on the possessions of the former, averting the danger of a confederation. It would seem that cordial assistance was rarely extended to the Israelites, who, as has been seen, regularly abandoned each other to destruction. The Prophet’s prayer on the occasion of this raid is faithfully recorded. His God had by this time acquired the chief attributes of the Roman Laverna or goddess of gain; and he prayed that rich booty might be accorded them. Indeed it is probable that he had already pledged God’s word for the success of the expedition; when he published his revelation about Hudaibiyah, God had promised them much plunder, and was giving this (i.e., Khaibar) at once. This raid on a town so distant as one hundred miles from Medinah, in the opposite direction to that which his previous raids had taken, shows that he already contemplated the conquest of Arabia, if not of the world.

Wakidi has given a long account of the siege, and the Jews appear to have defended themselves better than might have been expected. Some accounts protract it for a couple of months, during the first of which the Jews are supposed to have been aided by their Arab allies; who, however, took the opportunity of quitting on a rumour reaching them that their homes were attacked. The Jewish forts held out well—over one called Sa’b many lives were lost. Some of the Khaibar Jews even won respect for their fighting powers; one Marhab, before he died, killed the brother of the assassin Mohammed, son of Maslamah, to perish afterwards by that assassin’s hand; not, it would seem, in fair fight, but when Khaibar had surrendered, the prisoner was handed over to Mohammed Ibn Maslamah, and slain by him.

As time went on, the Moslem army was near having to retire for want of food. However, there were traitors among the Jews of Khaibar, and with their assistance some forts were stormed; and other traitors even revealed to the Moslems the place where siege machinery was hidden and instructed the enemy in its use.† Presently Mohammed bethought him of the plan which presently became a prominent institution of Islam. To kill or banish the industrious inhabitants of Khaibar would not be good policy, since it was not desirable that the Moslems, who would constantly be wanted for active service, should be settled so far from Medinah. Moreover their skill as cultivators would not equal that of the former owners of the soil. So he decided to leave the Jews in occupation, on payment of half their produce, estimated by Abdallah, son of Rawahah,‡ at two hundred thousand wasks of dates. These Jews of Khaibar were then to be the first dhimmis, or members of a subject caste, whose lives were to be guaranteed, but whose earnings were to go to support the True Believers. Later on the fanatic Omar drove out the poor cultivators whom the Prophet had spared. Meanwhile the Jews, though they retained their lives and lands, forfeited their goods—all save their Rolls of the Law. How else could Allah’s pledge be redeemed? The dhimmis or subject races derived their name from the relation of client to patron, which, as we have seen, was of great consequence in Arabia; the client being ordinarily a man who, for some reason or other, put himself under the protection of a tribe not his own, which, doubtless for some consideration, defended him from his enemies. Thus the Moslems undertook to protect and fight for the non-Moslem races who acknowledged their supremacy, though they rejected their Prophet. Severe penalties were threatened against Moslems who killed members of those protected communities. His recognition of the principle that a money payment would serve instead of a religious test shows us how little of a fanatic the Prophet was at heart.

The taking of Khaibar was marked by two events which, though of no permanent importance, make the scene vivid. Huyayy, son of Akhtab, had been the Prophet’s most earnest adversary among the Jews, and had been assassinated, as has been seen, by Mohammed’s order. His daughter “Safiyyah,”† was married to Kinanah, grandson of one Abu’l-Hukaik, like her father one of the Nadirites who had taken refuge at Khaibar. The Prophet’s greed was excited by the thought of some rich silver vessels which Safiyyah’s father had owned, and which had been the glory of his house. The family were told to bring out all their possessions and conceal nothing, under pain of execution. Those vessels they were as anxious to save as was the Prophet to rob them: they concealed them, and vowed that they had been sold or melted down long before. The angel Gabriel revealed to the Prophet where they were—not a difficult thing to reveal, as we know from I Promessi Sposi: the practised pillager knows what are the possibilities of concealment in the case of a besieged house; he knows the secrets which are revealed by the newly upturned soil, the disordered brickwork, the cobwebs or dust that have been cleared away. Some precious things had been concealed perhaps when Medinah was besieged; and men act in these matters instinctively or uniformly, like ants. But the production of the cups meant death to the men, and captivity to the women. Safiyyah was invited to accept Islam and become the bride of the murderer of her father, her husband, and her brothers, of the treacherous enemy who had all but exterminated her race, and she accepted the offer. Some Moslems paid her the compliment of thinking she meant to play a Judith’s part, but they did her more than justice. Just as the Jewish tribes had each played for its own hand, careless of the fate of the others, so to this woman a share in the harem of the conqueror made up for the loss of father, husband, brethren, and religion. So Beckwourth found that a few hours were sufficient to reconcile the American squaws to captivity. Dragged from the blood-baths in which their husbands, fathers, and brothers perished, they in a little time became cheerful and even merry.

Another Jewess, Zainab, the wife of Sallam, son of Mishkam, who figures as a partisan of Mohammed, tried with partial success a plan which others had attempted—to fail entirely. She found out what joint was the Prophet’s favourite food, and cooked it for him, richly seasoned with poison. The Prophet’s guest, Bishr, son of Al-Bara, took some and swallowed it; and presently died in convulsions. The Prophet bethought him in time of the enemies who bring gifts; and spued the morsel before it passed down his throat, and had his shoulder bled at once, as a means of excreting the poison.† But when three years after he died of fever, he thought it was Zainab’s poison still working within him, and among his other honours could claim that of martyrdom.

When the Moslems came to apportion their spoils they found that the conquest of Khaibar surpassed every other benefit that God had conferred on their Prophet. The leader’s one fifth enabled him to enrich his wives and his concubines, his daughters and their offspring, his friends and acquaintance, down to the servants. Eighteen hundred lots were portioned out for the fourteen hundred fighters; the two hundred horsemen got, according to custom, treble lots. To one flatterer, Lukaim the ’Absite, as a reward for some felicitous verses, all the sheep of Khaibar were assigned. Moreover there was no fear of this wealth melting away as the former booty had melted; for the Jews remained to till the land which became the property of the robbers. The news of the victory alarmed the neighbouring settlement of Fadak: its people sent to the Prophet half their produce, ere he came and took away their all: and he accepted it, for thus the whole profit fell to him, since it had been won without sword or lance. The rich Wadi al-Kura, the chief oasis of the Hijaz, also after a brief struggle fell into his hands; and the Jews of Taima accepted the same conditions as the others.

The taking of Khaibar marks the stage at which Islam became a menace to the whole world. True, Mohammed had now for six years lived by robbery and brigandage: but in plundering the Meccans he could plead that he had been driven from his home and possessions: and with the Jewish tribes of Medinah he had in each case some outrage, real or pretended, to avenge. But the people of Khaibar, all that distance from Medinah, had certainly done him and his followers no wrong: for their leaving unavenged the murder of one of their number by his emissary was no act of aggression. Ali, when told to lead the forces against them, had to enquire for what he was fighting: and was told that he must compel them to adopt the formulæ of Islam, Khaibar was attacked because there was booty to be acquired there, and the plea for attacking it was that its inhabitants were not Moslems. That plea would cover attacks on the whole world outside Medinah and its neighbourhood: and on leaving Khaibar the Prophet seemed to see the world already in his grasp. This was a great advance from the early days of Medinah, when the Jews were to be tolerated as equals, and even idolators to be left unmolested, so long as they manifested no open hostility. Now the fact that a community was idolatrous, or Jewish, or anything but Mohammedan, warranted a murderous attack upon it: the passion for fresh conquests dominated the Prophet as it dominated an Alexander before him or a Napoleon after him.

He was joined at Khaibar by the Abyssinian refugees, and declared the arrival of some of them to be more welcome to him than even the taking of Khaibar. There were sixteen men and about the same number of women, for whom the Abyssinian monarch had provided two vessels: we suppose that after the massacre of the Kuraizah the Prophet had sent for them, having no lack of land to offer them; forwarding as a present to the Abyssinian King a silken jubbah—a robe which had been presented him by a monk†—perhaps out of respect for the man who had massacred so many Jews. Of the Abyssinian refugees not a few had ended their lives in exile: one had turned Christian, telling his fellows that his eyes were fully opened, while theirs were still half closed. Until his death the Abyssinian King maintained friendly relations with Mohammed: but the well-meant hospitality of the Christian won no favour for his co-religionists when the process of rapine had reached Christian frontiers. Perhaps a man would never rise high unless he turned away each ladder whereby he had ascended: others coming after might overtake him. When the homily which had originally won the Christian’s favour was incorporated in the Koran, fresh texts were inserted, condemning the Christian theory of their Master’s nature in no ambiguous terms. The doctrine of the Son of God was branded as a blasphemy sufficient to cause an earthquake or general convulsion of the universe. Hence Christians might with impunity be plundered. And indeed a Christian living at Medinah was summoned to adopt Islam on pain of forfeiting half his goods.

About the time of the campaign of Khaibar he published his programme of world-conquest by sending letters to the rulers of whose fame he had heard. Being told that such letters must be sealed, he had a seal of silver made, with the words “Mohammed the Prophet of God” inscribed thereon on an Abyssinian stone.† This seal is said to have adorned the finger of his three successors, till the last of them let it drop into a well. Learning further that douceurs should be given to foreign ambassadors, he started a state chest, reserving part of the tribute from Khaibar for this and other extraordinary expenditure."

Margoliouth, D. S. (1905). Mohammed and the Rise of Islam (Third Edition., pp. 355–365). New York; London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons; The Knickerbocker Press.

"The visit to Meccah which had been accompanied with so many vicissitudes was terminated by the Prophet going through the ceremonies of the lesser pilgrimage. Afterwards, ’Akib, son of Usaid, was appointed governor of Meccah at a salary of a dirhem a day: this was the first permanent civil appointment made in Islam; at Khaibar, the only other city of importance which the Moslems had captured, the local government had been left. Besides the governor a spiritual officer was left, Mu’adh, son of Jabal, a native of Medinah, in whose competence to teach the new religion the Prophet had confidence. He is said to have been a man of attractive appearance, and free-handed: the latter virtue had at one time brought him into the bankruptcy court. Both these men were under thirty years of age. After thus settling the affairs of Meccah, the Prophet went home, followed by the portion of the booty of Hunain which he had reserved." Margoliouth, D. S. (1905). Mohammed and the Rise of Islam (Third Edition., p. 409). New York; London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons; The Knickerbocker Press.

This should provide enough context to allow others to judge whether the proposed text misrepresents Margoliouth's views. EastTN (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, William Muir held a similar view:

"ON his return from Hodeibia, as I have before related, in the spring of the year 628, Mahomet had promised to those who accompanied him in that pilgrimage the early prospect of a rich and extensive plunder. The summer passed without any enterprise whatever; and his followers began to be impatient for the fulfilment of their expectations. But quiet and peace still prevailed around. Mahomet probably waited for some act of aggression on the part of the Jews of Kheibar (it was the fertile lands and villages of that tribe which he had destined for his followers), or on the part of their allies the Bani Ghatafân, to furnish the excuse for an attack. But no such opportunity offering, he resolved, in the autumn of this year, on a sudden and unprovoked invasion of their territory." Muir, W. (1861). The Life of Mahomet (Vol. 4, p. 61). London: Smith, Elder and Co.

EastTN (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
One other thought. It may make sense to set this up a bit differently, perhaps even in a criticism section under - or immediately after - the "Aftermath" section. Or, it could be a parallel section to the one entitled "The battle in classic Islamic literature" perhaps with the title "The battle in Western thought." Then it could be framed with something along the lines of "Late 19th and early 20th century Christian and Jewish authors criticized the battle . . ." (the Jewish Encylcopedia also describes the attack as being unprovoked). That covers the literature in a way that should avoid any POV concerns. EastTN (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Your effort is appreciated; however such copious text was not actually necessary. Google search can show such statistics, but the point is that the more we go to the past writers, the more unbalanced the views are about Islam. That's why, the article Muhammad says Non-Muslim views regarding Muhammad have ranged across a large spectrum of responses and beliefs, many of which have changed over time and earliest European literature often refers to Muhammad unfavorably. You will see Wikipedia articles generally tend to use comparatively recent authors' works as reference. And I said it is about point of view, not WP:RS. Yes, Muir held somewhat similar views; which is why he is also criticized, and not so popular today as a reference.
About the content that was added, Margoliouth's comment like Islam became a menace to the whole world lends nothing to historical value/account, and constitutes only the early western propaganda against Islam. Again, Margoliouth's argument to ascribe the attack to a desire for plunder proves false when other western historians have detected the proper causes of the attack (present in the article). Margoliouth saw a deeper significance in the Battle of Khaybar is a very personal comment. These are very one-sided arguments, and I don't see how it improves the article. Any encyclopedia article should encapsulate the standard version of any subject. -AsceticRosé 16:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Grabbing the text was no trouble, and it seemed the simplest way to lay aside any concern that I'd misrepresented the source. There is some danger in thinking that an article should only "encapsulate the standard version of any subject", because it's easy to begin limiting ourselves to our favorite version. While we might prefer her interpretation, Laura Veccia Vaglieri is almost as dated as either Margoliouth or Muir, and we're referencing Watt publications from the 1950's and 60's. And let's not forget, the authors that are currently cited in the article also have points of view - for instance, Watt believed the Quran to be inspired. Anyone who doesn't accept the inspiration of the Quran will see that as a fundamental source of bias.
I do believe there's a way that we can address both your concerns and mine. That is to add a section on "The battle in Western thought" that's parallel to the section on "The battle in classic Islamic literature" and describe this literature that identifies both the time period and that it's a criticism (e.g., "Late 19th and early 20th century Christian and Jewish authors criticized the battle . . ."). If you have sources that speak to any bias, it would be appropriate to include them as well. Helping readers understand what's been said - and to put it into its proper context - does strengthen the article. Working together we can cover the full range of literature and views on the battle in a way that's balanced. EastTN (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I never said that there was a misrepresentation; I was talking about how far it is relevant to include Margoliouth. If you really think that his view should be presented, I'm self reverting myself in the Banu Nadir section, not in the lead.
I'm not sure what will be discussed if a section "The battle in Western thought" is created. About half of the sources are western, and as such the article already presents the western thought. Moreover, you will see the section "The battle in classic Islamic literature" does not deal with its namesake, and only presents some sporadic events of the battle. I think the article is okay without it. -AsceticRosé 15:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Khaybar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Khaybar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Charter of Medina, Jews, eviction, etc.

This edit undid a revert I did yesterday, saying "unsourced and POV." The edit summary on my revert said "Not WP:NPOV." This comment is not about dueling POVs, though.

This article is not one which I would routinely be editing. I don't recall the edit circumstances of my revert, but I'm guessing that I made the edit during a quick drop-out from a WP:Huggle session to make the revert. Looking at the two versions again, I think made yesterday's revert because I took the assertion saying "[the Islamic community] abused Jewish hospitality" and the description "their own city" ("their" meaning "native Jews"). as being made in Wikipedia's editorial voice. I now see that the edit I reverted had an edit summary saying "per source"; I think I missed seeing that yesterday. If the bits which bothered me did come from cited sources, I don't object to echoing those source-attributed bits in the article. The attribution here is a bit messy, though. The article actually asserts in a long and complicated sentence "Scottish historian William Montgomery Watt notes [...] the Islamic community in Medina who abused Jewish hospitality and threw native Jews out of their own city.", attributing the characterization to Watt, and the article cites sources by two authors other than Watt to support the paragraph which contains this sentence.

I'll leave it to regular editors of this article to fix this up if it needs fixing up. If there are viewpoints out there in other sources which don't characterize the city as being tha native Jews' "own" and/or which characterize this as not being an abuse of Jewish hospitality, please observe WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What sources?

1) What is the problem with primary sources? Everywhere else this is a sign of quality.
2) What secondary and tertiary sources do you want?
3) The article starts out with a load of very recent or rather recent 'Western' scholarship on this. Shouldn't it give an idea of the traditional account first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simha (talk • contribs) 09:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Khaybar/Archive_3&oldid=1208448647"