Talk:Invasion of Banu Nadir

Needs work

I reviewed this article for DYK, so I'll copy my comments here:

• Have you checked that Witness Pioneer and The Sealed Nectar, whence you're getting almost all your information, are reliable sources? They appear to be spiritual rather than scholarly - it's along the lines of citing Christianity.com or a book published by Zondervan, rather than a real publisher, for an article on a well-known episode in Biblical history. There's no shortage of scholarship on the history and texts of Islam, so we do not need to resort to inferior sources. (The "award" The Sealed Nectar won is from the Muslim World League, a group with religious aims - not from any sort of scholarly or publishing organization.)

The Sealed Nectar is a notable source, i used it to give the views of Muslim scholars rather than give an accurate view. I think the source is partly reliable.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you think it's reliable - that's presumably why you used it - but I disagree, so I'm asking you to establish that it's reliable through something like RSN. The entire article is built on this one source, which is really questionable; unless the source is determined to be reliable, an article that relies so heavily on it cannot possibly appear on the main page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• If the Witness Pioneer site is just an online version of The Sealed Nectar, do not cite both. It gives the false impression that the statement is supported by multiple sources.

I will merge them, thanks. Fixed in thisedit--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• In the article, you include the hook fact as Mubarakpuri's opinion; Mubarakpuri, in his source, states it as fact; in the hook, you say it is "tradition." Please reconcile: obviously we're not going to state it as fact, but if you're going to say it's tradition, you need something that actually says so, not just one author making the claim.

I dont get what you mean? I said according to Islamic tradition, which means according to Muslim sources? I dont see anything wrong with saying "According to Islamic tradition"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

One individual does not constitute "Muslim sources" and he certainly does not constitute "Islamic tradition." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why is a claim ostensibly to be found in the Encyclopedia of Islam sourced to the Jewish Publication Society of America? Is this a mistake, or are you getting the claim at secondhand?

Yes that was an error. I mixed up the sources. Fixed in this edit--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Possible synthesis: does Shaffi, in Reliance of the Traveller, specifically refer to this event in any way? If it's just commentary on the surah without reference to the event, it belongs in the article on the surah, not here.

Shaffi based his belief of burning down trees on a hadith about banu nadir. But i have removed the info all together. in this edit

• The last section is basically trivia; "this book mentions this event in passing without giving any information about it" is not useful.

This is extremely useful in my opinion, as it mentions the primary sources and quotes them.

• Your lead isn't very good. It should be a summary of the article contents. Right now, it contains no information about the actual attack, but gives prominent place to trivial mentions of the attack in other texts and to debate about a minor point in the justification of the attack.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you suggest as an alternative?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Try summarizing what's in the article, viz. the events. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I based the hook on this . I made it similar to what the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa hook said, which was approved. I think the alternate hook could be:

...that according to Islamic tradition, the invasion of the Banu Nadir tribe was ordered because the Angel ::::Gabriel told Muhammad that some members of the tribe were plotting to assassinate him

What do you think--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't supported by the newly cited source, which doesn't make any reference to Gabriel talking to Muhammad. (Your citation template also links to the wrong book.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The william muir source mentions gabriel--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, it doesn't mention "tradition." We can't synthesize two different sources into a statement which appears in neither one. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

@Roscelese, i have fixed the url error. Please tell me a hook which you would approve of?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there are any number of potential hooks - what's important is that the hook is an accurate reflection of the source. I cannot approve your article, however, until you deal with the biggest problem, which is the sourcing, so I hope you're preparing some kind of post for RSN or perhaps for a WikiProject. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Sealed Nectar was also used in the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa article, and that was approved. Does this mean that admins consider the source good enough to be used for front page articles?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think admins generally check every article line by line, following every link to see if the source is reliable. If it's deemed unsuitable, it'll probably have to be removed from other articles too, but right now we're talking about this article. (The other article also relied a lot less on The Sealed Nectar than this one does.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Rename?

You invade a place, not a tribe. This should be renamed to "Campaign against the Banu Nadir" or "Expulsion of Banu Nadir from Yathrib", or similar. Chesdovi (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it meant invade their fortress. Either way, please add alternate names if you think its appropriate (provided you can find a source for it)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

POV fork

This is a WP:POVFORK. Rather than building the article based on the existing content from the main article Banu Nadir#Expulsion from Medina, Misconceptions2 set out to write his own version of the event. The issues are a repeat of the mishandling and distortion of sources and POV pushing shown in another article, to list a few:

[1] Misconceptions2 wrote: "Watt also doubts wether the Banu Nadir wanted to assassinate Muhammad". That's not accurate as Watt states in the same source: "Again, while it is possible that some men of al-Nadir really planned to drop a stone on Muhammad and kill him, it is also possible that the allegation was no more than an excuse to justify the attack. Even if there is some truth in the story, however, the incident was only the occasion for the attack, not the fundamental reason".

While the main Banu Nadir article lists the following as Watt's views:

Watt suggests that, in accordance with 7th century Arabian ideals, Prophet Muhammad knew the Banu Nadir sought an opportunity to kill him, in order to avenge the death of Ka'b bin Ashraf. Watt deduces that Banu Nadir's postponement of the contribution gave them such an opportunity.

[2] Misconceptions2's version states that Muhammad learned of the assasination attempt through revelation, while the main Banu Nadir article states that he "learned this either through revelation or Muhammad ibn Maslama".

[3] Al-Tabari's quote "Hearts have changed, and Islam has wiped out the old covenants". Apart from the fact that this is WP:OR, it was quoted dishonestly for two reasons: Misonceptions2 first distorts Al-Tabari's report (which I own a copy of btw) that attributes the statement to Abu Salamah regarding a pre-Islamic covenant between Abu Salamah's tribe and Banu Nadir (Misonceptions2 wording however, implies that the statement was said with regards to a previous treaty between Muhammad and Banu Nadir). The second distortion, is that Misonception2's statement of Abu Salamah is presented as if it was said on behalf on Muhammad, a claim that the source doesn't state, as clear in the context stated above.

[4] Misconceptions2 claims that the Quranic verse "there is no compulsion in religion" was in regards to Ansar women forcing their children into Judaism. This is misleading and it doesn't look like he understood the hadith quoted from Sunan Abu Dawud: The verse was revealed in response to those Muslim Ansar men who initially expressed refusal to allow their children (who were raised among Banu al-Nadir and eventually followed Judaism) to leave with Banu al-Nadir and remain Jewish. So the verse here means that whoever wants to leave with Banu al-Nadir and remain Jewish then let it be.

[5] Finally: the use of "Invasion" when the literature refers to the event as "Expulsion of Banu Nadir" and "Battle of Banu Nadir". Given the above, the content of the current article as it stands is extremely misleading. Instead, I suggest that this article be speedily deleted or moved to someone's userspace for other editors to rewrite, correct, and review its contents before it is reinstated. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Misconceptions2

[1] So your saying that the above represents what watt said? What in the world, how in anyway does the quote you gave above from the Banu Nadir article (WHICH DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A SOURCE), match the quote from watt you gave 6 lines above?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

[2] This claim is denied, no source says that Maslamah confirmed the plot, and is mere speculation--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

[3] OR is not when you quote from a primary source, the jizyah article quotes a lot of primary sources. I did say the quote is from Abu Salamh. You falsely accuse of of trying to mislead people to think its a quote from Muhammad. Anyone who reads the part your taalking about in the article, will surely agree with me.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

[4]its funny that you know the true interpretation. anyway, i gave a source for my claim.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

[5] Actually i gave a source for my decision to name it that--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have provided an explanation for every single tag I added. The issues have not been resolved, all what you've done is just commenting. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand Al-A's argument, starting with item [1]. What Al-A lists there appears to demonstrate that this article is correct in expressing Watts views, and the main article is wrong. Specifically, if Watt states in the same source: "Again, while it is possible that some men of al-Nadir really planned to drop a stone on Muhammad and kill him, it is also possible that the allegation was no more than an excuse to justify the attack. Even if there is some truth in the story, however, the incident was only the occasion for the attack, not the fundamental reason". is indeed correct, then "Watt also doubts wether the Banu Nadir wanted to assassinate Muhammad" is correct William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Remove tags, issue is same as Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa, needs article of its own as they were invovled in more than 1 military expedition. The Banu Nadir article is about the tribe. While this article is about the expedition against them. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Anyway this needs consensus before removal of tag. Press on "contest this speedy deletion". Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really? So your saying their is a tribe called Invasion of Banu Nadir? Also, as william has explained to you, that you have a wrong impression of Wp:OR. You need to study it properly, citing primary sources and summarising what a quote in a primary source says is not wp:OR, did yousee how many primary sources are cites in the Jizyah article, where there is an entire section summarizing what certain quotes from Sahih Bukhari says???--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

William is not God ok ? and you've been told several times to tag the Jizya article for the inclusion of primary sources (though it can be argued that the hadiths quotetd from Sahih Bukhari are regarded as authentic by one group of Muslim scholars and thus a tag is not needed as opposed to Al-Tabari's specific quote that doesn't look like that it was verified by any of the listed scholars in the article). Besides, we're not only talking about WP:OR here, I think I made it clear that this was a distorted quotation of Al-Tabari. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Remove tags, issue is same as Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa, needs article of its own as they were invovled in more than 1 military expedition. The Banu Nadir article is about the tribe. While this article is about the expedition against them.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, it wasn't just a separate article for the event as you put it. You simply ignored years of edits to the narrative presented by the main articles and chose to write your own. You misrepresented the sources and distorted the scholars' views as I pointed out here and for that I nominated the article for deletionAl-Andalusi (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, if this was a POV fork as the user who nominated it claims. Then i would have to merge it, then we would find that the Banu Nadir article has become to big, and would need seperating anyway. As the Banu Nadir where involved in more than 1 military expedition in relation to Muhammad. Sources also make it clear that the Invasion of Banu nadir and the Banu Nadir are not the same thing, and authors like Mubrakpuri mention that there is such a thing called "Invasion of Banu Nadir". You argument is like saying the place called Badr and Battle of Badr should be 1, and if anyone makes an article called Battle of Badr, then it is a POV fork. Or Britain and the Battle of Britain should be 1--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not against the creation of a separate article for the expulsion event, in fact this is something that is needed (that's why I 'm suggesting that this article be moved to a userspace for correction/merging with existing content by multiple editors). However, I do not accept your POV fork, which was not created based on the existing content under Banu Nadir#Explusion from Medina. Instead, this article was clearly created to push your POV, avoiding the work of years of editing and discussion of the event (check the archives of the talk page of the main article). Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion, but I replaced the speedy deletion tag with an AfD tag, and I created a deletion discussion page here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I did use existing content, and i also checked some of the sources, and some of the existing content was false, it did not match what source said. I will definately re write this article and remove Mubarakpuri's point of view and add more of Watt, Stillman, Muir, Kister e.t.c views. But then you will complain even more. You claim the article is factually inaccurate because it doesnt match what you want it to say. The claim that Maslmah verfied that the tribe wanted to kill Muhammad is denied by the previouslly mentioned scholars. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the reason for the factual inaccuracy tag?

He has not explained why this should be there. Can you please explain? Does this page violate any wikipedia policy--Misconceptions2 (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't agree with the tag. - I don't see any legitimacy of that tag either. What exactly is disputed? I see the tag says, "Please help to ensure that disputed facts are reliably sourced." I don't understand why this tag is even necessary. Firstly, The article contains quotes mostly from canonical hadiths, eminent muslim scholars.

Secondly, al-Mubarakpuri is a reliable Islamic author who has received accolades for his work in the past and arabic version of "The sealed nectar" (quoted in the article) has received the first prize from the Muslim World League, at the first Islamic Conference on Seerah, following an open competition for a book on the life of Muhammad in 1979 (1399 AH). The publisher's note says here

"No doubt The Sealed Nectar (Ar-Raheeq AI-Makhturn) is a book of great value and praiseworthy work on the life of Muhammad. This book has been written by the Eminent Shaikh Safiur-Rahman Mubarakpuri of Jamiah Salafiyah, Banaras (India). The first Islamic Conference on Seerah (biography of the Prophet) was held in 1976 in Pakistan sponsored by the Muslim World League. The League announced a world contest for writing a book on the life of the Prophet. One hundred fifty thousand Saudi Riyals (SR 150,000) (forty thousand U.S. Dollars) was the grand prize for the best five books." --Barry ^{(Why don't we talk?)} 06:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this article. I don't see any specific rationale for the tag here. Keeping WP:DRIVEBY in mind, can someone succinctly state the reason it has been placed here? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)