`  =Replacement=  PLEASE DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS NOTE. THE WHOLE SUPRA-SECTION WILL DISAPPEAR AGAIN ONCE I AM ABLE TO POST ON THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE.  This includes you Shell. Had you not blocked me, I would have been able to place my answers there. This will disappear tomorrow so you can put with it until then.  Because Shell falsely blocked me, I cannot save my replies on a certain article talk page. Hence I will save the entire page (minus the archived sections) here.  == POV concerns ==  Im surprised this article isn't being called anti-semetic, because it's has a *few* traces of Islamic perspectives in it. You know, as opposed to being a piece of Zionist propaganda being passed off as fair and balanced.  This entire article is full of baseless jewish propaganda. It is well documented the Banu Qurayza were executed for treason. That is what merited them the death penalty, that they commited treason. The Quarash and other tribes the Muslims fought against were outright enemies who were persecuting them from the start. But the Qurayza signed a peace treaty, then broke it by aiding the enemy. This article contains soo much jewish propaganda that you'd think they were executed for no reason (which no doubt is their aim). Here is a great example. Look at this citation  ``According to Stillman, Muhammad chose Sa'd ibn Mua'dh so as not to pronounce the judgment himself after the precedents he had set with the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir: ``Sa`d took the hint and condemned the adult males to death and the hapless women and children to slavery.`` Furthermore, Stillman infers from Abu Lubaba's gesture that Muhammad had decided the fate of the Qurayza even before their surrender.``  This author is Norman A Stillman, a Zionist Jew who is very biased. Why is he being used as a quote in an Islamic article? And further more, why is his baseless conjecture allowed to be used, as if it's a fact?  There are articles for ``Criticisms of Islam`` where the Jews and others can write whatever they want. But they should have no hand in editing Islamic articles. Because I looked up the Jewish articles and I noticed they dont allow dissent there. You cant put a Muslim perspective on evil acts commited by Jews, without it disappearing instantly. So the same standard MUST be applied to Islamic articles. Islamic articles must be written from the Islamic point of view, and the jews can write their responses in appropriate ``criticisms of Islam`` articles. If not, I will personally edit the Jewish articles and fill them with my conjectures about their history. And I will find a non-Jewish admin to arbitrate over the Islamic articles.  Good day.      :Please read this talk page, specifically all of the places where ``treason`` or ``traitor`` is mentioned, and if you still believe that we need to mention treason, provide some reliable sources and we can discuss it.  It is easy for our article to be neutral and mention all POVs, but it does require that people like yourself participate.  We work from academic sources, not personal conjecture.     ==Changes by Devotus and issues with them==  Dear Devotus,  I have still issues with your changes: *Bat Yeor and Ramadan - while I appreciate that you don't try you shift the balance - removing a book from ``each side`` - I do not agree with your removal. Bat Yeor is an academic scholar and though her books are controversial, she is not beyond the pale - currently she doesn't serve as a reference in the article but if she did, the controversy would be noted. As for Ramadan I have issues with him as well but if we remove him from the literature section, we would have to remove him from the article too, in which he serves as a reference. This is due to the insistence of . He will certainly not like such a removal. We cannot remove him from the literature section while retaining him in the article. *While your first version was needlessly verbose (``it is to be noted that``), the new one endorses that view by Paret/Watt. The article now says that the BQ were not killed for religious reasons - that is not a fact, since there is a good case that the whole conflict was caused by religious differences. *Also we do not want to repeat things that have already been said in the coverage of the ``siege and demise``, e.g. the claim about attacking M. in the rear. *Also, please abide by the one resolved conflict. We fought hard and long about words like ``massacre`` and ``execution`` and neither should appear unless unavoidable. *The common practice thing is unacceptable as it is simply not true. Especially the Deuteronomy issue (the inclusion of which is still controversial) cannot serve as an example since the Deuteronomy refers at best to the time frame 1400 BC to 500 BC. *``Also, the proceedings of Muhammad towards the Qurayza cannot be taken as model for the treatment of Jews under Islamic rule.`` also cannot stand like this. Why can't this be taken as a model? And who made such a proposal? This article is about the BQ, not about the condition of Jews under Islamic rule throughout the centuries. Since no one made such a claim, we need not debunk it.  *On a stylistic level, please do not mess up the footnotes, we do not want to have several footnotes pointing to identical pages. (and notes saying ``...`` are useless anyway.) *One more point: No, I have not read Kister's article. If we mention it we should clearly point out the specific arguments. ``Refute`` is POV IMHO (even if I don't agree with Arafat's claims).      :Dear Str1977, :*The issue with ``Bat Ye'or`` and Ramadan is not that important, we can maybe discuss it another time. For now, it can stay the way it is. By the way, it doesn't matter to me which ``side`` such a source belongs to. It's not the question wheter someone is ``proislamic`` or ``antiislamic``, it's simply a matter of reliability. :*If you have any recognized academic sources (Paret and Watt have written basic works in this area!) for that claim, then please refer to them. Otherwise we cannot say something unless it is said by scholars in this area (see Wikipedia:No_original_research). As far is I know, today no recognized scholar in this area is of the opinion that the BQ have actually been executed because they were Jews. :*Maybe I have overseen sth., but there is no mention of the BQ nearly attacking Muhammad in his rear. Actually, the story of Kaab b. Asad mentioning three possibilities for the BQ to act is not seen as authentic (see Kister's already mentioned article, p.90). We should refer to academic sources, rather then citing primary sources. :*Well, what shall I call it then? Killing several hundred men is an execution. They actually didn't kiss them to death...Every single book I have ever read about this has called it an execution, it is even mentioned in the title of the article of Kister. But if you have an alternative, then it's no problem. :*Watt, Paret and several other scholars refer to the historical circumstances. I am refering to Stillman, Paret and Watt concerning this claim. Stillman himself is mentioning Deut. 20 as an example for this. You won't certainly doubt the fact, that the Bible is from ancient times (which I refered to in general, in accordance with Stillman). If you have a similar source doubting the claims of Watt, Stillman and Paret, pls show me. Otherwise, please let it be as it is, for you are not refering to any source. :*I have mentioned a source for that claim: E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936, vol.1, p.184 (article ``ahl al-kitab`` by Ignaz Goldziher). I hope you are aware of the fact, that the Encyclopaedia of Islam is an authority in this matter. In general it is a widely know fact that the Muslim conquerers normally did not execute all the male, adult inhabitants of conquered territory, no matter Jews, Christians or of any other religion. But, as already mentioned above, if you refer to any reliable source for your claims, then please do. :*Sorry about the footnotes, I'm new here. :*Well, Kisters article is pretty important in this matter and should be read. Of course, it takes time and especially place to describe how he refuted Arafats and Ahmads arguments. Since according to you I should be brief and concise, I will probably not be able to summarize an article of more than 30 pages. Read the article, then you'll know what I am talking about - the article is clear enough. That he has refuted their arguments is generally accepted, since no one makes similar claims ever since.      ::*Devotus is correct in saying that reliability is a factor in removal not ``pro-Islam`` or ``anti-Islam``. Ramadan's book  has been published by the Oxford University Press, and I have justified its reliability. Bat Ye'or's may (or may not) have been published by a reliable source I have yet to see a justification for that. ::*Again I agree with Devotus. We have sources endorsing a fact (or at least what they assume to be fact), and no sources contradicting that fact. ::*Banu Qurayza's actions during the siege of Medina should be mentioned there (I agree with Str1977 on this one). However, any actions that are relevant to their demise or Sa'd's judgment deserve a mention in the ``Siege and demise`` section