When you say 'take it fully' I am unclear what you mean. There are two elements: the first is shall we say the facts and I fully understand that these may vary between different accounts and secondly there is the interpretation of those facts. So are you expecting me or anyone to never accept one without the other? So if you agree that 600 Jews were executed at Medina then I might well agree with you based on the various sources but it does not follow at all that I have to agree that it was an entirely justified and noble thing to do as you or Muslim commentators might interpret that event? Do you agree?so is it the only source and if it is why dont you take it FULLY or do you have other sources contradiciting the event? whats your criteria of recording plain history - theres many other things in the same source is that also history?