Talk:Asma bint Marwan

First comment thread

Who on earth wrote this article? Silas of Answering-Islam???!!! This is crazy article... And MENJ and his team already made a refutation to this.

The story is fraudulent; a full explination is available here. These reports are passed around in Islamophobic circles to poison peoples' minds against Islam. Wikipedia should not become another soapbox for bigots to spread their hate. This article needs significant NPOV work to bring it in line with standards. --Alberuni 00:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. You have a biased source

2. It is up to you to make a coherent argument. Posting another URL means nothing. URLs are for citing sources, they are not an argument in and of themselves. The excerpts from the Sirat describe what clearly occured, and everything is referenced. Everything in this article is concrete historical fact. --Pename 02:06, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

There is no authentic hadith regarding this incident, therefore it shouldn't be here.

Anyone can make up a story and add it if this is allowed. Until anyone can verify the hadith's authenticity, it should be taken off. -Musa (202.67.124.42)

The story is probably true, regrettably, and explains why many people consider Islam to be against women. If only we could reform Islam and get rid of these elements, we would have a worthy relgion that would command respect among infidels. Let us work hard to ensure this. -Khalid (84.66.99.207)

How can you claim this story is fradulent when it comes straight from Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah", the oldest and most widely respected Sira? That makes no sense, and you know it!

I added some text about why this can be disputed, and that it shouldn't be taken as Islamic "canon," per say. I did not add anything about what the reasons are for disputation because I am no scholar. I'm thinking that passages from the Qur'an and Hadith dictating Muhammed's actions after the seizure of Mecca (in the Qur'an), his beliefs about not killing women (in Hadith), his abhorrence for forcing a child to be an orphan (historical and Hadith), etc. are all grounds for arguing against this passage's validity. I tried to be brief, because the links cover each aspect in decent detail. Windthorst 17:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether something is Islamic canon or not is irrelevant here, as we are describing a well-known character. It is irrelevant whether the story is true, if it is disputed this should be mentioned. Religious standards of evidence (whether a hadith is considered reliable or not, etc.) are also irrelevant, although a religious consensus regarding the story should be mentioned in the article if one exists. If a large number of Muslims or others believe this story is true or false, this can be mentioned, but a religious belief is not a standard of evidence for an encyclopedia.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. heavensblade23 21:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

BhaiSaab's recent edits

BhaiSaab, can you please explain your reasons for removing large amounts of referenced information from some of the best historical sources that we have regarding the issues re the death of Asma bint Marwan? So far you have only mentioned that your edits are made to demonstrate a point regarding a recent edit in the Islamophobia article. -- Karl Meier 06:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Since everything we know about Muhammad is derived from the Hadith, with Ibn Ishaq's Sira being a primary source, we should have the referenced material from the Sira included. Ali Dashti based what he wrote in his book on what is written in the Sira and other Islamic sources, nothing of it is independent. Please stop reverting the material from the Sira, because that's the only source we have. Politicallyincorrectliberal 19:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and the fact that BhaiSaab continue to remove such essential information to make a WP:POINT about my editing in another article, is just unacceptable. -- Karl Meier 06:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So what exactly is preventing you from adding it to wikiquote? BhaiSaab ^talk 14:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing, but it is also essential that we include the information in the article here on Wikipedia. If you can summarise Ibn Ishaq somehow, without excluding any of the imformation that is provided from that source, then it is acceptable to replace it with that. However, unless that it done, what we have now should stay in the article. -- Karl Meier 16:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, the quote is clearly a critically important part of the article. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I have no doubt that you could be a valuable contributor to WP if you would be willing to work at improving articles rather than edit-warring. Your activity in this article has been counter-productive and I hope that you will re-think your position. I think you might find it far more satisfying in the long run if you focused your contributions on adding useful content to articles and I know you could do well at that. Again, please reconsider your reasons for your edits here, and don't hesitate to contact me if I can assist you in any way :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think BhaiSaab has a good point. We cannot include long qoutes in the article. If a summary of the qoute would be included, the burden of summarizing should be on the editor who strongly wants it to be included. 24.211.192.250 22:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The ongoing removal of that quote is a pointless attempt to disrupt wikipedia because of a personal vendetta. This kind of immature and juvenile behaviour is both wildly inappropriate and a clear violation of WP:POINT. I'm going to replace it once again because there is a clear concensus on this Talkpage to include it. Please do not remove the material again without discussing it here first and achieving a new concensus. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no personal vendetta. The whole purpose of wikiquote is to store such things. Use it. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to inform it's readers about the subject of its articles. What you are doing is to remove essential information from the article. -- Karl Meier 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any essential information other than what's already been presented. Her assasination is alread noted in the beginning of the article. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the information that we have from Ibn Ishaq is the most essential source to information that we have regarding what makes her notable: her death. -- Karl Meier 09:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The Killing of Asma': True Story or Forgery?

Basically the charge is that the Prophet(P) had ordered the killing of Asma' when she insulted him with her poetry. As it is usually the case where the history of Islam and the character of the Prophet(P) is concerned, it is left to the Muslims to throw some light on authenticity of the story in which this incident is reported by the sources and educate the missionaries in matters which they have no clue about.

The story of the killing of Asma' bint Marwan is mentioned by Ibn Sa'd in Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir[3] and by the author of Kinz-ul-'Ummal under number 44131 who attributes it to Ibn Sa'd, Ibn 'Adiyy and Ibn 'Asaker. What is interesting is that Ibn 'Adiyy mentions it in his book Al-Kamel on the authority of Ja'far Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn As-Sabah on authority of Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ash-Shami on authority of Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Lakhmi on authority of Mujalid on authority of Ash-Shu'abi on authority of Ibn 'Abbas, and added that

...this isnâd (chain of reporters) is not narrated on authority of Mujalid but by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj and they all (other reporters in the chain) accuse Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it.[4] Bold text It is also reported by Ibn al-Gawzi in Al-'Ilal[5] and is listed among other flawed reports.

So according to its isnâd, the report is forged - because one of its reporters is notorious for fabricating hadîth. Hence, such a story is rejected and is better off being put into the trash can.

(1) Ibn Sa'd, Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, Volume 1, pages 27-28. (2) Ibn 'Adiyy, Al-Kamel, Volume 6, page 145. (3) Ibn al-Gawzi, Al-'Ilal, Volume 1, page 279. X5Dragon Aug. 2006

HISTORICAL VERACITY. It is all very well to say that ibn Ishaq wrote 150 years after Mohammed's death and claim that the murder of this poet and others is suspect and fraudulent etc. But there are three points to consider in this respect. 1. Ibn Ishaq is still a respected source for a great many praiseworthy things about Mohammed - you have to take the good with the bad and say, well - that is what he wrote. 2. Ibn Ishaq didn't sit down and write a huge history with nothing to go on. He had sources as well. It isn't as though some of his stuff is not cross-referenced with others who are accepted as authoritative. 3. Zuhri compiled the first biography. This happened, perhaps a COUPLE OF DECADES after his death. Zuhri's work is lost. However, much of his works was used by ibn Ishaq. And,unfortunately, ibn Ishaq's original work is lost. His student/secretary, ibn Hisham, edited the original work, removing some but there is no reference that he included other bits. And even so, the current edited version of ibn Ishaq is the most comprehensive biography of Muhammad. Muslims and non-Muslims, accept this work as the earliest, and the most reliable source of Muhammad's life and work, which is not to say it is 100% reliable. But as in 1 above, you can't easily pick and choose which bits suit your point of view. If it is in there, it is in there.

---

LANGUAGE is not neutral in this artcile. I realize as I am newly registared, my view doesn't count for much, but I think the problems in this entry are pretty clear to see. I would also like to apologize for editing without discussion before, I now realize that there is lenghty process to editing to prevent vandalism. My apologies.

Now with my thoughts. The line:

"The story's authenticity as a historical record is a matter of dispute among western historians, however this bears little relevance to its treatment in Islamic theology, in which the Sirah is the third source of Islamic law after the Qur'an and Hadith, and is largely trusted as historically accurate"

There are several problems with this statement. First, it implies that Muslims accept this story as accurate, which they do not, due to a problem with the isnad. This line should be changed to say that "The story's authenticity as a historical record is a matter of dispute among western AND MUSLIM historians...."

The second part of the paragraph is also misleading. Though the sirah is considered authoratitive, it is so in an abstract sense. Put another way, the life example of the prophet has an impact on Islamic Orthodoxy, not any particular biography. The wording of the paragraph in question implies that this particular sirah is some sort of sacred text that Muslims must accept as a whole. This demonstrates a failture to accurately describe the way Muhammad's biography was assembled. There is for instance, no explaination of the process of isnad. This is essential, because biographers collected every story they could find about Muhammad in the oral tradition, and then assigned it a credibility level according to the chain of accounts. Therefore, although this story exists in Ibn Ishaq's biography, it exists with the assumption that the reader would understand that it is based on questional oral accounts. So although this story is in the sirah, it would not be authoritative in Islamic law or considered true by most Muslims. As is, the paragraph is completely contradictory with other parts of the article. Instead of reading like one neutral article, it reads as if someone was trying to undermine and distract reader's from historical questions of the tale's authenticity.

There is also a concern that this article presents itself as being based on Ibn Ishaq's original sirah, which other posters have already demonstrated above does not survive. Yet no mention of the second hand nature of the sirah is in this article. Instead it presents Alfred Guillaume's translation as if it was a direct english edition of the 8th century text, which it is not. It is an attempt to reconstruct what Ibn Ishaq wrote, without any consideration for the isnad. This glaring omission places its accuracy in question. Some mention of this should be in the artcile.

Next the opening constantly states Muhammad ordered Asma's execution, but there is no evidence of that in Ibn Ishaq's story. Why would the assassin come and confess to Muhammad if he had ordered Asma's death? It should be changed to say that, according to the account, Muhammad was complacent with the assasination.

Third, the section on Ali Dashti. I think the term "freethinker" should be removed. That is a value judgement and has no place in a neutral article. As clearly Dashti was writing to crticize Islam, shouldn't we balance this out with more credible academic scholars? M. Watt, Bernard Lewis, Esposito, Lings...?

Fourth, the section describing allegations of forgery should be enlarged to include the historiographical arguments of Ibn al Jawzi's (who discusses the problem with this story in Al Ilal), and other early Muslim historians who demonstrated the weakness of this story. I have seen this raised in edits and apparently dismissed.

Why do Muslims keep rejecting hadiths? At last all the hadiths get rejected if they are not satisfied with the so-called fake hadiths then only a few of the hadiths remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.113.11 (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV and RS please

Personally, I am much more impressed with Islamic care in transmission of hadith than I am in western historical speculation. However, a source other than Christian missionaries is this book. A very well argued, but sadly unpublished Muslim reply is here. In some ways, unless the article has reliable Muslim sources comparable to the critics, it is very problematic for Wiki to retain the article. Historical research must consider even unreliable sources, and report impartially and in proportion to evidence. Wiki must report the methodology and not simply the conclusions. Islam cannot accept unreliable sources, and must publish conclusions as well as methodology. Wiki must present Islamic answers to criticisms of Islam with the same care it gives to the criticisms. This is an article at an early stage of development. I urge Muslims to ensure the best scholarship of their faith is presented in articles like these, and admire their restraint in accepting that an encyclopedia cannot make a decision about who is right. I urge others to remember that the best criticism acknowledges both the real strengths of opposing views and the weaknesses in its own case. Above all, though, I urge editors to be extremely considerate of one another's emotions. Truth matters and so encyclopedia writing is often frustrating, because it must stop short of stating this in contentious cases. Give the evidence, trust readers, and dare I say, trust God. Peace. Salaam. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

All hadits or the stories in sirah are unlikely to be authentic.. ...

We have to admit that all hadits, including compiled by Bukhari and Muslim, or all the stories in sirah (biography of Muhammad) are unlikely to be sahih (authentic).

Written more then one century after the related events and without any proof that the compilers did really quote their sources which are not always, if any, authentified either, those hadits and the stories in the sirah are just told stories And as for the sirah we do not even have the original one, if it did ever existed, we have only a book which clamied to be a copy of it.

The article about Asma bint Marwan and other article about islamic figures, including about prophet Muhammad should be written in such a way as to make clear that those stories are according to islamic sources and not as historical facts.

Jusfiq Hadjar Jusfiq Hadjar (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

Keep rejecting the hadiths then there will be no more Sunnah and then it is only prove that our religion, Islam is fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.113.11 (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Too many sources

Both the excerpt from Ibn Sad and the german source are irrelevant, as they're both based on Ibn Ishaq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEasyWay8 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Absence of citation

There is a sentence in this article which says "This story is now regarded as anti-islamic propaganda by modern educated islamists".

Who are these modern educated islamists ? Are they notable ? Can the contributor cite a source to prove this assertion ?

Sasank Sleeper (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Revamp and snip

I've tried to make this look something like an encyclopedia entry, sticking to what is known (or though to be known) and being specific about who said it. I've removed the long quote from Guillaume, and reproduce it below here out of interest (since the book isn't available online). The quote sheds more darkness then light for the average reader; at any rate, non-controversial summaries as accurate as possible should be used for stuff like this.

I've also explained why some of the stories in Ibn Ishaq are controversial to some, but have removed the "cite" to the Jammaat i-Islami affiliated website since it didn't directly address the accuracy (or not) of the story in Ibn Ishaq (leaving aside the other reasons that such a citation probably wouldn't be considered a reliable source in wikipedia terms). I've stuck in a "fact" tag there for now; I don't have a text handy that makes this point, but it's fairly non-controversial (almost every single one of the "histories" of muhammad's life attract this kind of controversy, not least because they often include supernatural tales, information that conflicts with one or another of the various Islamic schools interpretations, etc... Will hunt for one in the next day or two. Would have no problem with that whole section being removed if such a cite isn't forthcoming.

An excerpt from Alfred Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sira follows:

"She was of Banu Umayya bin Zayd. When Abu Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. Abdullah bin al-Harith bin Al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of Banu Khatma called Yazid bin Zayd. Blaming Islam and its followers she said:

"I despise Banu Malik and al-Nabit

and Auf and Banu al-Khazraj.

You obey a stranger who is none of yours,

One not of Murad or Madhhij. {1}

Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs

Like a hungry man waiting for a cook's broth?

Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise

And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?"

Hassan bin Thabit answered her:

"Banu Wa'il and Banu Waqif and Banu Khatma

Are inferior to Banu al-Khazraj.

When she called for folly woe to her in her weeping,

For death is coming.

She stirred up a man of glorious origin,

Noble in his going out and in his coming in.

Before midnight he dyed her in her blood

And incurred no guilt thereby."

-- I'm sorry, but to me all it looks like you've done is to damage the article, and especially, put a certain POV on it. You've replaced a full quotation describing the story with a quotation that stresses that she condoned his killing, without saying that this is in response to his killing of their chiefs. You've deleted a description I dug up, from two different sources that at least looked fairly professional, which explains the derivation of the hadith and which narrator those dismissing it regard as a "liar", and lists quite a variety of authors and texts. You've taken an article which was informative, and brought things to an "encyclopedic" state --- but as for so many here nowadays, encyclopedic is defined as when you are better off doing a Google search. Wnt (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose a better summary. I said she called for his killing after the killing of Abu Afak for "defying Muhammad." What POV? The description is accurate, the sequence is accurate -- a wall of uncontextualized text doesn't help. What key bit do you think is missing and if we agree, lets put it in simple prose and say where it comes from.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added in a bit more of what you're concerned about. Whatever our disagreements on content, it's going to have to be in simple prose as much as possible.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That addresses the main POV issue that I perceived, but I firmly believe that when the actual text is so short, we should quote it in its entirety.

I also believe that some day, many years from now, Wikipedia is somehow going to get all those hadiths sorted out. I know some people think all those red links look bad - because it is bad - but it's better to show the reader that this encyclopedia is still very much a work in early stages where these topics are concerned. I included two sources because there are so many versions of all the names, that it's good to have two sources to try to figure out who is who. Wnt (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the "Jammaat i-Islami affiliated website" (actually, I hadn't figured out that much) should not be discounted as irrelevant simply because it "didn't address the accuracy" of the story. The fact that a modern day Islam website would continue to assert justification (they further compare this to imprisoning people for hate speech) is quite relevant to the article. Wnt (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) Oh yeah, as for the two websites. This one from Al-Mawrid [1] doesn't address the Ibn Ishaq text at all (that website also shouldn't be considered an RS for anything but the views of that particular wing of Islam in Pakistan, but not relevant in this case), nor does this one [2] from the True Call website. So essentially what this yielded was "Al Ishaq told a story" followed by "two websites refuted a similar story told by different people" for reasons that those people were liars, innacurate, or what have you. Those two cites didn't address the reliability (or not) of Ishaq. Hence the problem.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, the Ibn Ishaq story does not feed into any Hadith tradition. Instead, what appears to have happened, is that the Ishaq story was either cribbed from him without attribution or collected in parallel by compilers of Hadith (Ishaq is not considered a Hadith scholar in the way that Muhammad al-Bukhari is, say). In a nutshell, a story can be rejected as a Hadith because the sholar making the determination decides that it isn't sufficiently "verified" but that is something different from wholesale rejecting the potential truth of the story. So in this case, a Deobandi Ulamma in Pakistan might reject a Hadith because there's a break in the link of the chain of transmission or because a link in the chain has been found to be unreliable in some other case, but if you were to sit and ask him "So you're saying the story definitely didn't happen?" He might answer "Don't know." Their interest is in safe-guarding what they imagine is the purity of the tradition, rather than historical accuracy in its own right, if that makes sense. The connection between actual history and Islam's Hadith tradition is complex and muddled. Oh and even if we were considering hadith and not something else, what makes that websites views notable, rs, etc... It's just a wikipedia editors opinoins of what's interesting, right? Bali ultimate (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you know much more about this than I do, but you're not letting that show in the text. This article is about Asma bint Marwan, not Ishaq. All I knew is that some Muslim sources say the story is false, some say it is true but justified, and that two different sources named the same person as a liar and claimed that all versions of the story either came through him or had no known providence, i.e. that one person could have made it up after the fact. I want to see the details out there, I want them to be Wikilinked where possible; hopefully in time the article will go through many different Muslim reactions, explain what you're saying about a Deobandi Ulamma in Pakistan among many other reactions. But it won't get anywhere if you don't let this detail get started. As far as Wikipedia editors' opinions of what's interesting? Maybe. But more it's just that you should be able to do a search, add what you find, do another search, add more - you shouldn't have to have some plan of what the article is going to say from the beginning. You should be able to just pick up relevant information and toss it in. The data knows the truth long before I do. Wnt (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Where we disagree is on but more it's just that you should be able to do a search, add what you find, do another search, add more. You have to evaluate what you find and assess it. This isn't about having a plan (beyond having the article as accessible, well-sourced and accurate as possible) so much as it's about in keeping the topic as close to the mainstream as possible. As for this article, i believe the "plan" should be to summarize the story as accurately as possible, point out where it comes from and include a tiny bit on why some people might not believe it (in a nutshell, all history from that period is shaky, leaving enormous room for doubt if you're so inclined about heaps of it).

• This is not a particular exceptional story by the way -- read the battle of badr article, which at a glance doesn't appear as godawful as most wikipedia articles on such topics. Muhammad and his boys were embroiled in a nasty war for years with the Quraish, assassinations and so on on both sides for years. It certainly isn't exceptional per se that Muhammad would order the killing of one his enemies. They were driven out of Mecca by force (key followers killed, an assassination plot against Muhammad by the Quriash), settled in Medina (where they stirred up trouble amongst various local groups, both pagan and Jew, as well as winning many converts from among them -- not so much for the Jews though. Muhammad, a great admirer of the faith up til that point, was pissed off at his rough treatment by the local Jewish community, his Surah's turned against them at about this time and he also shifted the direction of Muslim prayer from towards Jerusalem to towards Mecca as a consequence, but i digress) and began plotting there return almost immediately. Intrique, double dealing, honoroable battlers, dishonorable murders, caravan raids, etc... War is hell.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

On Hadith and transmission

This is not important to our discussion up above except perhaps tangentially, but since i find it interesting and you might as well, my beer drinking is still a few hours off and i have time, let me do a little analysis of the Al-Mawrid forum post. The author of the answer is one Abdullah Rahim, who has a PHD in organizational analytics but does not appear to have any serious Islamic scholarship degrees of his own according to the website. [3]. Asked about whether there are Hadith that tell this story he answers yes but says they are unreliable. Why? He says that some don't provide what wikipedia would call "sources" for the story ("chain of transmission") and the ones that do always have Muhammad ibn Al-Hajjāj Al-Lakhami as a link in the chain (who he later refers to by the different spelling "Al-Hujjāj" which speaks to his level of care with this answer). At any rate he says one man -- Ibn Jawzī in his Dhu‘afā wa Matrūkīn -- determined that Hajjāj/Hujjāj was a "liar." And who is this is Jawzi? Probably one of two famous members of different Sunni schools of "jurisprudence" (Hanafi and Hanbali). I have no idea if the two schools are in agreement on this point -- or even if one of the schools is in full agreement on this specific question. Did Jawzi really write this (i.e. are we getting the straight dope from the computational analysis phd)? Is he mainstream or fringe? Etc.. What is needed is books that deal with in a scholarly manner the disputes over this hadith (that it's still floating around as such makes it clear that at least some Muslims accept it as reliable and, apparently don't share the concern that one of the trasmitters is a serial fabricator). Do such scholarly books exist? Almost certainly in Arabic and Urdu, and probably (though less likely) in English. Since I don't have these books in my possession and don't have the time to spend hours in a library tracking them down and figuring out what the "consensus" view, if any, is, we're left merely with an assertion from a website of no-demonstrated reliability as a reliable source. As a general point -- doctrinal issues, accuracy of Hadith, how to hold your hands when you pray, where to place emphasis, are hotly contested between the various versions of a highly heterogeneous religion, both traditionally and today. Think of the differences among mainstream protestant denominations in the US (leaving aside ones that are less mainstream and emphasis dancing with snakes and what not) and you get the idea.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your desire for a scholarly answer. But I think that you're missing the tree for the forest. It's not necessary to know whether the story is true, or what the consensus is, in order to demonstrate that some people now believe it and some don't. It is possible to focus in on one name, this Al-Hajjāj, and leave it to the next person to start an article on that person, find links to his writings, look up the scholarly analyses and so on. You're basically saying that if you can't do it right you shouldn't do it at all - but provided we don't make any unreasonable claims, we are doing it right simply to make the sketchiest survey of the Web and name some sites where people comment about the story. When articles are written by hundreds of people, we have to adopt a method of content development that allows incremental additions. Wnt (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, my opposition is that all we have is "two random websites" (that is, neither is a reliable source in the wikipedia sense) attack the story -- and via sources that aren't currently used in the article (neither addresses the accuracy of the Ishaq story at all). I'm also saying that for a Muslim scholar (or a pseudo scholar in the case of the guy above) to say something is "not acceptable as Hadith" that is not the same thing as saying on the balance of historical evidence, this thing never happened. Recently i had a dispute with an editor who argued against attributing to a website in an article about that website. These websites have the same status from a sourcing perspective. Think about it.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that the main problem here, is that I have no idea how anyone can decide whether a website about religious matters is a "reliable source". It seems like the random web sites here are at least somewhat widely known; that's all I could say.

If you're referring to the JIDF issue, I still would not be opposed to a draft such as I suggested there (or preferably much larger) in which a range of their printed statements are covered. But if people won't accept coverage of a range of topics, then I can't really see the point of picking out just one that seemed deliberately chosen to push a POV, when the issue is already covered in secondary sources in the same article. In this case, however, I simply located a few websites in a quick search that weigh in on the particular issue the article is about. The element of choice, in which each option creates a different POV, wasn't required. So I don't see it as the same situation, though I'll admit, by not pressing for fullest inclusiveness in the JIDF article I did choose a way that isn't entirely right - it really would be best to cover it all, item by item. Wnt (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Supporting the references of authenticity on Answering Islam.

The First Comment Thread here in the Talk section opened with the statement: "Who on earth wrote this article? Silas of Answering-Islam???!!!" as if to say that source alone should be unreliable. When I searched for more information on Asma bint Marwan I found a lengthy source of material on the web site of Answering Islam that contained many more references than those given by other commenters here. And the brief mention on one source here in the Talk section attributed to A. Guilaume, the author had omitted some specific language. So, in defense of Answering Islam and whoever Silas may be, I am posting the full content of their background sources on The Death of Asma bint Marwan. For anyone who may be interested, this is my first entry in Wikipedia Talk. I have not yet prepared any biography page on myself.

The Death of `Asma' Bint Marwan

Abstract

   In Yathrib (Medina), Muhammad had a number of people killed. One of them was `Asma' bint Marwan. Her crime was that she spoke out against Muhammad for having another man murdered named Abu Afak. In his displeasure towards her, Muhammad asked his followers to murder her as well. She was killed while she slept. 

Introduction

After Muhammad came to Yathrib he began to grow in power. However, a number of people, both Jew and Arab, opposed him. Muhammad began to silence his opposition by various means. One of these means was to have them murdered.

Muhammad did have a number of enemies and critics, some were dangerous, others were ordinary people who lived in the area and thought nil of Muhammad. They spoke their minds.

One by one, they were silenced. Through treaties, intrigue, or outright terror, Muhammad gained power in Medina. Eventually, he was master of the area. He knew his followers loved him, and would die for him. They were at his disposal; and at times, he chose to use them to accomplish his desires.

PRESENTATION OF ISLAMIC SOURCES

From the Sirat Rasul Allah (A. Guilaume's translation "The Life of Muhammad") pages 675, 676.

Note: Comments added by Answering Islam will be in [ ] type brackets. Notes by the Translators of the texts will be in { } brackets.

   `UMAYR B. `ADIYY'S JOURNEY TO KILL `ASMA' D. MARWAN She was of B. Umayyya b. Zayd. When Abu `Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. `Abdullah b. al-Harith b. Al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of B. Khatma called Yazid b. Zayd. Blaming Islam and its followers she said:

         I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit
         and `Auf and B. al-Khazraj.
         You obey a stranger who is none of yours,
         One not of Murad or Madhhij. {1}
         Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs
         Like a hungry man waiting for a cook's broth?
         Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise
         And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him? 

   Hassan b. Thabit answered her:

         Banu Wa'il and B. Waqif and Khatma
         Are inferior to B. al-Khazrahj.
         When she called for folly woe to her in her weeping,
         For death is coming.
         She stirred up a man of glorious origin,
         Noble in his going out and in his coming in.
         Before midnight he dyed her in her blood
         And incurred no guilt thereby. 

   When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" `Umayr b. `Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O `Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her", so `Umayr went back to his people.

   Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when `Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting." That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was `Umayr b. `Adiy who was called the "Reader", and `Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.

   {1} The note reads "Two tribes of Yamani origin." 

[END OF IBN HISHAM QUOTE]

From Ibn Sa`d's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq, volume 2, pages 30-31.

   SARIYYAH OF `UMAYR IBN `ADI

   Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma' Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. `Asma' was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, "basir" (the seeing). 

[END OF IBN SA`D QUOTE]

CORROBORATING WRITINGS

In "23 Years; A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad", by Ali Dashti, (Mazda Press, 1994), Dashti also references the murders of Abu `Afak and `Asma' b. Marwan. He wrote (page 100):

   Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. 'Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated.

Answering Islam is not a reliable source in the wikipedia sense. It's an evangelical christian website seeking Muslim converts, not a scholarly website seeking to present history (and its conflicts and contradictions) as accurately as possible. It's essentially a propaganda outfit.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to User talk:Bali ultimate

Answering Islam may well be "an evangelical christian website seeking Muslim converts" but never-the-less the content of their article does contain outside references for source material. You may disagree with the "messenger" but not with the "message". Argue against the factual references they give, and refute them if you can, but don't use who they are as a pretext to ignore what they say. Are they any different from pro-Islamic Muslims who try to write only complimentary material? Old Rottweiler (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Old Rottweiler

Are they any different from pro-Islamic Muslims who try to write only complimentary material? Uhm, the Muslim equivalents of "Answering Islam" (and there are plenty) suck just as hard as "Answering Islam" does as a reliable source for a neutral encyclopedia article (though would be marginally better for Muslim doctrine, just as christian websites are better for christian doctrine; these sorts of sources tend to be a little more honest about their beliefs. But when they get into history? Nah. Both kinds of site suck.) If you have some other source to offer up that might be reliable, ok, we'll take a look. But Anwsering Islam aint reliable.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Who says this? 'Bali ultimate'?? "reliable" or not is for your subjective point of view. Mine is that the "bismika allahuma" website used to sustain the veracity or not of the story is NOT reliable, for the same reason you say it's only apologetical. Besides the 'islamic equivalent' as you say, of Answering-Islam website WAS Answering-Christianity, which failed on its purpose because one of its most active authors, Qays 'Ali, converted to Christianity and the website was closed in process of time (complete infos in www.Answering-Islam.org). Let people have an available link for BOTH websites on this Wikipedia article and judge for themselves if "reliable or not". 1. You don't give any epistemological criteria, so you do not consider seriously the scientific job of any genuine historian. 2. You also miss the real point, the MORAL question is that Ibn Ishaq's Sura is an UNIQUE source of Muhammad's life, this work is globally known and widespread as its reported content of a murder's apology by the prophet of Islam. And there is not definite authority in Islam to clean up the Sira from this ethical scandals, (as many others violence -related items available in Tafseer, e.g. Asbab al-Nuzul by al-Wahidi which is fundamental in "Quranic science"), referred to an UN-UDHR globally accepted standards.197.28.102.68 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Source of the story

ive made some minor changes to the paragraph, it isn't questioned as a source for hadith, it isn't accepted outright as a source of legislation since the only source is Ibn Ishaqs history. no history irrespective of the author is used for doctrine in Islam and all works of history take a back stage in terms of authenticity [since historians did not bother to document their works] to the works of hadith literature such as bukhari. the current phrasing made it seem as if their existed a dispute between various scholarly schools of thought regarding the narration which doesn't exist, the grading of this narration is unanimous since it never made it into any works of hadith literature. The wording also seemed apologetic which Muslim scholars would never have been regarding the actions of the prophet, they would have accepted it and used it to legislate if they deemed the source reliable. Two issues are missing in terms of context, she was calling for his assassination during a time of open warfare [her tribe was at war with the Muslims] and she was doing it via poetry which is considered the highest form of publicization among the Arabs in those times as the entire society revolved around oral tradition and poetry. Poets had a place higher than tribal leaders in that society, and where often feared as well as praised [for the good or damage they could do to a persons reputation]. To put it into a modern context this would have been the equivalent of Khomeini calling for the assassination of salman rashdi in a time of war and not the image of a little girl who writes poetry.Ibn kathir (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

To illustrate the importance of poets in traditional Arab society, her entire tribe became Muslims directly after her death and it was attributed to this and her poetry no longer affecting her tribe. [Alfred, Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad - A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah - Oxford University Press, 2004 Pg 676.] Ibn kathir (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Family and death

I have added some historical perspective on the events in this section.Ibn kathir (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"she composed poems criticizing some local tribesman " it is more accurate to say "she composed poems publicly defaming some local tribesman" since this is what she did with these poems and poetry in that society is viewed differently than poetry in modern society. by modern standards its no different than a news caster or anchorman denouncing an individual in the middle of the news for choosing a religion other than theirs. I can quote more on poetry in traditional Arab society no one disputes its role so its a non issue.Ißñ Ķãŧḣĩr (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Abu Afak was killed for inciting rebellion against Muhammad [see his page and poem] in a time of war this is called treason in any society and is punishable by death under times of marshal law in any country around the world today. Ißñ Ķãŧḣĩr (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Poetry held an important position in pre-Islamic society with the poet or sha'ir filling the role of historian, soothsayer and propagandist. Words in praise of the tribe (qit'ah) and lampoons denigrating other tribes (hija') seem to have been some of the most popular forms of early poetry. The sha'ir represented an individual tribe's prestige and importance in the Arabian peninsula, and mock battles in poetry or zajal would stand in lieu of real wars. 'Ukaz, a market town not far from Mecca, would play host to a regular poetry festival where the craft of the sha'irs would be exhibited. Ißñ Ķãŧḣĩr (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the term murder for killed, it isn't neutral and passing judgment.Iβϗ Ķᾱŧhiɍ (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Authenticity of the narration

I think more should be said regarding the authenticity of the narration, look at what it says... A blind man crept all the way across town found her house, made it into her bedroom where she was with here 5 kids and an infant, mannaged to locate her in a house he had not seen beffore, not wake anyone up, then remove the child from her arms while she was still sleeping and didnt notice, murder her with out her making a sound or her children waking and then escape...the story does say he was blind. Ißñ Ķãŧḣĩr (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverts by 188.223.226.73

The article was poorly written, presenting what mainstream Islamic scholarship considers to be a weak/fabricated story as a fact. I'm not aware of any policy that prevents me from presenting the mainstream perspective on the story before using the talk page. I used all available classical and modern sources to rewrite the article and addressed the issues raised on the talk page. I do not have to explain my changes any further. Please take it to the boards if you disagree, but before you do that I'd like to know the basis for your claims of bias. We can all agree that the older version was biased as it neglected the views of the scholars of hadith. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Andalusi

I do not see any historian or academic account in "Authenticity of the story" view. I only see point of view Muslim authors who as can be expected and without any surprise reject the story. Unless any serious academic historian POV br added, the title is not appropriate and only can be called "Hadith Scholar view".--Penom (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I added a non-religious POV add changed the section title to Andalusi's favorite title. By the way, please do not restore quote tags. Quotes already exist. --Penom (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your reasoning for the changes are ridiculous. The scholars I quoted under the "Authenticity" section: Ibn al-Jawzi, Al-Bukhari and Al-Albani are all established authorities in hadith science, which in case you didn't know, is the science that investigates the reliability of the reports attributed to Muhammad and his companions and the later generations by carefully studying their narrations, or isnad. Not being aware of this fact, or dismissing it only because "they're Muslims" is not acceptable and quite contradictory and inconsistent given that you were willing to accept the inclusion of Ibn Ishaq's and Ibn Sa'd's accounts, also renowned Muslim scholars. You can't pick and chose here.

In addition, the views you included in the article, while acceptable, do not fit under the "authenticity" section as none of them discuss the transmission/reliability of the story. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

None of those hadith scholars are third part person and historian by modern definitionw. They are just religious scholars and their view just represent the Muslim views not the universal or scientific view. That part is POV because is not historians POV but only theologians view. Please do not try to undermine academic POV and put them at the very end of article. In wikipedia, academic views have privilage to old and outdated views or non-scientific viewsPenom (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The views of hadith scholars are derived from the application of the principles upon which the science of hadith is founded on a narration or report. If you've read the section on authenticity, you would have realized that it's an evaluation of the narrators with no theological assumptions being made. Contrary to your claims, there are (non-Muslim) academic scholars of hadith such as Harald Motzki. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Here is not a Al-adhar school! Hadith methodologies are not acceptable by modern historiography standards. Find a source by a modern historian, otherwise I have to add NPOV tag to that section because no historian view is covered herePenom (talk) 05:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're the one who's making the big claims here. You are the one who is going to have to provide a source for the claim that "hadith methodologies are not accepted by modern historiography methodology" as being undisputed by scholars. The tag will be removed if no such consensus was found (and I can assure you that won't find an agreement on this). Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you have no idea about history science! Have you ever seen any historian who has used old school hadith methodologies! have u ever heard that hadith methodologies taught in Oxford or Cambridge as acceptable historiography methodology!Penom (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Harald Motzki and Jonathan A.C. Brown are two modern historians and hadith scholars that study Muslim hadith scholarship and have expressed support for the usage of these methodologies. Removed tag as you're clearly advocating, unjustifiably, the position that outrightly rejects the entire hadith scholarship. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

These guys write "on hadith" but did not used old school hadith methodologies for their work! Hadith as Bernard Lewis says in "The Cambridge history of Islam" are the least reliable sources for modern historians. Their methodology is not compatible with modern historiography methods (See here)Penom (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, these scholars are not "guys" as you described them, apparently anyone who disagrees with you is no longer a historian or scholar, he's a "guy". Secondly, I did not claim that there was consensus on the hadith issue, on the other hand you did say that the entire modern scholarship outrightly rejects hadith yet only provided the views of Bernard Lewis. What Motzki and Brown are saying, is that the views of hadith scholars should not be entirely ignored but rather studied and analysed, which this article exactly does. Now, if you happen to find scholars who disagree with the assessment provided under "authenticity" then you're more than welcome to add it. 14:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Al-Andalusi (talk)

None of sources that i cited in the article put any doubt on historical accuracy of the story. They commented on the story and explained motives of Muhammad for this execution. Which means that they assumed this incidents really happened. For this reason academic views and Hadith Mullas views must be merged to reach NPOV.Penom (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Al-Andalusi

Deleting sourced materials is vandalism. There is no such a rule in Wikipedia forces me to put every thing in quotation. Please stop this disruptive edit pattern. Otherwise I will bring the issue to adminsPenom (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh please do. Editing without even the knowledge of the basics of Islamic sourcesand repeatedly ignoring to the points I raised on the talk page, and violating Wikipedia:Etiquette by accusing me of censorship then of course preaching on my TP how all viewpoints need to be represented, while not following this advise yourself by claiming all POV not matching with yours as insignificant.

When you add "essential background for the terrorist side of Islam" in the article, it has to be quoted. Besides, is this the quality of "historians" you're looking for ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The author is well-known professor ar Madrid university and not a hadith mullah who lived 1000 years. A modern scholar not a hadith mullah. Hadith and Isnad are Islamic dusccussions in Taliban schools or Huzehs not here! Nowadays,modern historiography methodologies rule. No outdated methods of 1000 years ago.

For the request of quote. There is no guideline or policy for what you want. AS the matter of the fact, Wikipedians are encouraged to re-write the scources by the wording and avoid "quote farm" in articles--Penom (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

For the 3rd time, him being a well-known professor ar Madrid university is not relevant at all. WP:NPOV is very clear. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Such information needs to be attributed to a relaible source, which the professor is. There is absolutely no requirement that "it has to be quoted"...Al-A just made that up and can be ignored. Doc Tropics 14:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

POV edits by Al-Andalusi

Regrading this edit by Al-Andalusi:

• It is clearly POV pushing where in your edits all Islamic scholars "says" or "states" but non -Muslim historians and scholars "claim".
• Do not use terms such as " alleged killing" in academic section. Because non-Muslim scholars have not put doubt on historical accuracy of the story. In all of scholarly sources that I have read they did not put any doubt on Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sad accounts. When is in Hadith theologian views you can call it in this way. But in non-Muslim scholars section consensus is on historical accuracy of the accounts.
• More importantly, do not remove views that you do not like. What you do is censor of a view, Like it or not, one reliable source has this view and for the sake of NPOV this view must be addressed.--Penom (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:ALLEGED and WP:CLAIM for proper usage. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

POV by Al-A, part 3

Al-A has repeatedly deleted referenced text which casts Muhammad and Islam in a negative light claiming it violates NPOV. This is not correct. Facts can be stated as facts and opinions of scholars can also be treated as such. It is not a violation of NPOV to present these facts to the readers, and repeatedly removing referenced text gives a very strong appearance of whitewashing. The same is true for repeatedly inserting words like "alleged" and "purported". The story is described as "a tradition" and no other articles about traditional stories are littered with "alleged" in every paragraph, especially not the introduction; that is simply not how such things are handled. The article needs to state what the tradition is, clearly and plainly, with apologetics given only the minimal space due to minority opinions; that is the proper way to apply NPOV. Doc Tropics 15:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've asked user Penom multiple times to properly attribute the statement you're referring to: "One must take into account the importance of its psychological effect as an essential background for the terrorist in Islam" to the scholar who stated that. Instead Penom insists that since it was expressed by a well-known scholar, it doesn't have to be attributed (while of course insisting that the views of hadith scholars be explicitly attributed to them as he did here). He continues to reinstate the statement even though he was told by one of the admins that the the above statement in WP's voice is "very poorly written".

I don't have any objections other than that and you can see that the article already contains similar views by other scholars.

You then made 3 claims here, the first being a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV by claiming that the scholar's view should be expressed as a fact.

The second is your claim that this an "apologetics" view and a minority view. Hadith scholars like Ibn al-Jawzi, Ibn 'Adi and Al-Albani who directly criticized the incident and other scholars who did so indirectly like Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahya ibn Ma'een, and Al-Bukhari are not apologetics and and are considered mainstream hadith scholars in Sunni Islam. The third claim that we shouldn't be using "alleged" here because other articles on traditional Islamic events do not use such terms. Since this report has been disputed, then the article should indicate that from the beginning.

Finally, I find your whitewashing accusations not only false as I explained above, but ironic, seeing that you removed an important context to the story, three times: here, here and here.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That account on connection of this incident to modern terrorism is in Spanish actually, but here you are:

" El maquiavelismo a ultranza llega a la propuesta de códigos de comportamiento frente al adversario calificables en sentido estricto de terrorismo, y que de hecho proporcionan un repertorio de formas de actuación para el terrorismo islámico de nuestros días. Ante la imposibilidad o inconveniencia de recurrir a la razzia, el profeta ordena recurrentemente la eliminación de aquellos enemigos que a título individual destacan en la oposición a sus designios. Para ello presenta el acto como un servicio a Alá, solicitando un voluntario, lo cual explica que haya sido recogido el nombre glorioso de los verdugos, y espera del mismo un efecto de intimidación. Ese es el caso de los asesinatos del judío al-Ashraf, de abu-Afak y de la poeta Asma bint Marwan, o en cierto sentido de la historia de Muhayyisa, que cumple la orden del profeta de matar al primer judío con el que se encuentre. Su hermano se convierte al comprobar el poder del Islam y otro tanto hace la familia de la poeta. La dinámica de orden de muerte por servicio a Alá, formación de un grupo de ejecutores (fedayines) de tal orden y asesinato por sorpresa de la víctima/adversario, con efectos intimidatorios, todo ello dentro de una secuencia seriada, constituirá la pauta de actuación de la secta de los asesinos en los siglos XI y XII. No es otra la lógica de acción de los comandos de Al Qaeda.

    La consecuencia apar"Penom (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't read Spanish. But has this tradition been used in Terrorist discourse (by terrorists themselves)? or is it just some non-notable speculation at this point? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Andalusi edits is clearly a sort of whitwashing. He keep deleting scholarly views and add POVs such as "alleged", "claim". Sooner or later admins encounter himPenom (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

adding POV tag in non-Muslim by Al-Andalusi

• This section addressing non-Muslim scholars views and cannot expect that they share the same view as Muslim. Andelousi must clarify what view is missing. Show one POV that is not addressed otherwise this tagging is inappropriate.
• Regarding the statement that you claim about its poor quality. Actually it is re-written and its quality is OK now.Penom (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you repeatedly insist that the views of hadith scholars should be clearly attributed to them like you did here ? then I expect the same principle to be followed for the rest of the scholars (and I couldn't care less about their background fyi). I'm talking about the statements that are presented as facts. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The views always represented as authors views not fact. Where a view has been represented as fact? Show me? For example I said "Antonio Elorza suggests"--Penom (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well calling it "non-Muslim Point of view" is a POV title, which assumes all non-Muslim authors have a critical opinion. Rather it should be renamed to criticsm. At the same time, a section should be there to explain the Muslim viewpoint.. (for example the said person declared war first and etc..)--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Also I added another POV tag, due to the statement: "Modern scholars suggest...". You will need an WP:RS suggesting that this is the opinion of "modern scholars".. else even there are 1000s of scholars, you still need a source stating that is the opinion of "modern scholars". --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on the two points. Given that Penom had asked the same for the views of hadith scholars here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Al-A, given your limited knowledge of the English language and the extremely low quality of your writing, I'd like to request that you make your suggestions here on the talkpage and leave it to others to change the articles. Most of your "writing" is so poor that it can only be deleted. Thanks, Doc Tropics 19:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to "Muhammad believed what he did was God's work", then it was added by Penom. I don't see any reason why you removed the tags in the lead section, and why you consider the use of "asserts" in place of "notes" (as advised on the NPOV board) to be bad English. I reverted your change with a minor change. Please stop this habit of mass reverting. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This editing community will not tolerate another Jagged85 debacle and we know whose side you are on. POV edits, inaccurate content, and piss-poor writing will continue to be reverted by myself and others. Doc Tropics 21:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Andelousi: I follow NPOV ANI suggestions. I hope there is no more excuse for deleting and tagging.

@ KHodabandeh. Dear friend. You are complaining about "non-Muslim Point of view" title. I agree with you that it is not a good title. This is what Andelousi likes not me. I chose titles like "historical views", "story analysis" . secular scholars views, etc, but all reverted by Andelousi, e.g.. Once I tried to merge non-Muslim and Muslim views but again encountered Andelousi's disagreement. This section is the abstract of all reliable sources I have found on Google book. Therefore, one of the names that I chose before, are suitable. --Penom (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The title should be "Criticism from 20th century Western writers" or something to that effect. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Since they aren't actually criticisms, something like "Contemporary Assessments" or "Modern Evaluations" would be more accurate. Doc Tropics 22:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point by Doc . Since they aren't actually criticism, "Contemporary Assessments" or " Modern Evaluation" would be more accurate. Actually, i have seen very harsh criticisms. I did not add them to this section because this section is more evaluation.--Penom (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Protection

The article has been fully protected for one week to stop the edit war. Some editors have been discussing on noticeboards, such as WP:NPOV/N. This is usually a good thing. Users get little credit for that so long as they continue to revert before consensus is found. Let me know if agreement is reached. If so the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really edit much anymore but check in from time to time. This is still on my watchlist. What a mess. There's a bunch of comments from me up this page from a while back for anyone that, well, wants to understand a little better what's going on here. The likeliest thing, and the one most scholarly (as opposed to the "islam is the root of all evil" types) sources will support, is that the order to kill her was in response for her call that Mohammed be killed. This came in the context of what, for shorthand's sake, I'll call a civil war between Mohammed's early followers and members of the Quraish, and their followers. While I personally think most hadith stink as historical sources (good starting points for exploration of course), the flow of the story makes good sense within this narrative, and very little is made of her position as a poet, per se, in the early sources. Much more is made about her being aligned with the early Muslim opponents and seeking their defeat. This is a minor story that is not made much of in most serious scholarly treatments of Islam (and early Islam) as a whole, but that has been latched on to by people seeking to prove that there is something fundamentally and unusually violent and oppressive in Islam. (There are things, in my opinion, that are repressive in the faith, but this is neither here nor there in that context). War is hell, as I wrote earlier. I comment against my better judgement; I recognize that it will do little good. The fact that these sorts of battles need to be endlessly fought and refought, and fought again, without any means to intervene and use true editorial discretion is, well,... you get the point.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't help myself. Take a look at the lead section and the second section after my attempt at a cleanup nearly a year ago [4] and compare it with the article now (and there are problems from both sides. "Pagans?" Really?) One despairs.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The version linked to here by Bali Ultimate is clearly and concisely written; it seems superior to any of the versions currently being considered. I would accede to restoring this historical version of the article. Doc Tropics 00:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no anti-Islam editing. I added all academic views that I found in google book without any cherry picking. This is not my fault that academic POV is not the same as the view of some Muslim theologians. I do not understand. Any time that one editor tries to add non-traditional views is accused of being anti-Islam. If anyone finds other views supported by RSs, please feel free to add them. But, Other editors cannot delete views that they do not likePenom (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I gave up editing Islamic sexual jurisprudence‎ after Andalusi repeatedly deleted my contributions. At first he said it was because my additions were unreferenced, but after I supplied references he deleted them again, on the (new) grounds that they weren't Muslim scholars.

This smacks of the attitude that only Muslims are qualified to comment on Islamic issues. I don't know how anyone could call that NPOV, as it sounds more like provincialism. I suspect that Andalusi was merely deleting views which he personally disagreed with. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean my removal of the extremist and non-scholarly sources: Jihadwatch and aina.org ? It is also misleading to say that I objected to non-Muslim scholars; on the TP I wrote: "please provide views by reputable Muslim scholars or non-Muslim experts in Islamic studies". Lastly, your sentence was a serious violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:DUE.

So next time, please get your facts right and also stop hijacking other articles to propagate your lies. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

ED! I had the same observation. He cannot delete views that he does not like.Penom (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Article lead

in order to resolve the dispute on the article lead, I suggest the following lead. I took into account the view of user Khodabandeh. Please feel free to edit the suggested lead if other editors have any improving suggestion or comment.--Penom (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

“ ʻAṣmāʼ bint Marwān (Arabic: عصماء بنت مروان "'Asmā' the daughter of Marwān") was a female member of the Banu Umayya, or Ummayad family, who lived in Medina in 7th century Arabia.

In the Islamic tradition, the story of her death can be found in Ibn Ishaq’s work, Sirat Rasul Allah, and Ibn Sa'd's Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kubra. The Islamic prophet, Muhammed, ordered her death, because in her poems, 'Asma' attacked Muhammad and provoked other pagans to commit violence against Muhammad. She also ridiculed Mediniens for obeying a chief not of their kin. Ibn Ishaq mentions that bint Marwan displayed disaffection after the Medinan Abu Afak was killed for inciting rebellion against Muhammad.

Classical and modern hadith scholars such as Al-Bani, Majdi and Al-Jawzi have rejected the story, with some declaring it as fabrication, pointing out in their arguments that the chains of transmission by which the story was transmitted are all weak.

Modern authors such as Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, Ellison Banks Findly and Rodney J. Phillips point out the importance of poets at the time and suggest that Muhammad ordered the execution of poets such as bint Marwan and Abu Afak because he was concerned about their influence.

”

Wow, nice intro! It is well written and seems to cover the the major views with due weight, nothing disproportionate on either side. Possibly the second sentence of the second paragraph could be slightly rewritten. Specifically, "The Islamic prophet Muhammad..." seems a smoother flow in the first part of the sentence. In the second part of that same sentence, I'm wondering if "pagan" is the correct word? Historically "pagan" was used by Christians to describe certain groups of non-Christians so this seems an odd context for it.

Those small points aside, this version is very well done and I would certainly accept it as a good compromise. Thanks for your efforts Penom! Doc Tropics 20:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Tropics Doc! Please feel free to edit my proposal. No need to write a new introduction. You can edit my introduction--Penom (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

After 2 weeks with no other responses, I've added this introduction with a couple of minor changes. Among other things, I removed mention of "Rodney J. Phillips" because Wiqi55 has claimed he is a self-published author. Otherwise, Penom's good job on the rewrite stands as a nice improvement and resolves several minor issues. Thanks, Doc Tropics 18:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the above version contains many problems. For instance it uses the vague phrase "Islamic tradition", whereas sira literature is more accurate. It also contains many typos in names and "book" titles (one of these books is just a random collection of material, not even a book). It includes some non-standard forms, with extremely rare Arabic equivalents (like "Mediniens"). It also reports disputed information as fact, which is not customary on wikipedia. Other articles about Muhammad provide plenty of examples where if something is disputed we clearly use words like "purported" or "disputed" in the lead. Not sure why should we make an exception in this article. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with the current version. So instead of blindly reverting, you may wish to read WP:DRNC, then try to "put into words" what do you find objectionable in the current version. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We are not the ones reverting against consensus, you are. Please try to follow your own advice. Doc Tropics 12:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Doc Tropic. Wiqi`s changes are not very substantial changes and do not bother me. However, spelling like "Mediniens" are spelling that I found in English sources. But, anyhow the Wiqi suggested spelling is correct too.--Penom (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"classical and modern hadith scholars"

I encountered this sentence on the lead " some classical and modern hadith scholars". This sentence does not make sence. Well! If we talk about Modern medicine and classic medicine or modern historiography and pre-modern historiography, it makes sence. But, contemporary hadith authorities follow almost the same methods for studying hadiths that have being practiced for 1000 years among hadith authorities. No significant difference between the methodologies and views of hadith authorities in 600 years ago and 21 century.--Penom (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

We should follow the style and wording of other reliable sources, like the Encyclopaedia of Islam. It is common in such sources to find phrases like "early/medieval/modern hadith scholar or scholarship". It is also a useful distinction, as it may highlight what discrepancies (in method, opinion, attitudes towards certain concepts, etc) have existed between the different generations of hadith scholars. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please show me one example from Encyclopedia of Islam --Penom (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples scattered all over EI2. For one, see the "RIDJĀL" article (in vol. 8). The whole article is structured based on "classical" and "post-classical" periods of hadith scholarship (used as section names). It also starts with "a survey of the medieval Muslim hadith scholars". and refers to "modern isnād analysis", etc. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Enc. of Islam do not use a term such as modern hadith scholars. Even "post classical period" that you mentioned include hadith authorities since 10 century and calling and old school methods from 1000 years ago "modern" is nonsense.Penom (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Last paragraph

Aren't these weasel words in the last line- "It is important to consider the content of the Quran itself about the hudud or punishments to apply to those who defy Allah or the Prophet as in Sourat 5 verse 33 where crucifixion or member-cutting is commanded and its Tafseer (exegetical commentary) in the ["Asbab al-nuzul"] where a particularly cruel and collective killing of two tribes (the ‘Ukal and ‘Uraynah) by arms and legs cutting and blinding is reported as Muhammad's decision on the Muslim Sahi's authority." Islamophobic origin of this edit? maxrspct ping me 15:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I confirm, I deleted them as they aren't even sourced. --HakimPhilo (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Potential copyright issues

This article appears at risk of copyright issues, with whole sections either lifted from, or copied onto other websites. Further investigation is likely required to determine which of these is the case. Many of these websites are extremely low quality and opinionated in nature - another worrying sign. See the copyvios report. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Fabricated and invalid isnad.

This is an invalid isnad and a fabricated report that was narrated by Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaj of whom al-Bukhari said: His hadith is to be rejected. Ibn Ma‘in said: (He is) an evil liar. Ad-Daraqutni said: (He is) a liar; and on one occasion he said: He is not trustworthy.” (Mizan al-I‘tidal, 3/509) Ibn ‘Adiyy said: “Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaj fabricated the hadith about the woman who used to lampoon the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), according to which when she was killed he (allegedly) said: “The validity of what you have done is something that no one could dispute.” (Al-Mawdu‘at by Ibn al-Jawzi 3/18) This hadith was also mentioned by Shaykh al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) in ad-Da‘ifah (6013); he said it is fabricated (mawdu‘). Yusephhh (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)