Talk:Asma bint Marwan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Salafs article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Salaf. It has been rated - on the quality scale.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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)

It doesn't necessarily make it a true story just because it's found in Ibn Ishaq. Even Guillaume in the introduction of his English translation says that Ibn Ishaq collected all sorts of stories. Doesn't mean the stories are true, or that Ibn Ishaq believed them. Muslims don't accept many stories in Ibn Ishaq, such as Satanic Verses story which is clearly logically inconsistent. You obviously found this on anti-Islamic site, answering Islam, and being an anti-Islamic bigot that you are, posted it to wiki OneGuy 09:49, 30 Nov 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)

[edit] 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]

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