Talk:Muawiyah I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Shi'a Islam, a WikiProject related to the Shi'a Islam. It has been rated - on the quality scale.

Contents 1 POV 2 consistent transliteration needed 3 Trying to NPOV article -- again 3.1 QUETSION ONE 3.2 QUETSION TWO 3.2.1 PART A 3.2.2 PART B 3.3 QUETSION THREE 4 Reply 5 Removed link to Shia view of article 6 Anon's recent edits 7 Zora deleting Shi'a pov 8 Etymology Article Deliberate 9 The Arabic name 10 Removed family tree 11 ManiF's edits 12 Meaning of the name "Mu'awiya" 13 Neutrality 14 Rename 15 Sunni bias

[edit] POV

Wich claims do you want prooven?

--Striver 30 June 2005 03:14 (UTC)

All your sources are Shia polemics against Sunnis. If you want to state these claims as if they were factual, you have to, at the very least, establish that Sunnis as well as Shias agree with them. If you want to state them as Shia claims - well, frankly, I hardly think "Shia invective against Muawiya" is an encyclopedic subject, but even a section under that title would be better than this. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)

There is still too much Shi'ite POV on this page. Everything after the quote from Sahih Bakhari is POV and should be removed. I haven't done it because I believe the entire entry needs to be revised heavily. One entire view of Mua'wiya has been completely ignored - that of the historical revisionists. What matters most about Mu'awiya is that he is the first (after Muhammad himself) Arab leader to emerge as a genuine historical figure. 'Ali is named in the historical record, but Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman exist only as figures in the Islamic origin myth. There are numerous other difficulties such as the fact that Mua'wiya's grandest exploit - co-opting Zaid ibn whoever - is ignored. I am going to plant this here and see what happens before I do any editing Kleinecke 05:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] consistent transliteration needed

cross-posted to Talk:Muawiya, Talk:Muawiyah I, and Talk:Muawiya II

The title of the article for Muawiyah I uses a transliteration that includes a final 'h', while the titles of Muawiya II and the disambiguation page Muawiya do not. I don't know which is more correct, if either, but they should at least be consistent. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Arabic words ending in tā' marbūta are often transliterated with an h at the end, but this is not strictly correct. The letter is usually silent, and so words like mu`āwīya (mīm, `ayn, alif, wau, yā', tā' marbūta) are pronounced with the "ah" sound at the end, but strictly speaking the letter is a silent tā', basically a letter t. Personally, I dislike both transliterations you mention, as they both drop the `ayn, which is in fact the first radical in the root, `awā (`ayn, wau, alif maqsūra). The `ayn is a vital part of the name's fundamental meaning ("to howl, squeak, whine, or yelp"). I pointed this out when I mentioned that the name Mu`āwīya means "bitch in heat that howls at the dogs," but for some reason someone deleted this as Shī`aī invective — whith it assuredly isn't, seeing that I am a thoroughly disinterested Catholic. Publius 01:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I was that someone. It seemed of a piece with the rest of the Shi'a invective piled on the article.

I'm not sure that we NEED that particular translation, but I do appreciate your point re proper transcription of Arabic words. I'm planning to learn Arabic myself when I get a round tuit, and I hope that I'll develop the same sensitivity to proper transliteration. However, we do have somewhat of a problem in that we can't use special characters in the TITLES of Wikipedia articles. It looks a mite strange to have a properly transliterated name in the body and a simplified name in the title. Also, it's quite common for authors, even academic authors, to cut corners and save on typing/typesetting time by using simplified versions of Arabic. Would it be OK to use the simplified name for most purposes, but include a properly transliterated name in parens? That is, assuming we can get the powers-that-be to add the usual English versions of the hamza and the ayn (right and left facing semicircles) to the list of supported characters. Zora 01:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the actual meaning of Mu`āwīya is extremely odd and seems ludicrous (but then, Saddām isn't much better). That's precisely why I prefaced it with the word "oddly," and clarified my edit with the comment that I wasn't joking about what it means. It's very odd, and yet it doesn't prevent people from using it as a name for their children, as Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya can attest (I assume that that particular spelling of his name is done for cultural reasons, because it looks quite grotesque to me). I can only assume that it's more common as a Sunnī name than as a Shī`aī one (for obvious reasons).

Part of the problem is that there are several different systems of Arabic-to-English transliteration (I use a modified form of the system used by the Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary), and strictly speaking none is really more or less 'correct' than any other, as long as you can systematically arrive at the correct Arabic spelling from the English version (which is why I have a problem with the h standing in for the tā' marbūta, because then there's no real way of telling the difference between the final letter of "Muawiyah" and "Allah" (for example), even though they're not the same letter in Arabic ("Allāh" ends with a hā', not a tā' marbūta). One system I've seen uses a superscript to write the tā' marbūta and the voweling at the end of words, which I find quite interesting, since it at least suggests the swallowed/silent nature of the letter in most cases.

I agree with the suggestion that the closest reasonable English transliteration be used as the title for articles, and then include as precise as possible a transliteration (preferably with the original Arabic spelling) in the article's opening lines so as to clarify. I'm not opposed to using the simplified English spelling throughout the article, either (obviously, it's simply preferable to refer to Averroës, Avicenna, and Saladin throughout their articles than to call them Ibn Rušd, Ibn Sīnā, and Salāh al-Dīn, especially given that the articles aren't linked to the more authentically Arabic names). My chief concern vis-a-vis transliteration is that it be consistent and systematic. When I look at an English rendering of an Arabic word, I ought to be able to 'see' the Arabic behind it (and it does make a difference -- consider for example that the difference between saying al-sabr miftāh al-faraj and al-sabr miftāh al-furj is the difference between saying "patience is the key to success" and "patience is the key to the vulva"). Publius 11:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you're a Casanova, there may not be such a difference ... <g> Zora 12:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to NPOV article -- again

Various hands, some of them anon, had been at work on the article, giving it a pious Shi'a gloss. Muhammad becomes Prophet Muhammad, Ali becomes Hazrat Ali, Mu'awiya's name is rendered as "Bitch in heat", Mu'awiya is reviled, etc. This is just not acceptable in an encyclopedia article. I have rewritten the article and moved the name-calling down to the Shi'a view of Mu'awiya section. Zora 01:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora, two question:

1 why do you trust anon more than the "disintrested catholic" + all the sunni reference that is in the link i posted? That seems odd to belive more on anon than long talk page explanation + five sources, 4 sunni, 1 shia. Why?

2 Why did you remove both Shia links?

--Striver 01:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Your questions are so garbled that I can't even understand them. Zora 01:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, ill make them easier to understand.

[edit] QUETSION ONE

User:Publius made a comment on this talk page. The date was: 01:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC). She stated:

"The `ayn is a vital part of the name's fundamental meaning ("to howl, squeak, whine, or yelp"). I pointed this out when I mentioned that the name Mu`āwīya means "bitch in heat that howls at the dogs," but for some reason someone deleted this as Shī`aī invective — whith it assuredly isn't, seeing that I am a thoroughly disinterested Catholic"

Then we also have this Shia link: [1]

Givinging this four Sunnis sources for the same claim:

1. http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/muawiya/tareekh_al_khulafa.jpg
2. http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/muawiya/sharh_ul_aqaid.jpg
3. http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/muawiya/rabi_ul_abrar.jpg
4. http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/muawiya/tahzeb_ul_kamaal.jpg

On the other hand, you have Anon that says on the Edit summary, not even talk page, the following:

"`awa means "to call", `aawaahum - he called them - Muawiyah - the one who calls - caller)"

So, confroted with a choise, on one side you have

1. one Catholic
2. one Shia editor
3. one Shia Site
4. four Sunni books

And on the other hand

1. one Anon

You concluded that one Anon was the most credible source.

What made you come to that conclusion?

[edit] QUETSION TWO

[edit] PART A

You removed this link, and did not re-add it to the Shia view section either.

WHY?

[edit] PART B

You removed this link from the "Critical view" part of the external link section.

There is now 1 (ONE) article in "Critical view" section and 2(TWO) articles in the (Apologetic view) section. Before you removing one of the links from the "Critical view" section, there where 2 (TWO) articles on BOTH sections. Not so anymore.

By doing that you have violated your own so highly advocated "It's a question of balance." made by you here at 01:47(UTC).

WHY?

[edit] QUETSION THREE

Do you understand now, or you want it even simpler? --Striver 02:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I don't think either you or I is an expert on 7th century Arabic. I found the derivaton of "caller" convincing, and the use of "Caller" as a name plausible. "Bitch in heat" certainly sounds like invective, and as such, doesn't really have a place in the article. It IS included in the Shi'a POV section. If you'd like, we can remove the "Caller" derivation at the top, and just leave the name-calling in the Shi'a section. I'll also ask Mustafaa, upon whose knowledge of Arabic I've often relied.

As for deleting one reference, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to do that. I think I hit the wrong key and posted the article while trying to finish the summary (which is why it's munged). I'll restore the reference. Zora 03:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, lets wait for Mustafaa. As for caller, i see no source other than Anon, so please take it of. Also, please restore the Shia site that quotes to the four sunni sources that agree on the name being "barking bith" on line about the issue. As for why he was called that, take a look on how he was concived and why his "father" adopted him. Further, dont have the line say its a Shia only conclusion, since it sources four sunni books doing the same.

As for sorry: No problem, we all make misstakes.

--Striver 03:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Have a

As regards the meaning of `awā, the Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (4th ed.) gives its meaning as "to howl (dog, wolf, jackal); to squeak, whine, yelp. III to howl (hā' at s.o.) X to make (hā' s.o.) howl." The only words listed under this root are `uwā' ("howling, howls"), `awwā' ("Boötes (astron.)"), and mu`āwīya ("bitch (in heat) that howls at the dogs"). There is no reference whatever to a meaning of "to call." Conversely, when I look up the word "call" in Al-Mawrid Modern English-Arabic Dictionary, I find no mention whatever of `awā (yu`awī is, however, mentioned as the first word under "howl," "yelp," and "whine"). The root is associated with howling even outside of the word mu`āwīya, and is even used as the name of a constellation closely associated with dogs (Boötes being the mythological hunter said to have nearly killed Callisto; his conestellation is accompanied by a pair of dogs). Admittedly, neither dictionary is a guide to 7th century Arabic, but offhand the fact that I can find no reference at all associating the root with calling instead of howling or yelping -- which ought to be expected from Sunnī sources if the latter meaning is really just Shī`aī invective -- inclines me to doubt that meaning.

As I said before, I am a Catholic and I am thoroughly disinterested in the question of Mu`āwīya's legitimacy or legacy. It makes not a whit of difference to me either way whether one extols or excoriates the man, and I can honestly say I have neither love nor loathing for him. I mentioned the detail about his name as a passing curiosity -- notice that the Hans Wehr definition makes no mention of the man, and does not even so much as allude to him -- , without intending to set off this apparent tempest in a teapot. I have provided scholarly evidence for the "howling bitch" meaning, whereas no such evidence can be provided that it does not mean that (merely saying that this meaning is invective does not, in fact, constitute proof that it is not the meaning of the name). Recall that other Arabic names sound bizarre to the Occidental ear, as well, such as Şaddām coming from şadama, to bump, strike, knock, dash, bounce, ban, collide, or crash, or `Abbās, from `abasa, to frown, glower, or scowl).

And by the by, Striver, I am not a "she." Publius 05:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping your temper under trying circumstances, Publius. If the "bitch in heat" reference is restored, perhaps some explanation that it is not necessarily invective should be added. I am familiar with Tongan names like Pasikala (bicycle) and Kelisimasi (Christmas), as well as a 19th century Hawaiian customs inspector named Kukaebipi (bullshit). So I understand that a name that sounds like a joke to us may not have sounded so to the people who gave it. Zora 05:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Might I suggest that perhaps the meaning of his name be added to the article in a tasteful and balanced fashion? Perhaps something along the following lines would be suitable:

Muawiyah's name may also be used as a common noun in the Arabic language, mu`āwīya, which translates literally to "howling bitch" (i.e., a female canine in heat), derived from the root `awā, to howl. For this reason, some critics often make a point of referencing his name's literal meaning as a form of personal attack (insulting plays on prominent public figures' names are not solely a feature of modern times). Nevertheless, the name is not always inherently used as an insult, and some Arabs continue to use the name, presumably without the intention of specifically suggesting that their child is a bitch in heat.

This seems to cover the entire range of the controversy -- the literal meaning, the potential use as an insult, and the continued use of the name regardless. Personally, I think the fact that this detail generated this much interest merits some mention in the article, and it might help to explain why so many Shī`aī sources will refer to him specifically as a barking bitch or whatnot. Publius 16:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Att last Zora sees the light! Zora, things are not Shi'a pov just couse you say so! This will go nicely to your long merit list. --Striver 00:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed link to Shia view of article

A couple of weeks ago, Striver created an article called Shia view of Muawiya ibn Hind. He linked it to this article recently. I have removed the link and put the "Shia view ..." article up for deletion.

The title is POV -- it is saying that Muawiya was a bastard. The only thing IN the article is a quote from Maududi, who is a Sunni. The Shi'a view of Muawiya seems to amply covered in this article. Zora 03:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

He was a bastard, but i guess it will take another 6 month of massive attacks with sources from the entire spectrum of Islamic literature, and 1 or 2 archives of this talk page, before you realise that. --Striver 01:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon's recent edits

An anon editor for whom English was clearly a second language spent a lot of time making changes to the article, all of which were unsourced and ungrammatical. I suspected that there was some good material in there, but I really didn't want to have to spend hours -- on Christmas eve -- researching the changes and copyediting the article. Rather than leave it in a garbled state, I reverted. Anon, do you think you could add things a little at a time and talk about your sources? It's not such a daunting task if it's done bit by bit. Happy holidays! Zora 04:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zora deleting Shi'a pov

I spent quite some time on research to bring forth some material on the Shi'a pov. Guess what Zora does? Yeah, what she is best at, deleting Shi'a pov while giving nonsensical excuses. Her excuse this time is "it unbalances the article".

Well Zora, either balance it by adding a equal amount of Sunni pov, OR create Shi'a view of Muawiya. The choice is your, both are fine with me.

BUT, do NOT delete the Shi'a pov, that is in direct violation with Wikipedia rules. --Striver 04:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Striver, this is not removing the Shia view, it's removing a strong Shia POV... phrasing it "there is not a single sahih narration in where Muhammad praises Muawiyah" is besides the point... Muhammad didn't praise lots of people and there would need to be a strong reason... such as Muawiyah explicitly expecting praise and not receiving it. Don't split these things up into "Shia view", "Sunni view" articles. That is bad style and it makes two pages full of highly POV assertions with no real explanation of how they work together. It's bad form. I am reverting you again because you will note that between Zora and myself you come to your revert limit first. If you plan to make changes fix some of the evident problems... "the Prophet" is "the prophet" "Muawiyah" is "Muˤāwiyya" Have only two sections... not a Muslim view section and Sunni and Shia sub sections. Don't unduly capitalize... Zora is definitely right on much of that. "Concived" is spelled "conceive"... etc. When you make your changes back fix some problems with this. Zora's version is a lot better in style, writing and all. She is not ignoring the Shia viewpoint... she is just not endorsing it. Yours reads as a panegyric to the Shia viewpoint. The Shia view would merely be a POV fork article... don't do it. gren グレン ^{[[Wikipedia:Limited administrators|?]} 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ill agree to everything you said, except only having two sections. I see no point in merging the Shi'a and Sunni view section, and there are things that are common to both, and there is no need to repeat it in both sections, therefore a Muslim view section. You dont want a Shi'a view of Muawiya? ok, no problem, we can have it here.

Im going to make the other changes you sugested, thanks sharing your concerns, so we can cooperate. --Striver 04:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So, done. Please do tell if there is anything else i can improve. --Striver 05:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

NO, that is not OK. The Shi'a view should not be six times as long as the Sunni view. I have summarized. There is a Shi'a website in the links, and if people want to know just how badly the Shi'a hate Muawiyya, they can go to that site. WP is not an opportunity to spew venom.

Have you considered what impression of Shi'a Islam you give with this indulgence in hatred? It looks ugly, truly ugly. Zora 09:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Edit made by me when i was so uppset that i left wikipedia edited out* --Striver 13:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This user is becoming a problem. He continues to not be civil, reverts pages using "reverting vandalism" in the edit history, and continues to try and use wikipedia as a soapbox to spread his belief that the 9/11 attacks were an 'inside job'. Someone needs to inform an administrator about this user's rampant vandalism to have him banned from editting wikipedia.--Jersey Devil 12:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying to represent a pov is not soapboxing, its what wikipedia is all about. --Striver 13:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Incorrect. Please see Point of View. --TKE 22:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

because shias are writing up all the articles, u get these ridicoulous details included just to blacken the character of a person being discussed. go read the muawiyah section of an encyclopedia like encarta...they dont mention stuff like this because its part of shia polemics against sunnis. will u ever include the fact that saddam means bumper (ya the bumper on youre car) in an article about saddam hussein. --Blingpling 19:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Paper encyclopedias have limited space (they can't have a million articles and they can't come in 300 volumes) and take a "we are pronouncing on the truth" attitude. Wikipedia has unlimited space and strives for NPOV, neutral point of view. That means that if there's a matter on which a notable number of people disagree, we give all sides. No one has even defined how many believers you must have to be notable, but the Shi'a are definitely on the notable side of the line. That doesn't mean that they must get as much space as the Sunni, since they're a minority, but they must get some mention. That seems to upset you, from a Sunni POV, and it upsets Striver, from a Shi'a POV, because he isn't being allowed to post as much invective as he wants to post. But .. the controversy is there, so we document it. We don't cover it up. Zora 22:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a revert upon viewing the change, but now that I see the talk I am not affecting my change, but I'm not looking here anymore since I don't have a dog in the fight. --TKE 22:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology Article Deliberate

For thos of you,who didn/t notice,the etymology article was blasphemous and deliberate insult on Moavia.It has been deleted and i request wikipedia editors to make sure it doesnt appear again.It had no sources and was put on deliberately by a biased and sick person..

The only so-called "source" advanced is the extremely partisan blog site answering-ansar.org. It is highly unencyclopedic to allow this section to stand with such flimsy and blatantly biased citation. Cannot one single neutral source be found (in English so we cal all verify) to back up this etymology assertion? --AladdinSE 14:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We need an etymological dictionary of Arabic names. If such a thing existed, it would exist in Arabic, which I can't read. So we have relied on editors who know Arabic. The one editor I trust to give me a straight answer is Mustafaa, but he has been busy and here only intermittently. If someone could ask him ... Zora 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been 2 weeks and no scholarly references have been provided. The highly partisan answering-ansar.org is no where near a reliable source. To the original editor who included this material, please do not reinsert disputed etymological material not supported by neutral citation.--AladdinSE 01:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at answering-ansar's four links but I must admit I had to squint to read the poorly photocopied texts. I looked around elsewhere and I found this page [2] which appears to quote from al-Baladhuri and is possibly the source of the "barking bitch" claim. In the middle there is a bit about Mu'awiya talking to a man called Abdullah, in which Abdullah feels insulted by Mu'awiya calling him Little Abd. Abdullah responds by saying "Mu'awiya! Did you summon me for this and then use the diminutive of my name without using my kunya? I call you Mu'awiya, the name of a female dog who barks at dogs! Restrain yourself! That would be better for you!". He is calling Mu'awiya a "barking bitch" but someone at answering-ansar has obviously misinterpreted that sentence. You would have to be either bigoted or stupid to make the mistake though. Considering that he was the Prophet Muhammad's scribe at one time, is it possible that the Prophet would have allowed him keep such an offensive name? Green Giant 08:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all surprised that Answering-Ansar.org misrepresented the exchange. That website never has had the remotest resemblance to a reliable source.--AladdinSE 06:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

How is that a misrepresentation? The being a misrepresentation seems to be your conclusion. To me, the text does nothing but confirm the barking bicth claim. Muawiyah a scribe? Umayyad wishfull thinking. --Striver 22:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Arabic name

I notice that the Arabic in the brackets was longer than the name given in English. It said "Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan al Moui al Quraysh", although my transliteration may be wrong on the al Moui bit. I have reduced it to match the English name because it is misleading to have a longer name in one language than another. Green Giant 07:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked it up. It is not Al Moui, it is al ummawi, that is, the Umayyad. The Arabic transliteration is simply appending that he was an Umayyad and a member of the tribe of Quraysh. Personally, I am ambivalent about wether it should be included.--AladdinSE 06:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I was told that there were several Muawiyahs and that the Ummawi and Quraysh were necessary to identify him. I can't judge whether this is true or not. Zora 07:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, then certainly it should be included. Should we also add "The Umayyad, member of Quraish" to the English name? It sounds odd. --AladdinSE 08:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction AladdinSE. The extra names could be included as "al-Ummawi al-Quraishi" but I think the argument of having to identify him out of several Mu'awiya's is not really valid because he's already identified as Mu'awiya the First and I can't think of a more important Mu'awiya than him. Green Giant 23:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is why I was ambivalent about the extra info. He is famous enough not to require "disambiguation".--AladdinSE 05:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed family tree

I removed the redlink for Family tree of Muawiyah ibn Abu Sufyan because it is in an incorrect approach. I've replaced it with Umayyad dynasty where there is a perfectly good list of the Umayyad dynasties. Green Giant 23:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ManiF's edits

Mani, Shi'a don't just "tend" to vilify Muawiya; they do. You make it sound as if there's some range of opinion on this subject among Shi'a, and I have seen no range, whatsoever. Just hatred. Can you come up with a counter-example?

As for the reference to "Shi'a doctrine" in the abrogation of the treaty with Hassan -- you don't give any cites as to the treaty or its abrogation. Shi'a doctrine is a mass of material, much of it from conflicting schools, and it is not the same thing as a valid historical source. However, there IS a source -- Madelung, The Succession to Muhammad, which covers the negotiations from p. 323 on. It's not clear, from Madelung's account of the letters that passed between Hassan and Muawiya, whether Muawiya agreed to Hassan's stipulation that there be a shura after Muawiya's death, or whether Muawiya felt himself bound only by a promise that if he died before Hassan, Hassan should be his successor. Since Hassan died first (perhaps poisoned -- Madelung likes the poison theory), it's not clear whether he was bound by any promise to arrange for a shura after his death. It's clear from what happened after Muawiya's death that many Muslims of the time felt that a shura was the proper way to do things.

It's a complex matter. Too bad the only source I have that goes into details is Madelung, since he is definitely Shi'a-leaning in his outlook. More opinions would be nice. At least we could put Madelung's material into the article. I'll do it later, OK? Busy now. Zora 01:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

One problem I have with "have lost no opportunity" is that it's too value loaded. Firstly, I think there are probably many Shia that just don't care. Maybe that's a silly reason because it is only the written works that really matter on this issue. However, it reads to me as if it's a bad thing that Shia hate and vilify.... and, maybe so... but if they are right about him it's probably okay to vilify him... like a Jew vilifying Hitler almost (if that analogy sounds good?). So, I am worried about the slight tone that it is bad and uncalled for that they vilify him. Is there a way to make it more value-neutral? That's just my take on it and I do agree that Shia writings about Muawiya more than tend to vilify him... they do (for all intents and purposes, from my limited knowledge)... however, "have lost no opporunity" reads as if they are cherry picking him even when he's not always involved or on topic. Do you see that at all? gren グレン 02:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Gren, in that the original wording wasn't ideal. It's just that Mani's replacement is misleading. So, if we throw out both sentences, what do we need there? Or do we need that intro sentence at all. Can we just start with the next sentence? Zora 04:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of the name "Mu'awiya"

The name "Mu'awiya" is an ancient arab name, that is not used much any more. It has a very beautiful meaning, not "barking bitch" as shiites claim, to derogate this character. "Mu'awiya" means "Howling Wolf". Most shiites, of Persian or Indian ethnic background, dont speak a word of arabic, thus make false claims with no base. If you translate "barking", as shiites say this name means, is "Nibaah" in arabic, unlike "'Iwaa'", which the name "Mu'awiya" is derived from. "Mu'awiya" purely means "Howling Wolf"

Just your statment "Most shiites, of Persian or Indian ethnic background, dont speak a word of arabic" discredits you entirly in my eyes. --Striver 18:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And why is that, what did I say wrong? Most shiites in the world today are Persian or eastern Indian, whom dont speak a word of arabic, let alone understanding a meaning of a name. They repeat the meaning of "barking bitch" after their clerics, whom may know a little of 'falsified' arabic, according to their shiite doctrine. That is up to them, and besides, Im no muslim or anything, Im not siding with anyone here, only explaining a name, and the fact that most none arabs do not speak arabic, so what authority do they have in translating an ARABIC name???!I believe I did study and get a doctorate in Arabic at the University of Damascus, and I would 'think' that I can translate such a word better than a persian or indian cleric with an agenda thank you...

[edit] Neutrality

Lets keep it neutral, reporting the events in order they were observed. Not in order in which we may believe them to have occured. Any difference between two versions should be included in Shia or Sunni views.

--User:Guest 25 Feb. 2006

It looks ok. One thing that is not obvious is the fact that he is a very important figure in Wahhabi Islam. Other Sunnis don't care about him that much. I think this should also be highlighted to an extent. peterhenych Feb. 26, 2006

It would serve well if people brought proof of such bold statements, Muawiya(ra) is a respected Caliph and companion to Muhemmed(saw) according to many Sunnis. Not to mention, Sunni ahadeeth collections and scholars have long respected Muawiyah(ra). "The behaviour of Mu'awiyah with the people was the best behaviour of any ruler. His people loved him," (Ibn Tayymiah) And S'ad Ibn Abi Waqqas (one of the ten promised Jannah) said: " After 'Uthman I did not see anyone giving more judgement for what was right than Mu'awiyah." See also Sunan al Tirmidhi, Virtues of Muwawiya chapter... --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 22:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Mufti,

Perhaps it is worth mentioning here what the great Sunni scholar Shibli Nomani said of Muawiya. Anybody care to do the honours?

[edit] Rename

Per all other Sahaba, no other Sahaba is named "x I", its Umar, not Umar I --Striver 23:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - The whole point of such numbering is to distinguish between rulers with the same name. For example the first queen Elizabeth of England has an article with the title of Elizabeth I of England to distinguish her from the current British monarch Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. The article Mu'awiyah should be a disambiguation page (without the word "disambiguation" in the title). The title of the article on Umar ibn al-Khattāb should be at either Umar I or Umar ibn al-Khattāb whilst Umar should also be a disambiguation page. Readers should be able to type in "Mu'awiyah" or "Umar" and to have the option of selecting from a list of rulers with that name. Green Giant 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Umar is renamed Umar after a overwelming consensus to rename all rashidun articles to a first name basis, thus Ali, Uthman and Abu Bakr. Trust me, nobody is going to see Mu'awiyah and think "hey, this must be the Mu'awiyah II article!" --Striver 03:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunni bias

Sunni bias is just as bad as Shi'a bias when it comes to writing an encyclopedia article. A new editor rewrote the article to glorify Muawiyah and denigrate Ali. I tried to rewrite for neutrality. Zora 10:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)