Talk:Battle of Badr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Battle of Badr is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 7, 2006.
Islam

This article is part of the WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Battle of Badr as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Arabic language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Canadian Bomb Plot 2006

I heard of the news that the alleged bomb plot in Toronto Canada 2006 was dubbed "operation Badr" by the accused bombers. Find a reference and stick it in maybe?

[edit] pisschrist

i'm assuming this is vandalism, but i'll let someone more experienced take care of it.

[edit] merge proposal

I oppose it for the reason stated in the article. --Striver 11:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Where? ---Mpatel (talk) 16:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
You mean at the start, there's potential confusion with the battle of Uhud ? That is no reason for a merger! The battles are distinct historical events. If there's confusion, then that should be explained, which has already been done. No need for a merger. ---Mpatel (talk) 16:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martyred or dead?

Why is one of the dead described as having been a martyr and others described as "died"? Surely they should all be treated the same way. Palmiro | Talk 15:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they should. The Muslim is described as a martyr, and the Meccans all "died". The whole article is a horrible, garbled, Muslim-biased mess. I'll see what I can do. But later. Zora 15:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Looting in Islam?

"Islam declares loot and plunder to be a heinous crime and there is not a single report that claims the sahaba ever seized the merchandise of the caravan. Also the only caravans that were targeted were Meccans."

Contemporary scources from the world outside islam however complain about Arab raids and specifically about the large numbers of captives taken away by them. These were raids that preceded the muslim conquest. (Hoyland's "Seeing Islam as others saw it" is a good read on this and many other things)

  • Umm... there's an entire verse in the Quran called "Al-Anfal" which basically means "The Plunder" and is about the battles fought by the early Ummah. Palm_Dogg 19:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

The result of the vote to delet the template was "keep", so i am now going to insert it. --Striver 02:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you ever read anfal you would realise it is called 'the plunder' because it bans looting.....do some proper research before you comment

[edit] Clean up

If I get some spare time I'll try and help with this. Bottom line: there is WAY too much irrelevant information here. I will politely note that the only relevant section (The Battle) is blank. The Quranic verses need to be moved to a seperate section, and a lot of the information here could go into a seperate page, like "The Badr Campaign" or "Prelude to the Battle of Badr". On an unrelated note, I'm also doing some work on The Message and will try and add some screenshots to this page to illustrate various aspects of the battle, since I can't get away with adding Image:Armies of Muslim Conquest.jpg Palm_Dogg 05:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There was just so much crap on the main page I dumped it all under Battle of Badr/Old, just in case any of it was useful (The Wikipedia equivalent of panning for gold). I'm using Armstrong and Lings right now, but eventually wouldl like to use Bukhari and Ishaq. Palm_Dogg 06:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

PalmDog, the link doesn't work for the old discussion. If you could point this newbie to it, I'd appreciate it. !!!!

Whoops. OK, here is the old page, before I began making edits. Palm_Dogg 15:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] maps

I'm redoing the Battle of Badr page, and was wondering if someone here who's a good artist could reproduce these maps (Image:Battle of Badr.jpg, Image:Badr Campaign.GIF) which I may have to delete soon? Palm_Dogg 15:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

(This comment copied here from elsewhere.) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, good job!

I've been overwhelmed with work and unable to keep an eye on this article, but a quick glance over it tells me that -- hey, it's a good job! Well written and generally NPOV. I'm impressed by the panoply of real academic sources.

There are several things stated as fact that are in fact disputed -- like Hind eating Hamza's liver (Watt doesn't accept that) or Uthman having married one of Muhammad's daughters (the Shi'a deny that). But those are nitpicks. I'll introduce the usual caveats when I have time. Thank you so much, Palm Dogg. Zora 08:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Palm_Dogg 09:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] small change in the footnotes

as much as I've read so far, this is a very well writtewn article. there are only a few typos that need to be fixed. one thing in the footnotes: Quraish is the collective name for the tribe that traces it lineage back to Fihr ibn Malik, or according to another tradition Nadhr ibn Kinanah his grandfather. All descendants of Nadhr were then referred to as Quraish. You wrote "The plural and the adjective is Quraishi" it should be "the singular and the adjective" as said before Quraish is a collective noun.Wilis.azm 02:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If you see any changes that can be made, be bold, especially if they are typographical or grammatical changes. Pepsidrinka 03:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks pepsidrinka, I tried but couldnt figure out the footnote format from opening the 'edit this page' page. Your guidance on this is appreciated.Wilis.azm 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah Wilis.azm, any input is welcome. If we don't agree, we'll either revert it or start up a discussion on the Talk Page. The footnote format is that all the information is located after the relevant text inside <ref></ref> tags. Palm_Dogg 06:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zora, you rock!

Awesome timing! Just seconds after the FA nomination! Many thanks. Palm_Dogg 22:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with sources

When I started working over the sources, I realized that much of the account of the battle was taken from Lings, Armstrong, and Hodgson, or referenced to hadith.

Many historians would object to the first two sources. Lings is an utterly credulous, Orientalizing treatment of Muhammad's life that accepts as historical episodes such as the pebble-flinging birds driving back an Ethiopian army, etc. Armstrong is makes nice-nice in her treatment of Muslim sources, the Sunni accepted version of the battle, etc., and is a popularizer rather than a serious academic scholar. Hodgson I haven't read (and should). Reliance on hadith is tricky. The many thousands of hadith often contain conflicting versions of events, and were in any event recorded hundreds of years later, after centuries of mythologizing about Badr. MISSING is Watt's enormous biography of Muhammad which, 50 years later, is still one of the better sources. Watt is willing to use sira, deprecates hadith, and is often skeptical of pious accounts. He devoted six pages to the battle, and I really need to sit down and compare his version to the article.

I'd also have to rummage through the net and my Questia account to see if there are any recent scholarly articles on this subject.

This may be tooting my own horn, but I started a small article -- which has been languishing -- called Historiography of early Islam. I'd like to include a link to this article, which discusses the difficulty of being SURE about anything in early Islamic history.

I removed the claim that Mecca was a rich and powerful city. Crone savaged such claims in Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, 1987. Various scholars have taken issue with her, and there is no consensus on the issue at the moment (so far as I know -- I'm out of the academic loop). It is best to leave out such controversial material.

I'd say, hold off on making this a featured article until we can work up the sources a bit. Otherwise Palm Dogg has done a wonderful job with the writing and referencing. Would that all the Islam-related articles were this detailed and this balanced. Zora 22:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say this is a classic case of MA vs. BA. I'm going with the generally accepted consensus, whereas you're citing advanced research that in the future may become the accepted narrative. First off, put your Historiography of early Islam article under either "See also" or "Traditional Muslim accounts". (And feel free to modify the latter) Second, I used what I had access to. If I had Ibn Ishaq (Which is what I'm assuming Watt is a translation of) I would have used him too. At the end of the day, everybody's using the same source material, so I don't think the lack of Watt or Ishaq is that critical, although I obviously would use them if I could. I set up plenty of space in the article for "So and so says this, whereas so and so says that", so it shouldn't be too hard to add new data. Regarding the prosperity (or lack thereof) of Mecca, I'd suggest leaving it alone here and putting that on either the Mecca or Muhammad page. (My fear is because there are so few high-quality Islam pages out there, that this will become a magnet for trolling and eventually turn into a huge bloated carcas of an article)
With regards to the sources -- believe it or not -- Lings (whose biography I should point out is on the Muslim Students Association's reading list) is surprisingly credible. All the stuff about the execution of prisoners, Muhammad being contradicted in his placement of the army, and the desertions from the Meccan army came from his account. I used Armstrong for a modern secular interpretation. Hodgson didn't really have anything to say about Badr itself besides noting it happened, so I used him to set the scene and for a historical perspective. Finally, some of the information I gleaned through simple deduction, such as why there was such a huge discrepency between the casualties. All in all, I'm fairly confident in the framework of my article, but recognize that it isn't exactly PhD material. :) Thanks again for your help. Palm_Dogg 23:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Congrats again, Palm Dogg, on taking my academic sniping with such equanimity <g>. Ibn Ishaq is a different beast from Watt. Watt was a British scholar who worked primarly from Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Waqidi, and Ibn Sa'd. But he was also conversant with the mid-20th century scholarship on Arabian history, archaeology, and ethnography, so there's a lot of that in his work too. I must admit to not having read the whole thing. It's 600 pages and hard reading. I've read perhaps a third of it, in bits and pieces.
We probably should have the references to Watts' sources as well as the hadith. We have Ibn Ishaq and Tabari in English now, but Ibn Sa'd only partly (and that in religious editions I don't quite trust) and Waqidi not at all.
I promised Anonymous Editor that I'd start an article on Arabia before Islam to contain vexatious topics such as the Hanifiyya, Meccan trade, the exact nature of pre-Islamic Arabian religion, etc. We need to take arguments re this material out of the biographies, articles on particular battles, etc., and make a space with room to outline all the positions. I hope that you can contribute to this article. Zora 00:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL, you've got a Masters from UChicago; of course I'm going to listen to you. :) (Class of 2004. BA: Political Science, Minor: NELC) The Arabia before Islam article sounds like it'll dovetail with my desire to write one on Warfare in Arabia, which was the whole reason I included the book Image:Armies of Muslim Conquest.jpg in the reference section. Right now I've got a lot on my plate but keep me posted. Palm_Dogg 01:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] use of "pagan" in second paragraph

should be eliminated, or else the definition of pagan on wikipedia should be changed, since it says that it is a term used by christians, which violates NPOV. it gives recommendations for more appropriate terms used by academics, etc. Eupedia 03:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

A collective congratulation to all those editors who made this into FA. Idleguy 04:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptic's Point

OK I don't mean to be a killjoy here, but shouldn't it at least be mentioned in passing that according to Patricia Crone & Michael Cook there is considerable doubt about ALL early Islamic sources, and it is at least arguable whether this battle happened at all? (Let alone in the way in which Islamic sources chose to remember it). 82.31.223.96 10:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, how the "Islamic sources chose to remember it"? It is simply a distorted view where plundering and deception is presented as saintly and divine guidance! Whatever the Prophet is doing is the right thing.196.218.6.159 11:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the "skeptic's argument" should be mentioned somewhere. Babajobu 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Badr Article

The article although nicely comiled is a deviation from facts. It does not portray the true picture and is full of mistakes, such as,

1. Interpretation and definition of Ghazwat is incorrect. Ghazwat does not mean attacking caravans, it means a battle in which the muslim army was lead by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself and not by any of his nominated generals. The battles in which the Prophet did not participate himself and nominated a General to lead in his place, have another arabic name "surriya" if i am not wrong.

2. Similarly, i am sorry to state the executions after the battle of Amr and other mentioned in the article are absolutely wrong. They were killed in the battle. For example Amr was killed by two young muslim warriors.

3. Looting of caravans is a myth without any basis. The Holy Quraan has not been correctly interpretted.

4. The main sources to article are of low credibility.

Regards, Imran

[edit] Another sad sight where want-to-be scholars try to document Islamic history

Oh dear. Another one. I really do not see why Zora wastes her energy trying to document Islamic history. She should focus more of her time rendering the articles in accordance with Wiki policies which she is clearly good at. She also has a good command of the English language. But she is yet another victim to this bizarre concept that non-Muslim scholars are automatically more trustworthy than Muslim scholars. Even with non-Muslim scholars, she chooses the facts that adhere to her own concepts of "probable" or "likely" events. This really is very sad. She has edited some pretty good articles in the past, even though she often lets her opinions run riot. But this one on Badr is beyond criticism. I am very disappointed. Where do I even begin? Anonymous and disappointed 15:52 (UTC) 7 March 2006

You could for instance begin with the first mistake, and take it from there. If you could tell us where the errors or omissions in the article are, instead of insulting the people who wrote it, we'd be much better off. Don't you agree? Shanes 16:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well firstly, even I have noticed that most, if not all, of the Islamic references in this article are from Sunni sources and I'm not even a Muslim; although I'm seriously thinking about it. I have been to some recent Islamic lectures, and I have even heard Sunni scholars criticise the collection of hadiths in Bukhari and Muslim for being contradictory and having weak reporters (I don't remember the names). I have read Sunni and Shia accounts of Badr and Uhud, and they are certainly not in absolute agreement. When going through the article, I noted around 16 disputed issues. I typed them onto a word document. I'll try and organise it and discuss them here if I get time. I hope some Muslim scholars will pass by this article and make suggestions. I think they might cringe though.

Also, if any Muslim is reading this, I would be more than grateful if you were to recommend me some Shia books. I have read Man and Universe by Murtadha Muttahhari (check spelling). That book was awesome. I now remember why I gave up on Christianity.

Anonymous 01:46 (UTC) 10 March 2006

I can't take credit for this article -- it was Palm Dogg who did just about all of the work. He is a Sunni Muslim, I believe. Zora 12:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh sure, blame me! :) Yes, I am technically a Sunni Muslim (I was converted by Sunni Muslims), but I never call myself as such. Allah only created Muslims; we felt the need to divide ourselves artificially. Regarding these criticisms, I might have responded if these anonymous users actually made real allegations, besides complaining about a "Sunni bias." If there are real tangible differences between the Shia and Sunni accounts, by all means give them to me and I'll incorporate them into the article. Palm_Dogg 16:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] complaint

I doubt the objectivity of this article, someone tell me how to complain?! No prisoners were slaughtered after the battle of badr

Umm, yes there were. Read the footnotes. I cite both Martin Lings and Al-Bukhari. Palm_Dogg 14:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I'm an uninformed reader and I found the following part confusing: "On the Muslim side, there was also a heavy desire for vengeance, as they had been persecuted and tortured by the Quraishi Meccans for years. However, as a general rule, the Muslims took better care of their prisoners, even going so far as to house them with Muslim families in Medina." - I have several comments about this part: 1. There is no reference. 2. Did they treat the Meccans in some ways bad or didn't they treat them bad at all (besides the killings)? If they did treat the Meccans in some way bad, it should be mentioned. 3. Didn't the Muslims already had some vengeance? As they clearly killed Meccan prisoners after the battle. 4. I think it should be expanded in what way the Muslims treated the Meccans better, because for an uninformed reader it is difficult to compare treatments based on one example. Sijo Ripa 09:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] list

Here, i found a list of the people: http://www.iqra.net/articles/muslims/badr/names.php. Im going to copy the list as a precaution. --Striver 12:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muawiyah

First of all, my gratitude to the brother who wrote the article and the countless others who contributed in terms of improvements, such as Zora. I had a concern about what's written under the sub-heading 'Implications', it said: "...his son Muawiya would later defeat Muhammad's son-in-law Ali and go on to found the Umayyad Caliphate." But to my knowledge, in the Battle of Sifin, Ali was the one who defeated Muawiyah. It's true that the battle ending talks really ended up favoring Muawiyah, but Ali's soldiers defeated Muawiyah and caused him to vouch for the truce to begin with. So unless someone beats me to it (please do), I will correct the mistake soon with a source (unless of course I'm wrong...) ---xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 10:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies (and Astagfirallah) if I'm wrong, but the way I understood it, Muawiyah basically fought Ali to a draw at Siffin (or vice versa, depending on your POV), but was regarded as a victor because Ali agreed to negotiate with him as an equal. In either case, Ali's power base evaporated, which is what led to his eventual assassination. In either case this is a moot point: I threw in that anecdote as a way of highlighting how much of an inter-tribal affair the battle was, and how some historians think Abu Sufyan may have had "the last laugh". Palm_Dogg 20:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syria back then was not arabic

What's with the insistence on this historically invalid claim?

No one is saying that all of Syria was settled by Arabs. However, there was a fringe of Arab settlement all around the edges of the Syro-Arabian steppe. An Arab tribal group, the Ghaznavids, were a client state of the Byzantines and helped them defend their borders from the nomadic Arabs living on the steppe proper. The Sassanids also had a client tribe, the Lakhmids. Zora 22:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you meant Ghassanids, Zora. Pecher Talk 07:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
D'oh! You're right. Thanks for the correction :) Zora 08:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Pecher is correct its the Ghassanids, and Lakhmids, but these were only two of the more powerful forces of the time, before them there were Nabateans etc. all moved up through Arabia into this region, and no one is disputing that the Byzantines or the Sassanids contested the region severely or controlled it, but that does not change the ethnicity of the inhabitants of the area. Arab does not equal muslim at this time. Tribes living in the Syrian/Assyrian desert region were called Arab or the equivalent of Arab of the time and had considerable ties, culturally and otherwise with Arabia, even today you can find Arab Christians who adhere to the same Eastern Churches born of the Byzantine period. Note the article calls them literate "Arab"s or something equally bizzare to reflect their greater integration with the byzantine and sassanids cultures vs. that of greater arabia. Granted Arabs demographically spread out later during the muslim conquests reflected in todays demographics vs. yore, but places such as Damascus didn't just become the centers of empire suddenly, they did because they had right kind of local political setup, remember Syrian Arab tribes played a very important role in the expansion of the Umayyad Caliphate. The modern state of Syria, atleast the northern half could possibly have not been "Arab" at this point, however I would be conjecturing, the southern sections certainly were "Arab" in the context of this article, maybe a more appropiate replacement would be Bilad al-Sham, but again its definition is just as hazy and as the usage of terms such South Asia, or South East asia etc. when trying to define the border regions reflected by the designation. In all likely hood it is the usage of "Sham" in this historical context that has been "translated" as Syria causing the problem in the first place. For this article I would be content to limit the area referred to as Arab to that under Ghassanid influence, which also approximately covers the area referred to as Bilad al-Sham, so maybe the sentences need to be modified to be more exact/accurate so instead of referring to Syria or literate arab tribes they refer to the Ghassanids and the Bilad Al-Sham to place the geopgraphy in a historical sense?--Tigeroo 08:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV

The inclusion of "(peace be upon him)" gives the article a feeling of a religiously motivated creation and should not be included in a culturally neutral encyclopedia article.Mingano 10:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's some vandal who inserted it at some point after. Feel free to take it out.--Tigeroo 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VERY SOUR APPLES

I am appalled to see that somebody thinks this is a good article. It is terrible. It is collection of dubious "facts" strung together with a strong POV. I wrote an article for the battle a while ago which I think was much better. I think I can still recognize one sentence.

I am unsure what to do. I could do a wholesale edit on the article. Maybe I will. But not today. DKleinecke 20:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

For example I believe that the only proper source for the Battle is Ibn Ishaq. If Waqidi were available, I would include him as well, but only as a secondary source. Tabari matters only for what he quotes from earlier sources. From Ibn Ishaq we should derive the entire description of the battlefield events.

The significance of the Battle should be strongly divided from the events. I think the material in the Qur'an counts as part of the significance.

Incidentally, in spite of all the words, nobody seems to have mentioned that the death of 'Utba ibn Rabi'a, his brother and his son had the significant consequence of making Abu Sufyan the head of the Abd Shams and his clan, the Banu Umayya, its chief clan. Relatively minor, perhaps, when Badr took place but, in the light of later events (such as the caliphate), very important. DKleinecke 21:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


There is Muslim commentary on Ibn Ishaq

obviously the wiki community would differ with you as to the standard of the article, which is why it had been accepted as a featured article. i haven't really read through it, but it does seem reasonable at a glance. we do not have the actual text of ibn ishaq today, only Guillame's attempted reconstruction of it from much later sources. there are plenty of other classical scholarly historical pieces available such as the works of ibn hisham, ibn kathir and ibn al-qayyim to name a few. maghazi of waqidi is not really considered much of an established or reliable work, although some historians do try to derive information from it. tabari too can be useful, although his original work seems to be more of a compilation of all narrations he could get access to regardless of their historicity. ITAQALLAH 22:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proabivouac's edits

Proabivouac, you removed chunks of the article -- your edit summaries seem to accuse them of being false justifications for caravan raiding. Unfortunately, you removed material that is accepted as true by academics. The Muslims were persecuted in Mecca. The early Muslim Bilal, who was a slave, was tortured by his master. Myself, I don't think this excuses caravan raiding, which is theft, plain and simple. But if we're to understand Muslim apologetics, we have to understand the history. Please do get a copy of Watt's two-volume work on Muhammad and plow through it; then, for more skeptical views, look at Ibn Warraq's collection of articles, The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. Removing valid material because you think it supports arguments you don't accept is censorship, and it is just not done here.

You also seem to have declared Karen Armstrong persona non grata. She's not a respected academic -- she's more of a popularizer -- but I've seen no academics dismiss her as pointless or completely wrong. She has been criticized as being too kind to Muslims; however, I don't think that's a reason not to quote her. We quote all varieties of opinion, as long as they're clearly referenced and notable. She's notable, for having sold many thousands of books. The quote from Karen Armstrong was in this article when it was a featured article, if I recall correctly. If the judges accepted the article then, they'd accept it now. If you have some animus against Karen Armstrong, go check out her article and make sure that it contains quotes from critics of her stance vis-a-vis Islam. Zora 06:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)ar

Thank you Zora. I've obviously been too busy with work to keep an eye on this page but I was similarly appalled. I thought we did a good job editing this article last year from an NPOV stance and I'm disheartened to see that it's since been overrun by religious zealots and Islamaphobes. Palm_Dogg 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Overall, I thought the article a rare example of relatively neutral and informative writing in this space. It still subtly takes a clearly pro-Muslim point of view, but that is true of nearly all Islam-related article, and this is free of the most egregious lapses. However, there were are some examples of pointless POV fluff. Starting with my first edit:
  • "Muhammad's victory saved the faith from annihilation and confirmed Muhammad’s authority as leader of Islam."
I do not accept that Muhammad has any authority as leader of Islam that might be thusly confirmed, and I believe this clause in its current version to be POV. I cannot see what it adds to the article: was there any question about who would lead the Muslims? Perhaps there is something important it is meant to say, in which case we should rephrase it.
  • "Due to the significant victory at Badr, local Arab tribes were inspired to convert to the faith of Islam"
What can be the purpose of "the faith of"? To my eyes, it was chosen only because it sounds more pious and enlightening then "convert to Islam," a stylistic error which plagues this space, and one which we should endeavor to uproot. Do you disagree?
As for "persecutors," I grant that from the Muslims' standpoint, the Meccans were their persecutors. However, the Meccans would likewise have a right to feel aggrieved at Muslim demands that they abandon their religion, demands which were eventually imposed by force. We are obliged to document the persuction Muslims suffered in Mecca, just as we are obliged to document the extermination of the Meccan religion to whatever extent we can; however there is no need to insert POV characterizations where they are not topical.Proabivouac 23:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Palm Dogg's language was somewhat flowery and emotive because that's what you need to end the intro section -- for readability, to make the narrative flow. However, I rewrote slightly to forestall objections. I hope that Palm Dogg will accept the rewrite as saying what he wanted to say. If not, I can rewrite again. We can usually cobble up a compromise if we have enough space. Zora 23:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the last time I edited this article on March 7, it looked like this and I'd use it as a starting point; prior to this I was making a serious effort to keep it NPOV. The "flowery language" was added later by one of the POV Muslims. I've also noticed that someone removed an entire section called "The Muslim Plan". I have to say that my intentions (Because *intentions* matter a lot in Islam) were to be as impartial as possible, recognizing that the pagans had their own complaints (some of them valid) against the Muslim community; the article even refers to Abu Jahl as "Amr ibn Hisham" because AJ was an insulting nickname given to him by the early Muslim community. Palm_Dogg 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Palm Dogg, you're right, various editors have removed material they think is embarrassing and larded the text with Qur'an and hadith quotes. I'm watching more than a 1000 articles and I took an extended wikibreak for several months, due to wikistress; I didn't catch the changes. I'll see if I can make time to remove some of the apologetics and restore some of your material. Working in Islam-related articles is like defending a sand-castle at high tide ... when the tide is coming from several directions. It hurts when quality material is removed to make way for propaganda, from any camp. Zora 00:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Palm Dogg, I shall restore your superior version if there are no objections.Proabivouac 00:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that a blanket restore, from nine months ago, is a good idea. While there have been bad edits, there have been good edits too. We need to drop the bad ones while keeping the good ones. I think that means having both versions open, in two windows, and careful editing. I've done the blanket restore bit and been blasted by editors who had made good edits and hated to see them removed. Let's respect their work. Zora 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I await the result, or will take it upon myself if you prefer. Zora, as there appear to be no zealots of any stripe currently on this page, may we drop such talk until such time as they arrive? In the absence of context, it might be misconstrued as a passive-aggressive method of casting aspersions against those who are here.Proabivouac 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest Proabivouac does it, since we did almost all the work and editing on the original article and Proabivouac can bring a fresh pair of eyes to it. Otherwise I'll try and do it this weekend -- if my Squad Leader doesn't have me mopping the head :) Palm_Dogg 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Zora, your rewrites have addressed my objections, and improved the article. As for emotive, "emotive" is as a matter of nature POV. To maintain neutrality, we should aim to be dry, detached and clinical.
Now this:
  • "On the Muslim side, there was also a heavy desire for vengeance, as they had been persecuted and tortured by the Quraishi Meccans for years. However, as a general rule, the Muslims took good care of their prisoners, even going so far as to house them with Muslim families in Medina."
The torture of one slave does not equal "[the Muslims being] tortured by the Quraishi Meccans for years," does it?
I also question that the Muslims "took good care of their prisoners." By what standard? Let us be specific in our descriptions of events, rather than ascribing them a overall moral value. For example, "...even going so far as to house them with Muslim families in Medina" should be rewritten as, "Some of the prisoners were housed with Muslim families in Madina" - assuming there is a source for this, naturally.Proabivouac 04:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I looked through a foot-tall stack of books for a reference to the treatment of the prisoners of Badr. Armstrong covers the subject in three pages, 179-181. I added a cite from Guillaume's reconstruction of Ibn Ishaq, which is directly to the point, and not obviously eulogistic. However, if a secondary source is preferred, I can cite Armstrong. I don't think anyone saw any need to reference the prisoner section earlier because anyone who has read a history of the Mecca-Medina wars will have been struck by Muhammad's clear desire to win over his kinsmen rather than annihilate them. Many of his followers were impatient with him because he was so conciliatory. You don't have to think him a prophet or an exceptionally humane man to believe this; it seems very human. I didn't add the Ibn Ishaq ref in the proper form -- I'm still learning how to do that. Help fixing it would be appreciated. Zora 06:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt that "Muhammad's clear desire to win over his kinsmen rather than annihilate them," but that does not mean that prisoners were treated well by contemporary standards, or, more importantly, by the standards of the reader. We are in any event still obliged to maintain a neutral tone and presentation, even where we can all agree that someone's actions were praiseworthy. Your change is certainly an improvement.Proabivouac 07:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Umayyah

Bro, Str1977, this edit is somewhat objectionable. For one thing, we need a more original source than what you have provided. Note that i do not claim that this is impossible, i am merely requesting in good faith. When you have have informed us of the original source, we also need to have the article explain that that version is at odd with the version authenticated by Bukhari . Peace. --Striver - talk 01:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imam Ali (A.S.) in the Battle of Badr

Zora, this is the reason why I wrote those things about Imam Ali (A.S.).

In this battle the Muslims lost 14 men, while 70 Makkans, including their chiefs Abu Jahl, Nawfal, Umayyah and others were killed. Out of these, Ali ibn Abi Talib killed 36 men himself and helped in killing several others. It’s written in the book, Battles of Badr and Uhud, which is written by Amal Khatab.

I am going to be waiting for your reply. Thank You Salman 20:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Salman, the earliest source we have for the Battle of Badr is Ibn Ishaq, and all he says of Ali is that he gave some water to Muhammad. Other men are said to have been the main fighters. Your source is clearly Shi'a hagiography, which inflates and distorts everything about Ali. You believe it, but no reputable scholar does (nor the Sunnis, either). We can't let pious myths stand as accepted truth here. Please stop trying to turn Wikipedia into Shi'apedia. Zora 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay Zora, give me sometime to find a book which is written by a non-Shi’ah author. If Imam Ali (A.S.) didn’t fight in the battle of Badr and just gave water to our Holy Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W.), then who killed Al Walid ibn Utbah Ibn Rabi-ah and Sheibah Ibn Rabi-ah in the battle of Badr. Just give me sometime to get the title of the book and the name of the author, who supports what I am saying. And I am not trying to turn Wikipedia into Shi’ahpedia, because a ----pedia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Whenever I write things on wikipedia I try my best to write it from a neutral POV, even u know that the Shi’ah POV is the best of all. Thank You Salman 23:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Zora, don't forget that Imam Ali (AS) also fought in the duel preceding the battle, which for all intents and purposes was part of the fighting. I think this debate is best resolved by adding a section on Shia beliefs about the battle, which I'm sure also involve the first three Caliphs either chickening out or acting like cowards. Palm_Dogg 14:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Zora, finally I found the book which is written by a non-Muslim author and it also contains information about Imam Ali (A.S.) being a top soldier at the battle. And it also backs up what I am saying, but the numbers vary a bit. The title of the books is “The battles of Badr and of UhÌ£ud” and it is written by Edward Sell. Thank you Salman 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Salman, that book was written in 1909! It is 100 years old and it is not reliable! Watt, Donner, and Kennedy are all more reliable.
It doesn’t make any sense why, the books that were written 100 years ago cannot be used as a source or reference for anything. That’s just dumb, then all libraries should burn all the books that are 100 years old, you know to make more space for new books. Anyways, there is another book that I have, the title of that book is "God of Battles" and it is written by Peter Partner, and the most important thing, it was written in October 19, 1998. Thank You Salman 20:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Salman, yes, books one hundred years old can be used -- if one is careful. For instance, Sell's book is an illustration of how people thought about Islam one hundred years ago. However, anything he wrote about the Battle of Uhud would be based on the few Islamic records we possess, such as Ibn Ishaq, Waqidi, Baladhuri, and Tabari. Sells was working without good critical editions of those authors, and without the benefit of later scholarship. Later authors, such as Watt, Donner, and Kennedy, had better access to sources and improved scholarly methods.
The Peter Partner book you cite is from a respected university press -- however, since you haven't quoted anything from it, it's not clear to me that it supports what you say. It's also possible that Peter Partner (who is not a specialist in the history of early Islam) got something wrong. His book is a history of holy war in general. Present the quote and we'll see.
The infobox is not the place to make claims for Ali. The military history infoboxes are not used to make religious arguments re the superiority of one participant in the battle. Shi'a claims for Ali belong in a section on Shi'a views of the battle. Zora 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
As for the claims re Ali -- yes, I think it would be useful to mention that Sunni and Shi'a accounts of the battle diverge, as they do for the Battle of Uhud. However, that section should be short. Palm Dogg, can you look at the section in the Uhud artcle and write something similar? The Shi'a views certainly don't belong in the infobox, where Salman keeps trying to put them. Zora 18:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I can, but it will be a while. I've been tasked to do some contemporary military history on my unit, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines, which will keep me busy for the next few weeks. Palm_Dogg 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of references

references are supposed to be used to cite sources, not give extra explanation. I am going to add {{fact}} next to the reference tags that do not provide sources.--Sefringle 02:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, it was simply wrong to add those tags. This was a featured article! Palm Dogg and I went over it and carefully sourced everything. Very few articles make it to featured article. You've been here a short time and I'm not sure that you understand how things work. Please remove the tags. There's simply no basis for them. Zora 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

OK, so I finally got around to revising Badr back to its early FA status. Zora, if I accidentally removed some of your edits, let me know. Palm_Dogg 05:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_Badr_5186.html"