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. |
 |
Asma bint Marwan is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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)
[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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.
[edit] 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)
