Talk:Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr
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. |
 |
Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr 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:
|
|||
Zora, i do apreciate you writing all of that, specialy since it suports what i have already stated.
There is a few things that bother me.
I dont understand why you removed the firsthand source (the letter), and also the other references to Shia sources i gave. And replaced them all with madelung. So im going to reinsert the sources. The parts that you ommited while citing madelung will i add in the qutation as parentises.
- The source for the letter is a Shi'a website, which doesn't give ITS sources for the letter. Madelung is a better source, because he tells you exactly which early Arabic historians or hadith he has used, and why. He gives you all the various versions and then explains why he trusts one particular version over another. If you doubt him, you can look at HIS sources. Zora 05:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Then another thing: You call me hadith dumper when i quote haidh, even if it is three lines, while you have no problem quoting a huge passage like that from madelung. I have nothing against you quoting him and i hope you will refrein from calling me a hadith dumper next time i quote material i feel are relevant. You have a way of seeing down on everything you havent personaly read, even if it is factualy presented as the shia view. And that is very anoying. I remeber when you deleted my nahj al balaghah quotes that where far smaller than your madelung quote, and by any standard is Nahj al balgha more authorative.
- That was not a Madelung quote. That was a restatement, in my own words, of a fifty-page section. I have rewritten it to make that clearer. Zora 05:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, you removed the reference to him having a son, wich i realy dont understand why you did. You have a way of just outright deleting factual and relevant inforamtion seemingly only because you didnt write it. I really dont get that. The referens to his son i important to follow the chain up to imam al-sadiq, pbuh.
- Many of the early Islamic figures had a great many sons and daughters, and it is pointless to list them UNLESS you are doing genealogy. It is not at all clear which sort of link you see between ibn Abi Bakr and al-Sadiq. You have to explain. Zora 05:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, you removed the academic line section that i proposed as a standard in the muslim guild section. Since it only contains one line, refering to Ali, i wont reinsert it, but please refrain from you practice of deleting everything that you did not personaly write.
- You are putting that in all sorts of articles and it's not appropriate! Ali wasn't a member of the ulema! Ibn Abi Bakr wasn't a member of the ulema! That notation is appropriate only for traditional scholars. Zora 05:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- And by the way, its not Abi Bakr, its ABU bakr. According to the Abu Bakr article standard. Further, it isnt soldiers only because madelung says so, its revolign citizen, all sources i have read are unanymous regarding that. But i wont take that battle this time. --Striver 02:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I changed the wording to make it clear that it was citizens who stoned Uthman at the khutba.
- As I understand it, ibn Abi Bakr is the son of Abu Bakr and ibn Abi Talib is the son of Abu Talib. The "abu" changes to "abi" when it follows "ibn". A grammatical rule of Arabic that I don't quite understand (yet) but the best authors observe it. I also understand that al-whatever gets modified depending on the whatever. You always write names as al-X and al-Y, which is understandable, but apparently the real rules of pronunciation are different. I can't correct this, since I don't know the rules.
- It's not clear how far we should follow Arabic grammar and pronunciation when we transliterate into English. Frex, I think hadith (sing. and plural) is better than ahadith (plural) which English readers wouldn't understand. But I think the Abu-Abi change is generally accepted and understood. Zora 05:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Post scriptum
That San Beck reference is completely unreliable. He is not a respected scholar -- he's just some woo-woo New-Age astrology guy. That sort of reference detracts from your statements rather than supporting them. Zora 05:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] reply
- You wrote
The source for the letter is a Shi'a website, which doesn't give ITS sources for the letter. Madelung is a better source, because he tells you exactly which early Arabic historians or hadith he has used, and why. He gives you all the various versions and then explains why he trusts one particular version over another. If you doubt him, you can look at HIS sources. Zora 05:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- No way, witness-pioneer.org is as Sunni as it gets, it goes on braging about the geneology of Umar & co, not mentioning that his reltive married his own mother, it ommits Ghadire khum as "diputed" when it is the most establied fact in the history of Islam, even refered to in Sahih Muslim and it refers to the usurpers as Caliphs. It is defently NOT shia. I have NO idea where you got that idea from. Except that it contained some information that supported Shia pov.
That was not a Madelung quote. That was a restatement, in my own words, of a fifty-page section. I have rewritten it to make that clearer. Zora 05:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- You are correct, i apologise.
Many of the early Islamic figures had a great many sons and daughters, and it is pointless to list them UNLESS you are doing genealogy. It is not at all clear which sort of link you see between ibn Abi Bakr and al-Sadiq. You have to explain. Zora 05:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- And that is exaclty what im doing. Follow his sons article, go to the sons daghter and you will se she is Jafar al-sidigs mother.
As I understand it, ibn Abi Bakr is the son of Abu Bakr and ibn Abi Talib is the son of Abu Talib. The "abu" changes to "abi" when it follows "ibn". A grammatical rule of Arabic that I don't quite understand (yet) but the best authors observe it. I also understand that al-whatever gets modified depending on the whatever. You always write names as al-X and al-Y, which is understandable, but apparently the real rules of pronunciation are different. I can't correct this, since I don't know the rules.
- You are correct. My father informend me: If someone is doing, its AbO Bakr, if he is been done to, its AbA Bakr, if its his belonging, its AbE bakr. But to make it easier to propnounce, it gets Abu, and Abi Bakr. Thanks!
That San Beck reference is completely unreliable. He is not a respected scholar -- he's just some woo-woo New-Age astrology guy. That sort of reference detracts from your statements rather than supporting them. Zora 05:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Either way, it is better that no source. Ill complement that when i stumble upon a better source. --Striver 13:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Zora
Have you noticed how i work to keep all your work, i never revert blind, rather incorporate your work, but you just BLINDY revert anything that you have not writen yourself?--Striver 03:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Striver, the stuff you add is usually unreferenced, referenced to websites that don't reference their statements, Shi'a-POV, or completely beside the point. I don't have to leave your writing if it's sub-standard, and all too much of what you contribute IS sub-standard. Zora 03:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
