Talk:Mu'awiya I/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

2008 Comments

This page is now in reasonably good shape. I cleaned up a mass of little details and removed some superfluous material. DKleinecke (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have returned to this page and read its present version. It is worse now than it was in 2008. Anonymous hands have been at work and there is POV and general ignorance all through it. I am convinced that rewriting the page is a waste of time because it just be vandalized all over again. DKleinecke (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Removed

Some genius had appended the shia POV with ", just as they have of other companion's of Muhammad Messenger of Allah" to the first sentence. I removed it. Someone should watch this page constantly, since I am certain that POV-pushers from both side will try and vandalize this page. Also, I made a couple of minor changes. Unflavoured 06:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I read the part about him being refered to as a 'bitch'. Isn't this a bit insulting?Unflavoured 06:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We usually put new stuff at the bottom, not the top. Yes, this article is constantly being targeted by POV-pushers. I try to watch it, but I have limited time and too many articles on my watchlist. Thanks very much for helping out.

His name has been variously translated as "Caller" and "Bitch in heat." Those who wish to denigrate him fasten on the latter meaning. Yes, it's insulting, but it's in a quote, and it does accurately give the Shi'a POV. Zora 06:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the 'new-thing-at-bottom', I was unaware of this before. About the 'bitch' part, I am Arabic and Muwaiyah does not mean 'bitch'. Bark is 'nibah', and here 'awa' means to howl. Where does the 'in heat' part come from? The worst possible translation you can have is 'howler'.Unflavoured 07:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. My Arabic is limited to a few words. I was trusting some other contributors to this article, who assured me that one meaning of the word was "a bitch in heat, calling". Before you say that's implausible, be sure that you're considering the possible meanings in the early 7th century, not in contemporary Arabic. A dictionary of Quranic Arabic might be of use here.

Working on WP can be a timesink and a dispiriting slog, but it pays off when it forces you to learn something. I have a stack six feet high of books re Islam that I didn't have before I started working on WP. (No, I'm not Muslim, I'm a Zen Buddhist). Zora 08:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Who in the world told you that ?! Mu'awiyah means 'something that howls' or, if in the interests of POV-pushing we take the worst possible, most insulting meaning: 'howling female'. Arabic is simpler than you think: "awa" = howl. "Awi" = howler. "Mu'awi" also = howler. Adding 'ah' to any word makes it feminine, so "Mu'awiah" or "Mu'awiyah" means howling female. There is no 'bitch' or 'in heat' in there at all. And I do read classic Arabic, even though I am no authority on the subject. Still, even though I personally feel that maintaining "bitch in heat" in the article is nothing short of an extreme offense to alot of people, I won't delete it without discussion. Perhaps someone else can contribute and clear this up? Also, I have been looking up many historical characters in Islam, and I noticed that there is a 'gang' of people who always insert their POVs in article. Articles on other religions rarely have this. Unflavoured 10:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's in the quote, then we should leave it, even if it's derogatory. The extent of Shi'a hatred for Muawiya is notable. We had a section once on the meaning of the name, which I thought was useful, but someone deleted it. If you wanted to write another one, we could see if this one would stay.

As for POV pushing -- yes, the Islam-related articles are in bad shape. We have Sunni-Shi'a wars, Salafi-traditionalist wars, rabid anti-Muslim bigots, and Muslims who don't even take usernames, just delete anything critical of Islam or Muhammad and add PBUHs and RAs everywhere. Sigh. It's very hard to keep things neutral, and to keep one's own balance. It's a daily struggle for me to keep my temper and I don't always succeed. Zora 11:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

everythin has been proved from sunni books — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qasim4444 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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.

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?

QUETSION TWO

PART A

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

WHY?

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?

QUETSION THREE

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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...

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?

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)

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)

Citing supposedly uttered vs. according to

Why is this being reverted every other day ?! Who in the world uses citing supposedly uttered ? This is not proper English at all. 'According to' has the same level of neutrality as citing supposedly uttered. Also, i notice that only user Zora has a problem with this. Yet when this change was first made, you approved. Why the change of heart?Unflavoured 06:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes revert vandalism and don't notice changes made before the vandalism. Unflavoured, I'm concerned that WP not appear to take any stand on the reliability, or unreliablity, of that hadith. The Shi'a would of course dispute it, and Western academic scholars are wary of hadith in general. They would regard them as being indicative only of trends of thought at the time that they were written down. Whether or not they reflect anything of previous history is ... not always clear. I rewrote yet again. See if you like that phrasing better.

If you're good with Sunni scholarship, please go to Al Muhsin and fill in some unreferenced statements there. I'm sure that Sunni don't accept the Al Muhsin story, but I'd like some quotes saying so. Zora 06:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you replied both here and on my talk page. I replied on your talk page.Unflavoured 06:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The link to *Exposing Muaweyah, the father of all Wahabis appears to be broken so I removed it DKleinecke 04:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

pbuh

What is wikipedia's stance on adding pbuh? is it the same as saying 'christ' after saying jesus ?! Unflavoured 08:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Rightly Guided Caliph"

I added wiki links to "Rightly Guided Caliph" believing that this is a term of art (or a translation of a term of art) which, at least as to the first four Rightly Guided Caliphs, both Sunni and Shi'a could agree. However, I do not claim to be the expert in this. Anyone who thinks that this should be corrected should, please correct it, or explain it further, whether here, or perhaps parenthetically in the article itself. Without some sort of explanation or wikilink (and I put in the latter), it looked to a non-Muslim like a purely partisan term. Thanks. Xenophon777 14:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Geez, People

This article really needs to be cleaned up. I'm a Christian, so I don't consider it appropriate to make major changes, but the Muslim editors need to get their acts together and take an unbiased look at Muawiyah. Even the Judas Iscariot article is less biased than this one! On both ends of the spectrum, Sunnis! Please, just figure out the best course of action, people.(Defenderoffuture (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

absolutely, there is far too much Sunni vs. Shi'a POV that infiltrates pages like these where the articles just become a series of claims and counter-claims. ITAQALLAH 12:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This Page Needs Valid Sources

The Reference Links do not work. Please fix these. Mhaider5 (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I just addded the references section, without editing the references that were embedded in the article. Mhaider5 (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Muawiya, Restorer of Faith" by Aisha Bewly and "Hadrat Muawiya" as references

These books cannot be used as a primary references for this article. If these books refer to and quote early Islamic historical sources such as Tabari, Yaqubi, Masoudi, Bukhari, etc., then these two books can be used to provide those references/quotes. Otherwise, these books CANNOT be used as primary references for this article, since the nature of the books is polemical and these do not conform to the standards of non-biased academic scholarship. If the author of this page continues to use polemical sources, then the he/she needs to enter these under the "Sunni View" heading. I just want this page to look more academic in its approach rather than be viewed as a dogmatic tussle between Sunnis and Shi'ites. Mhaider5 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits

Under "Governor of Syria," I added the following sentences: "Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab had appointed Yazid Ibn Abu Sufyan as governor of Syria. In the year 640 hijri, Umar appointed Muawiyah, the brother of Yazid Ibn Abu Sufyan, as governor of Syria when the latter died due to an outbreak of plague."

Under "Early Life," I added the following sentences: In 630 CE, Muhammad and his followers conquered Mecca, and most of the Meccans, including the Abd-Shams, formally submitted to Muhammad and accepted Islam. General consensus among early Islamic historians is that Muawiyah along with his father Abu Sufyan became Muslims at the conquest of Mecca when further resistance to Muslims became an impossibility. Two references were provided for the above text. One was History of Tabari and the other was Sirat of Muhammad by Ibn Hisham. Mhaider5 (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hadhrat Muawiyah.jpg

Image:Hadhrat Muawiyah.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

sunni and shia conflict sshould be avoided with these pages. but any way i request you to include the word Prophet, wherever our prophet's name is found and prefix with Hazrat with the name of sahabas. Even some sunnis who love rashidun khalifaas, hate muawiyah because he doesn't belongs to the certified rule from our prophet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasifwasif (talk • contribs) 13:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Wasif, the policy is not to add honorifics to religious articles on Wikipedia.WackoJacko (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Muawiya image

Why there is no image of muawiyah found in this article. I read that he will be having a big belly because of the curse of our prophet. i couldn't understand the discussion above. can some one upload the image please.? - Wasifwasif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasifwasif (talk • contribs) 12:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Dear wasifwasif, where did you hear such a nonsense about Muawiyah I?? My dear brother you are misinformed, he indeed had a big belly but not dur to inflammation because of the curse but just a part of his physique. Such type of talk and nonsense is the only reason Islam is away from the proper path and everyone is busy arguing about the Karbala War and its criminals, heroes, martyrs, reasons, strategies and consequences and the whole of the Religion Islam is divided into two because of this War, as seen by two different and entirely disputed concepts! Wake Up and get out of this nonsense and try to gain knowledge about something useful fr the religion. And another thing, Believing in the war from any concept does not at all change your Emaan, get it??? The parts and pillars of faith are completely described by the Holy Quran, then why argue?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.116.142 (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ignorance of the Arabic culture

This is the problem when arrogant people do not have a good grasp on the Arabic languange and jumps to conclusions, at the very least you could have asked our Sunni Ulama what this hadith means instead of ignorantly producing such things in order to further your own agenda. "May Allah not fill his belly" in Arabic is the equivalent in English to when a father says to his son in a soccer match to "Break a leg". It means that the Prophet Muhammad (salla Allah alaih wa Salam) wishes Mu'awiya (radhi Allah anhu)'s belly to be so full that it cannot take anymore, meaning if he took anymore of Allah (subhana wa Ta'ala)'s blessing, in the form of food, his belly will not be able to take anymore. OK?

Now, I will add the explanation in this article. Malik Al Assad (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

transgressor's group

as in hadith related to ammar bin yasir he was discribed as transgressor. he was father of "muslim terrorism" [?] as after him the guided khilafat was changed into tyranny of kingship. he was a sahabi .but why he was father of terrorism .

we should make it clear as how muslim system was corrupted from the time of sahaba.

it is dangerous to make an unclear picture of islamic justice . see my article on islamic peace. thanks brothers. Zikrullah (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How we might handle this article

Mu'awiya poses a significant problem for the Wikipedia because of his controversial status. I think the article will never stabilize unless administrative action is taken. I suggest dividing it into three parts immediately after describing him as the fifth Caliph of Islam and giving his date of death (his date of birth is only a guess). The three sections would be (1) non-Islamic (2) Sunni (3) Shi'ite. Then the article should be locked - what is needed, but I don't think the Wikipedia has such a feature - is to allow Sunni Muslims to edit the Sunni section, Shi'ites the Shi'ite section and non-Muslims the non-Islamic section. If there is a better solution lets go with it. If no action is taken this will remain the mess it currently is forever. DKleinecke (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

attempting major re-write

I am going to try and bring this article up to standard. It's of course a very controversial topic, but it's one that has been written on greatly, and should pose little difficulty in finding even-handed, disinterested reliable sources (i.e. not Sunni nor Shia polemics). HarunAlRashid (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing.

Hi, Can some one add widely accepted and reliable source for this statement "Allahumma (O Allah) guide him and guide people by him." as claimed to have said by Prophet PBUH regarding Muawiyah? Wasif (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The article has two citations for this.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Talkhis al-ilal al-mutanahiya, among the 6 accepted Hadith books of Sunni Islam? moreover make the link as accessible Wasif (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RS does not mention being among the 6 accepted Hadith books of Sunni Islam as a requirement for reliable sources. In fact books by Parsees, Jews and Christians are also acceptable as reliable sources about historical figures such as the caliphs.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Then pls add the link for the hadith which you are referring. There is no link given. Wasif (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Added reference, and the full quote too. Unflavoured (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing why all this discussion is made? A real muslim for any doubt he will seek clarification from QURAN and HADEETH.Ameer Muawiya was not righteous person according to QURAAN and HADEETH.Why are this people are quarreling in the name of Shia and Sunni?No SUNNI ls a Sunni unless he loves Ali.Isn't it a joke that i love my dad and also love his deadliest enemy.How can you love both?Do you people forgot the hadeeth "MAN KUNTO MOULAA"?Illiteracy and literate laziness is leading muslims towards darkness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraj9 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is your POV.

However Wikipedia has a neutral POV and is based on citing information from reliable sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Citations

User:Flagrantedelicto wrote: "Caliph Umar appointed Muawiyah governor of Syria, not Caliph Uthman. This is recorded in ALL historical sources from Tabari to Maududi. It doesn't really need to be cited".

Actually it does need to be cited.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Literal Meaning Of Mu'awiyah Is Young Jackal (From Syro-Aramaic Scriptural Roots)

Below is a copy-pasted abstract from the International Bible Encyclopedia:

International Bible Encyclopedia

---

2 results found for JACKAL Showing 1 through 2

---

Click any letter to display an alphabetized index of Biblical terms: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z Result 1- JACKAL jak'-ol:

(1) tannim, "jackals," the King James Version "dragons"; compare Arabic tinan, "wolf"; and compare tannin, Arab tinnin, "sea monster" or "monster" the English Revised Version "dragon" (Job 7:12;Ps 74:13; 148:7; Isa 27:1; 51:9; Jer 51:34), "serpent" (Ex 7:9,10,12; De 32:33;Ps 91:13), the King James Version "whale" (Ge 1:21;Job 7:12); but tannin, "jackals," the King James Version "sea monsters" (La 4:3), "jackal's well," the King James Version "dragon well" (Ne 2:13), and tannim, "monster," the King James Version and the English Revised Version "dragon" (Eze 29:3; 32:2).

(2) 'iyim, "wolves," the King James Version "wild beasts of the islands"; compare 'i, plural iyim, "island"; also 'ayyah, "a cry," 'awah, "to cry," "to howl"; Arabic `auwa', "to bark" (of dogs, wolves, or jackals); 'ibn 'awa', colloquially wawi, "jackal."

(3) tsiyim, "wild beasts of the desert."

(4) 'ochim, "doleful creatures."

"Jackals" occurs as a translation of tannim, the King James Version "dragons," in Job 30:29; Ps 44:19;Isa 13:22; 34:13; 35:7; 43:20; Jer 9:11; 10:22; 14:6; 49:33; 51:37; of the feminine plural form tannoth in Mal 1:3, and of tannin in Ne 2:13 and La 4:3. Tannim is variously referred to a root meaning "to howl," and to a root meaning "to stretch out" trop. "to run swiftly, i.e. with outstretched neck and limb extended" (Gesenius). Either derivation would suit "wolf" equally as well as "jackal." The expression in Jer 10:22, "to make the cities of Judah a desolation, a dwelling-place of jackals," seems, however, especially appropriate of jackals. The same is true of Isa 34:13; Jer 9:11; 49:33, and 51:37.

The jackal (from Persian shaghal), Canis aureus, is found about the Mediterranean except in Western Europe. It ranges southward to Abyssinia, and eastward, in Southern Asia, to farther India. It is smaller than a large dog, has a moderately bushy tail, and is reddish brown with dark shadings above. It is cowardly and nocturnal. Like the fox, it is destructive to poultry, grapes, and vegetables, but is less fastidious, and readily devours the remains of others' feasts. Jackals generally go about in small companies. Their peculiar howl may frequently be heard in the evening and at any time in the night. It begins with a high-pitched, long-drawn-out cry. This is repeated two or three times, each time in a higher key than before. Finally there are several short, loud, yelping barks. Often when one raises the cry others join in. Jackals are not infrequently confounded with foxes. They breed freely with dogs.

While tannim is the only word translated "jackal" in English Versions of the Bible, the words 'iyim, tsiyim, and 'ochim deserve attention. They, as well as tannim, evidently refer to wild creatures inhabiting desert places, but it is difficult to say for what animal each of the words stands. All four (together with benoth ya`anah and se`irim) are found in Isa 13:21,22: "But wild beasts of the desert (tsiyim) shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures ('ochim); and ostriches (benoth ya`anah) shall dwell there, and wild goats (se`irim) shall dance there. And wolves ('iyim) shall cry in their castles, and jackals (tannim) in the pleasant palaces."

In the King James Version 'iyim (Isa 13:22; 34:14; Jer 50:39) is translated "wild beasts of the islands" (compare 'iyim, "islands"). the King James Version margin has merely the transliteration iim, the Revised Version (British and American) "wolves," the Revised Version margin "howling creatures." Gesenius suggests the jackal, which is certainly a howler. While the wolf has a blood-curdling howl, it is much more rarely heard than the jackal.

Tsiyim (Ps 72:9; 74:14; Isa 13:21; 23:13; 34:14; Jer 50:39) has been considered akin to tsiyah, "drought" (compare 'erets tsiyah, "a dry land" (Ps 63:1)), and is translated in the Revised Version (British and American) as follows: Ps 72:9, "they that dwell in the wilderness"; 74:14, "the people inhabiting the wilderness"; Isa 23:13, "them that dwell in the wilderness," the Revised Version margin "the beasts of the wilderness"; Isa 13:21; 34:14; Jer 50:39, "wild beasts of the desert." There would be some difficulty in referring tsiyim in Ps 72:9 to beasts rather than to men, but that is not the case in Ps 74:14 and Isa 23:13. "Wild cats" have been suggested.

'Ochim, "doleful creatures," perhaps onomatopoetic, occurs only in Isa 13:21. The translation "owls" has been suggested, and is not unsuitable to the context.

It is not impossible that tannim and 'iyim may be different names of the jackals. 'Iyim, tsiyim, and tannim occur together also in Isa 34:13,14, and 'iyim and tsiyim in Jer 50:39. Their similarity in sound may have much to do with their collocation. The recognized word for "wolf," ze'ebh (compare Arabic dhi'b), occurs 7 times in the Old Testament.

'Iyim occurs in Isa 13:21 and 34:14 and in Jer 50:39, three of the passages cited for tsiyim. the King James Version referring to 'i, "island," renders "wild beasts of the islands" (Isa 13:22). The Revised Version (British and American) has "wolves," margin "howling creatures"; compare Arabic `anwa', "to howl," and ibn-'awa' or wawi, "jackal."

---

Result 2- JACKAL'S WELL (`en ha-tannin; Septuagint has pege ton sukon, "fountain of the figs"; the King James Version dragon well): A well or spring in the valley of Hinnom between the "Gate of the Gai" and the Dung Gate (Ne 2:13). No such source exists in the Wady er Rababi (see HINNOM, VALLEY OF) today, although it is very probable that a well sunk to the rock in the lower parts of this valley might strike a certain amount of water trickling down the valley-bottom. G.A. Smith suggests (Jerusalem, I, chapter iv) that this source may have arisen as the result of an earthquake, hence, the name "dragon," and have subsequently disappeared; but it is at least as likely that it received its name from the jackals which haunted this valley, as the pariah dogs do today, to consume the dead bodies which were thrown there.

2) 'iyim, "wolves," the King James Version "wild beasts of the islands"; compare 'i, plural iyim, "island"; also 'ayyah, "a cry," 'awah, "to cry," "to howl"; Arabic `auwa', "to bark" (of dogs, wolves, or jackals); 'ibn 'awa', colloquially wawi, "jackal.".

Flagrantedelicto (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

First or second Caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty

The current version says: "...was technically the second Caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty, but the one who essentially established it." It gives the following citation for this statement:

Al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir. The History of the Prophets and Kings (Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk), Vol. 18 Between Civil Wars: The Caliphate of Mu'awiyah 40 A.H., 661 A.D.-60 A.H., 680 A.D. (Michael G. Morony).

Is there a statement in this book stating that Muawiyah was second Caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty? If so, on what page does it appear? Given that this appears to be a statement that contradicts some modern books, it would be nice to have a quotation (in English) in the footnote.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I had provided the literary source for this which was Al-Tabari's 9th Century epic biography of Muawiyah I. Technically, Muawiyah was the 2nd Caliph. Uthman bin al-Affan was ALSO of the Umayyad clan and a close kinsman of Abu Sufyan (Muawiyah's biological father). Even though, the concept of the Rashidun Khulafa (Counselor or Rightly Guided Successors) was instituted by the Abbasid caliphs Harun al-Rashid and his son Mamun al-Rashid. The Abbasids labelled the first four standard Islamic caliphs as Rashidun (Counselors or Rightly Guided). Uthman falls under this category as well, but technically he was the very first Caliph of Islam of the House of Umayyah. Muawiyah was the one who actually established the Umayyad Dynasty, which was a HEREDITARY dynasty of Caliphs which were no longer ELECTED by the Islamic Shura (Council). Uthman was appointed as successor (caliph) by Umar but this appointment was not based upon genealogical inheritance. So from that perspective, Muawiyah was the one who ESTABLISHED the Umayyad Dynasty as a hereditary dynasty, to keep it within the House of Umayyah. Similar to Abu Al-Abbas, who founded the Abbasid Caliphate, but it was his brother and immediate successor Al-Mansur who was the one who ESTABLISHED the Abbasid Dynasty. It was Al-Mansur who founded the Abbasid capital city of Baghdad. When I stated that Muawiyah was technically the second Umayyad caliph, that is a fact, just as the following statement that he was the one who really ESTABLISHED the Umayyad Dynasty. Maybe it should be re-phrased as that Muawiyah was technically the 2nd Umayyad Caliph, but the one who really established the Umayyad Dynasty. You see, Muawiyah violated the term and condition of his being handed over the Caliphate by Hasan ibn Ali, which was that he cannot appoint his offspring as Caliph on his own accord, without the approval of the Islamic Shura (Council). Just before Muawiyah passed away, during the days his health was deteriorating, Muawiyah issued his wasihat (will) that his son Yazid become Caliph with or without the approval of the Islamic Shura (Council). It was this violation of policy, which caused the Civil War when Yazid took the seat of Caliph (further aggravated by Yazid's un-Islamic, hedonistic lifestyle). Yazid's mother was an Arab Christian who encouraged him to adopt many customs that were Christian (among of which was drinking wine). One of Yazid's best childhood friends was a Syrian Christian named John of Damascus (Yuhannah al-Dimashqi). Flagrantedelicto (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What I think you mean is as follows: you have a source labeling Uthman bin al-Affan as a member of the Umayyad clan, but your source does not explicitly say that Uthman was a member of the Umayyad Dynasty.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Toddy1. Mu'awiya is commonly described as the "first Umayyad caliph", while Uthman, despite belonging to the Umayyad family, is grouped among the Rashidun caliphs. As for evidence of this consensus, I made a brief search for "first caliph of the Umayyad dynasty", where only Mu'awiya is mentioned. Constantine ✍ 18:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox - predecessor

An editor has removed Muawiyah's predecessor as caliph from the infobox (Ali ibn Abu Talib), and retitled the infobox "Caliphs of the Umayyad Caliphate", with the edit summaries: "Predecessor removed. See talk page." and "title restored".[3] Unfortunately there is nothing on the talk page about the subject of what should be written in the infobox for predecessor, so I am starting a topic here.

Muawiyah's generally accepted predecessor as caliph was Ali ibn Abu Talib. It makes the infobox more useful to general readers if his predecessor is mentioned.

I have looked at versions of the infobox for this article for various dates going back to to 2007 and have failed to find one with a title "Caliphs of the Umayyad Caliphate" before today's edit. So to claim "title restored" in an edit summary seems inaccurate.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In every article of Umayyad Caliphs I found this title "Caliphs of the Umayyad dynasty" so i thought its missing in Muawiyah I.SpidErxD (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I accept that you wrote the inaccurate summary in good faith. Some of the articles have it, in some cases (e.g. Marwan II) it was only recently added [4], and some of the articles do not have infoboxes (e.g. Ibrahim ibn al-Walid, Yazid III).

The infobox line in question is marked "title", and there is a separate line marked "dynasty". The position that all these people had was "caliph". There is no need to write "of the whatever dynasty" in the line marked title; it is redundant. It is not harmful though.

If you look at European rulers such as Louis IX of France or Richard III of England, it does not use the "title" line, but instead uses the "succession" line which is marked King of France/England, with a wikilink to a list of kings of that country. It gives the equivalent of dynasty as "house". It does not do title=King of France of the House of Capet".--Toddy1 (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As-Saffah was the founder of Abbasid Caliphate so there is no predecessor in article "As-Saffah" because last caliph Marwan II was of Umayyad. How come Ali(Rashidun Caliph) become the predecessor of Umayyad Caliph?SpidErxD (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As-Saffah's predecessor as caliph was Marwan II, and that article has successor in the infobox marked as "As-Saffah (as Caliph)".--Toddy1 (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sunni views section

I plan on amending the section for Sunni views in some ways - first, by removing uncited or irrelevant content. The most obvious issue is the quote from the Qur'an, chapter Hujurat - Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes and it doesn't relate to the subject anyway. Additionally, the preceding paragraph has a number of issues in addition to bearing no citations at all.
Normally when there are no citations, a cite tag should be added but in this case I think full removal is warranted, mainly due to the phrase "However this explanation is easily criticized by other scholars" which seems to indicate that the paragraph is pushing one POV as superior to another. Wikipedia does not persuade; it only informs. After these removals, I think we can start to build the Sunni views section to hold equal weight to the Shi'a views section. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be focused mainly on the Shi'ite POV pushers and yet are neglecting an overwhelming amount of UNCITED sources which appear to be POV pushing of Salafi/Wahhabi views. Don't mix up genuine SUNNI views with WAHHABI/SALAFI views. One of the obvious tactics of Wahhabi/Salafi POV pushers are to label themselves SUNNI when they are really NOT. You need to re-evaluate the inundation of what is obviously Salafi/Wahhabi POV entries in this article. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Inundated With Uncited Entries

This article has been encroached with uncited entries. These entries require properly cited sources.

Also, a couple of the cited sources are in Arabic language script. One entirely in Arabic, and the other, partially so. The one cited source which was entirely in Arabic was a biographical profile blog on Caliph Muawiyah I from the following website - http://islamicweb.com/arabic/shia/muawiya.htm It served as cited source for this quote of Muawiyah: "I never fought against Ali, only about Uthman's death." in the CONFLICT WITH ALI section. I took the initiative to delete it as it was entirely in Arabic and this is the English language WP.

In the VIRTUES section, there is a citation attributed to this hadith (narration): "Allahumma (O Allah) guide him and guide people by him." It has been cited to Bukhari's Tarikh Al-Kabir (The Great History) Vol. 5, (assuming pg ??) 791 which is followed by an Arabic written isnad (chain of transmission) which cannot be linked to Bukhari's cited work. The titular link in English connects to the WP article on The Great History (Tarikh Al-Kabir) by Bukhari, but no mention at all or any link to the Arabic scripted isnad (which itself is uncited in Arabic to Bukhari's Tarikh Al-Kabir/The Great History). This is not proper WP citing procedures. Will wait to see what other WP editors decide to do about this.

One other link that has essentially served as the source of copy-pasted entries in this WP Muawiyah I article is from this website BLOG -

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/printer_friendly_posts.asp?TID=9999

This article has some work cut out for itself from such complicated methods of citations.

Flagrantedelicto (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Citations to foreign languages are acceptable in English language Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOENG. However if people are going to cite sources, it is not acceptable to cite the whole book (whether in English or in Arabic). Nor is it acceptable to cite sources where it is not even clear what source is being cited. (See Talk:Yazid I#Citations, which incidentally is still waiting for a reply.)--Toddy1 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, whether acceptable or not, one has to take into account how many articles in the ENTIRE WP "library" have cited whole books without page numbers or chapters (including some in this very article, as well as others)?? A point to note is that so many of the cited books are available online in digital libraries whose uploads have different sets of pages than the published material (the page numbers are not aligned to the original publications).

Also, keep in mind that some of the books cited in Islamic (or other Eastern/Oriental/Near Eastern) works have a different publishing format, where they number chapters, paragraphs, sub-paragraphs, and/or sentences (instead of page numbers as is traditionally done in Western/Occidental language literature). A far more pressing problem is the lack of ANY CITATIONS at all in this article and others (eg., Yazid I's Husayn ibn Ali & Ibn al-Zubayr section). That should be of primary concern to any WP editors or users, rather than only focusing on lack of page numbers or chapters. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Citing the whole of a 250 page book such as Volume 19 of The History of al-Tabari is not a satisfactory citation - it is hard to verify. Similarly, it is necessary to be clear about which version you are talking about - citations to books where it is not clear what book you are talking about is also not verifiable.

I suspect that some of the vague citations are to books that the editors have never read, which is why the editors cannot give the edition and page number. it is easy to do that - you read in some magazine or web-page that some book says something, and you add the information to Wikipedia and a citation to the book - if you are going to do this, the honest way is state what you are doing (and there are proper formats on Wikipedia for doing this).--Toddy1 (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Tabari Vol. 19 is not the topic of discussion in this Talk Page, as Vol. 19 is about Caliph Yazid I, not Caliph Muawiyah I. The discussion here is about some of the cited sources here. I suggest you stick to them. Don't mix issues of different articles here with this article, if you please. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of vague citations to books the editors may have never read, how do you feel about page numbers being cited in this article along with the last name of the authors (and the year of publication)--but NO BOOKS are cited whatsoever...(?) Please see below:

23.^ Rahman (1999, p. 40)

30.^ a b c Treadgold (1997), pp. 314–318

31.^ a b c Treadgold (1997), pp. 318–324

46.^ Treadgold (1997), pp. 325–327

53.^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), p. 25

54.^ Treadgold (1997), pp. 313–314

55.^ Kennedy (2004) pp. 120, 122

56.^ Kaegi (1995), pp. 246–247

57.^ El-Cheikh (2004), pp. 83–84 --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed this problem.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Aisha Bewley Who (?)

From quick online research, Aisha Bewley the BLOGGER is a self-professed "TRANSLATOR" of classical Islamic works. She has an upload on YouTube and I tracked down a link which has her self-claimed credentials and credited translations:

http://murabitblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/biography-aisha-bewley/

Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley in her own words listed in her Website Blog:

Converted, 1968. My family was a strong Christian one, but I eventually I felt that there was something missing in Christianity. That eventually led me to become involved in Zen Buddhism for a number of years, which was really a process of realising that dunya is not as real or permanent as it seems and of dismantling a structuralist approach to existence.

At the same time, I was reading a lot of philosophy, starting with Nietzsche and moving on to Schopenhauer, Kant, Hegel, and so forth, in an attempt to get a grasp on the significance of our existence. One thing that always stayed with me was the manner in which Nietzsche had alluded in a positive way to Islam while proceeding to demolish the edifice that passes for Christianity today. I think at one point he actually rails against Christianity for ‘robbing’ us of Islam. When I finally read some books on Islam, I immediately recognised that that was what I had been looking for.

That should cover it. Other than the fact that I’m married to Hajj Abdalhaqq Bewley with whom I translate (he keeps my translations from turning into Arab-lish (usually). Three children, the oldest of whom is studying in Morocco having received a MA in Arabic from the University of Edinburgh.

I have absolutely nothing against converts, but I do question her self-professed website profile that she has been a translator for Diwan Press...

Which appears to be, among other things, a Wahhabi/Salafi POV catering publication, in addition to catering to other POV Islamic creeds (including Sufism).

Here is a link to Diwan Press:

http://diwanpress.com/component/blog/blog.html

Evidently all of Aisha Bewley's BLOGS have been from her paperback book entitled Muawiyah, Restorer of the Muslim Faith (available on Amazon.com)...lol Nonetheless, the plethora of citations of this published paperback has no page numbers or chapters listed in the cited sources section. Just links to her Website Blogs which contain her book.

--Flagrantedelicto (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Both of these "sources", Muawiya - Restorer of the Muslim Faith[5] and Bewley's website[6] fail as reliable sources. The book, "Muawiya -Restorer of the Muslim Faith", is unsearchable on the amazon link and does not contain a page number, thus failing verifiability. User:JohnLeeds1 needs to bring his "sources" and quotes to the talk page. Continued reverts by JohnLeeds1 can result in a block. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This article has had it's share of wear-and-tear, not analogously dissimilar to the Arab-Byzantine wars. But it certainly looked a lot better prior to POV pushing. Figuratively, one might as well start citing blogs from Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam website. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Books do not need to be searchable on Amazon links to be verifiable sources. The book is not self-published - see publishers's website.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nor does Wikipedia have anything against Salafi authors, or books that cater to Salafi readers.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not see user:JohnLeeds1 giving page numbers and/or quotes from Muawiya -Restorer of the Muslim Faith. I also noticed that both Bewley's blog and the book, Muawiya -Restorer of the Muslim Faith are used as "sources" complementing each other at every turn. Coincidence? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of page numbers not being given, here are some cited sources that have a surname (last name) of the respective authors, but no first name and no name of the book that is being cited...lol However, the page numbers are cited as well as the year the unknown books were published (!?) The star of this show is Treadgold (Warren Treadgold, St. Louis University professor of Byzantine studies), who is cited in eight (8) different places in the article but no book has been named...

See below:

23.^ Rahman (1999, p. 40)

30.^ a b c Treadgold (1997), pp. 314–318

31.^ a b c Treadgold (1997), pp. 318–324

46.^ Treadgold (1997), pp. 325–327

53.^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), p. 25

54.^ Treadgold (1997), pp. 313–314

55.^ Kennedy (2004) pp. 120, 122

56.^ Kaegi (1995), pp. 246–247

57.^ El-Cheikh (2004), pp. 83–84 --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently there are very few old classical books in Arabic, translated by people in the middle east to English. Unfortunately, there is so much politics in the Middle east that even when they do translate books they put their own political ideas in the translation. It's good that Aisha Bewley an American spent the time to learn classical Arabic and then translated so many books. I first came across Aisha Bewley books in the London School Of Oriental And African Studies Library, while looking for a very old book, Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas.

Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formulation of Islamic Law

by Malik ibn Anas, translated by Aisha Bewley

Hardcover, 465 pages

Published January 5th 1989 by Routledge, Chapman & Hall

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Muwatta-Imam-Malik-Ibn-Anas/dp/0953863913/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368388665&sr=1-9

It is true that some of her books are published by the Diwan Press but if you go on their website in the About Us sections http://www.diwanpress.com/about.html

It says: "Diwan Press, which was established in 1975, is one of the most illustrious names in English language Islamic publishing with an unrivalled catalogue of great works on Islam and Sufism that is a role call of honour."

Many of their books are on Sufism.

It's not true that Aisha Bewley only uses one publisher. She translates a lot of old books and uses many different publishers including Routledge, Chapman & Hall and Bookwork and her books are in many libraries. Many of them are also available to read on line for free on her website http://bewley.virtualave.net/

She is not a Salafi. Infact she is a Sufi and follows Maliki jurisprudence. Many of her books are on the old Maliki jurisprudence and on Sufism. Maliki jurisprudence is very old and from Madina. From about 90 years after Muhammad. Therefore it free from a lot of the Middle East politics.

She also has other translations.

The Noble Qur'an

by Anonymous, Aisha Bewley, Abdalhaqq Bewley

Hardcover, 651 pages

Published December 19th 1999 by Bookwork

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Noble-Quran-Rendering-Meaning-English/dp/1842001280/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368388665&sr=1-1

The extract of her interview that Flagrantedelicto put on this site goes on and she says that she follows Maliki jurisprudence and follows sufism.

5) School of jurisprudence: Maliki (I presume.)

Inasmuch as it represents the school of early Madina.

6.) Sufi tariqa: (Is it perhaps the 'Alawi branch of the Darqawi tariqa?)

The Habibiyya branch of the Shadhili Darqawi tariqa.

7.) Someone has said that practically all Malikis, with a few exceptions, are Ash'ari. Would you call yourself Ash'ari? If not, why not?

Yes.

8.) What is your educational background (in both worldly and Islamic sciences)?

9.) Who are your teachers in the Islamic sciences? What subjects did you study with them? Which texts did you read with them?

I have a BA in French and MA in Near Eastern Languages from the University of California, Berkeley. I spent a year with a fellowship at the American University in Cairo and at the same time attended a seminar on Sufism and Islamic philosophy at Dar al-'Ulum. As well as the teaching I received from Shaykh Abdalqadir al-Murabit, I also studied Ibn 'Arabi with the late Sidi Fudul al-Hurawi in Fes, Morocco.

10.) A list of your published works (Please give title and author, with place and date of publication, and name of publisher.):

The Tawasin of Mansur al-Hallaj, Diwan Press, 1974; The Islamic Book of the Dead (Hadith on the Garden and the Fire), Diwan Press, 1977; The Meaning of Man by 'Ali al-Jamal of Fez, Diwan Pess, 1977; Self-Knowledge (Commentaries on Sufic Songs), Diwan Press, 1978; The Darqawi Way (Rasa'il Mawlay al-'Arabi ad-Darqawi), Diwan Press, 1979; The Diwans of the Darqawa, Diwan Press, 1980; The Subatomic World in the Qur'an, Diwan Press, 1980; The Invocations of Shaykh al–'Alawi, Diwan Press, 1980;The Seals of Wisdom (Fusus al-Hikam) by Ibn al-'Arabi, Diwan Press, 1980; Signs on the Horizons: The Sun, the Moon, the Stars, Zahra Publications, 1981; Muwatta' of Imam Malik (joint translation with Ya'qub Johnson), Diwan Press, 1982. New revised edition, Kegan Paul International, 1989; Muhammad Messenger of Allah (ash-Shifa' of Qadi 'Iyad), Madinah Press, 1991; Women of Madina, Vol. 8 of Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, TaHa 1995; Handbook on Islam, Iman, Ihsan (a translation of Kitab Usul ad-Din and Kitab 'Ulum al-Mu'amala by 'Uthman dan Fodio), Diwan Press, 1980, Madinah Press, 1996;Defence Against Disaster, Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-'Arabi, Madinah Press, 1996; Men of Madina, Vol. 7 of Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, TaHa 1997; Glossary of Islamic Terms, TaHa, 1998.

(This doesn't include books translated for other people. There is a whole list of books done for Dar al-Taqwa: Handbook on Islam, Iman, Ihsan (a translation of Kitab Usul ad-Din and Kitab 'Ulum al-Mu'amala by 'Uthman dan Fodio), Diwan Press, 1980, Madinah Press, 1996; The Soul's Journey After Death, Ibn al-Qayyim, Dar at-Taqwa, 1987; The Jinn in the Qur'an and the Sunna, Mustafa Ashour, Dar at-Taqwa, 1989; Stories from Islamic History for Children, Abul-Hasan Ali Nadwi, UK Islamic Academy. 1992; Stories of the Prophets, Abul-Hasan Ali Nadwi, UK Islamic Academy, 1993; Muhammad, the Last Prophet, Abul-Hasan Ali Nadwi, UK Islamic Academy, 1993; Fate and Predestination, Muhammad al-Sha'rawi, Dar at-Taqwa, 1994; Good and Evil, Muhammad al-Sha'rawi, Dar at-Taqwa, 1994; The Interpretation of Dreams, Ibn Sirin, Dar at-Taqwa, 1994; How Allah Provides, Muhammad al-Sha'rawi, Dar at-Taqwa, 1994; Magic and Envy, Muhammad al-Sha'rawi, Dar at-Taqwa, 1994; The World of the Angels, 'Abdu'l-Hamid Kishk, Dar at-Taqwa, 1994; The Laws of Marriage in Islam, Muhammad Rafit 'Uthman, Dar at-Taqwa, 1994; Dealing with Lust and Greed, 'Abdu'l-Hamid Kishk, Dar at-Taqwa, 1995;The Water of Zamzam, Dar at-Taqwa, 1996;Yajuj and Majuj, Dar at-Taqwa, 1997; The Mahdi, Dar at-Taqwa, 1997; The Day of Rising, Layla Mabruk, Dar at-Taqwa, 1997.)

11.) A list of your unpublished works (title and author):

New translation of the Noble Qur'an with my husband, Abdalhaqq Bewley ;Tafsir of Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi (Kitab at-Tas-hil li'Ulum at-Tanzil); Tartib al-Madarik by Qadi 'Iyad; Governance according to the Prophet (at-Taratib al-Idariyya) by 'Abdu'l-Hayy al-Kattani; Bustan al-'Arifin by Imam an-Nawawi; Sihhat Usul Madhhab Ahli'l-Madina by Ibn Taymiyya; Risala of Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (together with Yasin Dutton); The Science of Qur'an Recitation ('Ilm tajrid al-Qur'an) by Shaykh Muhammad Hisham al-Burhani; The Chess Game of the Gnostics (****ranj al-'Arifin) by Muhammad ibn al-Hashim at-Tilmansani; Various Letters of Ibn al-'Arabi; Futuhat al-Makkiyya of Ibn 'Arabi (All of volume 1 and part of 2 of the 4 volume edition); Dala'il al-Khayrat of al-Jazuli; The Hikam of Ibn 'Ata'llah; The Crown of the Bride (Taj al-'Arus) by Ibn 'Ata'llah; The Dropping of Management of Affairs (Isqat at-Tadbir) by Ibn 'Ata'llah; The Book of the Ismu'l-Mufrad by Ibn 'Ata'llah; The Defense of the Sunna by Muhammad b. Abi Madyan ash-Shinjiti.

(There are also some translations for various publishers, including a book on each of the four Imams by Abu Zahra; Adab al-Mufrad by Imam al-Bukhari; The Riyad as-Salihin of an-Nawawi; Sahih al-Bukhari (not completed); Tadhhib al-Akhlaq by 'Abdu'l-Hayy Fakhru'd-din al-Hasani; Al-Fiqh al-Muyassir by Ahmad 'Ashur; and Mukhtasar at-Targhib wa't-Tarhib by Ibn Hajar.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I had actually posted all of this information on Aisha Bewley but undid it as it seemed more practical to insert the URL link right to this biographical profile. Nonetheless, with a highly controversial and ambivalent historical subject like Caliph Muawiyah I, someone like Aisha Bewley is hardly the person to cite. In her own words, her husband Abdul Haqq Bewley sees that her translations doesn't sound like Arab-lish...This person is arguably better off left in website blogs. And not so much an encyclopedia such as the online WP. Having virtually read her website BLOGS which substitute for her published book Muawiyah, Restorer of the Muslim Faith, she comes across as a Wahhabi/Salafi POV pusher (despite her claim that she is a Maliki and a Sufi). It is paradoxical to use the description of Sufi and Salafi/Wahhabi in the same sentence, but her work couldn't be more Salafi POV. There has been an agenda of the Salafi/Wahhabi POV to REINVENT early Islamic history. So many staunch proponents of Salafism/Wahhabism who have been both discreetly and indiscreetly exposed for their tampering with classical Islamic ahadith and even tarikh, that it is no longer something to be ignored. Certainly not by the majority population of Muslims who are SUNNI. One of the most unscrupulous methodologies employed by the Salafi/Wahhabi POV pushers are their disguising themselves as SUNNIS. They are not. In recent history, some of the bloody and brutal actions of Muhammad bin Saud and Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab toward the once predominant SUNNI population of the Arabian Peninsula is a matter of historical record. That is something even an imperialistic, propagandist rule has not been able to obliterate from history books, certainly not for lack of trying.

There is this ideology of the re-establishment of the Khilafah (Succession/Inheritance) which is the driving, motivating factor in this POV. In this pursuit, this POV movement has made their perceived brand of "unification" of the Muslim Ummah their foundation/base. The Khilafah of history made its greatest MILITARY achievements under the Umayyads, so naturally the Umayyads are the role model of this ideology of "unification". However, in closer examination, this so-called "unification" of the Muslim Ummah is strictly conditional...POV conditional. Other ideologies and their sects are rejected as mamoom (followers) of bidah (innovation, invention). Consequently, their POV's are NOT TOLERATED. Within their stronghold nation, they can do practically anything they like to crush other interpretations of standard Islamic monotheism. Elsewhere, they employ tactics of pseudo-revisionism, tampering of classical literature, and theological "marketing" to push their POV. The idea is that united, the Muslim Ummah can conquer the world, which they once almost did...MILITARILY. Those conquests weren't so much Islamic conquests as they were ARAB/SARACEN conquests. Even early medieval Eastern Roman (Byzantine) chroniclers did not refer to their conquests so much as "Islamic" conquests as they did "Saracen" or "Arab" conquests. The unequivocal PROOF of this is the total lack of any ARCHAEOLOGICAL or EPIGRAPHICAL evidence which indicated that these conquests were truly to spread standard Islam. There is scant monumental evidence of the Umayyads spreading Islam. It was not in their interest to spread Islam as Muslims are exempt from Jizyah (Poll Tax). This is straight from the QURAN. There is sufficient proof from the surviving literature of the conquered territories of the initial three (3) Caliphates and the Umayyads which attest to this. Islamic CULTURE was the product of the ABBASIDS. Not the Umayyads. All Four Sunnih Fiqhs: Shafai, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Maliki were established during Abbasid times. Islamic libraries came into existence during Abbasid times. All of the literature, science, arts, and theological development occurred during Abbasid times. It is for this reason that the Abbasid Caliphate has been entitled the Golden Age of Islam.

However, there has been this ongoing attempt by Salafi/Wahhabi POV which is pushing to reinvent the Abbasids as a clandestinely Shia dynasty. And really a Persian-influenced one. Not an Arab one. That the "real" Islam was followed by the Salaf (Ancestors) who were predominantly Arab. That Persian Zoroastrian and Judaic elements infiltrated into Islam via the Abbasids. This is some of the POV's that is being propagated by this movement. The idea is that a "united" Ummah under their brand of ultra-orthodox Islam is the right one and all the others have to come under them to be world conquerors again like the Umayyads. That is why the Umayyads are the POSTER BOYS for this brand of Islamic persuasion. Consequently, the Shia and ANY Sunni who have even the remotest reverence of the Hashimites or the Ahl Al-Bayt Muhammadi (People of the House of Muhammad) are the obstacles to this "unity" and world re-conquest. Thus, you have revisionist Islamic literature which redefines the Umayyads as the "restorers" of Islam when they were NO SUCH THING. The Umayyads couldn't afford the loss of Jizyah (Tax) if they had really opted to DEVELOP standard Islamic culture as did their successors the Abbasids. The historical fact that the Christian Romans/Byzantines were NOT the initiators of the Arab-Byzantine wars and from the verses of the Qur'an were identified as BELIEVERS, doesn't seem to sink in to the proponents of the Rashidun-Umayyad conquests. The fact that after the Heraclius-Muhammad peace treaty, there were no inroads into Islamic territories seems to be forgotten. There is historiography regarding the Umayyads that has been suppressed which clearly define and describe the facts that the Umayyads ruled over predominantly non-Muslim lands (Christian, Judaic, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Brahman, etc.) and made minimal attempts at developing Islamic culture due to the Quranic institution of Jizyah (Tax) upon non-Muslims. For example, indigenous Persian culture was suppressed and Arabized by the Umayyads, but NOT Islamicized. The Islamicization of Persia (Iran) was really the by-product of the Abbasid Caliphate, NOT the Umayyads. There is both historiographical and cultural evidence of this. One of the proofs of this is the fact that the Persians embraced the Hashimites (Prophet Muhammad’s family clan) and their sympathizers, and yet despised the 2nd and 3rd Rashidun Caliphs, as well as the Umayyads. Logically, this makes no sense when the Persians should have equally despised the Hashimites as well, since the Hashimites were also Arabs/Saracens.

The fact that the Umayyads were greatly influenced by Christian and Judaic socio-religious culture is attested to by the construction of the Qubbat Al-Sakhr (Dome of the Rock) right on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem by Umayyad caliph Abdul Malik bin Marwan bin al-Hakam, arguably the most sacred ground of Judeo-Christianity. The reason for this was even more astounding: It was to serve as the pilgrimage rival & alternative to the Kaaba in Mecca. The prominent Umayyad general & statesman Al-Kulayb bin Yusuf was nicknamed Al-Hajjaj (The Pilgrim), not because he had performed hajj (pilgrimage) to the Kaaba in Mecca (which Tabari recorded that he actually ATTACKED because he was denied pilgrimage rites as he came to Mecca fully armed with troops as a conqueror, not as a pilgrim), but because he was allegedly the first person to perform hajj (pilgrimage) at Qubbat Al-Sakhr (Dome of the Rock) as an alternative to the Kaaba in Mecca. When Prophet Muhammad (accompanied by 10,000 Muslims) reclaimed the city of Mecca from his arch-enemies, he and his companions reclaimed it UNARMED.

As you yourself have candidly and courageously stated, there is so much politics in the Middle East, that there are very little early classical standard Islamic historiography or hagiography being translated into English; and whatever are being translated are re-edited and tampered with through SEMANTICS. That is why the very few intact dog-eared Farsi & Urdu translated (complete) manuscripts, which have somehow managed to be preserved, do not entirely corroborate or concur with some of the English translations of these classical Islamic works.

It may be only a matter of time before literature from this POV pushing sect starts openly declaring the Hashimites, Ali, Hasan, Husayn, etc., as rebels against this Islamic "unification" and the root perpetrators of Islamic disunity and schism. Some of the entries in this very article subtly imply this already. So what will happen sometime in the future, if this POV movement achieves its objective, those who were stalwart true Muslims during the advent of Islam will be maligned as perpetrators, while the real perpetrators will be white-washed and reinvented as heroes of liberty and justice (when they were really cruel, unjust, opportunistic autocrats). If the SUNNI majority can wake up and realize what is going on, they can prevent this reinvention of standard Islamic history and culture. The Islamic Ummah's victory is in the hearts and minds of humanity, not a militaristic, oppressive, unjust, intolerant, and autocratic one disguised under the banner of "unification".

This sahih hadith couldn't be more relevant today than when it was first related : SAHIH BUKHARI Volume 9, Book 88 (Afflictions and the End of the World), Number 214: Narrated Ibn 'Umar: The Prophet said, "O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen." The People said, "And also on our NAJD." He said, "O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham (north)! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen." The people said, "O Allah's Apostle! And also on our NAJD." I think the third time the Prophet said, "There (in NAJD) is the place of earthquakes and afflictions and from there comes out the side of the head (horn) of Satan." --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no objection to Bewley's book as a reliable secondary source under Wikipedia policy. In this edit User:Flagrantedelicto declared that Ali's son Hussein was in heaven and Muawiyah's son Yazid was in hell. This reveals a deeply-held POV on Muawiyah and his son.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there you go discussing another article's issues here in this article...Where it does not belong. But since you did, I shall oblige this one time by responding.

No. Not really. My statement was in a rhetorical, figurative sense. Not literal. If I had held such deeply-held POV on Caliph Yazid I, I would have easily included (with proper citations) the authentically recorded traditions from classical SUNNI scholars from their commentaries, which are well known throughout the Islamic community as a whole. But I heedfully chose not to do so due to the nature of their evident rhetoric and POV. Below are some examples of well-documented excerpts which I did not include in the WP Yazid I profile:

Imam Ahmed narrated from Sa’ib bin Khalad (RA) that The Prophet of Allah (Peace be upon him) said: Whosoever spreads injustice and frightened the people of Madina, then Curse (Lanah) of Allah, his Angels and all the people is upon such a person. [Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal as narrated by Imam Ibn Kathir in Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah Vol 8 Page No. 274]

And I say what is prevalent over my mind that (Yazid) Khabith did not testify to the messengership of the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him). According to me it is correct to curse a person like Yazid, although one cannot imagine a Fasiq like him and apparently he never repented, the possibility of his repentance is weaker than the possibility of his faith (Iman). Along with Yazid, Ibn Ziyad, Ibn Sa'ad and his group shall also be included. Verily, may Allah's curse be upon all of them, their friends, their supporters, their group and upon everyone who inclines towards them until Qayamah and until an eye sheds a tear for Abu Abdullah Hussain (ra). [Allama Mahmud Alusi al-Hanafi in Tafsir Ruh al-Ma'ani, Volume 26, Page No. 73]

"Due to his hatred of Allah (swt) Yazeed openly drank alcohol. In his deeds he followed the Seerah of Pharoah, but Pharoah was more just to his own subjects." [Al-Masudi in Muruj adh-dhahab wa ma'adin al-jawhar or The Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems]

"You (Imam Hussain - Radhi Allaho Anho) were martyred and your head was brought to Ibn Ziyad on a plate. "May Allah's Lanah (Curse) be upon the person who killed you, Ibn Ziyad and upon Yazid." [Direct quote of Jalaludin As-Suyuti in his Tarikh ul Khulafa, Page No. 165]

So you see, I avoided entering these deeply-held POV rhetoric from classical SUNNI scholars from the Yazid I WP article. I made no secret in the Yazid I Talk Page that the subject was generally regarded in the mainstream Muslim community as how Nero or Ivan the Terrible are perceived in Western/Occidental culture. If my figurative statement has offended anyone, I can easily delete them from the Yazid I Talk Page. Also, if anyone scrolls up in this Talk Page there is a an exchange between WP editor Zora and another user named Striver in which Zora mentions that she read somewhere that Muawiyah was a BASTARD. Striver responded with the affirmative that Muwawiyah was a BASTARD. No other WP editor or WP administrator responded with a comment stating that either had deeply-held POV about Caliph Muawiyah I. So why are you on my case and making an issue of it (?) See example below:

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) --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand my point. You object to Bewley's book. Your arguments against it were not based on Wikipedia policy (or if they were, you did not explain them well enough). Your posts show that you have an extremely strong bias against Muawiyah and his son. As far as I can tell, your objection to Bewley is that she is not one of your lot. That is not a valid objection to using her book as a source. You are happy to talk about other people as (to use your words) "POV pushing" - and maybe you are right to do so - maybe - but you also have a POV, and push it very hard. I think you are a good editor and are of great value to Wikipedia. But please be more self-aware, and more tolerant of views you do not share.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

My objections to Bewley was that the citations were directly linked to and from her personal website BLOGS. And such bloggers have an anticipated propensity toward POV pushing. It was also agreed with by another WP editor (Kansas Bear), so I was not alone. I do have a point of view that makes no secret or double talk about contemporary revisionism as opposed to established classical works. It is not too dissimilar to Holocaust revisionism. If there were WP editors who had Holocaust revisionist sympathies to Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann, Goering, Speer, or Hess, and tried to portray Hitler as a great WWI veteran and patriot who was a devout Catholic, there would be some people who would not try to be so "self-aware" or tolerant about such editors' views. The POV of the Salafi/Wahhabi persuasion is most certainly NOT the general consensus of the Islamic community as a whole. But they are the ones who initiated this POV pushing across the Islamic world in a comparatively short period, as opposed to the 1000-1200 years of established standard Islamic literature. I thank you for your kind words as to my value as a WP editor. That being stated, I shall take heed to your thoughtful advice. However, I would like a bit of clarification as to what "lot" that you are specifically referring to that I am supposed to be a part of (?) --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Flagrantedelicto you are clearly working very hard to push your views to the extent that there are lots of contradictions in there.

You are grouping Abu Bakr and Umar with the Umayyads

You say "There is sufficient proof from the surviving literature of the conquered territories of the initial three (3) Caliphates and the Umayyads which attest to this."

It's interesting that you excluded Ali from this statement.

Then you say "One of the proofs of this is the fact that the Persians embraced the Hashimites (Prophet Muhammad’s family clan) and their sympathizers, and yet despised the 2nd and 3rd Rashidun Caliphs, as well as the Umayyads."

Before the 1500's the majority of the population in Persia was Sunni until Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam. Therefore they accepted the 2nd and 3rd Rashidun Caliphs.

The Zaidis Shia also accept Abu Bakr and Umar let alone the Sunnis. Then you carry on in your statements and say the Sunnis should do this and do that.

There is clearly a lot of nationalism in the Middle East. And much of it seems like the centuries old conflict between the Persian Areas and the Roman Areas that predates Muhammad by centuries. Its like the Roman-Persian Wars and Byzantine-Sassanid wars. Its all about taxes, why do the taxes from the former Persian areas have to go to the former Roman Areas. It's nothing to do with Islam. These disputes predate Muhammad.

Many of the Muslim history books were written hundreds of years later. The Quran was the only text written down during the time of Muhammad. In many cases you have to check the books from various sources including the Roman books to verify if some of these controversial historical even actually occurred or if it was made up to push a Persian view or a Syrian view.

The early Muslims made a big impact on the world. It was not just Ali or Muhammad on their own. There must have been other people with them. These events did not take place in isolation. Therefore there is also Roman literature. There must be Roman literature on Muawiyah too from that period. Most Syrians at the time were not Muslim. There is literature that says that the Syrians accepted Muawiyah. So the question is why? It's an academic questions. He lived in a multi cultural Syria with many religious communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur with much of what you have stated. Nonetheless, let me clarify what you perceive as contradictions. Caliph Abu Bakr bin Uthman al-Taymi was not a reviled figure in SUNNI Persia until Shah Ismail Safavi establishing the world's first (and only, thus far) Shi'ite state. However, the 2nd & 3rd Caliphas were reviled. Ali was not included simply because what conquest or expansion was he ever involved in ? He was not in any of the wars of expansion of the Rashidun Caliphs. Neither Abu Bakr's consolidation of the Arabian Peninsula under Hejazi authority, nor Umar's expansion into Christian Roman territories and Zoroastrian Persian territories, nor any of Uthman's campaigns to retain annexed Byzantine territories. The only wars Ali fought were really wars during Prophet Muhammad's lifetime. The Qur'an, analyzed from a historiographical perspective, describes seven (7) separate battles of the Muslims of which two (2) are mentioned by name. It is only logical to understand why Ali (even before Persia was converted to a Shia state), was not seen in a negative light by the Persians. From slightly varying accounts to attributed 7th Century CE Persian chronicles there is the connection with Umar, Ali, Bustanai ben Haninai (the Yahudi Exilarch) and the last Sassanian ruler:

From some historical sources of Islamic history, there have been some listings of Sassanian princess Shahzanan (a supposed daughter of Shah Khusraw II Parwiz) being the 1st wife of Husayn b. Ali b. Abi Talib. This is incorrect information. Princess Shahzanan was NOT the Sassanid Persian princess wedded to Imam Husayn, nor was she a daughter of Shah Khusraw II Parwiz. Hasan b. Ali b. Abi Talib and Husayn b. Ali b. Abi Talib were wedded to the fraternal twin princesses Mehrbanu & Shahrbanu (daughters of Shah Yazdegard III, the 29thand last king of the Sassanid Dynasty of Persia).

Shah Yazdegard III had a total of 7 children--5 daughters and 2 sons. Yazdegard III had 2 royal wives: Queen Zamaspdukht and the Christian princess Maria[Persianized as Maryanh] of Byzantium. Queen Zamaspdukht bore Shah Yazdegard III 3 daughters: Izdundad and the fraternal twin sisters Mehrbanu and Shahrbanu. Princess Maryanh(Maria) bore Shah Yazdegard III 2 daughters named Mananyh and Shahzanan, and 2 sons named Peroz III and Mukhdaj.

Queen Zamaspdukht’s eldest daughter Izdundad was wedded to Bustanai ben Haninai, the 1st (Judean) Exilarch of the 3rd Dynasty. Izdundad bore the Exilarch one son named Shahrijar. Bustanai ben Haninai (lived 590-670 CE) had 2 older sons named Hisdai and Haninai from his 1st wife, a Lakhmid princess named Adoa bint Asadd.

Queen Zamaspdukht’s fraternal twin daughters Mehrbanu and Shahrbanu had become royal captives of the Caliphate of Umar b. al-Khattab al-Adiyy. Their liberation was obtained through a formal requisition by Ali b. Abi Talib, who wanted them for his daughter-in-laws. Subsequently, Mehrbanu was wedded to Muhammad bin Abu Bakr al-Taymi (another account has it that was Hasan b. Ali b. Abi Talib) and Shahrbanu was wedded to Husayn b. Ali b. Abi Talib. Mehrbanu was given the Arabian name Farwa (after Ali b. Abi Talib’s late eldest sister); while Shahrbanu was given the Arabian name Quzaiya. Mehrbanu bore either Muhammad bin Abu Bakr al-Taymi (or Hasan b. Ali b. Abi Talib) 2 children: A son named Qasim and a daughter named Fatima. Shahrbanu bore Husayn b. Ali b. Abi Talib 2 children: A son named Ali and a daughter named Ruqayya.

With the Arab conquest of the Sassanid Empire, the 2 daughters of Shah Yazdegard III and Byzantine princess Maryanh(Maria) were wedded off by their younger brother, crown prince Peroz III. Mananyh was wedded to the Chinese Emperor T’ang Kao-Tsung. Shahzanan was wedded to Mizif, the Khan of East Turkestan. The crown prince Peroz III had fled to China for refuge and had offered his eldest sister as wife to the Chinese emperor. Peroz III’s younger brother Mukhdaj (who was an invalid) was taken along with him to China.

Shah Khusraw II Parwiz (like Shah Yazdegard III), had married a Byzantine princess. Coincidentally, Khusraw II Parwiz's Byzantine spouse was known as Miriam (Maria), daughter of Emperor Maurice (reigned 582-602 CE). Yazdegard III's Byzantine spouse Maria (the Persianized Maryanh) was the daughter of Emperor Constantine III (reigned for only 4 months in 641 CE).

Caliph Umar I had forcibly taken Shah Yazdegard III's queen, Zamaspdukht, for his royal concubine. In 644 CE, the Arab forces had taken the Queen Zamaspdukht of Persia (Iran) and her children (all daughters) captive. Caliph Umar had them quickly brought to his capital Al-Madinah. The eldest daughter, Izdundad, was wedded off to the Yahudi Exilarch in Al-Hira (Iraq). Queen Zamaspdukht was forced to become Caliph Umar's royal concubine. Meanwhile, Imam Ali b. Abi Talib intervened and requisitioned the release of the two fraternal twin daughters of Queen Zamaspdukht and Shah Yazdegard III into his personal custody; he became their legal guardian and reserved their future to become his daughter-in-laws when they were of age to wed.

It was because of Caliph Umar forcing the Persian (Iranian) queen as his royal concubine and taking her daughters as royal captives, Piruzan Nahavandi (a veteran soldier who fought against the Arabs under General Rustam Farrokhzad in the Battle of Qadisiyyah in 636 CE) assassinated Umar b. al-Khattab al-Adiyy in November 644 CE.

Now of course this account is from the Persian perspective and how accurate it may actually be is most certainly debatable. The impact upon the early medieval world of the Near East was more an Arab-Saracenic impact during Umayyad times. However, Islamic cultural establishment was defined during the Abbasid Calihate (an Arab caliphate that was much influenced by the Persian contribution to Islam). No one stated that it was just Muhammad or Ali. It was the people (the Ummah) who made Islam what it is today...Quite the contrary to Napoleon Bonaparte's philosophy that (in a battlefield) men are nothing, one man is everything. What occurred in the Islamo-Arab world was not too dissimilar to what happened with the Roman Empire. Once Christianity spread among the plebeian and suppressed classes (i.e., the overwhelming majority) of the polytheist Roman Empire, Imperial Rome inexorably realized that it would be futile to resist Christianity. If the ruling classes were to retain their social ranks from being toppled, they better convert to rising Christianity. This way, the ruling Roman classes can remain in power as Christians and their subordinates and subjects would then have no pretext to rebel and topple the Empire now that they were all Christians. The adage If you cannot defeat them, then join them applied here. Then of course came Constantine and the rest who followed (with the exception of Julian the Apostate, who rejected Christianity and attempted to revert the Roman Empire, or the metaphoric Roman alter ego of Caliph Yazid I, if you will).

As you stated, most definitely, it was the Abbasid, Fatimid, and the Umayyad Emirate & Caliphate of Spain which actually recorded standard Islamic historiography. The Abbasids were the first of the three (3) to do so. I have always stated that there exist no contemporaneous literature from the time of Prophet Muhammad, the Rashidun Caliphate, and the Syrian Umayyad Dynasty. The only literature from the Rashidun & Umayyad times were Kufic-scripted Qur'ans on mainly deerskin folios. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

All of this discussion of your personal beliefs about Islamic history 1000 years ago is very interesting but not relevant to the question of whether Bewley's book is a reliable source. Under Wikipedia rules, it is a reliable secondary source. Under Wikipedia rules, Tabari is also a reliable secondary source because he compiled his history from what other people wrote down. Sources that were the first to write down stories are probably best considered primary sources, and therefore have to be treated with special care.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it has been established by you that Bewley as a cited source is acceptable per WP policy guidelines. As long as it is from her actual book and not directly from her personal website BLOGS. I guess you could say that we are just discussing some points. Even though both are technically secondary sources under WP rules, mentioning Bewley and Tabari even in the same paragraph (forget about same sentence) is ludicrous. It is almost like mentioning Pat Robertson with Procopius. Also, Aisha Bewley as a cited source was an issue of discussion in Archive 1 of this talk page and was previously OMITTED from the article page as a cited source. See below:

Use of "Muawiya, Restorer of Faith" by Aisha Bewly and "Hadrat Muawiya" as references

These books cannot be used as a primary references for this article. If these books refer to and quote early Islamic historical sources such as Tabari, Yaqubi, Masoudi, Bukhari, etc., then these two books can be used to provide those references/quotes. Otherwise, these books CANNOT be used as primary references for this article, since the nature of the books is polemical and these do not conform to the standards of non-biased academic scholarship. If the author of this page continues to use polemical sources, then the he/she needs to enter these under the "Sunni View" heading. I just want this page to look more academic in its approach rather than be viewed as a dogmatic tussle between Sunnis and Shi'ites. Mhaider5 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC) --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In your anti-Muawiyah opinion Bewley's book is polemical. Mhaider5 shared your view. (He/she made 29 edits to Wikipedia from November 2007 to November 2008.)

Have you read the book in question? Do you have any evidence from reliable sources to back up your/Mhaider5's claims?

Regarding Tabari - the key point is that it is a secondary source for the events of Muawiyah and his son's lives, not a primary source. Some editors have asserted that Tabari is a primary source; I disagree with them. The basis of their claim that it is a primary source is that it is very old. As you are doubtless aware, Wikipedia articles are meant to be mainly based on secondary sources.

It is worth noting though, that when you are using a Tabari as a source for the consensus of Abbasid-era historians concerning Muawiyah, Tabari is in that respect a primary source, since you are using Tabari as a source for what he, himself, thought.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me straighten you out on a couple of things first. Yes, I have gone through Bewley's BLOG which she stated was to be included in her THEN upcoming book for me to determine its polemical nature. And NO I have not read this book as of yet. And johnleeds1 used the BLOG from her personal website as reference for the book entitled Muawiyah, Restorer of the Muslim Faith for every single citation which mostly another WP editor deleted. I deleted one missed by the editor. This was a case of clear false representation. In every one of those citations, the link was to this BLOG http://bewley.virtualave.net/muawiya.html. You need to keep that in mind before anything else. And let me straighten you out in something else. My views of Muawiyah do not have a single entry into this article. From what I can recall, I only entered one early historical source from an Urdu language translation, and two (2) objective biographical facts (that he was appointed by Caliph Umar when his elder brother Yazid died of the plague; the date of Muawiyah I's death) and a virtually copy-pasted portion from the Ali WP article regarding the Battle of Siffin (amply cited). As for reliable sources about an opinion on Caliph Muawiyah I, I own (3) copies (Arabic, Urdu, and English) of hagiographer Sharif Razi's 10th Century manuscript Nahj Al Balagha which contains journals attributed directly to Ali ibn Abu Talib himself that covers the Battle of Siffin and Muawiyah's conflict with Ali (from Ali's attributed POV). I suggest YOU browse through it from a non-Eastern, non-Islamic perspective for your own edification since you are a WP editor of many Islamic WP articles. And like Zora before you, have the challenging task of acting as a mediator between the opposing viewpoints. As a student and scholar (if you will) of standard Islamic literature, I have in my personal library, treatises and doctrines of literally dozens of different Islamic sects, ranging from the Four Sunnih Creeds (Shafai, Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki), Ithna Ashari/Zaydi/Ismaili/Nizari/Dawoodi creeds, Wahhabi/Salafi creed, etc...So when you ask what evidence I have regarding Muawiyah, I could write WALLS OF TEXTS in this talk page which would comprise an entire WP Talk Page Archive. What I do object to is the polemic nature of what is being entered into the Muawiyah article page which is really uncited. Have you gone through the amount of UNCITED paragraphs, sub-paragraphs, and sentences of this article (?) That is what I object to. Figuratively speaking, I have objected only to Muawiyah being presented as a Pope St. Gregory I (the Great), when he was really much closer to Rodrigo Borgia (Pope Alexander VI). --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Flagrantedelicto, Yazid may have been bad, but this is an article on Muawiyah. One has to keep things in perspective. Flagrantedelicto as you said, "the only literature from the Rashidun & Umayyad times were Kufic-scripted Qur'ans on mainly deerskin folios." That is the only reliable literature.

If you notice, non of Muhammad's companions appear to have wrote their own books. Even the generation after them avoided writing books, they said in case people in the generations after them misinterpreted them and started creating sects. They said they wanted people to use the Quran. There was only the Quran. So as you said, "the only literature from the Rashidun & Umayyad times were Kufic-scripted Qur'ans on mainly deerskin folios." That is the only reliable iterature. But the Quran just talks about one God, the prophets and tells people not to commit sins and to be good to one another. May be 300 years later people felt lets add some political history books and add some fireworks.

Many of the quotes above are from books written hundreds of years later. Muhammad al-Bukhari collected over 300,000 hadith, but only included 2,602 distinct hadith in his book Sahih al-Bukhari, that passed tests like if the two people in the chain of narration were at the same place at the same time. Malik ibn Anas was born 141 years after Muhammad and lived all his life in Madina and knew over 100,000 sayings (hadith) of Muhammad and only included 1,720 hadith in his book Muwatta that were reliable. He worked with Ja'far al-Sadiq and Abu Hanifa in Al-Masjid an-Nabawi in Medina and there are around 13 hadith from Ja'far al-Sadiq in Muwatta that are probably more reliable than those in the Shia books written hundreds of years later by Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni, Ibn Babawayh, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. Muwatta is the oldest book about Islam after the Quran. There is nothing political in Muwatta. In fact there is a translation of Muwatta by Aisha Bewley and you could read it on her site. You could also find it in any major library. People in the Sahara still use it as they have escaped the Middle East politics. It is the jurisprudence from early Madina period and Malik clearly distinguishes between what is from the Quran, what is from Muhammad and what is the consensus of the Scholars of Madia at his time. May be at the time people only followed what was from the Quran and Muhammad in his book. A lot of the political books were written around 300 years after Muhammad to push the Persian on the Syrian line.

If you read carefully what Aisha Bewley is saying is, Mu'awiya appears to have learnt two things from Muhammad. If you be just and fair to the people they will be OK with you. By implementing justice and continuing with the welfare state the Syrians appear to have been OK with Mu'awiya, even though the majority of the Syrians at the time were not Muslim. Modern states like in the UK here where I live, also try to use these two principles to keep the population happy. When people have empty stomachs, they have nothing to loose and start fighting. If you are unjust to people, they also fight to gain their rights. When you scratch the surface, there is no difference between the policies of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali. Even Muawiyah had similar policies. They continued the welfare state. To the Romans they were all the same. Non muslim writers like Christian bishop of Jerusalem Sophronius died 638 and the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes died 758 also wrote about these people. Flagrantedelicto, according to the Sunni and Shia books, Ali worked very closely with Umar and instructed Umar to take on the Persian army after they moved south to take on the Muslims .So even in the Shia books like Nahj Al Balagha that you mensioned above contain lots of contradictions that later generations tried to put a twist on by miss translating and adding commentaries to hide how closely Umar and Ali worked. Many of these history books were written over 300 years after Muhammad and no one knows about their chain of narrations for the history books who said what to who and how reliable the people transmitting this knowledge orally were. Can you remember what Nelson said in the battle of trafalgar in 1805 to his staff if it was transmitted orally. The history books where the arguments are like Nahj Al Balagha and Al Tabri, unlike some of the Hadith books, don't even have a chain of narration.

Hence the Quran is the only reliable source from that period. And people may just be wasting their time arguing over historical events that may never have occurred. Like us now :)--Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No argument from me there. The Qur'an, from a purely historiographical perspective, is the only genuine document that dates to pre-Abbasid times. However, even with the Qur'an, the unfortunate matter of ijtihad (exegeses) and tafasir (commentaries) emerge, and so scholars debate and argue over the meanings of the verses, or to whom some of the verses are really referring to (when no names are stated in those passages). I wouldn't say we are really wasting our time, just trying to figure out what were the facts (as much as possible, if it all possible) about our past. As the past affects our present and future. If one doesn't know where, how, and why things occurred, then one is virtually in the dark about why the present is the way it is, and so consequently one doesn't really know when to do what and why in the future. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The one thing I forgot to comment on was that Muawiyah supposedly learned two things from Muhammad: To be just and fair with people and they will be OK with you...Too bad Muawiyah did not apply what he learned to Muhammad's very own family members: Ali and Hasan. Muawiyah is a fascinating character of history and has his closest equivalent in the Western, non-Islamic world in the person of Rodrigo Borgia (Pope Alexander VI). In Western, non-Islamic parlance, to paint Caliph Muawiyah I as Pope St. Peter or Pope St. Gregory the Great is rather satirically humourous. There are a DOZEN SUNNI Imams of classical Islamic literature who haven't exactly recorded too many kind things about Caliph Muawiyah I. The early Islamic literature on Caliph Muawiyah I is ambivalent and controversial. One of the strongest of evidence that the Banu Umayyah DID NOT really propagate Islam in their domain is that till modern times, Sham (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine) and North Africa (From Morocco to Egypt) retained a rather sizable percentage of the Christian population. During Muhammad's lifetime, nearly all of the Arabian Peninsula had unequivocally accepted Islam, the exception being the NAJD, which was once under the Yemenite Kindah Dynasty and then fell into Christian Lakhmid control). When Ali was ELECTED Caliph by the Islamic Shura (Council), his tenure was only 4 1/2 years before being assassinated. Ali spent that short period of time being attacked by his fellow Muslims (Aisha, Talhah, Zubayr, Marwan, and Muawiyah), while he was trying to clean up the former caliph Uthman's mess...Just some points to compare and analyze. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

None of this relevant to the issue of whether Bewley's book is a reliable source under Wikipedia rules.

The valid objection to the website, is that the text of her talk in Norwich is self-published. This particular objection does not apply to the book, which I have a copy.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

From my end, I have already stated that since you have established that Bewley's book as a secondary source meets the WP guidelines, there is no objection. If johnleeds1 wants to cite the actual book, instead of Bewley's self-published item which is what was cited previously (and met objections), then there is no objection. As for myself, if the book is uploaded online, I shall read through it. I have read DOZENS of such polemical works already, ranging from self-professed revert "scholars" such as Aisha Bewley, to polemical essays by people like Yusuf Qaradawi (someone who is truly recognized and has standing in the Islamic community). When I had communicated with you some months back, you were not at all well-versed in Islamic studies and had a few major misconceptions regarding the Karbala conflict. However, it seems you have taken an active interest since then and have commenced studying Islamic literature. I do suggest that as a WP editor to read the diverse creeds or sects of Islam and not formulate an opinion of just one POV sect. Keep in mind that Salafi/Wahhabi POV is NOT traditional SUNNI POV, despite what their advocates proclaim. And avoid this anti-Shia/Ismaili bias which is clearly prevalent. The way some of these (fellow) SUNNI and SALAFI oriented WP editors & users refer to the Shias and their POV is almost distasteful (I am expressing this being a SUNNI-raised person whose half lineage [maternal] is Catholic; over 13% of Pakistan's population is CHRISTIAN). Flagrantedelicto (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Expanded Upon Caliph Muawiyah I's Legacy

Expanding on the section of Caliph Muawiyah I's legacy, the ambivalence and controversial nature surrounding the establisher of the Umayyad Dynasty is summarized. In retrospective analysis, if it were not for Muawiyah's opposition to the properly elected Rashidun caliph, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Muawiyah's reputation would have been unanimously favourable among the eminent SUNNI theologians, chroniclers, and hagiographers. It was to illustrate this point that the section of Muawiyah's legacy was expanded. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop POV pushing.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing of what (?) Flagrantedelicto (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"properly elected" is a POV phrase and you know it.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, what do you mean by "you know it" (?) And fyi, properly elected means election by the Islamic Shura (Council), which was the Islamic standard since the foundation of the office of the Caliphate. That is what is meant by properly elected. There are POV phrases ALL throughout this article of which so many are UNCITED which you conveniently seem to be unaware of, so what prompted you to conclude that properly elected is POV pushing (?) --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There are no books by Muslim authors written when Ali and Muawiyah were alive. Just to illustrate the point, this quote in the article uses the reference Al-Suyuti which was written by Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti "I asked my father about Ali and Muawiyah. He (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)answered: "Know that Ali had a lot of enemies who tried hard to find afault in him, but they found it not. As such, they joined a man (i.e.,Muawiyah, as given in the footnotes) who verily fought him, battledhim, and they praised him (Muawiyah) extravagantly setting a snare forthemselves for him. -Abdullah bin Ahmad Ibn Hanbal

Al-Suyuti was written by Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti who lived between 1445–1505 AD where as Ahmad ibn Hanbal lived 780—855 which is 600 years earlier. Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti never met Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Ahmad ibn Hanbal (780—855) never met Muawiyah who lived between 602–680 and Ali between 607-661. So we are presuming that these statements were orally told from one man to another for hundreds of years until they were written down hundreds of years later in 1500. Of course they would have changed, when one man told another. We don't even know if they are correct. Then we are presuming that it refers to Muawiyah and not the Kharijites and their leader who also fought Ali. There are many quotes in books written hundreds of years later that speak as if the author was sat next to Ali and Muawiyah when they were alive. The Kharijites caused much of the conflict between Ali and Muawiyah due to their extreme views. People who became the Kharijites also killed Ali's cousin Zubair. Ali and Muawiyah were second cousins. This statement of Ali is in both Sunni and Shia books:

Ali says:“With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority of Muslims because Allah’s hand of protection is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is a prey to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is a prey to the wolf. Beware! Whoever calls to this course [of sectarianism], kill him, even though he may be under this headband of mine.”

There are no religious books written by Muslims for around 100 year after the passing of Muhammad because they felt that their books would create sects and that people would get away from the Quran. The views in later books depend on where they were written and when. The further you get from Madina and the further you get away from the time that Muhammad lived in, the more the views diverge. Then they add their political views. The former Roman areas and the former Persian area have their own difference due to the Roman–Persian Wars and the Byzantine–Sassanid wars that lasted for hundreds of years before Muhammad and you still see their affect in the recent wars in Syria and Iraq. The authors of these books made it clear that they were just writing what people were saying hundreds of years later. But now people take it as truth and unfortunately innocent people in places like Syria and Iraq suffer. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you are referring to literature written by prominent classical Islamic scholars read across a millennium...And yet you quote a relative novice like Aisha Bewley, who herself in her self-published website states that her husband Abdur Rahman Bewley corrects her Arabic translations from sounding like ARAB-LISH. You are clearly applying a selective, illogical double standard when you cite Aisha Bewley, and reject ALL the Classical SUNNI Imams and Ulama stating they lived hundreds of years later. When exactly did Aisha Bewley live ? She lives 1400 years later from the time of Prophet Muhammad. She herself quotes the Classical authors of Islamic literature.

You further stated earlier that Classical Islamic works are barely being translated into English and those which are translated are "interpreted". You do know that much of the classical works have been translated into other languages (Farsi, Urdu, Turkish, English, French, etc.), and are out of reach of that particular POV-pushing group which is on a mission to RE-EDIT and tamper with those Classical SUNNI Islamic works, so it will fit in with their aqeedah (religious conviction). The late Shaykh Albani being a prime example, who got caught red-handed for eliminating over 300 ahadith of Imam Bukhari in one of his books. The famous Hanafi SUNNI scholar Dr. Mohd. Tahir Ul Qadri exposed this publicly.

Getting to the point of your last unsourced edit. You already have entered a substantial amount of paragraphs/sub-paragraphs that have still NOT been cited whatsoever. Essentially, you already have your work cut out for you in CITING all of your remaining UNCITED additions to the article. You also falsely represented (while citing) Bewley's book Muawiyah, Restorer of the Muslim Faith by linking it to Bewley's self-published website blog, while nothing of the actual book was cited (except for one properly cited info which myself and another WP editor left alone). Just to illustrate how widely acknowledged the number of 70,000 killed at Siffin is, here is a link to the most generic sources which cite that number of casualties (70,000):

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/battleswarsto1000/p/siffin.htm

http://tribes.tribe.net/542c9b86-93b1-4b12-bc96-a754f89c5e8e/thread/f861ee3a-4adb-4457-acf5-247b434eec0e

--Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This New Section heading from Johnleeds1 Talk Page entered by Toddy1 :

Hazrat Muawiyah

Thank you for the improvements you have made to the article on Muawiyah I.[2] The new section has some citations, which is great. Would it be possible for you to add some more citations please. You must have some sources for the information you amended, and and also for the new paragraphs you added that lack citations. It is much easier for you to add the citations for this than for other people.

I also have one quibble. You have a paragraph that starts: "Sunni scholars interpret..." This is weasel-like. Please either give citations to a secondary source that says this, or amend to "Sunni scholars, such as X, Y and Z, interpret...", which would also need citing.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Only Muslims address a historical or religious figure of Islam with the honorific title of HAZRAT. When Toddy1 did this on Johnleeds1 Talk Page, this gives a strong indication of possible Islamic affiliation by WP user-editor Toddy1. This affiliation, from speculation, could be that Toddy1 is a possible revert/convert to Islam, or someone who is headed in that direction. Only someone of SUNNI or SALAFI/WAHHABI persuasion would address Caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT. It is almost certain that NO NON-Muslim WP editor/user would have addressed Caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT MUAWIYAH. However, even among the vast SUNNI population, there is a half percentage who DO NOT address the Umayyad caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT. Among the SUNNI Muslim populace, there is a division of those who address Caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT, and those who DO NOT. The point of all this being that if Toddy1 is presenting herself/himself as possibly a NON-Muslim, entirely neutral WP editor, then this revealing documented information has to be brought to the forefront and acknowledged. Not that whatever Toddy1's theological affiliation may be makes any difference as a WP editor/user, but it does make a difference if Toddy1 is acting as a mediator in the Yazid I and Muawiyah I WP article pages. This could manifest itself in potential favoritism and partiality toward Salafi/Wahhabi influenced views of nearly half of the Sunni Muslim population. Then the objectivity and neutrality as a mediating WP editor/user is clearly jeopardized. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are illustrations/examples of the apparent lack of objectivity and neutrality by WP editor Toddy1 from some of his/her responses in the WP Talk Pages:

You do not seem to understand my point. You object to Bewley's book. Your arguments against it were not based on Wikipedia policy (or if they were, you did not explain them well enough). Your posts show that you have an extremely strong bias against Muawiyah and his son. As far as I can tell, your objection to Bewley is that she is not one of your lot. That is not a valid objection to using her book as a source. You are happy to talk about other people as (to use your words) "POV pushing" - and maybe you are right to do so - maybe - but you also have a POV, and push it very hard. I think you are a good editor and are of great value to Wikipedia. But please be more self-aware, and more tolerant of views you do not share.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

In your anti-Muawiyah opinion Bewley's book is polemical. Mhaider5 shared your view. (He/she made 29 edits to Wikipedia from November 2007 to November 2008.) Have you read the book in question? Do you have any evidence from reliable sources to back up your/Mhaider5's claims? --Toddy1 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC) [An excerpt, not the entire response from Toddy1]

None of this relevant to the issue of whether Bewley's book is a reliable source under Wikipedia rules. The valid objection to the website, is that the text of her talk in Norwich is self-published. This particular objection does not apply to the book, which I have a copy.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thus, all of these above examples of some of the responses of WP editor Toddy1 indicate a possible bias toward my position (which seeks to represent a NON-Salafi/Wahhabi POV of traditional SUNNI Islamic ideology), while on the other hand, indicating possible favoritism and partiality toward WP user/editor Johnleeds1 (who gives the clear impression of representing Salafi/Wahhabi POV, or Salafi/Wahhabi-influenced POV of a percentage of SUNNI Islamic ideology). From further analysis, all the interjections of WP editor Toddy1 are clearly aimed at my responses and not a single one toward WP user Johnleeds1. This is further indication of possible favoritism and partiality toward one WP user/editor (eg., Johnleeds1) over another WP user/editor (eg., myself, Flagrantedelicto). Some further points to be addressed are that WP editor Toddy1 indicated that he/she had a copy of Aisha Bewley's book Muawiyah, Restorer of the Muslim Faith. This appears to be somewhat unusual for a WP editor who is acting as a NON-Muslim mediator. It is further unusual when this same WP editor takes it upon herself/himself to seek REFERENCES and cite them on behalf of another WP user/editor or users/editors that had listed nine (9) INCOMPLETE cited sources (when the author was cited but the actual BOOKS were not). This is puzzling because when I myself had requested this WP editor (Toddy1) to do so on my behalf several months ago, because this WP editor kept interrupting me when I tried to insert any citations, as I was (at that time) relatively new to WP editing, this WP editor expressed to me much later that his/her responsibility was to assist editors/users (such as myself) in our edits to WP articles so that these edits meet WP guidelines. A summarizing point to be made: When presenting the traditional historical persona of Umayyad caliphs Yazid I (which is almost unanimous) and Muawiyah I (which is ambivalent) from all the classical Islamic literature of mostly SUNNI Imams (Religious Leaders) and Ulama (Scholars), is subsequently referred to as having an extremely strong bias against Muawiyah and his son by the WP editor in question (who is acting as mediator to the differing views of Islamic historiography), this then indicates a propensity toward Salafi/Wahhabi or Salafi/Wahhabi-influenced SUNNI ideology. A prime example of such propensity is illustrated in this earlier exchange on this Talk Page between myself and WP editor Toddy1:

Please stop POV pushing.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing of what (?) Flagrantedelicto (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"properly elected" is a POV phrase and you know it.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line of my objection is toward the apparent mis-representation in WP articles of what are essentially Salafi/Wahhabi POV which are being presented as mainstream, traditional SUNNI Islamic POV. What I am sincerely requesting is a mediating WP editor who is unbiased, neutral, and objective. This can only be properly achieved by a NON-Muslim WP mediating editor who is genuinely not influenced by any of the differing POV's of the various creeds (madh'dhab) of the Islamic faith. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Below is the replicated correspondence from my Talk Page (verbatim) which further illustrate my concerns regarding WP editor Toddy1's questionable objectivity and neutrality regarding the entries (by both user Johnleeds1 and myself) in this article page:

Citing books

In your edits to Battle of Siffin, Muawiyah I, Yazid I, etc. please could you add a list of books that you are citing from rather like the Muawiyah I#Sources section that I added in response to a request for clarification that you made on one of the talk pages. You know exactly what the books you are citing are, so this will be very easy for you. The information other readers really need to know are:

Title of the book (if it is not in English, please quote the title both in the language of the book and in translation)

Author

Publisher

Date of publication of the edition you are citing

ISBN number (if any)

If the language the edition of the book you are citing from is not English, please state the language.

Remember we want the information for the edition you are citing.

If you are not actually looking at the book you are citing, but doing second-hand citations, then please make this clear in citations - for if for example you read an article in Mechanics Weekly that is citing Tabari, then you need to say the citation they made, and say cited in Mechanics Weekly together with the name of the article, author of the article, date, etc.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you are undeniably applying a double standard here. In the Yazid I and Muawiyah I article pages there are entries that are UNCITED. In the Muawiyah I page most of the UNCITED entries were rather recent and you are clearly aware of them. We are talking about well over a DOZEN paragraphs worth of UNCITED entries. And those are rather recent UNCITED entries. If you do not request the particular user to either add sources (period) to these citations and request PRECISELY every single item that which you are requesting of me (very conveniently, only recently), and in the exact same itemized manner in which you have requested of me, which you have not apparently done so (as of yet) as is evident in the johnleeds1 WP Talk Page (so it does not give me the impression that you are applying favoritism and partiality toward another WP user/editor in preference to me), then I will regrettably have no option but to lodge a serious concern of double standard requisitions from you to the WP Administrators. I considered you a friend/co-editor here on WP who in the past has been encouraging of my efforts. As of lately, you have been interjecting (while appearing critical) in nearly all of my efforts in editing the WP articles. As you are very well aware of, johnleeds1 falsely represented his cited sources when he listed Bewley's book Muawiyah, Restorer of the Muslim Faith while the source was linked to her self-published (essentially) website blog (of her speech), and NOT her book. In your correspondence with him in the Talk Pages, you show surprising flexibility at the known fact that johnleeds1 had added well over a DOZEN paragraphs/sub-paragraphs that are entirely UNCITED. And yet, you are requesting of me already CITED information. These citations were acceptable to Edward321 and yourself before. Conveniently, now you are suddenly asking for more details. This gives me the impression that you are applying preferential treatment of one WP editor/user over another and not applying a fair, impartial requisition. When in the Muawiyah I article there were nearly a DOZEN improperly cited sources (NO BOOKS were cited, only the authors), you didn't seem to be aware of it. These sources cited entirely without book titles, were also relatively recent, but that didn't seem to concern you until I brought attention to it. And as for all those UNCITED entries by johnleeds1, you are surprisingly flexible and appear to be almost nonchalant about them. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I did not request for clarification of those nearly dozen incompletely cited sources (eg., no book titles were cited). What I specifically stated was: Speaking of vague citations to books the editors may have never read, how do you feel about page numbers being cited in this article along with the last name of the authors (and the year of publication)--but NO BOOKS are cited whatsoever...(?) My statement was in response to what appeared to be an allegation (by you) of WP editors/users who may or may not have read material they have cited. Which is interesting since johnleeds1 (up to that time) only cited one entry to Bewley's book Muawiyah, Restorer of the Muslim Faith, while all the others were directly linked to Bewley's self-published website blog, and not the cited book; if anything, this appeared to be a clear-cut case of a WP user/editor not having read the cited book. These edits were deleted by WP editor Kansas Bear; the one entry he forgot, I deleted. We both left alone the one entry which (at that time) actually cited a page number.

Also, this statement by you: I suspect that some of the vague citations are to books that the editors have never read, which is why the editors cannot give the edition and page number. it is easy to do that - you read in some magazine or web-page that some book says something, and you add the information to Wikipedia and a citation to the book - if you are going to do this, the honest way is state what you are doing (and there are proper formats on Wikipedia for doing this).--Toddy1 (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC) --Is an allegation or even a virtual indictment of dishonesty from WP editors/users. Now I couldn't quite figure out was it in reference to ALL WP editors/users in general or me specifically. Either way, such a statement could be perceived as almost accusatory of WP editors/users and rather offensive.

The clarification for which I actually requested from you was for this comment you made to me in the Muawiyah I Talk Page: As far as I can tell, your objection to Bewley is that she is not one of your lot. I never did get a reply from you as to what "lot" you were referring to in regards to me (?) --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC) --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

One more point which I wanted to make was that WP user-editor Toddy1 made the statement that he/she had a copy of the very book in question (Aisha Bewley's Muawiyah, Restorer of the Muslim Faith), which is the center of objection for the misleading MANNER in which this book was cited by Johnleeds1 (being linked as reference to Bewley's self-published website blog, and not the actual book). It is rather COINCIDENTAL that Toddy1 has this very book, but Johnleeds1 claims it as a cited source (sans chapters, page numbers, etc., -- The very things Toddy1 puzzlingly requested of me when I already cited those basic things for my references). It is a further COINCIDENCE that Toddy1 is defending the veracity of Bewley's book which she stated she had a copy, and yet it is Johnleeds1 who is using it as a cited source (even though it was linked to Bewley's self-published website, and not the actual book itself). This is all somewhat perplexing, since Toddy1 has clearly appeared to be supportive of Johnleeds1 (even when misleadingly representing his cited source), while appearing almost contentious and unfair (applying double standards) with me and my efforts. -- Flagrantedelicto (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Flagrantedelicto what are you trying to get at, do you want to become an editor on this page. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If you only want your views on this page and want to delete my changes go ahead--Johnleeds1 (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Clearly there is a spectrum of views on this man. An Ismaili friend of mine once told me you could even look at it mathematically and build a table, staring with the orientalist and the population in Syria at the time who don't appear to mind him, leading to the Salafi who accept Ali as the al-khulafa' ar-rashidun but don't mind Muawiyah, leading to the Diobandis, then on to the other Sunni who also accept Ali as the al-khulafa' ar-rashidun and favour Ali over Muawiyah, leading to the Zaidi, and then onto the Twelver Shia and then to the Ismaili. You could also have a column for the motive. But then people will start drawing a graph :)

You have to admit that people call this man Muawiyah everything under that sun. Good and bad. Some of the things they call him are very abusive. So it would be very hard to administer any such article. There needs to be civilized behavior on an encyclopedia. Kids read it too for their homework. Looking at various books Ali appears to have been very civilized in his conduct with Muawiyah. He provided an example. Many of the old books are also very civilized in their conduct. Looking at many of the old books it appears even Muhammad told people not to speak badly of people after they pass way because he said they were in this world for a test and after they pass away god is their judge. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am an editor of this page, as are others. Technically, those are really not my views, but the views of the classical Sunni Imams and Ulama. I just stated a historical fact that to this day, Caliph Muawiyah I has not been able to shed the taint of his opposition to 4th Rashidun caliph, Ali. What I genuinely object to is misrepresentation. The classical SUNNI Imams and Ulama are almost unanimous when recording their views in the Ali and Muawiyah conflict. The uncensored Shi'ite view of this conflict can only be imagined. There is no objection to (what is essentially and partially Syrian-influenced) Salafi/Wahhabi POV, which has virtually reinvented Caliph Muawiyah's persona as Sir Galahad. However, ethically speaking, it ought to be under the banner of Salafi/Wahhabi POV and not the mainstream SUNNI banner, as is evident from the surviving classical SUNNI literature which evokes ambivalence.

Also, I did not delete your nearly two dozen UNCITED paragraphs/sub-paragraphs because if you do have access to Bewley's book Muawiyah, Restorer of the Muslim Faith, then I presume at some point you will fill in those cited sources. That is if all of your countless UNCITED entries are fully (or even partially) from Bewley's book. What I previously objected to was your misleading method of citing from what appeared to be a self-published blogger. Instead of working on citing all those entries you made (even at a pace convenient to you), you are engaged in offering (what appear to be) qutbas (sermons) in return. Please fill in the cited sources. And take heed to my cautioning you to no longer inundate my personal Talk Page with your responses, if you please. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that there is nothing wrong with having Salafi/Wahhabi POV (for those who are Salafi/Wahhabi), just so long as one acknowledges it and does not misrepresent it as mainstream SUNNI POV; many SUNNIS have serious differences with Salafi/Wahhabi POV. That is my main concern being a SUNNI myself. What has been happening in WP Islamic articles is that Salafi/Wahhabi POV has been represented as SUNNI POV, while SUNNI POV has been represented as Shi'ite POV; for example, the VAST majority of sources cited in the Shi'ite POV sections are ALL SUNNI; this is clear misrepresentation of academic facts. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Chronological Discrepancy Of Sahih Hadith

An analysis of this hadith from Sahih Bukhari which has been entered into the Conflict With Ali Section of the Muawiyah I article page:

Volume 3, Book 49 (Peacemaking), Number 867:[57] Narrated by Al-Hasan Al-Basri

By Allah, Al-Hasan bin Ali led large battalions like mountains against Muawiya. Amr bin Al-As said (to Muawiya), "I surely see battalions which will not turn back before killing their opponents." Muawiya who was really the best of the two men said to him, "O 'Amr! If these killed those and those killed these, who would be left with me for the jobs of the public, who would be left with me for their women, who would be left with me for their children?" Then Muawiya sent two Quraishi men from the tribe of 'Abd-i-Shams called 'Abdur Rahman bin Sumura and Abdullah bin 'Amir bin Kuraiz to Al-Hasan saying to them, "Go to this man (i.e. Al-Hasan) and negotiate peace with him and talk and appeal to him." So, they went to Al-Hasan and talked and appealed to him to accept peace. Al-Hasan said, "We, the offspring of 'Abdul Muttalib, have got wealth and people have indulged in killing and corruption (and money only will appease them)." They said to Al-Hasan, "Muawiya offers you so and so, and appeals to you and entreats you to accept peace." Al-Hasan said to them, "But who will be responsible for what you have said?" They said, "We will be responsible for it." So, what-ever Al-Hasan asked they said, "We will be responsible for it for you." So, Al-Hasan concluded a peace treaty with Muawiya. Al-Hasan (Al-Basri) said: I heard Abu Bakr saying, "I saw Allah's Apostle on the pulpit and Al-Hasan bin 'Ali was by his side. The Prophet was looking once at the people and once at Al-Hasan bin 'Ali saying, 'This son of mine is a Saiyid (i.e. a noble) and may Allah make peace between two big groups of Muslims through him."

Now if Hasan of Basra is the narrator of this tradition, there are chronological problems here. First Rashidun caliph Abu Bakr died in 634 CE, while Hasan Al-Basri was born in Madinah in 642 CE. So how could Hasan Al-Basri claim to have heard Abu Bakr (??) There is no intermediary stated in this sahih hadith, which explicitly has Hasan Al-Basri claiming that he (personally) heard Abu Bakr saying the following... This portion of the hadith could have been forged, as at one point in standard Islamic history, it has been said that there were no less than seven (7) different versions of Sahih Bukhari. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Article Lacks Coherence

Just an analysis that this article in its current state resembles a banana split. It is now a heterogeneous mixture. I propose a restructuring of its ample contents into a coherent structure. The Sunni spectrum is wide-ranging, and from all the classical SUNNI Islamic literature, there is undeniable ambivalence toward the subject of Umayyad caliph, Muawiyah I. The Shi'ite view is unanimous in opposition to Muawiyah I, and their traditional sources are Bihar ul Anwar (Ocean of Lights) by Baqir Majlisi, Usul Al Kafi by Kulayni, Allama Tabatabaei, and Al-Sharif Al-Razi's epic compilation Nahj Al Balaghah (Peak of Eloquence), which is also valued by many mainstream SUNNIS. The Salafi/Wahhabi view is unanimous in their admiration of Muawiyah I. The exhaustive effort of the Salafi/Wahhabi POV to present their reinvention of Muawiyah I under the SUNNI mainstream banner cannot be ignored or denied.

Therefore, I propose a consolidation of the (essentially) disparate interpretations of the controversial persona of Caliph Muawiyah I. This article invites suggestions and ideas on how this coherency can restore encyclopedic standards of quality. However, I would like to stress that classical SUNNI sources represent traditional SUNNI views, and always have. These sources have been misleadingly attributed to the Shi'ite POV, which technically they are NOT. There are bridges which fill in the gaps between traditional Sunni and Shia perspectives, and there are bridges which fill in the gaps between Sunni and Salafi/Wahhabi views. Because of the Sunni majority and the common ground of reverence and respect of the Rashidun Khilafah between SUNNIS and Salafis/Wahhabis, the vast majority of Salafis have crossed over from mainstream SUNNI Islam (all four fiqhs: Shafai, Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki). However, so many of them have still retained their Sunni nominal identification, that there has been an increasing confusion in this distinction between SUNNI and SALAFI (aka WAHHABI). The Wikipedia Islamic articles which have established the SUNNI View & SHIA View sections clearly attest to this. Salafi POV has lapped over to Sunni POV, while much of traditional mainstream Sunni POV (evident from Classical Sunni literature) has lapped over to Shia POV. There has been an indiscreet Salafi effort to proclaim their POV as Sunni while labeling anything even remotely favorable toward the Hashimite Sayyids (i.e., Muhammad's Ahl Al Bayt), as automatically Shi'ite. This is clear stereotyping and profiling from the Salafi/Wahhabi POV pushers, as a large SUNNI populace is also pro-Ahl Al Bayt Muhammadi. Maybe a proposed sub-section of Salafi/Wahhabi Views under the Sunni section would rectify and clarify this distinction. Unbiased (as much as possible) feedback welcomed. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In awaiting feedback from fellow WP editors/users, I took the initiative to define some coherency to this article. Materials were reconfigured to their appropriate sections. Some duplicate entries were identified and deleted. Some uncited entries which cluttered up the sections were deleted. Uncited entries which pertained to the coherency and continuity of the overall article were retained in anticipation of them being cited by the WP user that inserted them. There is still sharpening up to be done to the article, but from my perspective, it now appears to be much less of a heterogeneous mixture. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Books

I first came across hadith books while working on Artificial Intelligence, because the compilers of hadith books also used logic to deduce if a hadith was correct. These days it is possible to build a computer programme to assist in this, the dates and the people could be fed in. The text of the hadith could be converted into Logical statements to allow computers to mathematically deduce their authenticity. But its a complex task and currently the computer algorithms are not refined enough. Then there is the task of ensuring that when these books are translated to English, the translation is accurate. The ANDs and ORs have to be correct. But then since these books were written hundreds of years after Muhammad, as text was transmitted orally from a person to person before it was written down, it may also have been altered. No wonder the Muslims can't agree on these books. They only fully agree on the Koran. One thing I have noticed is that the history books were not subjected to the same level of tests as the hadith books. Therefore it is also possible that the dates we have for the date of birth of Hasan of Basra may be wrong. Even these days, many people in developing countries do not know their date of birth.

Many of the early books also get text from books written before them. There is a lot of cross referencing. These books build on top of one another and many of these scholars worked with one another. Additionally as you get away from Madina and go further in time from Muhammad, the views in the books diverge.

One option is rather than divide the whole article into Salafi Views, Sunni Views, Shia views, Roman Views etc. May be concentrate on showing the facts that every one agrees on. One common theme between many of these books is the role the Khariji and their predecessors qurra, Haruriyya played in creating the divisions and starting the fights.

It appears that both the Syrians and Ali did not want to fight. Another account I found in Aisha Bewleys book Page 21-22 says

On 11th Safar 37 AH, the Iraqis under Ashtar's command namely the qurra in Ali's army, who had their own camp started the fighting in earnest which lasted three days. The loss of life was terrible. Suddenly one of the Syrians, Ibn Lahiya, out of dread of the fitna and unable to bear the spectacle rode forward with a copy of the Quran on the ears of his horse to call for judgement by the book of Allah, and the other Syrians followed suit. Everyone on both sides took up the cry, eager to avoid killing their follow muslims - except for the conspirators. The majority of Alis followers supported arbitration. The Shia account of Nasr b Muzahim states that al-Ash atg ibn Qays, one of Ali's key supporters and the kufans then stood up and said:

"O company of Muslims! You have seen what happened in the day which has passed. In it some of the Arabs have been annihilated. By Allah, I have reached the age which Allah willed that I reach. but I have never ever seen a day like this. Let the present convey to the absent! If we fight tomorrow, it will be the annihilation of the Arabs and the loss of what is sacred. I do not make this statement out of fear of death, but I am an aged man who fears for the women and children tomorrow id we are annihilated.O Allah, I have looked to my people and the people of my deen and not empowered anyone. There is no success except by Allah. On Him I rely and to Him I return. Opinion can be both right and wrong. When Allah decides a matter, He carries it out whether His servants like it or not. I say this and I ask Allah's forgiveness for me and you." Then, he says people looked at Muawiya who said "He is right, by the Lord. If we meet tomorrow the Byzantines will attach our women and children and the people of Persia will attach the women and children of Iraq. Those with forebearance and intelligence see this. Tie the copies of the Quran to the ends of the spears". So the fighting stopped.

Later when the Khariji were defeated by Ali he said in both the Sunni and the Shia books

"Ali says:With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority of Muslims because Allah’s hand of protection is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is a prey to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is a prey to the wolf. Beware! Whoever calls to this course [of sectarianism], kill him, even though he may be under this headband of mine."

When you look at things in detail Ali and Muawiyah does NOT appear to have as much control over the people of Syria and Iraq as one expects. They had been fighting each other for centuries in the Roman-Persian Wars and the Byzantine-Sassanid wars and there were still hardcore eliments in them. The views in the books also appear to reflect which country the historian lived in. Much of the Sunni and Shia divisions are political and they have more to do with the Roman-Persian Wars and the Byzantine-Sassanid wars than Islam. It's tribalism. Its about taxes and who should rule. Not the Islam of Madina during the time of Muhammad.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, your hypotheses about the use of computer programs to see if ahadith are authentic or not is futuristic to the point of being science fiction. We might as well start discussing the use of quantum mechanics to deduce if ahadith are authentic or not. One of the very few ways any hadith can be viewed as authentic is if it is supported by corroborating material within the Qur'an; the Qur'an is a historiographical document. As far as ahadith that are prophetic, the only way they can be regarded as authentic is if the prophecy actually came true. This has certainly been very much the focus with Biblical narrations in Christianity. If hadith epigraphy can be determined archaeologically to their contemporaneous timelines, the odds of their authenticity is certainly stronger. However, even contemporaneous material does not account for authenticity. For example, 19th Dynasty pharaoh Ramesses II recorded during his own lifetime, his version of the Battle of Kadesh which resembles all the supernatural, fantastic exploits of the polytheists deities of ancient times. Ramesses II's half-fiction and half-facts were (literally speaking) written in stone: On temples, pylons, obelisks, etc. However, the equally contemporaneous Hittite Boghazkoy cuneiform tablets regarding the Battle of Kadesh, offer an almost entirely different account. So being contemporaneous doesn't necessarily offer validity or credibility.

When you state that the dates of Hasan of Basra's birth maybe wrong, it somehow doesn't occur to you that the chances of that end portion of the hadith has a far greater probability of being wrong, rather than the established timeline of Hasan al-Basri's birth (even a close proximation). This conjecture clearly exposes the typical arguments of some Salafi/Wahhabi-oriented POV of whom the majority amongst them (certainly not all), have been indulging in. This indulgence even reaching to levels of incredulous, anachronistic, virtual pseudo-revisionism of standard Islamic history which I have personally encountered.

I will candidly state that Aisha Bewley is a virtual nobody in comparison to modern Islamic scholars like Mawdudi, Qaradawi, Ahmed Deedat, Tahir ul Qadiri, etc. For you to even quote Bewley without providing her medieval Islamic SOURCES is almost an insult to intelligence. For example, Ibn Hisham cited Ibn Ishaq, Mawdudi cited Ibn Kathir, etc., etc. You argue about Imam Hanbal, Imam Suyuti, etc., living hundreds of years later...lol When does this Aisha Bewley live (?) By chance, she wouldn't be a personal friend of yours would she (?) This author will probably end up obliging you with royalties for the free publicity which you have lavished upon her here on WP (lol). After reading her self-published work form her website blogs, I wouldn't spend a nickel to buy this book you have provided as a cited source written by her. If this book is ever uploaded online (for free), I will then read it. I am only curious as to what classical Sunni Imams and Ulama Bewley has cited. To me, Bewley is not even worth discussing.

You speak of facts about which everyone can agree on (?) What facts (?) Whose facts (?) That is the whole point of contention in these WP articles...That the various Islamic creeds cannot agree on what the facts are. Each has their own selective interpretation of "facts". You yourself don't seem to accept established "facts" if they don't meet with your ideology or aqeedah (religious conviction). You question classical Sunni Imams and then deny that you do it. Did it ever occur to you that there is considerable medieval Sunni literature which portray Caliph Muawiyah I in a rather unfavorable light that it cannot be ignored or denied...Except by some deluded pseudo-revisionists. Perhaps, you would be much more comfortable by writing that Ali and Muawiyah were really good friends and that 70,000 deaths at Siffin was all a misunderstanding...Because you partially appear to be into white-washing standard Islamic history. As I stated to you before, if you want to go into long-winded theological discussions about Islam or Islamic historiography, do it in Islamic forum websites, rather than inundating the WP Talk Pages with endless conundrums substituting for logical argument. Have you ever heard of the folk tale of Mulla Do-Piaza, when asked by Mughal Emperor Akbar as to what was his definition of a religious community (?) -- The reply was: Irrationals unified by hope of the impossible. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I said it was possible that the dates we have for the date of birth of Hasan of Basra may be wrong. NOT that it is wrong. There are many possibilities here not, just that the text you outlined is wrong. We also need to see the earliest text where it says that, that was his date of birth and see when it was written and by whom, and look at the earliest text written that says when Abu Bakr died. I did not say that the medieval Islamic sources are all wrong. You pointed out the differences above. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A very basic analysis of the Sahih Hadith is that the portion which is a historical impossibility is at the tail end of the actual hadith. When the historical events mentioned in the hadith took place, Hasan was 19 years old (661 CE). Hasan is recollecting those events. However, the end portion of the hadith, Hasan states he heard Caliph Abu Bakr say what Prophet Muhammmad stated about his grandson Al-Hasan ibn Ali... Now, this part of the hadith takes on a recollection of a prophecy of Muhammad. There is clear political overtones here to make it look like the opposition between two specific (yet unnamed Muslim groups) would be peaceably resolved sometime in the future. This portion at the tail end of the hadith has all the earmarks of political manipulation. The main body of the hadith is most likely sahih with the exception of the last portion of it, which given the glaring chronological discrepancy, evidently appears to be forged.

There is no doubt as to when Hasan Al-Basri was born-- Al-Hasan Al-Basri himself said: "I used to enter the rooms of the Messenger of God during the caliphate of 'Uthman; I would touch their ceilings for I was a grown up boy then. I was 14 years old when 'Uthman was killed." Rashidun Caliph Uthman was kiled in 656 CE.

I don't know what you know of Hasan of Basra, but here are some very generic quick links regarding him:

http://abodeofmercy.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/hassan-of-basra-ra/

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/256468/al-Hasan-al-Basri

http://sunnahonline.com/library/biographies/365-al-hasan-al-basri

http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/conversion_hasan_basri.htm

http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/hasan_al_basri.htm

http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=articles&id=136052

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/printer_friendly_posts.asp?TID=12186

Without getting into another long-winded Q/A session with you, I just want to state that there is really no way around the discrepancy of the tail-end portion of this hadith. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Flagrantedelicto you have done a good job of putting the article in chronological order. It looks much better now. Flagrantedelicto it may be best to move some of the text from the Shia section about Abdullah ibn Umar and others into the Sunni section too. All early books used by the Sunni favor Hassan and Ali over Muawiyah. There are two sides to Muawiyah his conflict with Ali where the Sunnis favor Hassan and Ali over Muawiyah. But then there is also his other side, of his involvement in the Arab-Byzantine Wars. I do not know how you could structure this but one option may be to have a section called "Involvement in Arab-Byzantine Wars" or something like that. But then that may not flow chronologically as he was in a conflict with the Byzantines before and after his conflict with Ali. What do you think. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. I was well aware that the Sunni section has not been done justice. There is plenty of Sunni material to make it a near comprehensive section. I shall do my best to get the ball rolling for a properly defined Sunni section. From lengthy research and study, I came to realize that there has been increasing misconceptions as to what constitute the appellations of Sunni and Shia. The Arabic word Shi'i has been used in the Qur'an to describe Prophet Ibrahim as the Shi'i of Prophet Noah. The word translated in English means partisan/supporter or also sectarian. Some Classical Arabic words are used in very different contexts. Shia essentially has two (2) distinct contextual definitions. In early works the word Shia was used for socio-political parties and was not used for madhdhabi jamaaat (congregational creeds). There was also the Shiatul Uthman (Partisans of Uthman), the 3rd Rashidun Caliph, to which Muawiyah also belonged. It must be remembered that the Abbasids brutally persecuted the Shiatul Ali and there is ample literature which recorded this. The Abbasid Dynasty was the one which defined the Sunni and Shiatul Ali. It must also be acknowledged that the Shiatul Ali during Abbasid times were an umbrella of almost extremist groups who wanted to establish their own dynasties: The Ismailis, Zaydis, Musawis (Sevener Imams who did not except any Imams after Musa al-Kazim), Fathites, Qaramati (Qarmations), etc. Before the Shiatul Ali consolidated into the Ithna Ashariyya (Twelver) majority, there were all these almost fringe sects which caused lots of problems within the Ummah when they drove to establish their own ruling dynasties. The majority of these groups gave rise to extremism who were anti-Abbasid Caliphate. Consequently, the Bani Abbas (Abbasids) emphasized their position as the advocates and guardians of the Sunnah of Muhammad and severely cracked down on them. Unfortunately and unfairly, because of the actions of the earlier fringe Shiatul Ali groups, the more mainstream Ithna Ashariyya (Twelvers) ended up bearing the backlash from the pro-Caliphate Muslim majority. None of the biological descendants of Nabih Muhammad were ever really opposed to the institution of the Caliphate, except for when the Caliphate was cruel and oppressive toward it's own Ummah. The fact is that the Hashimites were really theologians far more than political leaders. This is evident because Ali was reluctant to even taken on the Caliphate, while Hasan gave it up. The Hashimites (Ali, Hasan, Husayn, Jafar al-Sadiq, etc.) epitomized SUNNI Islam. The Sunnah of Muhammad couldn't have been better exemplified than by his Ahl Al Bayt. The People of the House of Muhammad WERE Muhammad's Sunnah. From them SUNNI Islam was defined that is why there is almost no early Sunni literature which portrays them in an unfavorable light. With the progression of time, there came this flip-flop and the Sunni schools seemed to drift away from this socio-religious link with the Ahl Al Bayt of Muhammad, gravitating more toward the socio-religious authority of the Caliphate. This transition occurred during the Abbasid Caliphate and by the time of the rise of the Ottoman Dynasty, there was an almost total reversal in the concept of Sunni and Shia Islam. By then, they had fully transitioned from socio-political groups to socio-religious groups or madhdhabs (creeds.) This reversal is not too dissimilar to what happened to the Republican and Democratic parties in U.S. history. The Republican party was founded to oppose the expansion of slavery from beyond the Southern states and were perceived as liberal thinkers. While the Democrats were pro-slavery and completely dominated the pure "red" states (red in the metaphoric sense of "rednecks"). The Democrats were ultra-right wing conservatives. By Post-World War II America, Republicans came to be recognized as conservatives, while Democrats were labelled liberals. Today, there is a complete reversal in their socio-political philosophies and public image. As I stated, I shall get the ball rolling in the Sunni section and help define it properly. And you are spot on about Muawiyah's historical persona--There are two images of Caliph Muawiyah I: The Islamo-Arab hero of the Arab-Byzantine wars in his fight against the Christian West; And the unscrupulous, ambitious, and ruthless renegade who opposed the Islamic Shura (Council) which represented the Muslim Ummah. Had Muawiyah never fought Ali or persecuted so many of Muhammad's sahabah, he would have had a very different image in the early SUNNI literature. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right. The interesting thing that most people over look is that the women in their society were extremely active. When you factor in the women in their genealogy, one finds that Ali's family and Abu Bakr's family are very close. Much of the Sunni literature is narrated through Aisha's nephews Urwah ibn Zubayr, Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr. If you look at Abu Bakr's grandson Qasim for example, his father Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr was raised by Ali. His mother is from Ali's family. Qasim was taught by Aisha and Qasim's daughter Farwah bint al-Qasim was married to Muhammad al Baqir and was the mother of Jafar al-Sadiq. There was a lot of intermarriage between their families. Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr was raised along side Hassan and Hussein. Urwah ibn Zubayr, Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr and Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr and even Umar's son Abdullah ibn Umar were also very close to them. Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr later took on Yazid after what happened to Hussein. As you said, none them ever really opposed the institution of the Caliphate, except for when the Caliphate was cruel and oppressive toward his own people. Later Abu Hanifa and Malik ibn Anas also followed that philosophy.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the WP Talk: Islam page in the link you provided (for my convenience) in my personal Talk Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam. And it is a commendable, inspired effort. However, I must comment on something which I came across in the Islam Talk Page which is connected to my earlier concerns about WP editor Toddy1's lack of neutrality and possible Islamic affiliation with maybe Salafi/Wahhabi POV. In these responses which are essentially copy-pasted below from the WP Talk: Islam, those concerns seem to be further amplified. Toddy1 clearly seems to display a pro-Muawiyah, while simultaneously, an anti-Hashimite/Ahl Al Bayt Muhammadi stance just with these responses:

It is unclear what the diagram is meant to be showing. It is also unclear what the sources are. I notice that it fails to mention Mohammed's clerk Muawiyah. Not at all a neutral POV.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

-- You say you have "formatted the diagram better now" - I have no idea where that better version is. Please could you add a wikilink to this page to the sandbox you are using to develop the diagram.

-- It does not matter whether Wikipedia has an article on a book - if you think the book is significant, put it in.

-- I assume that Ali ibn al-Husayn (a.k.a. Zayn al-'Abidin) is mentioned because her is regarded as the sources on the Saḥīfa al-Sadjadiyya. I can understand why Ali ibn Abi Talib is mentioned - he is regarded as the source of Nahj al-Balagha and other books. But there seems no reason to mention Hassan ibn Ali, and the reason for mentioning the rebel Hussein ibn Ali is either political (which you say the diagram is not) or that he was Ali ibn al-Husayn's dad (which seems a poor reason).

-- The diagram needs to make clear the connections between people and books. The version below mostly fails as far as common people are concerned (though Imams will no doubt see the connections).

-- If you are going to provide colour coding, you need to provide a key to help non-Imams.

--Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

These responses from Toddy1 illustrated above indicates that WP editor Toddy1 has some type of bias against the family of Prophet Muhammad in favor of Umayyad caliph Muawiyah. In your color-coded diagram there are several non-Hashimite/Ahl al-Bayt names mentioned such as that of Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah ibn Masud, Abu Hurairah, Alqama ibn Qays, Urwah ibn Zubayr, Said ibn al-Musayyib, etc., etc. And yet WP editor Toddy1 did not question or object to their names being listed in your diagram of early Islamic theologians. But Toddy1 did question or object to the names of Prophet Muhammad's two grandsons whom the entire Islamic world has always acknowledged were the dearest to Muhammad. Toddy1 even refers to Muhammad's grandson Husayn ibn Ali as the rebel Hussein ibn Ali...As a SUNNI Muslim WP editor, I found this rather odd and peculiar, while I can imagine that some Shi'ite Muslim WP editors might even find offensive. Especially coming from a WP editor who has presented himself/herself as a non-Muslim, (supposedly) neutral mediator in the Yazid I and Muawiyah I WP articles. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Flagrantedelicto on these pages, people write all kinds of inappropriate and insulting comments to push their point of views. Many kids use these pages for their homework. I could see the challenges an administrator would have in keeping them appropriate for kids to have a look at. I know you keep on accusing Toddy1 of being a Salafi/Wahhabi but when Toddy1 wrote those comments, in response to me including Hassan and Hussein on that diagram, I got the impression that Toddy1 was not a Muslim because even the Salafi/Wahhabi I have come across hold Hassan and Hussein in high regard. I know some times Toddy1 quickly says things that are over the top, but I think his other comments and feedback did allow me to improve the diagram. His comments were very useful and made me change the diagram so that people who are not familiar with these people and non Muslims could also look at the diagram and make sense of the time lines and see when these old books were written and where and they could read the books them selves. These books are a snapshot in time and have a lot of wisdom. They are in the middle ground and many of the sects appear to have developed later and took different concepts to the extreme. But the early books are more balanced. I kept on improving the diagram after each time he commented on it. The diagram will be useful for every one. The formatting of the diagram was also bad and therefore I had to remove some of the names to make it fit on the page. Toddy1's comments do make us all work harder to justify our entries and they do help to make the articles more balanced. He is clearly not familiar with the sensitivities of some Muslims. But in many cases his comments are constructive. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to correct you on your choice of words. I have never accused Toddy1, but openly expressed serious CONCERNS in regards to some of the comments made by Toddy1 towards myself and the evident bias toward my efforts as of lately. Anyone can observe this in the incessant interjections made by this WP editor in all of my recent efforts up until I brought attention to them in the Talk Pages. As for familiarity with Muslim sensitivities, Toddy1 showed enough sensitivity when referring to Caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT MUAWIYAH (which almost NO non-Muslim WP editor would have done, as only Muslims use the honorific title of Hazrat) in a section header in your Talk Page (which I replicated here in this Talk Page). But somehow those sensitivities are missing when referring to Hussein ibn Ali as a rebel. Your advocacy of Toddy1 is difficult to fathom in light of all the instances I brought up and itemized earlier in this Talk page. Anyway, I too at one time regarded Toddy1 as a supportive WP editor until some of the more recent developments came to light which were of concern to myself. I do have a right as a WP editor to openly express my concerns in regards to such matters, and I do. I will illustrate another example. Toddy1 undid a recent revision of mine just because in Toddy1's opinion my grammar was supposedly "redundant." And yet, Toddy1 did not notice or seemed oblivious to some paragraphs/sub-paragraphs in the Muawiyah article which were either redundant or literal duplications of one another in different sections. These types of redundant and even duplicated material seemed to be missed entirely by Toddy1 as a WP editor, but my supposedly few words of grammar were considered "redundant". --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

When people see the generally good work you do on Wikipedia, and notice in your good work some small errors in wording, and fix it for you... That is called helping you.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As I stated, I made some (rather abridged) additions in the Sunni View of Caliph Muawiyah section to get the ball rolling. I would like to also reiterate that Muawiyah I, in early Sunni/medieval Islamic literature has ambivalent ahadith regarding him. This is something which cannot be ignored or denied from a purely accurate academic perspective. Now there will be continuing intense debates as to which hadith are weak or which are trustworthy regarding them. But those early SUNNI ahadith cannot be simply dismissed or categorically rejected due to the politics of religion. There are NUMEROUS unfavorable (some highly unfavorable) ahadith regarding Caliph Muawiyah I which I apprehensively did not include. I just wanted to illustrate the spectrum of ambivalence in the early SUNNI literature regarding the controversial Umayyad caliph. Also, I deleted the Muhammad Muhsin Khan translated hadith regarding the Hasan-Muawiyah treaty, as it is already replicated in the Treaty With Hasan section. And as for the Qur'anic Surah Al-Hujurat, this was really not necessary and its inclusion was already a matter of concern that was brought up for discussion in this Talk Page. To ALL Muslims, the Qur'an is too revered a scripture to be quoted arbitrarily. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Shia view of Muawiyah I - article for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shia view of Muawiyah I.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)-

BLOGGER Cited In Wahhabi/Salafi POV Pushing In MUAWIYAH I Article

In reviewing and analyzing some of the cited sources (i.e., Dar Al Taqwa related), this is clearly Wahhabi/Salafi POV pushing. There are other cited sources copy-pasted below which are from Aisha Bewley's Website http://bewley.virtualave.net/muawiya.html

Furthermore, here is the statement in this website:

Mu'awiya as a Model of Islamic Governance

(This is a talk given in Norwich. Most of its contents and more will be found in a book with the same title which is due to be published by Dar al-Taqwa insha'llah)

WHO IS this Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley (??) She has a Website and writes BLOGS about standard Islamic history. She comes across as a POV Salafi/Wahhabi-influenced revisionist who has no recognition in the scholarly circle and her BLOGS are used as WP cited references (??) What book is this which is yet to be published by her (??)

Below is a copy-paste of the list of cited references of this Aisha Bewley (from her BLOGS) in the WP Article on Caliph Muawiyah I:

^ [5] ^ Muawiya - Restorer of the Muslim Faith[6] ^ [7] ^ Muawiya - Restorer of the Muslim Faith[8] ^ [9] ^ Muawiya - Restorer of the Muslim Faith[10] ^ [11] ^ Muawiya - Restorer of the Muslim Faith[12] ^ Mu'awiya as a Model of Islamic Governance published by Dar al-Taqwa insha'llah [13] ^ [14] ^ Muawiya - Restorer of the Muslim Faith[15] ^ Mu'awiya as a Model of Islamic Governance published by Dar al-Taqwa insha'llah [16] ^ [17] ^ Muawiya - Restorer of the Muslim Faith[18] ^ Mu'awiya as a Model of Islamic Governance published by Dar al-Taqwa insha'llah [19] ^ [20] ^ Muawiya - Restorer of the Muslim Faith[21] ^ [22] ^ Muawiya - Restorer of the Muslim Faith[23]

As for this cited source # 22, it is a work of Imam Bukhari, the literature in Arabic does not belong in the English language WP format: (copy-pasted below)

^ The Great History Volume 5, 791: "عبد الرحمن بن أبي عميرة المزني يعد في الشاميين قال أبو مسهر حدثنا سعيد بن عبد العزيز عن ربيعة بن يزيد عن بن أبي عميرة قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لمعاوية اللهم اجعله هاديا مهديا واهده واهد به وقال عبد الله عن مروان عن سعيد عن ربيعة سمع عبد الرحمن سمع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مثله"

---

And for this cited source # 23 (copy-pasted below), it is a work whose author is not even listed : Al-Dhahabi

^ Talkhis al-ilal al-mutanahiya, narration number 225

---

And this cited source # 24 (copy-pasted below), is another work whose author is not listed : Shaykh Al-Albani

^ Selselat al-ahadith al-sahiha (the collection of accepted narrations), Volume 4, page 615, narration number 1969

---

Speaking of Shaykh Albani, he is nothing short of a POSTER BOY for Salafi/Wahhabi POV pushing...Albani has been under fire for TAMPERING with Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim classical Islamic Ahadith. To go on about Albani, it would take pages of illustrations and examples of Albani's weakening of the Ahadith collections of Bukhari & Muslim. The late Albani has been heavily criticized (eg., Dr. Muhammad Tahir Ul Qadiri) for his re-editing the classical Ahadith of the eminent Bukhari & Muslim.

These above examples are an almost poor reflection upon WP editing. My sincere request for the WP editor (or editors) responsible to re-evaluate such cited sources (especially the blogger, Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley). Flagrantedelicto (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Albani, for all his errors, is widely acknowledged as one of the foremost authorities on hadith in the 20th century. The only people who accuse him of such things are extremist adherents of Sufism such as the aformentioned Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadiri; academically, his work is acknowledged as relevant though certainly not without errors. While it is possible for an editor to push a POV based on the work of any author, all you've done with this rant here is revealed your own POV. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Attempts at pushing POV in the appearance and habits section

It's rather apparent that the appearance and habits section is merely an attempt by someone who dislikes the subject to push a certain POV. I base my claim of POV on the following:

There is only a single secondary source; the rest are primary sources.

Quoting Sunni primary sources with slight alterations in translation in order to paint Muawiyah and other Umayyad figures in a bad light is a common tactic of Shi'ite websites in the English language which seek to convince Sunnis that their own books also uphold anti-Muawiya POV.

The only secondary source relates to Nasa'i, a different person who was born long after Muawiyah died.

A weak argument is given against the anti-Muawiyah POV and then responded to in the middle of the same section, an obvious tactic for pushing POV on Wikipedia - it's tone is persuasive rather than informative. Additionally, the citation for the response is incomplete and still a primary source.

The totally unsourced comments of the subject having been lazy, gluttonous, and obese to the point of not even being able to ride a horse in addition to not having participated in any battles makes it clear that the author wants the reader to have a negative impression of the subject - nobody will argue against this.

Given that the section merely pushes extreme Shi'ite POV (I don't even think moderate Shi'ites would agree with all this despite their dislike of Muawiyah) I suggest actually deleting the section entirely. There is already a section in this article for both Sunni and Shi'a point of view - there is no need to covertly push it anywhere else. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I totally disagree with your analysis. If there is a Virtues of Muawiyah section, then there ought to be a section dealing with his vices. I would agree that the Appearance & Habits section ought to be renamed Vices of Muawiyah. A point of note is that it is the eminent SUNNI muhadditheen (narrators) BUKHARI and MUSLIM who have elucidated on Muawiyah's vices as an obese, lazy glutton. NOT Shi'ite sources. This does not accurately qualify as POV. Muawiyah has always remained a controversial figure in standard Islamic history, therefore it is proper to have brief sections which describe BOTH his virtues and vices...Especially, since the ahadith (narrations) attributed to Prophet Muhammmad express ambivalence toward Muawiyah. I propose that the section REMAIN and not be deleted, just re-titled as Vices of Muawiyah. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I am curious as to your assessment of the "anti-Muawiyah" POV of which you are likening to Shi'ite websites. You stated that these Shi'ite websites seek to convince Sunnis that their own books uphold anti-Muawiyah POV...Well guess what, I am SUNNI and what you are stating is flat out NONSENSE. You speak about WP persuading and not informing. Well, there are a dozen paragraphs in the Legacy section alone (forget about some of the other sections), which are UNCITED and are clearly trying to persuade readers that Muawiyah was the Islamic equivalent of a Pope St. Gregory or Pope St. Peter (in Catholicism), when in quite a few of the SUNNI classical literature, Muawiyah comes across as a lot closer to Rodrigo Borgia (Pope Alexander VI). I certainly will have to disagree with your assessment and observations about this article, as it appears to be lopsided. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You haven't actually responded to the concerns I have listed above; all you did here was go into a rant about your own personal viewpoints on the subject, which does betray a huge WP:NPOV issue. If you want to remove uncited material either way, then fine. But to deny that POV-pushing occurs on Shi'ite websites just as it does on Sunni websites is simply absurd. Furthermore, the quoting of primary sources on such a controversial subject is a huge issue in regard to POV pushing as those can be interpreted by editors - as they clear have here. Per WP:WPNOTRS, I will be removing those sections again as it is entirely based on primary source works such as those of Suyuti and Ibn Kathir, all of which are inaccessible to the general readership of English Wikipedia. Translation by editors is possible, but on such a controversial subject you should translate each source you want to quote one by one, and bring the matter here for discussion first. I also recommend that you review WP:OWN and WP:Battleground. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I don't like the description of "rant". NONE of the Classical Sunni literature cited are PRIMARY sources. All of those classical sources are SECONDARY sources to say the least. None of the material were contemporaneous literature, but written two to three hundred years later. In fact, technically all those medieval sources are not even secondary sources, but sampled replicas of oral traditions. Even works of Ibn Ishaq and Abu Mikhnaf don't qualify as primary sources. Ninety-Eight percent of medieval standard Islamic history is at the very least SECONDARY sources. And you have no clue as to my personal viewpoints. If you paid any attention to the discussions, it is misrepresentation of SUNNI sources being used to define Shia views is what I objected to. That is my POV. And I don't care what occurs in Sunni-Shia-Salafi websites. I responded to your statement "Shi'ite websites seek to convince Sunnis that their own books uphold anti-Muawiyah POV", which is not only an utterly INCORRECT statement, but it betrays your own concealed propensity toward what is really Salafi/Wahhabi POV. Don't mistake me for a non-Muslim WP editor who is unfamiliar with Islamic protocol and etiquette. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

First, on the issue of primary, Ibn Ishaq and the books of Maghazi contain reports which are primary sources; per WP:PRIMARY, they can be acceptable in some sources but again, they should really be avoided here. Being contemporaneous in terms of when it was written is not the only condition which must be met for consideration.

Second, I do have a clue about your personal viewpoints based on your statements against an individual, in this case the admittedly controversial Albani.

Third, you never disproved my statement and mistranslation and misuse of sources back and forth is as common on POV-pushing Shi'ite websites as it is on POV-pushing Sunni ones. To deny this is to deny human nature and doesn't deserve a response (keep in mind that I never said all Shi'te sites, or Sunni sites or any other sect's sits, are necessatily pushing POV).

Fourth, you have no idea whether or not I'm a Salafi or Wahhabi; being against certain websites doesn't tell you what I'm for. If you're that curious, I'm not Salafi or Wahhabi though even if I were, the issue is controlling one's POV rather than claiming one doesn't have a POV.

Fifth, you're implying that I'm trying to play games with editors unfamiliar with the topic. I will remind you to please remain civil during such discussions and disagree politely. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your above semi-rhetoric of a response would even have been mildly effective had it not been for you running to a WP Admin and crying about my rather serious effort in organizing this article from the previous state it was in. You also falsely stated that I was "out of control" and had "outbursts"...lol

As for Ibn Ishaq, you should know that NONE of his original works have survived. Whatever works of his that have survived are automatically secondary sources because they were all ADAPTED by the likes of Ibn Hisham, Tabari, etc., etc. You just cannot come to admit that you have a (latent) pro-Muawiyah POV and will not stand for any unfavorable comments regarding the Umayyad caliph.

Just try and envision an encyclopedic article of a Christian historical figure who has been defined by Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant perspectives. And some editor decides to include as much of the Catholic view as possible while calling it Orthodox, and then simultaneously OMITTING the Protestant view altogether. Now would this appear neutral (?)--Flagrantedelicto (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't even know who I am and don't know what my opinions are. I have told you that my concerns are policy based. You have responded which means you know that I told you that. Please keep Wikipedia:Assume good faith in mind when discussing content disputes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really need to know who you are, nor do I particularly care to. But I am aware of your POV and the reason for you opposing Old School SUNNI literature regarding Muawiyah I. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Responding to what you asked me to envision (thatp art of your comment was made after mine here), then my deletion of the Shi'a view section wasn't censorship but because the given sources are all copy-pasted from polemical debate blogs, thus violating Wikipedia:Copy-paste and failing Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. There are plenty of sources which are mainstream scholarly publications such as Harvard University Press, Brill Publishers and others; those would serve to represent both Sunni and Shi'ite views much better. But in answer to your concern, as necessary as representation of all views is to this article, allowing copy-pasted content to stand is still worse than having an empty section.

Responding to my supposed POV, then you don't know a thing about what POV I have as all of my edits - whether they're right or wrong - have been policy based. Again, assume good faith or, if you think I'm lying, just come out and say it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The Shia View section is amply cited. Not copy-pasted from polemical debate blogs. Anyone can view the references. You conveniently left a few UNCITED Salafi (or i.e., Salafi-influenced) views in this article. And this anyone can check in the edit history and confirm. You ask me to assume good faith, but lodge a false complaint of me being "out of control" and engaging in "outbursts"...Anyone who reads my responses in this Talk Page will not find a single "outburst" or any sign of being "out of control". You can offer all the policy rhetoric you want, but your POV is transparent. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If I left something unsourced due to oversight, then I would still support someone pointing that out to me and asking me to remove those too or just removing it themselves. As I said, I support removing anything improperly sourced, and as I pointed out below, what I removed from the Shi'a view section is indeed copy pasted from blogs and forums. You are, quite simply, intentionally ignoring the links I posted on that matter. I just hope the third party mediation would start soon so this can all be settled. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Correction. You did not remove "improperly" cited sources from the Shia View section of this article, you removed the ENTIRE section itself. Sometime back (as evident from your own words), you wanted to delete another ENTIRE section which was the Appearance and Habits Section of this article (which has since been merged into the Historical Evaluation section. I too welcome proper settlement from third party mediation. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)