Talk:Asma bint Marwan

message: BhaiSaab, can you please explain your reasons for removing large amounts of referenced information from some of the best historical sources that we have regarding the issues re the death of Asma bint Marwan? So far you have only mentioned that your edits are made to demonstrate a point regarding a recent edit in the Islamophobia article. -- Karl Meier 06:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing, but it is also essential that we include the information in the article here on Wikipedia. If you can summarise Ibn Ishaq somehow, without excluding any of the imformation that is provided from that source, then it is acceptable to replace it with that. However, unless that it done, what we have now should stay in the article. -- Karl Meier 16:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no personal vendetta. The whole purpose of wikiquote is to store such things. Use it. BhaiSaab talk 18:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to inform it's readers about the subject of its articles. What you are doing is to remove essential information from the article. -- Karl Meier 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any essential information other than what's already been presented. Her assasination is alread noted in the beginning of the article. BhaiSaab talk 00:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, the information that we have from Ibn Ishaq is the most essential source to information that we have regarding what makes her notable: her death. -- Karl Meier 09:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BhaiSaab's recent edits

message: Personally, I am much more impressed with Islamic care in transmission of hadith than I am in western historical speculation. However, a source other than Christian missionaries is this book. A very well argued, but sadly unpublished Muslim reply is here. In some ways, unless the article has reliable Muslim sources comparable to the critics, it is very problematic for Wiki to retain the article. Historical research must consider even unreliable sources, and report impartially and in proportion to evidence. Wiki must report the methodology and not simply the conclusions. Islam cannot accept unreliable sources, and must publish conclusions as well as methodology. Wiki must present Islamic answers to criticisms of Islam with the same care it gives to the criticisms. This is an article at an early stage of development. I urge Muslims to ensure the best scholarship of their faith is presented in articles like these, and admire their restraint in accepting that an encyclopedia cannot make a decision about who is right. I urge others to remember that the best criticism acknowledges both the real strengths of opposing views and the weaknesses in its own case. Above all, though, I urge editors to be extremely considerate of one another's emotions. Truth matters and so encyclopedia writing is often frustrating, because it must stop short of stating this in contentious cases. Give the evidence, trust readers, and dare I say, trust God. Peace. Salaam. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and RS please

message: We have to admit that all hadits, including compiled by Bukhari and Muslim, or all the stories in sirah (biography of Muhammad) are unlikely to be sahih (authentic). 
Written more then one century after the related events and without any proof that the compilers did really quote their sources which are not always, if any, authentified either, those hadits and the stories in the sirah are just told stories  And as for the sirah we do not even have the original one, if it did ever existed, we have only a book which clamied to be a copy of it. 
The article about Asma bint Marwan and other article about islamic figures, including about prophet Muhammad  should be written in such a way as to make clear that those stories are according to islamic sources and not as historical facts.
Jusfiq Hadjar
Jusfiq Hadjar (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  All hadits or the stories in  sirah are unlikely to be authentic.. ...  

message: Both the excerpt from Ibn Sad and the german source are irrelevant, as they're both based on Ibn Ishaq.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEasyWay8 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many sources 

message: There is a sentence in this article which says "This story is now regarded as anti-islamic propaganda by modern educated islamists".
Who are these modern educated islamists ? Are they notable ? Can the contributor cite a source to prove this assertion ?
Sasank Sleeper (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absence of citation 

message: The First Comment Thread here in the Talk section opened with the statement: "Who on earth wrote this article? Silas of Answering-Islam???!!!" as if to say that source alone should be unreliable. When I searched for more information on Asma bint Marwan I found a lengthy source of material on the web site of Answering Islam that contained many more references than those given by other commenters here. And the brief mention on one source here in the Talk section attributed to A. Guilaume, the author had omitted some specific language. So, in defense of Answering Islam and whoever Silas may be, I am posting the full content of their background sources on The Death of Asma bint Marwan. For anyone who may be interested, this is my first entry in Wikipedia Talk. I have not yet prepared any biography page on myself.
The Death of `Asma' Bint Marwan
Abstract
    In Yathrib (Medina), Muhammad had a number of people killed. One of them was `Asma' bint Marwan. Her crime was that she spoke out against Muhammad for having another man murdered named Abu Afak. In his displeasure towards her, Muhammad asked his followers to murder her as well. She was killed while she slept. 
Introduction
After Muhammad came to Yathrib he began to grow in power. However, a number of people, both Jew and Arab, opposed him. Muhammad began to silence his opposition by various means. One of these means was to have them murdered.
Muhammad did have a number of enemies and critics, some were dangerous, others were ordinary people who lived in the area and thought nil of Muhammad. They spoke their minds.
One by one, they were silenced. Through treaties, intrigue, or outright terror, Muhammad gained power in Medina. Eventually, he was master of the area. He knew his followers loved him, and would die for him. They were at his disposal; and at times, he chose to use them to accomplish his desires.
PRESENTATION OF ISLAMIC SOURCES
From the Sirat Rasul Allah (A. Guilaume's translation "The Life of Muhammad") pages 675, 676.
Note: Comments added by Answering Islam will be in [ ] type brackets. Notes by the Translators of the texts will be in { } brackets.
    `UMAYR B. `ADIYY'S JOURNEY TO KILL `ASMA' D. MARWAN She was of B. Umayyya b. Zayd. When Abu `Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. `Abdullah b. al-Harith b. Al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of B. Khatma called Yazid b. Zayd. Blaming Islam and its followers she said:
          I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit
          and `Auf and B. al-Khazraj.
          You obey a stranger who is none of yours,
          One not of Murad or Madhhij. {1}
          Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs
          Like a hungry man waiting for a cook's broth?
          Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise
          And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him? 
    Hassan b. Thabit answered her:
          Banu Wa'il and B. Waqif and Khatma
          Are inferior to B. al-Khazrahj.
          When she called for folly woe to her in her weeping,
          For death is coming.
          She stirred up a man of glorious origin,
          Noble in his going out and in his coming in.
          Before midnight he dyed her in her blood
          And incurred no guilt thereby. 
    When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" `Umayr b. `Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O `Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her", so `Umayr went back to his people.
    Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when `Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting." That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was `Umayr b. `Adiy who was called the "Reader", and `Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.
    {1} The note reads "Two tribes of Yamani origin." 
[END OF IBN HISHAM QUOTE]
From Ibn Sa`d's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq, volume 2, pages 30-31.
    SARIYYAH OF `UMAYR IBN `ADI
    Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma' Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. `Asma' was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, "basir" (the seeing). 
[END OF IBN SA`D QUOTE]
CORROBORATING WRITINGS
In "23 Years; A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad", by Ali Dashti, (Mazda Press, 1994), Dashti also references the murders of Abu `Afak and `Asma' b. Marwan. He wrote (page 100):
    Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. 'Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated.
: Answering Islam is not a reliable source in the wikipedia sense. It's an evangelical christian website seeking Muslim converts, not a scholarly website seeking to present history (and its conflicts and contradictions) as accurately as possible. It's essentially a propaganda outfit.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are they any different from pro-Islamic Muslims who try to write only complimentary material? Uhm, the Muslim equivalents of "Answering Islam" (and there are plenty) suck just as hard as "Answering Islam" does as a reliable source for a neutral encyclopedia article (though would be marginally better for Muslim doctrine, just as christian websites are better for christian doctrine; these sorts of sources tend to be a little more honest about their beliefs. But when they get into history? Nah. Both kinds of site suck.) If you have some other source to offer up that might be reliable, ok, we'll take a look. But Anwsering Islam aint reliable.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporting the references of authenticity on Answering Islam. 

message: ive made some minor changes to the paragraph, it isn't questioned as a source for hadith, it isn't accepted outright as a source of legislation since the only source is Ibn Ishaqs history. no history irrespective of the author is used for doctrine in Islam and all works of history take a back stage in terms of authenticity [since historians did not bother to document their works] to the works of hadith literature such as bukhari. the current phrasing made it seem as if their existed a dispute between various scholarly schools of thought regarding the narration which doesn't exist, the grading of this narration is unanimous since it never made it into any works of hadith literature. The wording also seemed apologetic which Muslim scholars would never have been regarding the actions of the prophet, they would have accepted it and used it to legislate if they deemed the source reliable. Two issues are missing in terms of context, she was calling for his assassination during a time of open warfare [her tribe was at war with the Muslims] and she was doing it via poetry which is considered the highest form of publicization among the Arabs in those times as the entire society revolved around oral tradition and poetry. Poets had a place higher than tribal leaders in that society, and where often feared as well as praised [for the good or damage they could do to a persons reputation]. To put it into a modern context this would have been the equivalent of Khomeini calling for the assassination of salman rashdi in a time of war and not the image of a little girl who writes poetry.Ibn kathir (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of the story 

message: I have added some historical perspective on the events in this section.Ibn kathir (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family and death 

message: I think more should be said regarding the authenticity of the narration, look at what it says... A blind man crept all the way across town found her house, made it into her bedroom where she was with here 5 kids and an infant, mannaged to locate her in a house he had not seen beffore, not wake anyone up, then remove the child from her arms while she was still sleeping and didnt notice, murder her with out her making a sound or her children waking and then escape...the story does say he was blind. Ißñ Ķãŧḣĩr  (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authenticity of the narration 

message: The article was poorly written, presenting what mainstream Islamic scholarship considers to be a weak/fabricated story as a fact. I'm not aware of any policy that prevents me from presenting the mainstream perspective on the story before using the talk page. I used all available classical and modern sources to rewrite the article and addressed the issues raised on the talk page. I do not have to explain my changes any further. Please take it to the boards if you disagree, but before you do that I'd like to know the basis for your claims of bias. We can all agree that the older version was biased as it neglected the views of the scholars of hadith. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts by 188.223.226.73 

message: Regrading this edit by  Al-Andalusi:
*It is clearly POV pushing where in your edits all Islamic scholars "says" or "states" but non -Muslim historians and scholars "claim". 
*Do not use terms such as " alleged killing" in academic section. Because non-Muslim scholars have not put doubt on historical accuracy of the story. In all of scholarly sources that I have read they did not put any doubt on Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sad accounts. When is in Hadith theologian views you can call it in this way. But in non-Muslim scholars section consensus is on historical accuracy of the accounts.
* More importantly, do not remove views that you do not like. What you do is censor of a view, Like it or not, one reliable source has this view and for the sake of NPOV this view must be addressed.--Penom (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See also WP:ALLEGED and WP:CLAIM for proper usage. Wiqi(55) 19:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV edits by  [[User:Al-Andalusi|Al-Andalusi]] 

message: I encountered this sentence on the lead " some classical and modern hadith scholars". This sentence does not make sence. Well! If we talk about Modern medicine and classic medicine or modern historiography and pre-modern historiography, it makes sence. But, contemporary hadith authorities  follow almost the same methods  for studying hadiths that have being practiced for 1000 years among hadith authorities. No significant difference between the methodologies and views of hadith authorities in 600 years ago and 21 century.--Penom (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We should follow the style and wording of other reliable sources, like the Encyclopaedia of Islam. It is common in such sources to find phrases like "early/medieval/modern hadith scholar or scholarship". It is also a useful distinction, as it may highlight what discrepancies (in method, opinion, attitudes towards certain concepts, etc) have existed between the different generations of hadith scholars. Wiqi(55) 02:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Please show me one example from Encyclopedia of Islam --Penom (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are plenty of examples scattered all over EI2. For one, see the "RIDJĀL" article (in vol. 8). The whole article is structured based on "classical" and "post-classical" periods of hadith scholarship (used as section names). It also starts with "a survey of the medieval Muslim hadith scholars". and refers to "modern isnād analysis", etc. Wiqi(55) 03:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Enc. of Islam do not use a term such as modern hadith scholars. Even "post classical period" that you mentioned include hadith authorities since 10 century and calling and old school methods from 1000 years ago "modern" is nonsense.Penom (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "classical and modern hadith scholars" 

message: Aren't these weasel words in the last line-
"It is important to consider the content of the Quran itself about the hudud or punishments to apply to those who defy Allah or the Prophet as in Sourat 5 verse 33 where crucifixion or member-cutting is commanded and its Tafseer (exegetical commentary) in the ["Asbab al-nuzul"] where a particularly cruel and collective killing of two tribes (the ‘Ukal and ‘Uraynah) by arms and legs cutting and blinding is reported as Muhammad's decision on the Muslim Sahi's authority."
Islamophobic origin of this edit? maxrspct ping me  15:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I confirm, I deleted them as they aren't even sourced. --HakimPhilo (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last paragraph 

message: This article appears at risk of copyright issues, with whole sections either lifted from, or copied onto other websites. Further investigation is likely required to determine which of these is the case. Many of these websites are extremely low quality and opinionated in nature - another worrying sign. See the copyvios report. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential copyright issues

message: This is an invalid isnad and a fabricated report that was narrated by Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaj of whom al-Bukhari said: His hadith is to be rejected. Ibn Ma‘in said: (He is) an evil liar. Ad-Daraqutni said: (He is) a liar; and on one occasion he said: He is not trustworthy.” (Mizan al-I‘tidal, 3/509)
Ibn ‘Adiyy said: 
“Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaj fabricated the hadith about the woman who used to lampoon the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), according to which when she was killed he (allegedly) said: “The validity of what you have done is something that no one could dispute.” (Al-Mawdu‘at by Ibn al-Jawzi 3/18)
This hadith was also mentioned by Shaykh al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) in ad-Da‘ifah (6013); he said it is fabricated (mawdu‘). Yusephhh (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fabricated and invalid isnad.