Talk:Mu'awiya I

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)

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 ^? 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)

Zora: Fuck you. For everyone else that consider here balanced: see here]. For everyone agreeing with here: Fuck you to. --Striver 11:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)