Talk:Mu'awiya I

Shia POV

Please, keep shia POV out of the Sunni view section. Enough said.

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)

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)

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[1] and Bewley's website[2] 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)

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)

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)

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)-

Edit conflict

There has clearly been an edit conflict regarding this article, with a lot of POV being pushed - I think we can all agree on that. Anything unsourced has been removed, and most of the material supported by primary sources has been removed. It's very clear that the material supported by primary sources is:
1. Copy-pasted from Sunni-Shi'a debate websites, and
2. Being used to support certain viewpoints, not report the facts.
Any information that was accurate can be replaced with sources, and it shouldn't be a problem. If secondary, mainstream sources cannot be found, then said material ought not be in such a controversial article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all where do you go DELETING entire sections with CITED material because you think it is POV pushing. Uncited entries, other WP editors can understand. But you deleted CITED sources which define the subject of this article. I am RESTORING the Shia view section. And if you have a problem with it, we will bring it straight to the WP administrators. I am also going to reinstate some of my CITED entries. And if you delete them again without discussing it with me, I will REINSTATE it again. To avoid this type of unwanted, un-collaborative, and uncooperative spirit, discuss it first. What I deleted were a lot of redundant and even duplicated material in the article. I am displeased with some of your deletions of cited material which I entered; it was a considerable amount of my effort. When you speak of POV pushing, there is essentially none. It is presenting a historical subject as is perceived by Classical Sunni literature, Shia literature, and Salafi/Wahhabi (or Salafi/Wahhabi-influenced) REVISIONISTS. Between user Johnleeds1 and myself, there was considerable discussion on this Talk Page (as is evident) before we commenced to expand on this article. And you just come in out of the blue and start deleting CITED sources as well without even being involved in any of our discussions. Scrolling up earlier in this Talk Page, you spoke of me "betraying" a POV, but you have carefully left a few UNCITED paragraphs/sub-paragraphs which may fit in with your possible POV. You have deleted DOZENS of CITED sources and yet left some UNCITED sources yourself. As I stated earlier, to avoid an all-out edit war between WP editors, please discuss points which should be for inclusion or deletion. And who are you to decide what the "facts" are ? If the sources are cited from traditional Islamic literature or not, they are technically ALL SECONDARY sources as they are multiply sampled material written two to three hundred years after the historical events. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible please for you to add the various old books you are citing to the references section, giving information such as publisher, date of publication and (if not in English) the language book being cited is in. You had me do this with some citations you did not understand. So I cannot see any objection to you being asked to do the same. In the case of books that were written about a thousand years ago, the date we need is the date of publication of the edition you are citing.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I did not "have you" do anything. I already mention that earlier. I brought attention to authors' names being listed but NO BOOKS were listed. Significantly, you haven't answered any of my concerns of your double standard toward my efforts, when you showed surprising flexibility to user Johnleeds1 when he entered DOZENS of UNCITED material. And you also kept interjecting everytime I tried to contribute to this article, as well as another one (eg., Yazid I). You cannot deny all the instances which I have illustrated in this Talk Page. Another prime example of this is just now: WP user MezzoMezzo DELETED a considerable amount of defining material with CITED REFERENCES (some of which were in this article page for a few years)...And yet you did not comment on why those CITED entries were deleted. I do not feel that you are an impartial WP editor, as you have revealed both partiality toward one WP editor over another, as well as partiality toward the historical subject of this article...Which I have clearly illustrated. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If you think that I have misbehaved the place to discuss this is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, not here.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, my comment on the deletion of the material was to ask that details be provided of the books being cited. If editors have really consulted the sources claimed, they should be able to provide this. If they have merely culled impressive-looking citations from forum websites, they may find this difficult, because they will have no idea what the books actually are.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't apply to me, nor does it mean anything to me. And where do you get off alleging that WP editors have "merely culled impressive-looking citations from forum websites..." Are you possibly referring to editors like Johnleeds1 who inserted DOZENS of citations without even citing them ? Either way, it doesn't apply to me, as such a comment directed to me personally will be taken with serious offense. I have now decided that I will proceed and lodge a complaint against you in ANI. And please do not offer me anymore unsolicited advice as to where to discuss matters here on WP. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

First Flagrantdelicto, please review WP:OWN as there seems to be a serious issue with that here; I am referring to the comment: "if you delete them again without discussing it with me, I will REINSTATE it again." It's not about discussing it with you or going against you personally; this is a community effort.

Secondly, regarding your sources, then you haven't properly cited them per Wikipedia:Citing sources. Like Toddy said, name, author and page number is common on Muslim polemical discussion forums during flame wars. Specifically, I am already finding some of your quoted sources at the following two polemical websites, basically copy-pasted

• Here, and

• here.

Until you can bring the requested information on these sources per Wikipedia:Citing sources, I will have to remove those contested sources you inserted per my concern regarding Wikipedia:Copy-paste. If you have read the sources, then it will be time consuming to look up the ISBN numbers, publishers, editions and so forth, but it will absolutely improve the article and Wikipedia as a whole, as well as ending this conflict once and for all.

What I am asking you for is based on site policy, please understand that this effort is to improve the site and help inform the readers accurately. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no copy-pasting involved, so where do you go off and make such rather offensive accusations ? The historical quotes or ahadith from literary sources about any early Islamic figures are widely known by both students and scholars alike of Islamic studies. Many of these have been circulating for years in website discussions and blogs as well. Because these cited sources and their works are so well known, it is not surprising that they are brought up and posted on the internet. I myself have attached links to digital libraries, scanned books, and uploaded pdf's of a few of the materials which I have cited. Consequently, you can post all the links you want, but they mean nothing to me or to what I have cited. Apparently, it seems you are well aware of such websites and have just proven it. I have never posted any links to such websites as this Shiapen. Btw, I am a SUNNI, not a Shi'ite. Make a mental note of it. Also, don't go into any WP guideline bureacracy with me. You are a POV pusher who appears to be manipulating WP guideline policies to what you deem "neutrality". If you do have pro-Muawiyah Salafi/Wahhabi-influenced ideology, admit it and don't evoke words like "neutrality". If you are an editor of this page, then you allowed your friend Johnleeds1 to insert dozens of uncited edits which met with your own POV. You did not object to it then. When I presented the genuine SUNNI perception from classical literature regarding Caliph Muawiyah I, then you (and also Toddy1) suddenly bring up WP guideline policies. This is a clear double standard and is unacceptable. I have already gotten kudos from other WP editors for my efforts in these articles, so my contributions are indeed seen as an improvement to this article (as well as others). There is nothing contested here. The sources have been cited and that is that. And where do you suddenly come out of the blue and question and accuse me of copy-pasting from polemical websites ? You essentially seem to be evoking the very same thing as Toddy1, only Toddy1 is applying subtle implication, while your are coming out and openly accusing a fellow WP editor. In looking through your Talk Page, I observed that you are the subject of a rather recent discussion on ANI. If you want to add to that, I will be more than willing to oblige.

Here is an actual copy-paste from my own personal WP Talk Page from your friend Johnleeds1:

I was talking to MezzoMezzo about this and he said:

I agree with your latest comment wholeheartedly, but since it isn't directly related to Sunni Islam I thought I would respond here. Yes, the views of early jurists concur quite a bit and they were less prone to being influence by political movements than modern Muslim clerics. And yes, after observing Islam-related articles on Wikipedia for around six years now, I do agree with your statement that most Islam-related articles are either Muslims pushing a pro-Islam political agenda, Christian pushing an anti-Islam agenda or Muslim sects bickering among one another over who's right and who's wrong. Islam-related articles are sorely in need of some objective contributions which aim simply to provide the readers with information, not to convince them of a certain viewpoint.The difficult, of course, is how that should be done. These six years have also taught me that fighting against this lack of neutrality will make you the target of insults, slurs, stalking and reporting you falsely to moderators for things you didn't do. If you're willing to face all that then perhaps there is some kind of task force on Wikipedia we could join and focus on improving articles one by one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

When I put up the diagram and MezzoMezzo said:

Ha ha, yes, everything you've found is true. If you go far back enough, you will ultimately find the leaders of madhhabs having studied with the same chain of teachers going back to Sahaba. It's a startling revelation, especially considering that hundreds of years later, people claiming to follow those madhhabs would later persecute one another. Have you considered putting this diagram in your sandbox and seeing how it would work and where it would be appropriate? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC) --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I see, it's starting to dawn on you now. "It" being the early connections between all the Muslim schools of though, "it" being that thing which hasn't dawned on most Muslims. I remember when I discovered that too; realizing "it" is like a blind man suddenly being able to see. It's fascinating, isn't it?

Anyway, yes, what you're saying is true. There is a lot of misinformation about Islam on Wikipedia, but that is in part due to misinformation on Islam both in the West and in Muslim countries, and even Western societies and Muslim societies. The most objective research you will find is usually from non-Muslim institutions like Brill Publishers or McGill University.

MezzoMezzo was right. May be I should start looking at the Christianity articles. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Now I myself wasn't too thrilled at having a conversation between you and Johnleeds1 posted on my own personal WP Talk Page. As it really is irrelevant to me, and I don't care one way or the other about your mutual discussions. They mean nothing to me. But it does clearly display a mutual friendship between yourself and Johnleeds1. So is it surprising or not that when Johnleeds1 almost inundated the Muawiyah I article with UNCITED material, you were mute for the most part, as he was clearly pushing your shared POV. It is my stance on the Muawiyah I article which genuinely represents neutrality and a three dimensional perspective: The classical SUNNI literature, the Shi'ite literature, and even the Salafi/Wahhabi-influenced revisionism. As for user Johnleeds1, we had our mutual differences in our views and some attrition even. However, I would certainly like to think that we amicably resolved them and found common ground on how to define the subject of this article in a cooperative, collaborative manner. This is clearly evident in our discussions in this very Talk Page. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the very obvious personal attacks here and ask you directly: did you read this and this?

The material you're posting is copy pasted from those two Shi'a polemical sites. I'm specifically talking about the "citations" you're providing. There is also copy pasting from:

• This Shi'ite polemical blog.
• Another post from the same blog.
• This pro-Shi'ite blog post dated from December 14th, 2011 which also matches this version of this very article from ten days later that year.
• This Sunni-Shi'ite debate blog post from 2009, though instead of copy paste of all sources at once it contains the same exact sources with more detail.
• This Sunni polemical blog post from 2010.
• This discussion post on a Sunni-Shi'ite debate forum.

I'm going to be up front here. In light of all this, I suspect that you never read any of these sources and are just piecing them together from polemical debate blogs. Hence it is copy paste and you should stop edit warring to defend it until you can properly cite these claims. If you want help, then I and I'm sure others will help facilitate that. But don't edit war to support clear copy paste violations. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

lol...You must possibly have me mistaken for your friend Johnleeds1 or someone else entirely. I have NEVER even been to these sites which you provided the links to...Obviously, you do as you have provided the links to them. I did not initiate an edit war. You did. Your accusation that I have never read any of these materials is an offensive one. And I could care less what you suspect. Who exactly are you to accuse any WP editor ? I will be equally blunt: You give the clear impression that you are a latent pro-Muawiyah Salafi/Wahhabi POV pusher who is manipulating WP guidelines and policies to impose your latent POV. I already stated that I did not desire any edit war, but you initiated it. I have since requested Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider to mediate in this article. Until then, I would suggest you not delete any of the CITED material; the majority of which were not even my contributions, but others. And I have not made any personal attacks. It is you who initiated attrition in stating that I "betrayed" a POV. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Please avoid mockery and sarcasm in comments aimed at other editors; see WP:CIVIL.

2. Can you please provide diffs to show where I engaged in an edit war?

3. You did the right thing by seeking a third opinion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Can you please avoid making unfounded, unjust accusations out of the blue. It is not really civil, either; see (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety in WP:CIVIL.

2. Undid revision specifically after I had cautioned you that I would reinstate CITED entries, if you

you deleted them again. I also pre-advised that I did not want to engage in an edit war, nor did I desire an unwanted, un-collaborative, or uncooperative atmosphere. You seemed to have not read my good faith advisement in this matter. Just scroll up this page and it is rather self-evident what I pre-advised.

3. I know I did the proper thing seeking a third opinion, as both you and Toddy1 are unfairly assuming the same (virtual) positions. It is rather coincidental. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)09:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

1. I will ensure that I avoid doing so.

2. You don't seem to understand WP:WAR or WP:OWN. What I did isn't edit warring because I provided new information on the talk page. It's possible that I am wrong, but that isn't edit warring. I assumed that your threat to reinstate the material meant that if I removed it without a valid justification. If you mean that you will reinstate them no matter what, and that your mind can't be changed, then you're violating both of the above policies. I hope that isn't the case and perhaps I am misunderstanding your intent.

3. Why are our positions unfair? Is this about your issue with Johnleeds? Look, I didn't pay real attention to any of this until yesterday; just look at the time stamp for my edit. I don't know exactly what your problem with him is. If he or anybody else (even my own self) added material which is unsourced or improperly sourced, then that should be deleted as well. My lack of attention is due to a lack of knowledge of what exactly is going on between you and him, not because I'm simply against you at all costs. That isn't the case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. So you complained to WP Admin Dianaa that I am out of control. You accuse me of copy-pasting entries in this article and further accuse me of not reading any of the books I cited. Where do you come across with such wild accusations and assumptions (?) If anything, your actions give the impression of someone who is out of control. Perhaps you should have re-evaluated this WP policy--(e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them. See WP:CIVIL.

As for edit warring, you should go back and READ what I stated in regards to it. I clearly stated that you should discuss issues regarding the article before going into an edit frenzy and deleting mostly CITED contributions to this article.

Here, you also admit to both a lack of attention and a lack of knowledge as to what transpired in the exchanges between Johnleeds1 and I. Perhaps you should have READ the entire exchange in this Talk Page and assimilated all of it before reacting the way you did by deleting material which involved considerable effort on my part, as well as Johnleeds1. Johnleeds1 and myself have since reached a mutual understanding and have cooperated in improving this article. Whatever differences of perspectives we had, I think for the most part have been resolved. This can be evidenced in the last exchanges between myself and Johnleeds1.

I shall offer you one valuable piece of advice: Before you jump to conclusions, take the time to READ with careful attention all that has transpired in this very Talk Page from top to bottom.--Flagrantedelicto (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to know what the conflict was between you and Johnleeds1 was because my fundamental point is WP:RS and Wikipedia:Copy-paste. I don't care who did or said what at this point; there is material here copied and pasted from blog sites. It doesn't matter to me who put it in.

As for edit warring then this is a blatantly false claim. My first edit to the article was at 00:08, 16 June 2013 and my first explanation on the talk page was at 00:08, 16 June 2013 as well. My next edit to the article after your reversions was at 00:25, 17 June 2013, after my explanation on the talk page at 00:17, 17 June 2013.

But you know what? I'm tired of your bad attitude with other editors. You think I'm edit warring? Go report me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. No, really. Stop posting angry messages and go report me if what you're saying it true.

I contacted User: Diannaa about the conduct issues and User:Faizhaider contacted User:MatthewVanitas, User:CambridgeBayWeather and User:Doc Tropics about the content issues. The issue will get sorted out one way or another with the help of outside mediators. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, my supposed or perceived "bad attitude" toward other WP editors is none of your business. Don't mix up your issues with someone else's. If those supposed "other" WP editors feel this way, they can defend themselves. I do have some WP editors who have offered me thanks for my contributions to this article, as well as other articles. And I don't appreciate your description of me having a "bad attitude", as it is not at all the case. You also stated to WP Admin that I had "outbursts"...lol Now that is a complete falsehood, and she will observe this if and when she reviews the entire, lengthy exchanges in this Talk Page (as well as my personal Talk Page). And you still don't understand the context in which I applied the term "edit warring" toward you. You apparently did not (either) comprehend or properly read my responses. Furthermore, researching someone’s past editorial conflict, and then applying some of the differences from that particular conflict to a current situation which is not at all related in terms of the way this particular issue is being approached, is counter-productive. And the WP Admin will most probably see right through such tactics. It seems that both of you WP editors (MezzoMezzo and Toddy1) give the impression that you two are collaborating in a campaign of unfair accusations (and/or concerns) toward me. The question that should be sincerely asked by the two of you is whether such a practice is ethical (?) The reason why I include the both of you is because it is obvious that you two are almost precisely echoing or mirroring each other’s concerns. And I don't need to report you, since you already brought attention to yourself when you went and cried to WP admin Diannaa. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been very busy the last few days and therefore did not get a chance to respond. The very fact that you all spend so much time debating shows that you all want to improve this article and get to the truth. One option is to take a break from this article for a week or two and think about how it needs to be structured. That is what I have done. I have all the references for all the content I added, but I felt that I needed to take a break to think about how it needs to be structured. There is also a lot of early non Muslims literature about that period that I am currently going through to get a more 3 dimensional understanding. Muawiyah is a very complex character, living in a very complex time, in a very complex environment, in the Middle East of that period where only a few years earlier many old empires existed and they were warring one another for centuries. Therefore people had their nationalistic and tribal loyalties. What people say about him in the early books depends on during what stage of his life they said it. It also depends on who the author was and where he lived and when. One option is to break this article into multiple stages, covering the different stages of his life. May be something like this

Stage 1 Early life and family Stage 2 After his conversion to Islam Stage 3 During the time of Muhammad and Abu Bakr (he served under his brother who was also called Yazid) Stage 4 Under Umar (During the time of Muhammad, Abu Bakr and Umar he was restricted) Stage 5 Governor of Syria and organisational and diplomatic skills with the Romans Stage 5 Under Uthman (With Marwan as a secretary) and the battle of the Mast Stage 6 Under Ali's Calaphat Stage 8 The peace treaty with Hassan Stage 9 After the peace treaty with Hassan (After the first civil war people wanted peace). Stage 10 Expansion of the state and military achievements Stage 11 His appointment of his son as the next Caliph (People in Madina did not like Yazid).

Modern Non Muslim Literature Early Non Muslim Literature Salafi Literature Early Sunni Literature From Madina Early Sunni Literature From Iraq Early Sunni Literature From Iran Early Shia Literature

These are just ideas. You think about how you want it to be structured too. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Your idea is a comprehensive one Johnleeds, which would ultimately build an even stronger article. I have to be honest though, I'm not particularly interested in Muawiyah, as complex and contentious as his life was. My main concern right now is that we have a clear Wikipedia:Copy-paste violation. If you guys do want help with the comprehensive edits then I will stay on board but I really feel that the fact that many of the sources for the more contentious material here is supported by a series of unacceptable, improper citations copy-pasted from polemical debate blogs needs to be addressed before we move on. Once those are out, going through all the literature would be quicker and easier, I think. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

@Johnleeds1…Lol. My response to you just got pushed out in an edit conflict. With my current PC being so slow, it took some time to gather all of my thoughts and re-post it here. Anyway, it is sound advice to take a break to clear the mind. I agree that Caliph Muawiyah I has a three dimensional persona: The ambivalent persona of Old School or classical Sunni literature; the (unanimously) adverse persona from Shi’ite literature; and the (unanimously) heroic persona of Salafi/Wahhabi revisionist modern literature. This article, compared to the state it was previously in, now certainly approaches that three dimensionalism. My initiative in organizing it aimed for this three dimensionalism. Also, your entries contributed a sizable share in this initiative. Being Old School Sunni, I find it unacceptable that in so many WP Islamic articles, classical Sunni literature is being misleadingly represented as Shi’ite literature, while our Sunni Imams are being used as sources for Shi’ite perspectives. Equally misleading is the Salafi/Wahhabi POV being represented as SUNNI views. Anyone who is a student or scholar of classical or Old School SUNNI literature knows what has been recorded regarding the Umayyads (particularly the caliphs Muawiyah, Yazid, and Marwan). I was hard pressed in finding any Old School Sunni WP editors that contributed to this article (and Yazid I as well), so I sought mediation from an acknowledged Shi’ite WP editor in Mohd. Faiz Haider. The outcome should be interesting. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this by User:Faizhaider. It's hard to read due to the long posts and the amount of complaining at each other. I'm glad that the two main people involved have agreed to take a break in editing it for a while. You both need to lay out the problems, including differences, in a more concise way. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not just a break; I opened a thread at WP:ANI. During the past three days, even after Faizhaider contacted other mediators, Flagrantedelicto continued the highest volume of insults, incivility and personal attacks I've ever seen in such a short period of time. Taken all together, I don't think we can progress in the content dispute before the conduct dispute is addressed - every comment this person makes here and even on other talk pages seems to include some sort of rudeness. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather. Hi there. Let me introduce myself. My username is Flagrantedelicto. I can assure you that there is a lot of contradictions in the feedback I have received for my efforts and contribution to this article. I have received compliments from Johnleeds1 at my editorial efforts, as well as even Toddy1, of whom I have raised some definite concerns (and who also has presented rather puzzling and contradictory responses and behavior in this article). This you can scroll up and view for yourself. MezzoMezzo seems to be overreacting or is ultra-sensitive. During the past month, while myself and Johnleeds1 were sorting out our difference of perspectives, there was absolutely no activity in this article or article Talk Page by MezzoMezzo. All of a sudden, this user's appearance and abrupt DELETIONS of mostly CITED material (including an entire defining seciton, the Shia View) came about in an cooperative, uncollaborative manner. This editor didn't engage in our lenghty discussions, but just came in and arbitrarily deleted considerable material which took hours of effort to include. Showing practically no respect or consideration at the lenghty efforts put into this article by myself and Johnleeds1. And then this editor shifts gears and begins to focus on what this editor charged as "bad behavior". I formally request of you to help place this article under Protected status until the dispute is resolved. Also, if you very carefully read the lengthy exchanges, you will see contradictions in a few of the comments by MezzoMezzo and Toddy1. I am willing to engage in discussion with MezzoMezzo, but it is a mild challenge due to this editor's unfounded accusations of copy-pasting. MezzoMezzo stated that there were copy-pastes in the Shia View section, when that section has no copy-pastes but has been there for a few years now with amply CITED references. This is just one of the inconsistencies in MezzoMezzo's argument. I certainly welcome neutral and impartial mediation. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather- Here are examples of who actually initiated the "incivility" in our discussion here in this Talk Page. These are the rather Uncivil remarks by MezzoMezzo toward me:

all you did here was go into a rant about your own personal viewpoints on the subject,

But you know what? I'm tired of your bad attitude with other editors.

And then MezzoMezzo admitted that he/she was not aware of the lengthy discussions between Johnleeds1 and myself. My dissatisfaction with Johnleeds1 is that he inundated this article with uncited entries (long before I restructured-NOT deleted any material of this article, which I only did later to uncited sources). All you have to do is go back and check the edit history to verify this. This article had dozens of sub-paragraphs that were entered by Johnleeds1 which were totally uncited. Toddy1 was surprisingly flexible about this, but with me, kept requesting even more detailed info than already provided to my entries which were all cited with references. These double standards are clearly evident and undeniable. And I voiced my CONCERNS regarding them, not accusations. And then MezzoMezzo suddenly turns up and DELETES considerable material which took quite an effort on my part to enter. MezzoMezzo also deleted the entire Shia View section of which I had no participation in (as I am SUNNI). The Shia View section was the product of other WP editors' efforts which were amply cited with references. MezzoMezzo did not participate in any of the lengthy discussions between myself and Johnleeds1 and just suddenly appears without having any awareness of what the content of our discussions were about. This statement by MezzoMezzo illustrates this:

Look, I didn't pay real attention to any of this until yesterday;

Furthermore, in poor taste, the rather unethical editorial actions taken by MezzoMezzo was to research my past conflict (back in January 2013) in another WP article altogether and bring the concerns (even the exact verbiage) into the issues with this article. My approach in the other article which neither MezzoMezzo or Toddy1 or Johnleeds1 were involved in was different. The dispute was about Marc Antony's birthdate...And that is all. And it in no way has anything to do with this article, nor the manner in which I conducted myself here. Not that I ever admitted to unfavorable conduct in that other article dispute. The editor in that article debate initiated unpleasantries by calling me "ignorant" and kept up a condescending tone to which I responded. That is why the WP Admin (Dianaa) did nothing after I responded with these facts (without mincing words to her in my response). MezzoMezzo in his ANI notice replicated my response to WP Admin Dianaa. What occurred in that conflict has absolutely nothing to do with the issues in this conflict. This is really unethical editorial practice by MezzoMezzo.

As for my dispute with Johnleeds1, he too accused of me of a couple of things I never stated. But at least Johnleeds1 realized this and apologized to me more than once regarding his mistake. Johnleeds1 mistook his debate with someone else entirely in another WP article altogether, then accused me of something the other WP user supposedly stated. After realizing his mistake, Johnleeds1 apologized. And my disagreements with Johnleeds1 were resolved amicably. You can view this yourself in both my personal Talk Page and here in this Talk Page. Johnleeds1 even complimented my efforts and agreed with some of the points I brought up to him. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. We need to be able to verify information on Wikipedia. That is why we ask for citations, and why we ask that citations are sufficiently specific for other editors to be able to check the claimed facts. If you have read the books you are citing, this will be a lot less work that writing all these walls of largely irrelevant text on the talk page.

If you have complaints about other editors, please do not write them here. Instead, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Three solid days of bullying, insults and incivility by User:Flagrantedelicto.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to stop advising me on WP policies and guidelines and let the mediation of CambridgeBayWeather run its course. You and MezzoMezzo are on this campaign to involve a whole lot of people in this issue and somehow get me blocked. MezzoMezzo goes to Someguy1221 and is trying to get that editor involved. Both of you have showed such pettiness that it is truly surprising. Rather than engaging in a serious discussion of coming to an understanding, you two are behaving in a very hostile manner, and then falsely charge me with bullying. Just keep up with this behavior and you two might end up raising serious concerns about your own credibility. You still haven't answered as to why you allowed Johnleeds1 to inundate this aritlce with literally dozens of UNSOURCED sub-paragraphs and did not question him to provide sources in the manner which you did me. Eventually, Johnleeds1 cited some of his sources, but he was not questioned by you as to whether he read those books or not. And Johnleeds1 took his time in citing the sources which he did. He still didn't cite all of his entries of which a few are still present in the article now (some other uncited entries of his ended up being deleted by MezzoMezzo, and eventually, just a few by me). You also haven't answered my concerns about incessantly questioning me at almost every sincere effort I made to improve this article, when I aimed for a more comprehensive and accurate historical presentation of the subject. You can keep going on and on about verification, but the sources have already been cited. And at least have the courtesy to allow fellow WP editor CambridgeBayWeather to mediate in this matter. And btw, which Toddy1 should I pay more attention to (?) The one who responded just above, or the one who also stated the following to me in this very Talk Page (?):

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)

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)

--Flagrantedelicto (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

First off I am not protecting the article. I must have edited this in the past so if you want it protected then go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I think this section should be closed and a new section started laying out exactly what each editor sees is wrong with the content (not the other editors). CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

a new section started laying out exactly what each editor sees is wrong with the content

• Toddy's view. A lot of what seems to be good work has been done on this article and the related article on Yazid I. A lot of it has what look like good citations. However some of the citations are unclear. For example: "Tadhirathul Khawwas, p. 64; Muruj al Dhahab, vol. 3, p. 420; Tarikh ibn Khaldun, vol. 2, p. 191; Tarikh Kamil, vol. 3, p. 179; Tarikh Tabari, English trans., vol. 18, pp. 144-146; Habib al Sayyar, vol. 1, pp. 72; Tabaqat al Kubra, vol. 6, pp. 213", or "Al-Madaini, Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Muhammad. Tarikh Al-Khulafah: *Mu'awiya bin Abu Sufyan." A good way of solving this would be to put the books being cited into a reference section. I would like this to include, the book title as given by the publisher (with English translation in brackets), the name of the author, (the names of translator(s) is optional but useful), the publisher, publication date, edition, ISBN (if any), and the language (if not English). The citations themselves should give page numbers. In the longer term, it would be nice if the citations used a common format, giving the name of the author, the title, and the page numbers (and if several editions are being cited, then the edition). I am certain that other improvements are desirable, but it is hard to make them if we cannot verify what is there already.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Mezzo's view. Even if we can find proper publisher information, I don't think the page numbers given are trustworthy. Most of these supposed sources are copy-pasted from a number of polemical inter-Muslim debate blogs and forums. To keep things short, here's just what I found by Googling again: blog, blog and forum. Really, take a look at the authors, titles and page numbers; it's the same. Keeping them here when we know they're just borrowed from blogs and forums is a violation of Wikipedia:Copy-paste and a hardcore fail of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Let's just start over by looking up new sources on Google Books. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, just realized something else...a huge portion of this material is also found on this blog post from 2013 - much later than when it was put here on Wikipedia - and has been independently published by the blogs owner via CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform in 2012. It's self-published and obviously not reliable, yet the book was published at least a year after most of this stuff was put on Wikipedia. Not sure if that indicates any funny business back in 2011, but it does raise even more interesting questions about just where exactly these supposed citations came from. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am confused. If the blog was published AFTER the same material appeared on Wikipedia, this suggests that the blog copied from Wikipedia, not the other way round. Have I misunderstood what you meant to say?--Toddy1 (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I was confused and posted it here as I just started searching this stuff again, but I suppose it doesn't mean much for the last one. The stuff from my first paragraph, however, is from 2009 and 2010, which is why I think this is copy paste. Even so, we're looking at a huge Wikipedia:Verifiability violation here - readers have no way of verifying the info. Perhaps we can get the publisher info like you suggested, but only after returning to something like Google Books and providing links just to be sure that the citations are accurate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Flagrantedelicto's view. The unwarranted conjecture that the cited entries in this article were copy-pasted from other websites is baseless. The Classical Islamic authors and their passages and literary works are well known. Consequently, it is no surprise that they are probably brought up again and again in Islamic websites in theological discussions. Just because well known material is documented and reprised over and over again in Islamic websites does not automatically mean that the material here on Wikipedia is copy-pasted. Take for example Biblical verses. They are quoted time and again and are reproduced all over the place. Would Biblical passages be considered copy-pasted material (?) Then why the seeming different set of standards when involving Islamic literature (?) If neither of the other two WP editors can read, write or understand Arabic, Urdu, or Farsi, then they are not as academically qualified to judge or evaluate much of the Classical Islamic literature being cited as reference. It almost evokes an occidental / Western cultural imposition of having superior knowledge of Near Eastern culture and society above someone who is native to oriental/Near Eastern culture when neither Toddy1, nor MezzoMezzo are of Near Eastern ethnicity. For example, even if I had basic knowledge of Chinese culture and society and became a Confucianist (or was a student of Confucianism), I would still defer to native Chinese in presenting their literary history and not impose my foreign standards upon their understanding of Chinese culture and society. What I am perceiving here are editors who are certainly not as familiar with the sensitivities of Near Eastern culture and society as almost any native Near Easterner (like myself), impose their Western values and standards on a subject matter which they were not culturally raised with. This could be perceived as a form of condescension toward any WP editor who was raised in Near Eastern society and has that sociological understanding of Near Eastern sensitivities, etiquette, and protocol. The current state of this article is so much more improved than previously. I like it as it is now. The article is displaying a three-dimensional view of its subject from Classical Sunni literature, Shi'ite literature, and more modern revisionist literature of Salafi persuasion. All three perspectives are represented in the article in its current state. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You were asked to comment on what is wrong with the article, not what is wrong with the other editors.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to remind me what I should or should not do. That is not your function. Please remember that. CBW can address this as the requested mediator, not you. I would also like Faiz Haider to participate, as well. Your opinion is not superior to mine because you are of Western culture. That is the impression I am getting from you and MezzoMezzo. Also, the article did not materialize by itself. It is the work of editors. If the editors do not have a comprehensive understanding of Near Eastern culture, society, religion, and the LANGUAGES of Islamic literature, then it comes across as an imposition of Western standards and values upon the interpretation of Near Eastern culture, society, and theology. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am fluent in Arabic and my grammar and syntax are better than those of most native speakers. I worked in the Mideast for a few years know the culture. Regardless, your accusations are a violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Stop accusing us of imposing this or that and focus on the content. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If I take your claim in good faith, then I will ask you to prove it. Is it possible that because you may not be able to read Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu literature, that you are getting so upset about Classical Islamic literature which you may not really be familiar with (?) I will openly debate you (right here in the WP Talk Page) regarding any Classical Islamic author and the content and thesis and exegeses of their works to truly understand what level of academic knowledge you really have in Classical Islamic studies. Also, the bulk of Classical Islamic literature were not written only in Arabic but also in Farsi and later Turkish and Urdu. You make the claim that you have lived in the "Mideast" for years, yet you do not evoke any of the social protocol or sensitivities of Near Eastern culture. It is properly Near Eastern, not Middle Eastern, btw. Also, you may have lived in the "Mideast" but that means nothing. I have travelled extensively throughout the Arabian Peninsula and have come across many Westerners there who have lived there for years. However, many of them have evoked an arrogance and condescension toward people of the Near East which I have personally experienced. So you may have lived in the Mideast, that still doesn't mean you think and act like a "Mideasterner". Your own responses here in WP and the comment about "the religion card" to me elsewhere clearly evokes non-Near Eastern sensitivity. You have also not evoked the proper respect most Near Easterners naturally express. For example, Faiz Haider addressed me with Salaam and so did I toward him. Your entire demeanor comes across as rather condescending and is not evoking Near Eastern sensitivity at all, sorry to say. And you are not being accused, but concerns regarding social protocol and etiquette have the right to be raised. Your own condescending tone has no right to be imposed upon others in what they should or should not do. This is something I noticed in Toddy1 as well. Maybe neither of you are aware of this, but I am expressing the impression others may get. Just the opening statement of yours evokes this seeming arrogance and condescension toward Near Eastern sensitivity:

I am fluent in Arabic and my grammar and syntax are better than those of most native speakers.

As for the content, I already stated my position: The article now is presented in a three-dimensional, far more comprehensive format. It expresses Classical Sunni, Shi'ite, and Salafi-influenced (modern) revisionist views. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, this has gone back to ad hominem arguents. This is precisely what this section was NOT meant to be.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

We have concerns regarding Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Copy-paste, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability violations. If Flagrantedelicto or anyone else can't address those, then we might have grounds to say that this part of the article's revision has been concluded. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither of you have any grounds for anything of that nature. I have openly invited MezzoMezzo to a debate in Islamic literature. It is essential in defining how this article has evolved and can be further improved. This is not an ad hominem at all. If anything, MezzoMezzo's blatant claim:

I am fluent in Arabic and my grammar and syntax are better than those of most native speakers.

Easily qualifies as an ad hominem toward me, not to mention any native speakers of Arabic. This could be easily perceived as really an insult to Near Eastern sensitivity. I would still like to understand if MezzoMezzo's adamant objection are due a the lack of in-depth knowledge of Islamic literature and the Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu languages. This is only a fair proposition. It is not justifiable for someone who really does not understand Classical Islamic literature or its eminent authors to impose their will upon this article. Especially, if this individual is not familiar with Near Eastern culture and has not evoked any of the sensitivity of Near Eastern society and protocol, maybe preferring Western authors on Islamic literature over Classical native authors.

Furthermore, CBW has not responded with a mediation and since CBW requested for a new section to be opened, I would await CBW's feedback. I will also request Faiz Haider to input here, in spite of his open declaration of being of the Shi'ite persuasion; that should not automatically exclude him from offering valuable feedback. I am Old School Sunni so I am well prepared to present defining and informative Classical Sunni literature. I will not find it acceptable if any deletion occurs of the material present in the article, as it is the product of a lot of hard work by myself, many other past WP editors, and also Johnleeds1. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A competition between editors is irrelevant. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; please respond to the policy concerns mentioned. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not about competition. It is about understanding if a self-claimed "superior" Arabic-speaking editor ("over most native Arabic speakers") can truly substantiate such a bold claim. Why the apprehension (?) I am ready to go and welcome an opportunity to present my years of hard work and studies in the field. There is no need to be evasive if you can substantiate your (almost offensive) claim. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Changing the subject won't work; you and me having a contest doesn't prove what is and isn't violating Wikipedia policies. Concerns regarding Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Copy-paste, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability have been raised. Please respond to these policy based issues and avoid commenting on other editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your concerns are unfounded as has been already stated for the umpteenth time. You have just provided links to websites and have proven nothing but your own unjustified suspicions. It wouldn't surprise anyone if you really might not even be able to read or write Arabic. Why are you so reluctant or evasive of an in-depth discussion (not a competition) in Classical Islamic literature (?) Why the apprehension (?) You made this claim: I am fluent in Arabic and my grammar and syntax are better than those of most native speakers. Consequently, I would like to verify it. It is only fair. There is no need to seek cover via manipulation of WP policies. I would like to do this right here and now, this way later on you might recruit a native Arabic speaker (or a seasoned Islamic scholar) and have them assist you. And there would be no way to prove or disprove this in the near future. And please make no mistake that this academic invite (right here and now) is in good faith. Later on, if you decide to change your mind and suddenly agree to an in-depth discussion, I will not take you up on it for the reasons I have just stated. This is not an ad hominem, but a good faith attempted verification of your bold claim. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Just few points:

• As per Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright "Facts cannot be copyrighted." And IMO some book on some page contains some text is a fact because we can't reformulate or reword it much e.g. if a medical journal says that "there are 206 bones in adult human" then although it may be copyrighted but because it is a fact we can use the phrase. If a copyrighted article says Quran 1:2 and somebody copies it to WP then its not copyright violation because a fact is being copied.
• As per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_published "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." So if a cited source is not available on Internet then too it may qualify as WP:RS
• As per Wikipedia:Offline_sources "Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline states that articles should be sourced with reliable, third-party, published sources. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. In fact, many great sources are only available offline. Don't let that fact scare you away from using them as a source in Wikipedia. Sometimes, the use of an offline source will be challenged. Be sure to assume good faith for the user who cited the offline source." So, if a source is not available on-line then too it can be used.
• As per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Usage_by_other_sources "widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." So if some source is being cited then and again then by this policy it is proved that the source is relaible or in other words conforms to WP:RS
• As per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." So, if somebody tries to discredit a source saying that its Salafi/Wahabi or Sunni or Shia, then its not correct.
• As per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say." So we should include majority and significant-minority viewpoints to balance the article.
• As per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." So, Primary Sources can be used but with care & to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
• As per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. ... Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." So if English sources of equal quality and relevance are not available non-English sources can be used. If somebody provides a translation of such Non-English text from secondary source and somebody doesn't agrees with it then translation from alternative source should be bought and then a consensus may be reached (to include one or both or do way with contentious text, whatever).

Hopefully above extracts of policies related to sources/references/citations clears some air and help in consensus and mutual agreement.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 15:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I thank you very much for this information regarding WP policies and guidelines. As I had stated, I am content with the way the article appears in its present state. Both myself and Johnleeds1 have worked hard on bringing it to its current presentation. We certainly had our differences as to some of its contents, but toward the end, we resolved them and collaborated and cooperated in an amicable manner to bring this article to its present state. As I stated a few times already, the historical subject of this article has been presented in a three-dimensional form to represent the three main perspectives: Classical Sunni, Shi'ite, and modern (revisionist) Salafi-influenced views. This represents a balanced, well-rounded historiographical persona of the subject. Any future attempt to delete cited material from this article is really counter-productive to this article. Certainly, more properly balanced (cited) additions toward all three perspectives should be welcomed by anyone. Censorship and deletion of the Shia View section is counter-productive and essentially unacceptable as there are millions of Shi'ite readers of Wikipedia. And I sincerely offer this observation being an Old School Sunni exponent of standard Islamic studies. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

So this has once again deteriorated into a lack of assuming good faith on the part of other editors and not just by one editor.

One of the biggest problems that I see is that it appears nobody actually has access to any of the works being cited. Is that correct? Are there any other sources that can be brought forward to cover the material? Remember as Faizhaider correctly points out the sources can be either in the authors original language or a reliable English translation.

The ethnicity of any editor is not important as the sources are what gives us the material and not personal knowledge. At the same time the use of the same sources on other web sites does not render them invalid. Thanks to Faizhaider for pointing out the relevant policies.

If any editor feel there is need for a discussion on classical Islamic authors I would as that it be done on another web site. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If we know what the books are, we can get them. I bought Volume 19 of Tabari's history to answer a question about the Battle of Karbala. The trick is that you have to actually know what the book is. If you know that you can buy it from online bookshops, or borrow from libraries. Some of these books can be found online as well - but again you need to know what the book really is - and also whether it is available in a language you understand.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Between my in-laws and I, we have original Arabic copies of many of the sources listed; many more are available with reliable English translations on Google Books.

I am concerned about the sources being on blogs for another reason. These sources have been here since at least 2011. They've been floating around on Sunni-Shi'a debate blogs and forums since at least 2009. My first girlfriend after converting was Shi'ite, and one thing I learned is that teenage and twentysomething Sunnis and Shi'as in English-speaking countries are fond of drudging up quotes from the other sects' books as a form of checkmating during flame wars.

The sources are copied from blogs and forums; I can dig further if you guys feel it's helpful (if not, I won't waste everyone's time). If they are jacked from blogs and forums, then that means the editor who originally added them didn't read them. If that's the case, then the source should be the websites from which they were taken. But those websites are blogs and forums, and they fail WP:RS. That was my thinking in raising an issue with it.

If you guys are down, we can go through what's available via English translation first as the default. I don't know if Toddy and Faizhaider speak Arabic though I'm sure Faizhaider speaks Urdu, and I can go through the Arabic books as well. But do you guys think we should exhaust the English-language sources first? It's easier for readers to verify. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

One of my concerns is that some of the citations on this article and the one on Yazid I are really second-hand (though claimed to be first-hand). If the editor who put them there does not really know what is in the sources, he/she cannot know whether he/she faithfully represents what they say. For example, on the page on Yazid I, Flagrantedelicto added a bit saying that Tabari Volume 19 said that Yazid was a tyrant - but when I checked Tabari Volume 19 it said that rebels being besieged by government forces referred to Yazid as a tyrant. We need to know what the sources really are, and if some of them have been copied from forums instead of being read then we need to know this and move them to the talk page or mark them as needing checking. But please be careful about dates of postings - forums copy from Wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

When you look at Muawiyah in detail, you also come across literature from early Byzantine and Jewish chroniclers. I was wondering if any of you have gone through that and could shed more light on that. You also come across Sabaites named after Abdala Ben Saba. He is mentioned in many books. History of the Jews: From the Roman Empire to the Early Medieval ..., Volume 2 By Simon Dubnov page 330 where it talks about Abdala Ben Saba [3]

There are also other old books like this one. Jewish Literature from the Eighth to the Eighteenth Century: With an ... By Moritz Steinschneider, William Spottiswoode page 59 which don't appear to be well researched but still talk about Sabaites[4]

There is also other non Muslim literature from near that time like The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus By Bar Hebraeus [5]

In some early Muslim books there are also references to the qurra who later became the Kharijities. (Some books I have come across say that al-Baladhuri talks about them, but I don't have a copy of al-Baladhuri, but I will be getting it, They also say At-Tabari 5:66 also talks about them). Modern Intellectual Readings of the Kharijites By Hussam S. Timani Page 62

[6]

Do you think something about the Qurra also needs to be included in this article. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

@UserLJohnleeds1: I concur.

@User:Toddy1: We have two options. We can go through each given source now, trying to look up each citation. Or, we can run web searches and anything we find being passed around on polemical blogs and forums prior to 2011 can just be removed; we then rebuild the sections from scrath.

Either way can work, but I have two concerns with the first way:

1. It assumes good faith when, at this point, I don't think we need to since we already know for certain some of the citations were copy-pasted. I mean come on...the Musnad of Ibn Hanbal? It has more than 26,000 ahadith, I couldn't readily accept that someone with that level of knowledge and research sifted through the pages since the book is not organized by topic. That's even if there wasn't funny business going on here, and we're certain that there is, we just need to take the time to pinpoint the exact times and origins of the copy pasting.

2. It will take much more time than the first alternative. I own some of the books like Mas'udi's Murruj al Dhahab and Tabari's history, others we can find online, but cross checking everything - and we will have to since you already uncovered at least one instance of academic dishonesty - will take forever.

I won't push too hard if nobody else wants to start again from scratch but I would like everyone to consider it. If anybody worries about representation, we have plenty of modern scholars from all sides we can take from: William Montgomery Watt, Wilferd Madelung, Muhammad Mustafa Al-A'zami, Hossein Nasr...there are also English translations widely available of Tabari's history, Ibn Kathir's tafsir, Mas'udi's book (I guess my mention above was superfluous, looking back) and others. I honestly think this will be faster than cross-checking everything. What does everyone else think? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be useful to know:

• Which citations you have evidence of being second-hand. I am not asking you to check every citation, but please do some. [i.e. Yes, please could you "run web searches and anything we find being passed around on polemical blogs and forums prior to 2011 can just be removed" - but please move it to the talk page, with the evidence. It is important to be fair. And it is possible that some time later we might want to use these as leads to information.
• What the books being cited are, which would be best added to the reference section. Remember, most Wikipedia editors have never heard of any of these books. It is only when we are clear what books really are, that editors can buy or borrow them.

I do not want to start from scratch. But I have no objection to replacement of paragraphs/sections with suspect citations with new paragraphs/sections that have good citations. Similarly, if a paragraph is original research, or synthesis, of fails "checking by sampling", then removal to the talk page is justified. (Checking by sampling is the idea that if the citation(s) I can check, clearly do not support what is claimed of it, then it is unlikely that the other citations to sources I cannot check probably do not either.)

I think we should add the title to citations that are in parenthesis form ["Smith (2011) p45"]. The format that gives the book title as well is much clearer.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It will be best if there was more focus on actual historical events agreed to by the different sources like for example the actual battles and campaigns and other actual events in the top half of the article. When we start talking about what people think of him, it gets very long and there are arguments as no one can agree :) --Johnleeds1 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

@Toddy1: You mentioned that you bought and checked 'Tabari Volume 19' regarding the claim 'Yazid being a tyrant' as view of Tabari. Can you please share specifics of where did you looked and found the claim to be void e.g. page# / part# / para# / etc, also details of the copy you are refering to e.g. who is publisher, where did it got published, when did it got published, who is translator, etc; if you can provide this information it'll be helpful for ohter editors who are in position or are willing to cross check the refernce as they will be saved from re-inventing the wheel.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I plan to propose a change to the Yazid I article. I will propose a change, on that article's talk page, and will explain exactly what Tabari really says. This will be in a few weeks. I am visiting London for the tennis, so it is not convenient to do it now. But the tennis will be over in 2 weeks, and it will take a little time to check page numbers, etc. If I notice any evidence that I might be mistaken, I will of course also mention this.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I had wanted to get to some other projects as well. I have a proposal. Why don't we take a brief recess from proposed changes to this article (I'm uninvolved at Yazid I and will likely stay that way) until after Toddy's tennis match (good luck if you're competing, have fun if you're watching) and some mental rest for all of us from the previous...negativity. Then we can come back, start a new section and brother Faizhaider can sort of referee a new round of discussion along with Johnleeds, myself and anyone else who is interested on what should and shouldn't be changed in the article. Does that work out for everyone? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be good way of doing the things. I'll suggest one more thing that as discussions are underway and consensus is reached the article's current state should be left untouched (we may get it fully protected). The editor's willing to work on improvement may work on temporary copy located at Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp, it is a common practice across WP.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

See you all in a few weeks. Enjoy your reading :) and think about how the article needs to be structured. Considering that Muawiyah is such a complex character, living in a complex time, try thinking out side the box. Imagine if you lived at that time, what decisions would you have made. One of the major issues highlighted by Flagrantedelicto is that because Muawiyah lived at a time before the Sunni Shia theological schools of thought were formed, the views of many of the scholars of the time like Abdullah ibn Umar do not fit well with the current views of the Sunnis or Shias. In many cases it has been like fitting a square peg into a round hole. Their views are more in middle ground and they don't feel that only the descendent's of Ali should rule, but then at the same time they oppose any ruler they think is unjust. They all appeared to oppose Yazid, but tolerated Muawiyah after the treaty with Hassan.

But then Hassan also had to make some very hard decisions. Imagine if you were in his position. He had lost many of his close friends, including Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, who he was raised with, he was also the guard, guarding Uthman the day he was killed. Imagine what went through his mind. What if history took a different course. Then he had the Kharijites in Iraq to deal with. It was all very complicated. There are different groups with different economic and political interests and then on top of that the populations in the different areas were very tribal and nationalistic.

May be even keep the Sunni views and the Shia views out at the beginning and concentrate on the facts agreed to by everyone first. Just think about it. If this article could be cleaned up, then the rest of the articles in the Islam section will fall into place. Sunni view and the Shia view arguments have been letting down the whole Islam section. May be the article needs to stick with the historical facts, rather than peoples views as then everyone starts arguing :) --Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Continuing cleanup

@User:Faizhaider, @User:Toddy1 and @User:Johnleeds1, are you all ready to start again? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I am ready. I have been doing a lot of reading too. Just ask Flagrantedelicto if he is free. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering that this article is so complex, I have put it into chronological order. The new article is at Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp as Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider. Please have a look. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

After going through every book I could find, from every period in history and from every sect and religion and scholar, from Sunni, Shia, Roman, and Jewish history books from every period, here is the complete history of Muawiyah. Muawiyah impacted everyone, the Muslims, the Romans and the Jews living in the area at the time. There is a lot of cross over of history and there are non Muslims books from that period too. You could verify actual historical facts if they appear in all the history books. This article needed to be of a high academic standard. The academic standard of the previous article was very low that is why everyone started arguing. I had to do a lot of work on this article to make it flow chronologically. Muawiyah is such a complex character and what people say about him depends who said it, when and where and when it was written down and where it was written down and what motivated them to say what they said. There are so many groups in the Middle East around that time with conflicting political and economic interests and so much social change. Therefore it has been very time consuming to put the article in a chronologically so that it flows properly --Johnleeds1 (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that was very quick. Johnleeds1 there was confusion, edit-war, talk-war, etc for couple of months until some calm prevailed and then you took almost four days to factor your research on Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp, and you applied that on main article in less than a day. I think you should give time if not equal to that of your research then atleast that of your edits to other intrested editors to go thru Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp and put their suggestions, improvements, additions, subtractions, etc. We should spend some time on Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp and make it stramlined & full-proof to avoid any other series of rever/edit/tak-wars. Once Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp version is finalized then main article content may be removed and replaced by the content of Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp. Meanwhile I'll suggest that you restore the earlier version of main article back. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have a cursory look on Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp and have added few maintance tags mostly related to citation. Step-by-step I'll go through Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp in bit more detail and will highlight the avenues requiring improvement.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider. I was having a lot of issues with getting the references to work yesterday on the Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp and also wanted to merge the content from the existing article into this one and keep the existing references working. That is why I ended up merging the two articles. The Wikipedia bots change the references format, so when you copy the references from one article to another they don't always work. There are a lot of references in this article.

I am happy for you to revert the main article, if you want. Thanks for going through this article. Some of the sentences where you asked for references to be added, like in the "Early life and family" were from the existing article. I did not add them. But there is a lot of literature out there, on those things and we could easily verify and add references. I could add the references to the areas I changed, where you have requested the references.

We need to get every one else involved too. We need a consensus. That is why I have added everything from all the sources. As highlighted by Flagrantedelicto I think the Sunni Shia view sections need to be changed. It may be best to call it "criticism of Muawiyah". The only real difference I could find between the early Sunni and Shia text in regards to the criticism of Muawiyah was if Hassans wife killed him on not. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We can't force anyone to get involved, and they may be busy in their real lives, so, we need to give all the intrested editors some time and work for a consensus at Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp. We should focus on Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp and improve it in all possible ways, that not only means addition of new content but more importantly rectification of existing content which includes providing RS to existing content and improving the wordings, reducing too much reliance on quotations and avoiding OR & synthesis. We should not be in hurry to make changes to main article becuase more time we spend on Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp more robust it becomes and in future if anyone comes and hits undo/revert link or does unwarranted edits (additions/modifications/deletions) we can present this long debate and say that the present article is result of 5-6 months of discussions, efforts and consensus. Once we reach desired state of article at Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp then if required we can engage a specialist editor who can do the merge with main article. As I said I'll prefer main article to be changed once we reach a consensus version at Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp, till then we should refrain from any major revamp at main article space.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This new revamp is largely bogus. It is really a pro-Muawiya bandwaggon by this Johnleeds1. The Battle of Yarmouk is totally unnecessary. Muawiyah really had no historical significance until the Caliphate of his cousin Uthman bin al-Affan. Also, Muawiyah did not personally lead any military campaign in the capture of Caesarea in 640 A.D. In 638 the city, capital of Byzantine Palestine and an important commercial and maritime center, was conquered by the Muslims, allegedly through the betrayal of a certain Yusef, who conducted a party of troops of Muawiyah through a "secret tunnel", perhaps the extensive Byzantine sewers, into the city. The Persian historian al-Baladhuri, who offers the earliest Muslim account, merely states that the city was "reduced". Johnleeds1 conveniently eliminated the details of the highly significant, pivotal Battle of Siffin (between Ali and Muawiya) which seemed to be properly cited from Edwards Gibbon's book and only left the figures of the casualties. Muawiya wasn't a very liked figure in early Sunni literature and there is considerable hostile writings against him. Johnleeds1 clearly seems to be spewing Wahhabi revisionism in the revamped article. His references need to be checked thoroughly. Also, there is clearly a bias and deception in the section about 'Later Abbasid period literature from Iran'. This sounds like Wahhabite propaganda who have pushed a pro-nationalistic anti-Iranian agenda in their version of Islamic history. The Abbasids were Iraq-based, not Iran-based. The later Abbasid caliphate was in Egypt. The great Sunni literary figures of the Baghdad Abbasid era were Sunni Persians: Bukhari, Muslim, Baladhuri, Tabari, etc. It seems these pro-Wahhabis or Salafis (under the guise of being Just Muslims or even Sunnis) are all over Wikipedia's early Islamic historical articles like flies on fertilizer. Sadly, there is no real solid Ahlus Sunnah or even Ahle Tashayyu editors to refute this nonsense spewed by deceptive, fraudulent pseudo-editors like this Johnleeds1. Muawiya was nothing short of a lying, hypocritical, ruthless, greedy, and unscrupulous jackal (the literal meaning of his name, btw). Redefining this enemy of genuine Islam into a Muslim hero is ridiculous. These so-called "facts" about Muawiya are beginning to resemble the Chuck Norris Facts.Early Sunni authors have been harsh in their criticism of Muawiya. To glorify an enemy of true Islam in this holy month of Ramadhan is a disgrace. --Zulfindar (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zulfindar, thanks for the feedback. The more feedback we could get the better. This article is still under construction. It is NOT finished. I am waiting for Flagrantedelicto to expand the other areas. Currently we are just collecting everything that we could find, from all the different books and all the different sources. Once we have everything on one page, we could talk about it, expand some areas and contract other areas and structure it. It will be greatly changed over the next month or so. We are still waiting for the other editors MezzoMezzo, Toddy1, Flagrantedelicto. We have been discussing this for months and then got into arguments because there were so many contradictions in the history books. Therefore took a break. We need to make sense of the books. We were getting into a lot of arguments. May be break them down into when they were written and where and what they said. Battle of Yarmouk was mentioned because his brother, mother and father were also involved according to Baladhuri. The Battle of Siffin is in the Ali section and this will be expanded further. I have left those areas for Flagrantedelicto to expand because he also has a lot of knowledge and made most of the contributions on those areas. This article is still under construction. At the moment we are just collecting all the information that we could find. It's not finished. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zulfindar, it will be very helpful of you if you can contribute. You can point out specific problem areas and counter arguments, you may also provide sourced content. We are working on a version at Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp, once we finalise it we'll replace main article with the finalised version. You are more than welcome to contribute in shaping up of this article. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 19:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. However, I probably won't have the time to contribute as I am too busy with things right now. I will offer this advice: There is no earlier Islamic literature than from the Caliphate of Abbasid caliph Al-Mansur. Johnleeds1 has clearly mislead readers in stating that there is any early Madina literature which is surviving. As far as archaeology and epigraphy is concerned, there exist no literature surviving from Umayyad times. Consequently, any statement by anyone that there was earlier Islamic literature before the Abbasid era is clearly false. Most early Sunni literature (both hadith and tareekh) have rather unfavourable criticism of Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan. This is an undeniable fact. Only the Wahhabi/Salafiyya revisionists have been pushing this altered image of Muawiya as an Islamic hero (audhubillah). Abu Ubayda was Caliph Omar's main military hero in the Byzantine conquests of Sham (i.e. Palestine, Syria, etc.), NOT Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan. Muawiya was also NOT the first Arab Muslim leader to establish the Muslim Navy, but it was Abdullah ibn Sa'd bin Abi Sarh (governor of Egypt). The Egyptian Muslim navy was the first one, and then came the Syrian Muslim navy (which Muawiya established). If one desires historiographical facts about Muawiya, then the early Sunni scholars are the source. As was stated earlier in this talk page, if the publications are from Wahhabite Saudi Arabia or any clandestine Wahhabite publishers, then the early Sunni sources are not the original works, but edited ones. This I must also agree with as it is a fact. Also, the Bayt Al Hikma library was NOT founded at all by Muawiya, but was established by Caliph Al-Mamun (son of Caliph Haroun al Rasheed) in 833 A.D. -- Zulfindar (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Zulfindar Thanks for the feedback. We will be making these changes. I was going to ask Flagrantedelicto to have a look at the book "The Caliphate of Banu Umayyah the first Phase, Ibn Katheer, Taken from Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah by Ibn Katheer, Ismail Ibn Omar 775 H ISBN 978-603-500-080-2 by Yoosuf Al-Hajj". It has the name of Ibn Katheer and says that it is "From" his book Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah on the front but the printing company is based in Saudi Arabia. We need to review the book. The book includes references to the other more classic hadith books too. Where there were references, I have added those too. We need to go through all the references in more detail. But at the moment everyone is busy. Collecting everything together has been extremely time consuming for me too. The more help we could get the better. Zulfindar you are welcome to assist. We are waiting for the other editors and when every one has more time, we will be substantially changing the article. So far I have just been collecting everything in one place, so that we could start our discussions and start reviewing. These books are a good start, as they point us to the classical works, as they also contain references to them. Then we could check the actual classical text. It makes it easier to find. I agree with your statement "If one desires historiographical facts about Muawiya, then the early Sunni scholars are the source." But we need to collect everything together first, before we could cross check the references and make sure that they actually said that. There have been lots of arguments of Wikipedia and to resolve many of these arguments we need a list of all the classical books. I have been trying to put together a diagram of these early books, it is in the Talk:Islam section. Your help with that will also be appreciated. Once we have all agreed on this article, I need to go back to that. Zulfindar if you come across any references, please point us in right direction. The section on the Bayt Al Hikma library was not added by me, it was there before. "Early Madina Literature" came across wrongly, it was my mistake, I did not mean to say that is was before the Abbasid period, but meant to say that it was early, but it came across wrongly. You could change it or suggest how we could change it. In the Battle of Yarmouk section, in the various books it said that "In the Battle of Yarmouk Muawiyah's brother Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan served under Khalid bin al-Waleed and was in command of one of the wings and Muawiyah was his second in command. Muawiyahs mother Hind also took part in the battle and his father Abu Sufyan also took part and Abu Sufyan lost his sight" So I put in. Muawiyah was not in change we need to change the wording to make that more clear. We have just been putting everything into one article and then we will go through it all. We need to collect all the facts about what actually happened. This is just a start. Over the next month or so the article will be changed substantially, so you are welcome to take part and your help with references will be greatly appreciated. Zulfindar, to be honest, I have spent a lot of time collecting everything, because I also want to get to the truth, as much as all of us who have been working on this article for months now. I have put a lot of effort into collecting everything but I don't mind people removing everything, that I have collected together. We need to get to the truth, have an open mind and assess all the evidence. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added as much information as I could find from every source, about that period in time. It's extremely time consuming and I can't do this on my own. I need the other people to fill in everything they know. The article being constructed is at Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp. I will take a break now, as I need everyone else to add all the content they have come across and start reviewing everything. But everyone seems to be busy. I have done my best to collect everything but I need other people to come back and start making their changes. The article is not finished. It still has some way to go. Any help will be appreciated - Thanks - John --Johnleeds1 (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

These events are extremely tragic and should not be exploited for economic or political gain. May be we could get to the bottom of this and learn something from the past and avoid the temptation of greed. Hassan provided an excellent example. I have tried my best to collect everything and once everyone else has put their text in, if the facts eventually don't conform to the modern Shia, Sunni doctrines and are more in line with what happens when you put the temptation of power and wealth before your principles, then so be it. Many of them like Abdullah Ibn Omar also stayed away from power because they felt that they will be accountable to God for all that happens. Even Yazid's son abdicated. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Guys, I'm 99% certain that Zulfinder is Flagrantdelicto - it's the same manner of writing, the same ranting about Salafis and Wahhabis loving Muawiyah, the same pattern of writing a long paragraph followed by three or four revisions of the same paragraph...I really think an SPI ought to be opened before continuing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Article being constructed

Faiz thanks for your help. Faiz please don't remove the primary sources yet, from the article we are constructing. Leave the tags: non-primary source needed, third-party source needed, tags for the moment but don't remove the text yet. Wait until every one is free and we have all reviewed the content and tried to make sense of it. Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, plz don't panic I'll not delete any matter from Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp‎ (at-least for now ;). I'm just putting tags to identify areas of improvement because there is not point in discussing a draft and streamlining it if it is full of unsourced, primary sourced, non RS, disputed or unclear content. I want that when discussion starts (& I don't think its going to happen in full swing for at-least next fortnight) we have clean content at-least by sources, so that we can start copy-editing it without much deliberations to clear the unsourced/poorly-sourced content. We need to work on the text sourcing to include more comprehensive in-line citations based on multiple verifiable RS. We also need to make the passages crisp & to the point and avoid lengthy quotes and commentary. If we are giving so much of time on this article then we may try it to make at-least a B-class article as per WP standards. From now on I'll be bit occupied due to Laylat-al-Qadr and follwing Id-al-Fitr engagements but hopefully will ave some time to drop-in time-to-time and do some meaningful contribution. Happy editing.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 16:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering that many of these books were written hundreds of years after the events, it may be best to discuss and define what constitutes a primary source in regards to this article. Where scholars have reviewed primary sources, to reach a conclusion, it may be best to include the primary sources, in addition to the references. While working on this article, it has been evident that very few Sunnis and Shias have read the very old classical literature, so when for example modern scholars talk about the Qurra and the Kharijites, the Sunnis and Shias know very little about them and start arguing even though the oldest classical literature is full of references to the Kharijites. In light of this, it may be best to improve the article further, but keep some of the references just to avoid arguments in the future. Its best to work in a scholarly spirit of cooperation to improve these articles, be neutral and reduce the arguments. I will take a break now and let everyone else add their content - John - --Johnleeds1 (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Zulfinder was indeed blocked as a sock of Flagrantedelicto. It's good that you guys assume good faith as a default but keep in mind that Flagrantedelicto never actually contributed positively to this article. He has a lot of opinions and made many claims but he never brought reliable sourcing to back up his assertions; he just talked a lot. With that in mind, both his feedback and that of his sock account Zulfinder really ought to be discounted. Anybody can make bold historical claims and present themselves as someone knowledgeable on a subject, but a Wikipedia article is only as good as its sources. The mention about Caesarea and its taking is unsourced, so the tag for example is appropriate in that case; NOT because Flagrantedelicto/Zulfinder disputed it, but because there isn't a source. He argued a lot, edit warred and never proved that the broad claims he was making were actually true - indeed, many of them are simply ridiculous such as his statement that any book printed in Saudi Arabia must automatically be biased - and thus those claims damaged the article and its development more than anything. We need to just carry on with what positive, productive and reliable editors actually bring to the table and ignore the trolls. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I will be away for a week. You could continue adding content to the new article we are building up. After digging and digging I have found Al-Waqidi's history books to be the most detailed. They are that detailed, that you could even make movies with them. They are the oldest Muslim history books and match the Roman texts of the time the most closely. They predate most of the Sunni and Shia text apart from Imam Malik's and Imam Abu Hanifa's books. Al-Waqidi lived at the same time as Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Jafar in Madina. He was a student of Imam Malik. It's shocking how closely his writings match those of the Roman authors of the time. Tom Holland in his best selling book, In the shadow of the sword, The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World, uses a lot of Roman sources and archaeological evidence. I was shocked how the Roman sources married up so closely with the accounts given in Al-Waqidi's books. I used Al-Waqidi's books to give the Arab account and the Roman books to give the Roman account for the section "Under Abu Bakr" and they married up 100%. Even the timing were right. I think we need to look at all of his books. Al-Baladhuri also matches his accounts. I could see why the modern Sunnis and Shias do not like Al-Waqidi's books. They show that women were some of the most active members of the early Muslim society and even fought on battle fields. Modern academics also use his books. If we are going to clean up Wikipedia and get past these Sunni Shia arguments, then we will need to look at the oldest books. They show how it really was --Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The books of al-Waqidi are historically significant for their fairness, but we still must keep in mind the issue of WP:SYNTHESIS; as it stands right now, the temp article still carries quite a bit of what appears to be typical copy-paste from Sunni-Shi'ite debate forums with all the citations that may or may not even support the claims made. This is especially true in the sections on literature from various periods, with seem to violate WP:OR as they not only use primary sources but make rather bold claims on the character of Muawiyah rather than simply reporting what the sources said. In at least one instance, I'm looking at the phrase "Books written in the early Abbasid period like al-baladhuri "The Origins of the Islamic State" provide a more accurate and balanced history." and the two given sources are to Baladhuri's book himself; this is a clear instance of either OR or POV, as it's not up for Wikipedia editors to decide on our own what is or isn't accurate/balanced/whatever. I would really suggest trimming down the article before adding more, as cutting out all the OR and POV pushing will become more difficult in a practical sense as the article grows. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I know this is a very late date to jump in. But I just discovered this conversation was going on.

The current article is abysmal. I know that a revolutionary re-approach is not really anything anybody wants but I am going to suggest one anyway. I suggest that backbone of the page should be a heavily condensed version of Al-Tabaris's account. I have in mind the contents of volume 18 of The SUNY edition which covers the years 40 to 60. I would give this account without any additions - no matter how tempting. Then I would add further sections on other matters. In the core I would add an extremely brief account of his life before he became caliph. The entire matter of the first fitna should be handled in a section devoted to that issue. I have a number of other details in mind but I see no reason for bringing them up now when I have no idea whether this approach is of any interest.MesKalamDug (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)