Talk:Battle of Uhud/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old comments

The first version of this article was fatally flawed due to copyvio and PoV, so I've started fresh with facts taken from other WP article's and Will Durant's Age of Faith (which in turn references Sir W. Muir's The Caliphate (1891) and Life of Mohammed (1912).--FRS 20:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm afraid those references are extremely dated. I think I could write a tolerable article, using contemporary sources, from books I have plus whatever I can find at my Questia account. I may not have access to the best array of sources. I'm grotesquely over-extended, but I'll see what I can do. Zora 10:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Done! Probably needs some wikifying, copyediting. Zora 22:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice work! FRS 23:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Objections:

1. Why did you remove the template and lists?

1. What is your source for saying that Sunni view of the caliohs action differ? Find a source, or remove your original research!´--Striver 23:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

---

The template is clumsy, ugly, and takes up way too much screen space. The lists are controversial material; you had edited them to fit your Shi'a slant (Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman as cowards). Rather than spend many hours trying to track down all lists of the dead and all accounts of individual actions in the battle, it seems wiser to let the issue be.

The Sunni view differs as proved by Ibn Ishaq. He praises Abu Dujana and Hamza by name, among others. Ali is mentioned only as giving water to Muhammad.

Original research? Striver, I based all of what I wrote on Ibn Ishaq and Watt, who in turn says that he used primarily Ibn Ishaq, Waqidi, Ibn Sa'd, and Tabari. You think that Watt isn't a good source? Zora 23:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then change that, dont omitt the whole list. it is typical of you to omitt a huge chunk of material since you have a problem with 5% of it. --Striver 00:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I came here via RfC, however the conflict seems resolved or dropped.... is this accurate? Sethie 19:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless it hots up again, things are OK. However, you might take a look at Ali ibn Abi Talib if you want to see a religiously-motivated revert war <g>. Zora 21:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Archers on the muslim flanks?

I've added a line of text about the archers that were supposed to guard the Muslim flank and their failure to comply with orders. Does any of you have definitive sources that can prove or contradict this supposition, other than a few passages in the Qur'an itself that I think I'm not quite capable of translating?

I'm not sure that should be there. I wrote the article following Watt, who distrusts the whole "archers abandoned their post" theory. He says that this was a Muslim explanation AFTER THE FACT to explain why the Muslims had lost the battle, even though they had Allah on their side. It could only have been human error.

Yes, those verses are there in the Qur'an. I, as a non-Muslim, do not believe that the Qur'an tells the whole truth about the battle. I trust Watt, who worked from the other narratives about the battle preserved in Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Ibn Sa'd, and Waqidi. I dunno whether you are going to insist on the truth of the Qur'an, in which case we need a new section in the article, contrasting Muslim versus secular beliefs re the battle. Perhaps that should be there in any case. Zora 12:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with the idea to add a section comparing the various interpretations of the battle. An encyclopedia article putting forth only Watt's interpretation would be just as faulty as one that puts total reliance on the "official" Muslim accounts. Anyway, we don't know which version is true, but we do know that there are several different versions, and we know quite a bit about what each of them says. Since you seem to have more resources than I do at this point, would you mind taking up the task? ;) Lay 14:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Both the pictures are going to go away in a week unless the uploaders give info on copyright. Also, the caption on the battle plan is very bad English; it may have been translated by someone who spoke English as a second language. The caption can't be changed without using Photoshop on the image, alas. Zora 23:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Women in war

This article did not mention Umm Ammara (also known as Nusaybah bint Ka'b), who among the few who stayed behind with the men to fight in the defence of the prophet prophet.

I relied primarily on Watt. There is an immense literature on Uhud, but much of it is late and possibly fabricated. You'll have to give some cites. Is she in Ibn Ishaq? Tabari? Zora 04:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know but I can link you to this these two articles. They mention the sources they were based on at the bottom: http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa1/people/umara.html http://www.routledge-ny.com/middleages/islamic/women.html

The earliest source given is Ibn Sa'd. Bukhari is somewhat later.

So much of early Islamic history consists of reminiscences of the great things that one's father or grandfather did in such and such battle, especially Badr or Uhud. I suspect that much of this is inflated. We can't put it all in the article. It would be better just to write an article on Umm Ammara, instead of trying to squeeze her into the account of the battle. Instead of linking her article to Uhud, it would probably be better to have an article on Islamic military history, with a section on women warriors and link her article there. Talk to the guy who did so much work on the Badr article -- Palm Dogg, I think it is. He is very interested in Islamic military history. Zora 06:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Links

I deleted two links, one of which was a copyvio, one of which was a personal essay by someone not notable. I left two links, one to an audio download (not a good link, really) and one to a site called Shia.org. I don't particularly like these links either.

Could someone do some googling and come up with GOOD Shi'a and Sunni links, from sites that represent mainstream opinion and large organizations? Any academic links would be good too. Zora 06:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle or Skirmish?

I think this should be called a skirmish, not a battle. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good article - Passed

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and Pass

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.Pass

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to sources used; Pass

(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles;Pass

(c) contains no original research.Pass

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;Pass

(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).Pass

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.Pass

5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.Pass

6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly. A lack of images does not disqualify an article from Good Article status.Pass

--Aminz 07:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Uhud in Quran

There are several verses in Sura Al Imran about this battle. I think we should mention them in the article: 140 to 144, 152 to 158 and 165 to 180.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Army of Mecca or Pagan

I think we should use Pagan vs. Muslim.

between a force from the small Muslim community of Medina, in what is now north-western Arabia, and a force of pagan from Mecca, the town from which many of the Muslims had emigrated ... The Battle of Uhud was the second military encounter between the pagan of Mecca and the Muslims.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be quite unnecessary.Proabivouac 03:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's necessary. When we insist on one side's ideology or belief then we should mention the other side 's too.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

it's not really necessary IMO, all academic sources prefer the term Meccan anyway. it did of course have a religious dimension for the Muslims, but not really as much for the Meccans. ITAQALLAH 17:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We can always designate the Muslims as "Muhammad's followers," if it makes things seem to you more equal.Proabivouac 17:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

NO. Don't do so.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 00:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This show clearly that the battle was based on their beliefs:

Ibn Ishaq records this exchange as follows:"When (the Quraysh leader) Abu Sufyan wanted to leave, he went to the top of the mountain and shouted loudly, saying, "You have done a fine work. Victory in war goes by turns: today is in exchange for the day of Badr. Show your superiority, Hubal," that is, vindicate your religion. The Messenger told Umar to go up and answer him and say, "God is most high and most glorious. We are not equal: our dead are in paradise, yours are in hell." At this answer Abu Sufyan said to Umar, "Come up here to me." The Messenger told him to go and see what Abu Sufyan was up to. When he came Abu Sufyan said, "I adjure you by God, Umar, have we killed Muhammad?""By God, you have not, he is listening to what you are saying right now," Umar replied. Abu Sufyan said, "I regard you as more truthful and reliable than Ibn Qami'a," referring to the latter's claim that he had killed Muhammad." cf. Ibn Ishaq (1955) 380—388, cited in

So are we to believe that the desire to avenge Badr and stop caravan raids were secondary to the whole Hubal thing?Proabivouac 01:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The main problem that was underlying all of them was their belief. However I don't deny the role of economic or social factors. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The battle

I wikified this part to expand sub-sections. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 00:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

i'd probably prefer without subsections for now... it detracts from the flow of the narrative. there is more i intend to add, but i think we should first discuss/propose how to split up the section on talk. ITAQALLAH 01:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

More detail about the role of Ali

Thanks for HusaynIbnAli who gathered this information last year, I propose to add it: The Pagan Standard Bearers

The Meccans, generously assisted by the women who had brought their timbrels, flung insults at the Moslems. These were alternated by Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan, who led triumphant choruses as she danced round the idol which perched on the camel. Talha, the hereditary standard-bearer of the Koreishites, was the first Meccan challenger. As he stepped out of Abu Sufyan's ranks, Ali stepped out of Mohammed's. The two men met in the middle of 'no man's land.' Without words or preliminary flourishes the duel began. Talha never stood a chance. Ali's scimitar flashed in the morning sun and the head of the standard-bearer leaped from his shoulder and rolled away on the sand. 'Allahu Akbar!' echoed from the eagerly watching Moslems. (R.V.C. Bodley, The Messenger, the Life of Mohammed, New York, 1946)

When Ali ibn Abu Talib killed the carrier of the Makkan flag, Talhah ibn Abu Talha, it was immediately raised again by Uthman ibn Abu Talha. And when Uthman fell at the hands of Hamzah, it was raised again by Abu Sa'd ibn Abu Talhah. At the moment he raised the Makkan flag he shouted at the Muslims. "Do you pretend that your martyrs are in paradise and ours in hell? By God, you lie! If anyone of you truly believes such a story, let him come forward and fight with me." His challenge attracted Ali who killed him on the spot. The Banu Abd al Dar kept on carrying the Makkan flag until they lost nine men. (Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad)

Ali alone had killed eight standard-bearers of the idolaters of Mecca. Ibn Atheer, the Arab historian, writes in his 'Tarikh Kamil' "The man who killed the standard-bearers (of the pagans) was Ali."

Ali ibn Abu Talib pressed on undismayed into the enemy ranks – it was Badr again; the Muslims were invincible. (Sir John Glubb, The Great Arab Conquests, 1963)

...when somebody raised the cry that Muhammad was killed, chaos reigned supreme, Muslim morale plunged to the bottom and Muslimzsoldiers fought sporadically and purposelessly. This chaos was responsible for their killing of Husayl ibn Jabir Abu Hudhayfah by mistake, as everyone sought to save his own skin by taking flight except such men as Ali ibn Abu Talib whom God had guided and protected. (Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, 1935, Cairo)

The first of the Quraish to reach the Prophet's position was Ikrimah. As Ikrimah led a group of his men forward the Prophet turned to Ali and, pointing at the group, said, "Attack those men." Ali attacked and drove them back, killing one of them. Now another group of horsemen approached the position. Again the Prophet said to Ali, "Attack those men." 1 Ali drove them back and killed another infidel. A regiment arrived from Kinanah in which four of the children of Sufyan Ibn Oweif were present. Khalid, Abu AI-Sha-atha, Abu Al-Hamra, and Ghurab. The Messenger of God said to Ali: "Take care of this regiment." Ali charged the regiment, and it was about fifty horsemen. He fought them while he was on foot until he scattered them. They gathered again and he charged them again. This was repeated several times until he killed the four children of Sufyan and added to them six more ... (Ibn Abu Al Hadeed, in his Commentary, vol 1 p 372)

Ibn 'Abbas said: Ali has four distinctions no one shares with him; He was the first male who prayed with the Messenger of God. He was the bearer of his banner in every battle and he was the one who stayed with him at the Battle on the day of Al- Mihras (the Battle of Ohod, where there is gathered water called Al-Mihras ), and he is the one who washed his blessed body and laid him in his tomb. (Al Hakim, al Mustadrak, vol 3 p 111)

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And this is the summary of it which has been written by MezzoMezzo:

Ali was also prominent at the Battle of Uhud, as well as many other battles where he wielded a bifurcated sword known as Zulfiqar. He was the standard bearer in every battle that he partook in. He also led parties of warriors on raids into enemy lands, and was an ambassador. At the beginning Ali killed Talhah Ibn Abu Talhah and then his brother Abu Saad ibn Abu Talhah, the bearers of the banner of the pagans. Ali ibn al-Athir, Abu Rafi, and Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari reported that Ali, alone, destroyed all the standard bearers., The death of the bearers of the banner heightened the morale of the Muslims and shook the hearts of the pagans and when the army of Islam was defeated and most of the Muslims had fled Ali was one of the few Muslims who defended Muhammad. According to Ibn Atheer, "The Prophet became the object of the attack of various units of the army of Quraish from all sides. Ali attacked, in compliance with the Prophet's orders, every unit that made an attack upon him (the Prophet) and dispersed them or killed some of them, and this thing took place a number of times in Uhud" and it was said "La fata illa Ali, La saifa illa Zulfiqar" (There is no brave man except Ali and there is no sword which renders service except Zulfiqar)."

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

i'm not comfortable with using classical sources which aren't reliably translated and academically published (i.e. the works of al-hakim, ibn al-athir - we cannot ascertain the authenticity of such either). quotes such as these are usually obtained on the internet, from unreliable websites like al-islam.org. i'm also getting the feeling that this unduly singles out the role of Ali. it is likely he played a significant part, but unless we can get some reliable, academic summaries of the various participants in the battles, i think this would constitute undue weight. in any case, i'd really like to maintain the current standard of sources used in the article. ITAQALLAH 17:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. We can't neglect classic sources and modern sources don't do so. As you can see western writers rely on Herodut while he is biased. Also We're not obliged to use online sources. Therefor I insist on using Mutavatir narrations which have been narrated with most of the historians.(I don't mean Mutavatir Hadith)--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 00:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

i don't think we're in a position to start specifying reliability on the basis of what we think is mutawatir or otherwise. WP:RS and WP:V are quite clear on the sources we are to use, and i'm really not prepared to start using sources upon which there is no wide community acceptance (article standards are, after all, judged by the community). if we have quotes from classical historians in reliable sources, in the way Peters uses and quotes Ibn Ishaq, then that's a different matter. ITAQALLAH 01:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As you say we can't use most of details which have been recorded by the Muslims. At least we can make a separate section and write Muslim's narrations in it. By covering all important narrations we follow WP:NPOV.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

i'm not necessarily saying we can't employ the writings of Muslim historians to a certain extent - the article already does. what i am specifying however, is that such writings must be related through reliable secondary sources. this allows the material to be a) easily verifiable/checkable by all of us; b) guaranteed to be accurately translated and faithfully represented c) not likely to be selected simply to favour a particular point of view. ITAQALLAH 01:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included three points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Here are the points that need to be addressed:

1. "They considered themselves to be in a state of war with Mecca and raided Meccan caravans.[clarify]" Address the tag.
2. "A scout alerted Muhammad of the Meccan army's presence and numbers late on Thursday." It isn't specified what day of the week that 11 March 625 is, so either use the date or add the day of the week to the first date.
3. "The cave in Mount Uhud where Muhammad rested temporarily during the battle has also received recent media attention." Specify what the media attention is about.

If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Regards, --Nehrams2020 09:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

i have had a go at addressing all three points. please do tell me if there's anything else needing fixing ITAQALLAH 09:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Passed

Good job on addressing all of the points. At this time, I have determined that the article meets the GA criteria and will remain a good article. Keep improving the article and ensure that all new information is properly sourced. I have added an article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 08:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Heroics of 'Ali

History testifies to the heroic actions of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib in all the early battles of Islam during Prophet Muhammad times, with the Battle of Uhud being no exception. It is entirely relevant to the article that the actions of 'Ali, which far outweigh the individual actions of all other participants, and for which 'Ali is famous for, should be mentioned explicitly. User:HusaynIbnAli 7:17pm, 11 June 2007 (GMT +10)

Ali's role in Uhud is already mentioned. But things should be mentioned in balance, and this isn't the place for large swathes of venerative, adulatory material which have been copy-pasted from sectarian websites. See WP:COPYVIO. ITAQALLAH 13:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources are all either Sunni, or Western, and your nonsense claim of "sectarian" websites has no weight.User:HusaynIbnAli 7:17pm, 11 June 2007 (GMT +10) —Preceding comment was added at 15:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The material has been taken copy-pasted from various websites asserting copyright.[1] [2] [3] Please note that Wikipedia is not a repository for massive quotes obtained word-for-word from websites, and neither is it the place to forward an agenda. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing. ITAQALLAH 16:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

POV Check

Please check the entire page, for balance and impartiality, not just a pro islamic view, and justifying the massacres and worse treatment of their enemies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.117.208 (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"Good article"?

Can someone please explain how this article is a "Good Article" and simultaneously flagged for non-neutrality? Foreignshore (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Important edit

I made this edit removing the claim that Muhammad raided the caravans of the Quraysh to get back his seized property. Muhammad and the Origins of Islam By Francis E. Peters doesnt even make this claim. See here. So whoever added that is just lying and trying to give the Caravan raids a defensive flavor when there is no such.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Uhud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch4s7.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.amrkhaled.net/articles/articlesprint1767.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926230128/http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-10/10/article28.shtml to http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-10/10/article28.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.islamanswers.net/moreAbout/Uhud.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051126000220/http://www.shia.org:80/ohud.html to http://www.shia.org/ohud.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Importance

Much more should be said about the theological importance of the battle of Uhud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.172 (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The battle of Baghdad in 1258 has the same theological significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.172 (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Links, space, notes vs references etc.

GorgeCustersSabre You have indulged in WP:overlinking, over-spacing, and confusing notes with references, among other things, with the false claim that my edit to correct these things was "certainly not an improvement". Please stop it. Leo1pard (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear Leo1pard, I hope you are well. I’m sorry you don’t like someone else having a different opinion, but you should assume good faith. In sincerity I believe you’ve made that particular article worse, not better. I have the right to my assessment. Oh, and by the way, I hardly ever add Wikilinks. So I’m not the one responsible for the article’s number of links. Thanks for writing. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre 14:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

PBUH

Who every writer of battle of Uhud please write my prophet full name Muhammad (pbuh ) 2001:8F8:1E6D:10FF:7C04:CC84:1D07:5D24 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done and won't be done. We do NOT use honorifics, such as PBUH and SAW as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles - Arjayay (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Jang e Auhad

Which are the two children was in the war? 103.86.182.72 (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Background

The background section uncritically asserts that Mohammed received divine revelation, without attributing the idea to Muslim belief or religious text. This is an article about an actual historical event; it should be rewritten to better clarify for readers what is religious belief and what is verifiable historical fact. 68.96.85.166 (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Another example: "and with great charisma and powers of suggestion"

This sort of gratuitous and unsupported praise doesn't belong in a fact-based article. 68.96.85.166 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

wrong content

it is seen that in multiple pages it is written as prophet Mohammed plundered the caravans of quraish which is absolutely true.he strongly forbid plundering, robbing . enemy caravans were checked as a means of defense but robbing or plundering was strictly forbidden people believe Wikipedia blindly ,they don't check who edited it, I also never used to until I saw this absolute false story I request Wikipedia to allow editing of topics only by scholars of the topic. If you are not sure of this read islamic history from credible sources and kindly avoid misleading others from a religion that teaches of the smallest to biggest mistakes and forbids them 142.247.225.221 (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Restricting editing on a religious topic to members of thar religion, to ensure that the coverage is biased towards their view, would be 100% contrary tobthe whole purpose of Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)