Talk:Hind bint Utbah/Archive 1

Archive 1

cleanup

No sources, poor language, missing wikipedic form. --tickle me 01:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision

I spent a few hours completely revising this article. I have limited sources, so some of my assertions may be wrong, especially when it concerns sources. Anyone with access to the Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd edition, is begged to look up Hind there and see what it says. Zora 03:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit

I removed

", which suggests that they regard them as historically untenable slanders" as unsourced.

This source was removed, i re add it here: http://forums.almaghrib.org/showpost.php?p=20600&postcount=4

I re added some deleted material. If someone belives them to be POV,then NPOV them, dont delete them. --Striver 13:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

EDIT

The article has the smell of a right-wing christian sense in the story...I am a muslim and if u want the a neutral point of view (NPOV)...i have made these changes:

1. "They considered themselves at war with the Meccan"...I put " they were at war with the Meccans"....if don't want to put the details of the story...please don't promote a right-christian insult that muhammad and muslims were caravan raiders and thieves...there is a reason behind every thing...RIGHT? if u don't want to mention that be neutral

2. in the same sense...I removed "raided Meccan caravans"...put..."attacked Meccan caravans"....please don't use the word raid...it just brings into mind that this was not a justified attack...again to promote the previous idea.

3. changed "sent out a force to stop the raid"...put "sent out a force to defend the caravans"

4. changed " It is said that Hind hated them as a result"....put "Hind fury over Muslims increased as a result".....please don't promote that Hind was peaceful and hated muslims only for killing her father and brother...she was Muhammad's and Muslim enemy...and she did hate them even before they killed her father and brother...she used to torture her muslim slaves to prevent them escape slavery...what happened is that her fury over muslims increased as a result....it's very astonishing that her son would became a caliph of all muslims after few years....

5. Hind was not a prostitue...she was one of the nobles of Mecca and a "free woman" of wealth...not a slave...however...promoting her as a prostitue is probably a shitte belief..anyway it doesn't matter...if you want to leave this it is not important.

6. HONESTY please........nothing more

--User:mkaddah,mkaddah 20:32, June 2006 (UTC)

Mkaddah, I'm not a right-wing Christian, I'm a left-wing Buddhist. Nonetheless, any non-Muslim reading the histories has to wonder why it was OK for Muslims to raid Meccan caravans. They were safe in Yathrib, a long way away. They could start a new life and forget about the Meccans. But instead they started raiding. That seems like aggression to me. Yes, I know, you've been told all your life that the Muslims fought only in self-defense. But no one who comes to the matter without preconceptions is going to believe that. WP can't take sides, so we try to use neutral language that lets people make up their own mind on the issue. Zora 10:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Zora. I'm glad that someone finally noticed my humble contributions to Wiki. I know there are some troubles of Islam with Buddhism as well as there are troubles with Christianity and Buddism. That's the nature of religions I think :-). Well if you want really to know the prologue and details that led to these actions which are avoided (in the texts you have read somewhere) to put Islam always in a negative view. Let me describe the situation on the outside front of the early Muslim community that was established in Medina by the prophet. The Medina was completely surrounded by those who believe in the pagan religion of Quraish (Muhammad’s tribe) and Quraish themselves where the most outspoken enemy of Islam and its community. Quraish has tried - for whole ten years when they laid hands on early Muslims - every means of terrorism, threats, harassment, torture, killings, sanctions and famine (no details here but I can prove it with stories and references if you want).They waged a long psychological war with strong negative publicity about Islam (like nowadays) and when Muslims escaped from Mecca to Yathrib, they CONFESCATED THEIR LANDS, HOMES, AND TREASURES IN MECCA. Not only that, they banned them from seeing their left over wives and kids. They imprisoned and tortured those who where weak, of no noble rank and/or unprivileged. Not only that, they setup conspiracies to kill Muhammad (the head of the message) on the day he had planed his immigration to Yathrib to finish him and his message and they failed. It was very natural, when Muslims have escaped death by Quaraish to Yathrib - a land that is just only 500 km far from Mecca - that Quaraish would use its political, economical, military, and religious influence (they where the core of the pagan religion in the area) - to urge those around Madina to attack it (documents and references can be provided) and they did that to the fullest measure. The Madina was really in a "Dangerous status" on both sides of safety and economy, where a state of economic sanctions was imposed on it by Quarish and its allies and continuously increasing numbers of Muslim refugees adding to Yathrib population. They were not safe in Yathrib as you claim, they were IN A CONTINUEOUS STATE OF WAR and IT WAS MUSLIMS RIGHT TO CONFESCATE QURAISH TREASURE AS THEY DID WHEN MUSLIMS LEFT HOME IN MECCA - AN EYE FOR AN EYE LIKE THE JEWS SAY :-).Even inside Yathrib itself they had other enemies, those who followed Quraish secretly and OUR LOVELY JEWS OF ALL AGES :-). And it is not true that Muhammad persecuted the Jews of those days. Actually he had a treaty with them to live beside each other in peace. They were minority in Yathrib and many of them really followed the treaty, however, some tribe of them was seduced by Quarash (I have the tribe's name and the names of their negotiators with Quraish) to BREAK THE TREATY later on in the Midest of the long Muslim fight against Quaraish and and turn against Muslims in the middle of a battle with Quraish. They also urged other Jewish tribes living in Medina to do so. If the history of islam is seen from JUDO-RIGHT CHRISTIAN googles (who support the tyranny that led to the banishment of original inhabitants of lands and whole towns and villages in favour of the rise of a biblical Israel), you would not be surprized that such details in Islamic conflics would be ignored or manipulated. Do u get what I am trying to avoid, Zora? :-). --User:mkaddah,mkaddah 2:30, September 5th 2006 (UTC)

Reorganisation

This page seems like it would be better organised in a different order of sections. Accusations against Hind follow statements about how her alleged sins affect current perceptions of her. I'll try to get to it, but if anyone gets a minute... ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 02:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence this woman existed outside of Islamic holy scriptures? Because this article treats her as an actual, factual historical person, when she could very well be the product of myth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.211.103 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is only one Islamic holy scripture (the Qur'aan). The rest of what you may regard as Islamic holy scripture would more properly be called history. This history has been maintained and recorded with very rigorous methods of verification, such as isnaad, (a chain of narration which takes into account both the likelihood of the narrators having met, and the honesty of the narrators). This, of course, is not a fool proof system, but what historical source is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.74.163 (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)