Talk:Mu'awiya I/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

My thinking has evolved. Today I suggest leaving the First Fitna out of the entry here and merely referencing the article on the Fitna for all the details. Naturally the same should be done in the article on 'Ali - but that's another story. If I don't hear any comments that matter I will edit the page that way for anyone who cares to see.

Incidentally the article on the Fitna is a also a mess - but that should not matter here. MesKalamDug (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flagrantedelicto should be seen before any further editing takes place on this article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

MesKalamDug, if I understand it, you are proposing that Wikipedia should have a biography of Hazrat Muawiyah, that omits the the events that led to his becoming caliph?--Toddy1 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi MesKalamDug, we are working on the article Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp have a look at that.

MesKalamDug you said that

"I suggest that backbone of the page should be a heavily condensed version of Al-Tabaris's account."

We have been collecting information on this and there is more information on this than just Al-Tabri.

Al-Waqidi's books and Al-Baladhuri predate Al-Tabri.

There is also a lot of Roman and Jewish literature from that period which allows us to cross reference everything.

After exhausting the British libraries, this week I was in Germany going through their main libraries.

It's not just the Al-Tabri and Al-Baladhuri that talks about the Qurra and the disputes over the allocation of Sassanid crown estate lands in Iraq after the Sassanid's were defeated. I was surprised that even the "Encyclopedia of Islam" new edition, by leading orientalist's like bosworth is also full of text about these lands. The Sassanid rulers had ownership of a lot of unused and used lands in Iraq. After their defeat the Qurra wanted the lands. There is a lot of politics and economics.

The "Encyclopedia of Islam" also has a lot of referenced content on Muawiya, when he was sent into Syria along with his brother. considering that the article is about Muawiya, it may be best to cover his life like the "Encyclopedia of Islam" does and not just show selected bits. You only get the complete picture, when you look at all the details.

MezzoMezzo you said

"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"

I agree. When I merged the content from the existing live article into the Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp article it brought along the copy-paste content. Once we have all the content in the Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp we could start making sense of it.

Al-Waqidi's books talk about the Roman armies using sacred relics like the true cross and other holy relics. A few hours ago, I was in the Munich residence in Munich German. Munich was a part of the Holy Roman Empire in the past. Many relics were later transferred to places like Munich and Rome, but the true cross was lost. There is a safe in the Munich residence that contained holy relics, which are things like sculls and the bones of saints, because people felt that these bones of the saints like Paul will intercede on their behalf to god. The Roman armies also took them to battles. Al-Waqidi books also talked about these relics and what the Muslims saw when the first went into Syria. But Al-Waqidi most interesting statements are regarding why the Bishop of Jerusalem gave the keys of Jerusalem to Umar. Islam at the time appears to have been referred to as the "The religion of Abraham" even the Quran refers to it as such in the Quran (3:95). There was no Sunni Shia business. Even Tom Holland in the book "In the shadow of the sword" says that a building was being build on the rock in Jerusalem at the time of Umar for all the followers of Abraham. So what went wrong?

Tom Holland says that the statements about Muhammad's conflict with the Jews do not appear in early Muslim, Jewish or Christian literature and appeared centuries later in the Muslim literature. In the shadow of the sword, The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World Page 388. Tom Holland says "There is serious difficulty in accepting this tradition as true. The three Jewish clans mentioned by the historians do not feature anywhere in the Constitution of Madina. This, at a time when Jews, just like Christians, had never been more alert to the propaganda value of martyrs, is most peculiar. So peculiar, in fact as to appear downright implausible"

Muawiya, Umar and Ali were all very tolerant of the different faiths and the Jewish and the Roman literature from the time speaks highly of them. Therefore we can't just cover Al-Tabri alone, it's more complicated than that. The economic interests of the Qurra later know as the Khawarij and the Romans are very important to all this. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Johnleeds, what tradition is Holland referring to? I assume by "tradition" he is referring to some sort of Hadith, is that correct? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

He is most likely referring to later Hadith like Saheeh Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 148. It looks like this does not appear in Al-Waqidi's books and Al-Baladhuri which predate Saheeh Bukhari. Tom Holland says "These traditions date from the heyday of Muslim greatness: a period when some people would have had every interest in fabricating the sanction of the Prophet for the brusque slapping down of the uppity infidels ... Far likelier it would seem is that the compact recorded in the Constitution of Medina had held firm - and that it had culminated in the conquest of Palestine" (In the shadow of the sword, The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World Page 388). He says that no such account exists in the Jewish or the Roman text from the time. Al-Waqidi's books and Al-Baladhuri which predate Saheeh Bukhari, also seem to suggest this, as do the Jewish texts from the time. They seem to state that there was no conflict between the Jews and the Muslims. The Jews and the Christians wanted to stop the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars. The Persians looted Jerusalem, and are said to have massacred its 90,000 Christian inhabitants a few years earlier in 614. Then the Romans returned in 629 and killed the Jews. The Jews were delighted that the Roman Army was removed from Jerusalem, as they had killed a lot of Jews a few years earlier in 629 and banned them from Jerusalem. Additionally the Christians did not want the return of the Roman-Persian wars and saw the Muslims as more neutral and as they brought them peace. If Tom Holland is right and these traditions were not correct, then some of the other traditions that cause conflict between the Sunnis and Shias on Wikipedia may also NOT be correct and later other literature was written using them. If these events did not take place, then why the need for a peace treaty with the Jews for the land in Khaibar and fadak to be given over. So the traditions that cause the most Sunni Shia arguments on Wikipedia may not be reliable. Al-Waqidi's books show that the Muslims were united during the move into Syria and the Jews and the Christians in Syria helped them remove the Roman Armies from Syria and his books are the oldest on the subject. That is why we have to look at all the early sources, from around that time period and include the text from all sources.

If you look at the family trees of these people, these presumed disagreements over land that are mentioned in these later hadiths and cause so many disagreements on Wikipedia between the sunnis and shias don't seem to have stopped Abu Bakr and Ali's families from intermarrying. People like Ja'far al-Sadiq his mother Farwah bint al-Qasim and her father Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr and his father Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr are as related to Ali as they are to Abu Bakr. May be blood is thicker than water. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, basing an article off of one main source defeats the point of Wikipedia, which is a collection of all available reliable sources on a given subject. But how do we work this out? The literature section on the temp version of the article is interesting, but for the biographical details in the first half of the article, how do we utilize these sources? Do we cite the sources for the bio in the first half and then talk about those same sources in the second half? It seems kind of awkward, and I haven't seen other history/biography articles on the encyclopedia organized in such a way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well - it depends on what you are doing. If you are writing a book or scholarly article, then saying that XXXX is the oldest reliable source, etc. is a very good approach. Wikipedia calls this original research. Wikipedia policy is to use secondary sources. It can be shown that Tabari is a secondary source. If we want to use the sources John Leeds thinks are better, we need to know which are primary and which are secondary sources. Things like modern introductions, translator's comments, etc. to old books are also secondary sources, even if the old books are primary sources.

I can see great merit in trying to rewrite an article using Tabari as a starting point. But whoever did it, would have to accept that Tabari was a starting point, and that statements from other sources would and should be added. So footnoting every sentence would be helpful, even though in the initial short draft it seemed "over the top". Once information from commentaries, and other sources were added the article would at least double in size, and it would be vital to understand what information came from where.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Weren't we trying to avoid a complete rewrite, though? I wouldn't mind that simply because even the current temp article still contains a measure of POV pushing and claims unverified by the sources cited, but the impression I had before is that the suggestion wasn't preferred. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, I do not know what the right answer is. Johnleeds1 and MesKalamDug made points about how they think the article should be (see above); I replied to them. You did not notice that I said "rewrite an article using Tabari as a starting point"; I did not say this article. I can think of articles where this would be a good process - whether this one would be, is questionable - there would need to be a discussion on the talk page. As someone (MesKalamDug) has proposed such a course of action, I commented.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll say that complete rewrite option is not out of scope but doing it based on one source is not a very good option. Do we have strong reliable & verifiable sources which lable one source to be starting point? I doubt so.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I also think that it should be based on all available reliable sources. That is why we have been collecting everything. True the current temp article needs more work but so far we have just been collecting everything. If there is anything in Al Tabri that we have missed, that should also be included. There are certain things that are agreed to by all the sources like Muawiyah was a governor of Syria and that he was born in Mecca etc. It will be good to make sure that we include everything that is agreed to by every one. MezzoMezzo when you get some time, just go through the temp article and make the required changes to make it more neutral. You are welcome to make all the required changes --Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well on such a large article with a lot of research put into it, I'm usually uncomfortable making extensive changes myself. Especially when there are several more editors willing to volunteer their time, and I would prefer making a suggestion and then editing after discussion. Should we start new discussions here or on the talk page for the template? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

After so much effort and research by everyone, on this article, do you think it is ready to go live, so that other people could also look at it and edit it. I have a feeling that it needs something in the conclusion that show how small misunderstandings grew and led to such tragic events. The Qurra and Marwan got to rule for a time but created a lot of trouble to achieve their objectives --Johnleeds1 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph in dispute

Muawiyah was motivated by Muhammad's statement: "The army from my people who will first perform jihad through water has made Paradise obligatory for itself."

In recent weeks the above paragraph has been deleted from the article three times. The first time was by 115.186.100.32,[7] the second and third times were by Wasifwasif.[8][9] I do not know whether 115.186.100.32 and Wasifwasif are different people. (Sometimes people forget to log in before making edits. Everyone has done it, usually without realising.)

Are the citations for the statement of Mohammed? (i.e. the citations are to prove that a reliable source clearly states the Mohammed made that statement). Or are the citations for Hazrat Muawiyah being motivated by the statement by Mohammed? I suspect that citations from Sahih al-Bukhari are likely to be for the statement being a true saying of Mohammed.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• The text of Volume 4, Hadith 175 does not mention Muawiya.[10]

• The citation to Volume 1 Hadith 2924, is a problem. This source credits Volume 1 with 832 Hadith.[11]--Toddy1 (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have just looked at Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 175 [12] It says:

Narrated by Khalid bin Madan

That 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the sea-shore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet then said, 'The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, 'Will I be one of them, O Allah's Apostle?' He replied in the negative."

This Hadith is very old because Umm Haram is buried in Cyprus. she died on the naval expedition to Cyprus while she was in her seventies. Her tomb is in Cyprus. She died before the expedition to Constantinople.

I think the reason this was included in this article was because Muawiya was also one of the first batch of people to undertake a naval expedition. But it's the second bit about Caesar's City i.e. Constantinople, modern day Istanbul that is also interesting because after the peace treaty with Hassan they all joined up and besieged Constantinople. According to many history books, Yazeed bin Muawiyah was also joined by Hussein, Umar Ibn Abbas, Abdullah Ibn Zubair and Abu Ayyoob al-Ansari . Abu Ayyub al-Ansari is buried in Istanbul. According to Tom Holland Constantinople was blockaded for four years. Toddy its up to you if you want to include it or leave it out.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue here, is whether there is a source for Hazrat Muawiyah being motivated by the statement.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

As we have no citation for statement "Muawiyah was motivated by Muhammad's statement:", and there is no source for ibne Hinda being motivated by the statement, it is OR/POV and should be removed. Once the statement is removed we may also remove subsequent hadith as then it becomes out of context.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 15:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There are also other hadith and references to this too in various books, in "Muawiya Restorer of the Muslim Faith" By Aisha Bewley Page 10 it says:

He (Muawiya) was also largely responsible for developing the Muslim navy, in the face of a great deal of initial resistance against the idea of embarking on the sea from a non-maritime people, conquering Rhodes and raiding Cyprus in 28 or 29 AH. He was accompanied by his wife, Katwa, who died in the course of the expedition. Muawiyah had asked Umar once and Uthman twice for permissions to undertake such naval expeditions. The second time Uthman said "If you cross with your wife, we will allow you to do this". Therefore he embarked with several ships and his wife. Ubada ibn as-Samit also took his wife, Umm Haram. This was foreseen in a vision of the Prophet where he said he had seen "some people amongst my followers were sailing on the green sea in Allah's Cause, resembling kings on thrones" The Cypriots capitulated with terms.

There are other references to this too

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 56 :

Narrated by Anas bin Malik

Um Haram said, "Once the Prophet slept in my house near to me and got up smiling. I said, 'What makes you smile?' He replied, 'Some of my followers who (i.e. in a dream) were presented to me sailing on this green sea like kings on thrones.' I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Invoke Allah to make me one of them." So the Prophet invoked Allah for her and went to sleep again. He did the same (i.e. got up and told his dream) and Um Haran repeated her question and he gave the same reply. She said, "Invoke Allah to make me one of them." He said, "You are among the first batch." Later on it happened that she went out in the company of her husband 'Ubada bin As-Samit who went for Jihad and it was the first time the Muslims undertook a naval expedition led by Mu awiya. When the expedition came to an end and they were returning to Sham, a riding animal was presented to her to ride, but the animal let her fall and thus she died.

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 129 :

Narrated by Anas

Allah's Apostle went to the daughter of Milhan and reclined there (and slept) and then (woke up) smiling. She asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What makes you smile?" He replied, (I dreamt that) some people amongst my followers were sailing on the green sea in Allah's Cause, resembling kings on thrones." She said, "O Allah's Apostle! Invoke Allah to make me one of them." He said, "O Allah! Let her be one of them." Then he (slept again and woke up and) smiled. She asked him the same question and he gave the same reply. She said, "Invoke Allah to make me one of them." He replied, You will be amongst the first group of them; you will not be amongst the last." Later on she married 'Ubada bin As-Samit and then she sailed on the sea with bint Qaraza, Mu'awiya's wife (for Jihad). On her return, she mounted her riding animal, which threw her down breaking her neck, and she died on falling down.

It is also in Sahih Muslim Book 33, Hadith 231 and Sahih Muslim Book 20, Hadith 4701

It has been reported on the authority of Umm Haram daughter of Milhan (through another chain of transmitters). She said:

One day the Messenger of Allah slept (at a place) near me. He woke up smiling. She said: Messenger of Allah. what made thee laugh?

He said: A people from my followers were presented to me. They were sailing on the surface of this green sea...

Considering that this is a lady in her 70's at the time, and she her self had asked Muhammad to pray that she should be there it is highly probable that she was motivated by this :)

These hadith do back up one another

You could leave out the statement "Muawiyah was motivated by Muhammad's statement:" that is OK --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"it is highly probable that she was motivated by this", I think this statement in itself amounts to Synthesis/OR becuase sources explicitly don't point to this. Anyways we are not discussing the lady but the issue is with "motivation of ibn Hinda" which is till now not proved, so, we should get rid of the statement the subsequent hadith asap.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Mosque Hala Sultan (Umm Haram) Tekke is also in the Cyprus Travel books and is a popular tourist destination for people visiting Cyprus

According to the Cyprus travel book Umm Haram was Muhammad's aunt and Umm Haram is supposed to mean "Sacred Mother"

This naval expedition to Cyprus is recorded in many history books It was previously the site of a Roman naval base.

The interesting thing is that when one goes through the oldest books, the first generation of Muslim Women, played an extremely prominent role in society, from being the biggest traders to traveling thousands of miles on expeditions. The earliest history books by Imam al-Waqidi (748 – 822 from Madina) are even more graphical in highlighting the role of these early Muslim women . According to al-Imam al-Waqidi they played an extremely important role against the Roman armies. These view's may not sit well with the modern views held by the Sunni's and the Shia's. But the huge role played by these women can not be ignored. History books are full of references to them. The oldest history books and the oldest books on Islam are full of references to them --Johnleeds1 (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whats the point of discussing Hala Sultan (Umm Haram) & importance of women in early Islamic period here when we are discussing about motivation of ibn Hinda. BTW, Shia hold role of ladies in high regard, be it in early times or now from Umm-ul-Momineen Khatijatul Kubra s.a. & Umm-e-Salma s.a. & others, Sayeda Fatima s.a., Sayeda Zainab s.a., Sayeda Haleema Khatoon s.a. or Sister of Baqir-us-Sadr, Shia jurespudence allows a lady to be mujtahida i.e. pinacle of ilm where she doesn't have to do taqlid & in no Shia society women are stopped to drive, etc, infact Iran the only Shia country has women everywhere, in madersa, universtities, offices, police, armed forces, scientists, government, etc, they are allowed in masjids and to join ja'mat in salats. Shia fiqh allows women to be sole heir (if they don't have any brother) unlike Sunni fiqh. So, please don't drag Shia in your apoligitic statements when Shias have balanced view regarding women rights & status.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Faiz who is ibn Hinda. Do you mean Muawiyah?

Faiz originally the article said:

Muawiyah was motivated by Muhammad's statement:

"The army from my people who will first perform jihad through water has made Paradise obligatory for itself."

Before the battle, chronicler Theophanes the Confessor says, the Emperor dreamed of being at Thessalonika; this dream predicted his defeat against the Arabs because the word Thessalonika is similar to the sentence "thes allo niken", which means "gave victory to another (the enemy)".

During his naval expeditions in 28 AH he took Rhodes and later in 29 AH he took Cyprus. He was accompanied by his wife, Katwa, who died in the course of the expedition. Muawiyah had asked Umar once and Uthman twice for permissions to undertake such naval expeditions. The second time Uthman said "If you cross with your wife, we will allow you to do this". Therefore he embarked with several ships and his wife. Umm Haram, the wife of Ubada ibn as-Samit also went on this expedition. The Cypriots capitulated with terms.

The hadith and the text referred to Umm Haram too and that is why we ended up discussing her too.

Toddy then removed the hadith and the text and it now says:

Before the battle, chronicler Theophanes the Confessor says, the Emperor dreamed of being at Thessalonika; this dream predicted his defeat against the Arabs because the word Thessalonika is similar to the sentence "thes allo niken", which means "gave victory to another (the enemy)".

During his naval expeditions in 28 AH he took Rhodes and later in 29 AH he took Cyprus. He was accompanied by his wife, Katwa, who died in the course of the expedition. Muawiyah had asked Umar once and Uthman twice for permissions to undertake such naval expeditions. The second time Uthman said "If you cross with your wife, we will allow you to do this". Therefore he embarked with several ships and his wife. Umm Haram, the wife of Ubada ibn as-Samit also went on this expedition. The Cypriots capitulated with terms.

As I said earlier, I don't mind as it is now, with the text "Muawiyah was motivated by Muhammad's statement" removed and the hadith removed.

So we are all on the same line. Anyway, Faiz you must admit that even Iran does not allow extremely old women to go out on naval expeditions where there is hand to hand combat involved :) The Romans had naval supremacy in the Mediterranean for centuries and Umm Haram went out against them on a few boats :) No modern navy would allow old women on such expeditions. When I said "These view's may not sit well with the modern views held by the Sunni's and the Shia's." I was referring to these hadith about Umm Haram going on a naval expedition in her old age :-) Most majority Sunni countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, UAE and most others also have women in universities, offices, police, armed forces, scientists, government. But they also don't allow old women to go out on such Naval expeditions :) It is a social taboo for any modern Muslim or non Muslim Navy :) The News media will have a field day if the old lady died on the expedition :) --Johnleeds1 (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

His appointment of his son as the next Caliph section

All the books from Sahih Al Bukhari (Volume 6, Book 60, Number 352, Narrated by Yusuf bin Mahak) to Ibn Katheer's books state that Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr heavily opposed Muawiya for his appointment of Yazeed. Ibn Katheer wrote in his book the Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah that "in the year 56 AH Muawiyah called on the people including those within the outlying territories to pledge allegiance to his son, Yazeed, to be his heir to the Caliphate after him. Almost all the subjects offered their allegiance, with the exception of Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr (the son of Abu Bakr), Abdullah ibn Umar (the son of Umar), al-Husain bin Ali (the son of Ali), Abdullah bin Az-Zubair (The grandson of Abu Bakr) and Abdullah ibn Abbas (Ali's cousin). Because of this Muawiyah passed through al-Madinah on his way back from Makkah upon completion of his Umrah Pilgrimage where he summoned each one of the five aforementioned individuals and threatened them. The speaker who addressed Muawiyah sharply with the greatest firmness amongst them was Abdul rahman ibn Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq

Then last month I was going round old libraries in the Middle east, looking for old books and came across literature on Abdur Rahman and his family.

Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr's brother Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr was raised by Ali and was also Ali's general and was killed in Egypt. Qassim ibn Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr was the son of Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr, who was the son of Abu Bakr, raised by Ali. Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr's wife was also Ali's close relative, meaning that Qassim was both the Grandson of Abu Bakr and a very close relative of Ali.

Then on top of that Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr's daughter Hafsa was married to Hassan and Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr's other daughter Asma was married to Qassim ibn Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr. Qassim and Asma's daughter, Fatima (Um Farwa) was married to Mohammed Al Baqer and was the mother of Jaafar Al Sadiq. So I asked a Shia cleric from Isfahan in Iran and he said it was true. The Sunni's clerics also said it was true. Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr's and his brother Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr are both Ja'far al-Sadiq's great grandfathers. Abdullah bin Az-Zubair was also married Hassans daughter.

Considering that Qassim ibn Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr is so important in early fiqh and Imam Malik's book Muwatta Imam Malik is based on the work of the committee headed by Qassim we need to improve the family tree diagrams of people like Qasim. We also need to improving the layout of the other family tree diagrams like the one on the Family tree of Ali page. These diagrams need to be like a family tree.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Great to learn this. Pleasee go ahead and add with proper sources. Wasif (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

According to both early Sunni and Shia books Jaafar Al Sadiq had said "Abu-Bakr begot me twice" (Al-Kâfî, Ar-Rawdah, 8:101). Many old Sunni and Shia books also said that Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr was raised by Ali (Nahjul Balagha Sermon 66) and his son Qassim ibn Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr was the grand father of Jaafar Al Sadiq. The fiqh of Qassim ibn Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr is captured in Imam Malik's book Muwatta Imam Malik and is referred to as the original fiqh of Madina by the Orientalists and used as a benchmark when comparing Sharia against other legal systems because both the Ummayads and the early Abbasids used the fiqh of Qassim ibn Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr that was captured in a book form as Muwatta Imam Malik. Qasim is extremely important in early fiqh.

File:Companionsfamilytree.jpg

But Jaafar Al Sadiq had said "Abu-Bakr begot me twice". So I looked and initially could not find another branch up from Jaffar al Sadiq back to Abu Bakr because I found it very hard to identify the women in their families. The women in their families are very modest. They are highly educated and did a very good job of teaching their children, but are hard to identify. Then while working on this article, I come across Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr's extreme opposition to Muawiya during the appointment of Yazid. And then came across Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr's daughter Asma who was married to Qasim and was also Jaafar Al Sadiq's grand mother. So when Jaafar Al Sadiq said "Abu-Bakr begot me twice". He meant that both of Abu Bakr's sons Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr and Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr were his great grandfathers.

Many of these people are buried in the Al-Baqi grave yard in Madina. Then I came across photos of a family tree diagram of these people. Photos taken at the entrance of the Al-Baqi grave yard in Madina during this years hajj. They also had these details and had all the references. The references include both Sunni and Shia books. Qassim ibn Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr is highly regarded by all early scholars. Its good that the diagram remembers and shows some of Hassan's sons and some of Ali's sons who were killed in Karbala and are now more or less forgotten. Most family tree diagrams do not show the women, where as this shows the women and shows their mothers. I am still finding it hard to name Qasims mother. Most early books say that she is from Ali's family. Qasim's father Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr was raised by Ali and was very close to Ali. Hassan is also buried in Al-Baqi grave yard in Madina along with his mother and many of his relatives. It is said 10,000 of Muhammad's companions are also buried there as are many of his family members and relatives.

--Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Caliphate/Caliph order contradicting or confusing

I am a little confused. On other pages listing the dynasties, it says that the first caliph of the Ummayad caliphate is Muawiyah I. On this page, on the box on the right, it says that Muawiyah's successor is the second caliph, his son I believe, similar name. No problem.

However, in the first paragraph it says that Muawiya I is the second caliph, and that Uthman was the first! Other pages which list the dynasties say Uthman was from the previous dynasty, I think perhaps that first paragraph is incorrect but as I have no expertise in this area and it may just be a matter of explanation. Is there anyone out there who can explain, and/or repair the article? This is a major point of the article, and is not clear at all. Thanks in advance to anyone who helps. Peacedance (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I will try to explain.

1. Abu Bakr was 1st Caliph of Islam (1st so-called "Rashidun" caliph)
2. Umar ibn Al-Khattāb was 2nd Caliph of Islam (2nd so-called "Rashidun" caliph)
3. Uthman ibn Affan was 3rd Caliph of Islam (3rd so-called "Rashidun" caliph) Uthman was a member of the Umayyad tribe.
4. Ali ibn Abi-Talib was 4th Caliph of Islam (4th so-called "Rashidun" caliph)
5. Muawiya I was the 5th Caliph of Islam (1st caliph of what was later called the Umayyad Dynasty, 1st Sufyanid caliph)
6. Yazid I was 6th Caliph of Islam (2nd caliph of what was later called the Umayyad Dynasty, 2nd Sufyanid caliph)
7. Muawiya II was 7th Caliph of Islam (3rd caliph of what was later called the Umayyad Dynasty, 3rd Sufyanid caliph)
8. Marwan I was 8th Caliph of Islam (4th caliph of what was later called the Umayyad Dynasty, 1st Marwanid caliph)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The references used in this article are unreliable

The references used and quoted verbatim in many paragraphs are to put it mildly, unreliable. Someone with the relevant expertise needs to edit this article to make it more factually reliable, with less opinion. Emmetfahy (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Please give examples Toddy1 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Article needs extensive re-writing

There are a number of assertions made in this article that are without apparant references.

Secondly, a number of statements are repeated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmetfahy (talk • contribs) 16:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Which areas are you referring to?--Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a controversial sentence with no apparent citation. "The Kharijites then started killing other people." Is that sentence even worthy of Wikipedia or just plain sensationalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.147.17 (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the whole section on the Battle of Siffin and the Kharijites in it is laughably sensationalist and lacking any sort of neutrality. Who ever wrote it is also lacking in proper grammar at times. Here is a short example. "After the battle of Saffin the Qurra realised that Ali could not safeguard their interests and therefore split off and formed their own Party called the Kharijites and later developed into an anarchist movement[97] and plagued successive governments even Harun the Abbasid ruler died fighting the Kharijites[69]" Someone should fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.147.17 (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In the Battle of Yarmouk section for example.

"Following the Roman–Persian Wars which occurred every few years for hundreds of years between 69 BC and 629 AD and the high taxes imposed to finance these wars and the continuous bloodshed the people of Jerusalem and Syria accepted the Muslims." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmetfahy (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Muawiyah I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620091617/http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/caliphate/umayyad.html to http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/caliphate/umayyad.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003322/http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S759X~ser=FOR to http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S759X~ser=FOR

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Early Life - Correction

It is not confirmed who is the actual father of Muawiyah

• Usama Anwar Ukasha , know Egyptian writer says:(http://mufakerhur.org/?p=11173)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_Anwar_Okasha

Hind daughter of Atabah, known of secret prostitution before Islam , she is the wife of Abu Sufian.Her son Muawyah is claimed by four other possible father

• Musafer son of Abi Amr son of Umaya
• Amarah son of Alwalid son of Al Mugherah
• Al-Abbas son of Abdel Muttaleb
• Al-SABAH a singer for Amarah son of Al-Walid

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrian10 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I made a quick glance and I see no sources to back up his claim, not only that we know Muawiyah's father, read the article it is Abu Sufyan. Stop playing this game Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• (http://www.shiaali.net/vb/showthread.php?t=26739)

• (وقال الاصمعي وهشام بن محمد الكلبي في كتاب المثالب ( 8 ) : إن معاوية كان يقال إنه من أربعة من قريش : عمارة بن الوليد المخزومي ، ومسافر بن عمرو ، وأبي سفيان ، والعباس بن عبد المطلب ، وهؤلاء كانوا ندماء أبي سفيان ، وكان كل منهم يتهم بهند ، فأما عمارة بن الوليد فقد كان من أجمل رجالات قريش ، وهو الذي وشى به عمرو بن العاص إلى النجاشي ، فدعا الساحر فنفث في إحليله فهام مع الوحش ، وكانت امرأة النجاشي قد عشقته ( 9 ) ، وأما مسافر بن أبي عمرو فقال الكلبي : عامة الناس على أن معاوية منه ، لانه كان أشد حبا لهند ، فلما حملت هند بمعاوية خاف مسافر أن يظهر أنه منه ، فهرب إلى ملك الحيرة وهو هند بن عمرو ، فأقام عنده )

AL_ASMAI and Hisham bin Muhamad said in the book ALMATHALIB (8):It is said that Muawyah is from four from KURAISH, AMARAH son of ALWALID MAKHZUMI, MUSAFER SON of AMR, ABU SUFIAN< ABBAS SON OF MUTTALIB, and those were companions of ABU SUFIAN,and they were all accused of HIND.........But MUSAFER most people said he is the real father ....and when HIND got pregnant with MUAWYA , MUSAFER scared of being accused , so he ran away to the king of HIRA HIND SON OF AMR and stayed their. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrian10 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• ALZAMAKHSHARI is important source of the Islamic history said:(وقال الزمخشري في ربيع الابرار ( 12 ) : وكان معاوية يعزى إلى أربعة : إلى مسافر بن أبي عمرو ( 13 ) ، وإلى عمارة ابن الوليد ، وإلى العباس بن عبد المطلب ، وإلى الصباح ( 14 ) مغن لعمارة بن الوليد ، قال : وقد كان أبو سفيان دميما قصيرا ، وكان الصباح عسيفا لابي سفيان شابا فدعته هند إليها ، فغشيها )

Also ALZAMAKHSHARI in his book RABIE AL ABRAR (12):MUAWIAH was said to be from one of four,.....and SABAH .....said: ABU SUFIAN was short and Ugly,while SABAH was good looking young , HIND called upon him and he slept with her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrian10 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It is well known that there are lots of Giftpilz-type books demonising Hazrat Muawiyah. Historians stopped taking such books seriously in the late-19th Century when proper historical sources such as Tabari were published in European languages.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Al-Zamakhshari is regarded as good reference, including Wikipedia:(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Zamakhshari)who says about him ( He was a great authority on the Arabic language as well as a rationalist theologian ).
• Al Asmai as well is well regarded by Wikipedia:(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Asma%27i ). Wikipedia says about him ( As-Asmaʿi, was an Arab scholar, philologist and anthologist. He was one of the earliest Arabic lexicographers and one of the three leaders of the Basra school of Arabic grammar).
• Osama Anawar Ukasha (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_Anwar_Okasha)also is an Egyptian film maker of integrity , he brought the issue of refusing to follow religious propagandas of promoting figures from history in a way that might lie about history .
• Who is Abu Sufyan : (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Sufyan_ibn_Harb). He is Sakhr son of Harb from BANU-ABD-SHAMS . mentioned in Wikipedia and in Tabari . It is know about Arabic peninsula tribes that there were tribs of honor like (Bani Hashem and Zahra and Makhzom etc ) and tribes known to live from what their women bring them like (Banu Abd-Shams and Sulul ...), that explain the behavior of ABu Sufyan hosting his companions .(اشتهر الزنا عند العرب في الجاهلية والاسلام على حد سواء، يروى ان قبيلة لما ارادت الاسلام سالوا الرسول الاعظم (ص) ان يحل لهم الزنا لانهم يعيشون على ماتكسبه نسائهم .

انه ليس من الصدفة ان يبدا الصراع في الجاهلية بين اولوا الشرف من العرب كبني هاشم ومخزوم وزهرة وغيرهم وبين من اشتهر بالعهر والزنا مثل بني عبد شمس وسلول وهذيل والذي امتد هذا الصراع الى مابعد دخول كل العرب الاسلام .

), (http://mufakerhur.org/?p=11173)

• AL-Tabari has an interesting story, where Moawiyah is technically accusing his father with prostitution. Tabari Story states that Muawiyah told ZID-IBN_ABIH ( who's name means Ziad who's father is unknown) that he knows that Abu SUFIAN is the actual father of Ziad and he considers him as a brother.

Syr10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrian10 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Syr10

Recently removed content

HyperGaruda you recently removed some text from the Muawiyah_I page that we spent years collecting and writing.

HyperGaruda you should have consulted everyone who contributed to this page. We all spent a lot of effort collecting this content.

HyperGaruda this page touches on many other articles too in wikipedia. I have been collecting books and will be looking at the pages surrounding it in the next few months.

While building this article, we went through a huge discussion and had to do a lot of work;. The reason why this article got so long was because we had to use quotes from Sunni books because the Sunnis did not know what Sunni books said and we used quotes from the Shia books because many Shias did not know what their books, hence they kept on arguing. Even though the earlier books had similar content. By using so many references, we managed to stabilise the article and illustrated what the various books actually said through the ages.

Books written by western academics were also extensively used. Hence the article remained stable for around 2 years, event though it covered some very contentious issues. HyperGaruda over the next few months I will be working with you on various articles. HyperGaruda it will be good to work with you to improve these article. If you have something to contribute you are welcome to do so. If your objection is that the page is too long, then I will reinstating some of the content and created new pages. But just arbitrarily deleting content that took years to collect and write does not serve the interests of the Wikipedia users. This article covers some very complex history, missing pieces out of that history, distorts the history.

I had to go through thousands of books while working on these pages. I started off in The London School of Oriental and African Studies library, where I worked and the British Library and I then ended up crossing continents in search of books. You find a book and then you discover that you need to search for another ten. I spent the last 5 years in search of books. The important thing is that you keep an open mind. Many of the books that we look for are also very old, therefore its even harder to find them and its like looking for a diamond in a diamond mine.

Some stories are also changed as they are re-told through the ages. You discover that people manipulate history to financially benefit them selves. They say victors write the history books. Some authors / story teller also manipulate and mould stories to suite their interests and their sponsors interests, this necessitates that we cover the subject from every angle. These pages also cover "power and money" hence you need to show all the angles and you need to illustrate what the various books said through the ages; to give the reader a better understanding of the subject. There are many pages on wikipedia that are very long when covering such complex issues. The important thing is that we remain open minded, honest and impartial in persuit of the truth. HyperGaruda I look forward to working with you --Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this epic monologue. I have spent weeks making this article look encyclopedic, mostly by moving out "history" that is from before or after Mu‘āwiyah's life, i.e. irrelevant to this article. Where possible, I moved those parts to more relevant articles, but most of the time, the exact same content was already present there. So do not worry that your contributions have disappeared into cyberspace; they are still somewhere on Wikipedia, on pages where they belong. By the way, I'd love to see what these rare and old sources are, because most quotes in this article came from modern books of the last 10-20 years that I could even find at my local library. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

We had to use some modern books because people were complaining that some of the older books were primary sources. Therefore we had to use both modern and old books. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

So I know that my comment isn't relevant to content deletion but I'm hoping it is ok to post here since you two seem to be the primary curators of this article. I am wondering why the dating system changes multiple times between AD and AH? For the sake of most visitors to Wikipedia being primarily familiar with the AD system used in the majority of countries and populations, could the article be edited to reflect a single dating system that does not require readers to learn a new one or constantly do math to figure out when events happened? Rs180216 (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Military expeditions

The Military expeditions section curiously employs a dubious interpretation of a Chinese chronicle as a source to describe the outcome of the 674-678 war. Said source states (emphasis mine):

 Since the Ta-shih [the Arabs] had conquered these countries they sent their commander-in-chief, Mo-i [Mo'awiya], to besiege their capital city; by means of an agreement they obtained friendly relations, and asked to be allowed to pay every year tribute of gold and silk;

To me, in English, that means that they (the Arabs) obtained friendly relations (i.e. a peace agreement) and payed a tribute in gold and silk. At best this is a dubious passage from an uncertain source. Western (and not so Western) historians are more clear. George Ostrogotsky, in his History of the Byzantine state, states:

 The aged Muawija therefore found himself compelled to conclude a thirty years' peace with Byzantium and he agreed to pay the Emperor 3,000 gold pieces annually and to send in addition fifty prisoners and fifty horses. (from History of the Byzantine state, 1957, page 112)

All the sources used in the linked article Siege of Constantinople (674–678) agree with Ostrogorsky: Haldon, Kaegi, Lilie and Treadgold all say that after the Byzantine victory, the Caliph agreed to pay a tribute and retreat from the coast. Curiously enough, the same Treadgold is used here as source for the opening sentence, but not for the rest of the section: biased much? –84.223.39.160 (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Overhaul

I'll be working on revamping this article with more scholarly secondary sources, which as a rule of thumb, are more reliable than the generally weak secondary and medieval sources the article currently relies on. If I have to go into detail on why most of the current sourcing here is weak, I can, but I'd rather not exhaust efforts on something that should be obvious. There's also plenty of material here that is not cited to any source. The draft is in progress at User:Al Ameer son/Mu'awiya, which I will move to this article shortly. It will largely replace what we currently have on Mu'awiya's pre-Caliphate period, after which I'll work on the post-Caliphate period. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit removing citations from lead

This was my intended edit summary for this change [13] (I clicked save changes accidentally as I was attempting to type the summary): “Rmv citations from the lead, info is sourced in article body, modifying text in lead accordingly”. Al Ameer (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Taha b. Wasiq b. Hussain: Thank you for your edits, unfortunately I had to undo them for the following reasons: the information about the dam inscriptions, the seal, the coins and the Greek tablet are already noted in the article and the new information is redundant and added without a source. Also, we don't need to include the entire translated inscription: just the part mentioning Mu'awiya and a written description of the pertinent parts. The very interesting and new information that you have added, the Jerusalem document, appears to be a copyright violation. However, the source: Moshe Sharon's 2018 Witnessed by three disciples of the prophet: The Jerusalem 32 inscription from 32 AH/652 CE in the Israel Exploration should definitely be explored and integrated into this article. If you have access to it, please add and I will copyedit. Otherwise, I'll try to get a hold of it myself. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved (non-admin closure) Bada Kaji (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Muawiyah I → Mu'awiya I – Correct transliteration of the name معاويه is Muʿāwiya. Per MOS:ISLAM, diacritical marks over and under the letters should not be used ... The characters representing the ayin (ع) [i.e. ʿ ] and the hamza (ء) are not omitted (except when at the start of a word)... represented by the straight apostrophe ('). As such, the MOS compliant transliteration is Mu'awiya. Majority of the sources use either Muʿāwiya (including the Encyclopeida of Islam, Hawting's First Dynasty, Kennedy's Age of the Caliphates) or Mu'awiya (including Donner's Muhammad and the Believers, Hoyland's In God's Path, and Humpherys' biography of Mu'awiya), and very few use Muawiyah. As such, the article should be moved to Mu'awiya I. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support As indicated in the discussion thread above, this is the more common spelling in the reliable sources and also conforms with MoS. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. It is more common spelling. Walrasiad (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Srnec (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk move

@Al Ameer son: Can you move the talk page Muawiyah I (i.e. this page) to Mu'awiya I? Now the article has been moved but talk discussions and Wikiproject stuff still remains on this old talk page. I tried moving the talk but it didn't work:-/ AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done following this request. Favonian (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Favonian. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Work towards GA/FA status

Hello Al Ameer. As promised, I am starting to participate in improving this article towards the next level. I think the entire sections "Legacy" and "Views" are atrocious, and need to be rewritten. I may delete entire chunks of text in the coming few days. Please revert where you find my wholesale deletion outrageous;) Regarding Uthman, I have to say, you are too reliant on Madelung, and your labelling of his policies "nepotism" is too simplistic. In fact, it was Umar's system whose weaknesses became evident only in Uthman's reign because of pause in the conquests. It was Umar who "confiscated" the sawafi and who created socio-political stratification. It was also Umar, and before him Abu Bakr and Muhammad himself, who employed the Umayyads to positions of power. It was Muhammad's prophetic authority and the continued influx of revenue in the reign of his two successors that prevented outrage against increasing Umayyad political power in their periods. You already know Hinds' Kufan Political Allignments and Murder of Caliph Uthman, I think. In addition you can see Hodgson's Venture of Islam, Donner, Lewis and others. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Thanks for beginning to work on this. Unfortunately, for the time being, I am unable to join you in a significant way. You will not hear any complaints from me on the deletion of most or all of Legacy and Views; was going to myself but wanted to wait until I could replace them, so I stopped editing beyond Mu’awiya’s biography. Fair enough on Madelung. It would be great to diversify the sources and material in the areas concerned. I am not familiar with the first work by Hinds you cited, but I somewhat remember the second—believe I used it for a different article. Not familiar with the works by Hodgson and Lewis either, but I look forward to your changes and additions.

On another note, I support changing the name of the article to "Mu'awiya I". Besides MoS and consistency with most of the other biographic articles we have on the early Islamic period, the reliable secondary RS generally use this spelling, with or without diacritics, with the notable exception of The History of al-Tabari. Certainly no need for the "h" at the end of the name IMO. What are your thoughts? —Al Ameer (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware that that content was there already. Looking at the article history reveals that the article had been scene of the Sixth Civil War () some time ago. Apparently the content in "Legacy" and "Views" was added around then;) I will rewrite these over a few weeks, and add other sources on Uthman stuff. I completely agree with the article move to "Mu'awiya I". Maybe we request a move? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Article is shaping up nicely my friend. I've been happy watching you work from the sidelines! --Al Ameer (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Al Ameer son:. I will finish my intended amendments in a couple of days. I think the article now falls short of FA standard only because of my prose;) It is, IMO, certainly beyond GA. I have a few questions on the sources you added earlier though. Is Shahid, I. and Shahid, Irfan the same person? Also Hasson, Isaac and Hasson, I? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Will make time this week to do some copyediting. And yes in both cases, they are the same authors, Irfan Shahid and Isaac Hasson. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Should we proceed with GAN? Al Ameer (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Yes I think it is good to go, but you might want to have a look into the prose of my additions ;). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: It is in the queue now. Please consider nomination as your own. Al Ameer (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating;) AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Al Ameer You have added a "by whom" tag to the statement "He is reported to have said "The earth belongs to God and I am the deputy of God"". I didn't get it. Do you want the names of the primary sources? When we use "reported to be"/"reportedly" we implicitly mean primary sources. Anyway, Crone and Hinds cite Baladhuri and Masudi. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Yes I meant which original source or, if unavailable, which primary source. If you do not believe it is necessary, then we will just leave it. If a reviewer mentions it, at least we know who to attribute the statement to. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the names of biased primary sources should not be omitted. For example, Elton L. Daniel notes that Baladhuri is "really ought to be regarded as a notorious Abbasid hack".. Another is al-Ya'qubi, which has been described as a "violently anti-Umayyad polemicist" (EI2, O. Grabar, "Kubbat al-Sakhra", vol.5, p.299). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: I am ok with that for cases like this when we say the subject is “reported to have said”. Al Ameer (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wiqi55 and Al Ameer son: Almost all primary sources in every historical field are biased one way or the other. We have discussed the anti-Umayyad trend in the Muslim sources to good detail. Specifically pointing out names, when we are citing something from Baladhuri or Ya'qubi, is TBF Synthesis and partisan approach, as it would give the impression that we intend to hint the reader "not to believe them as they were Abbasid hacks". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 10:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: I agree and there is no question that the primary sources are all biased, some more than others. We do not need, and cannot, do the job of secondary sources. In this case I was not concerned about the bias of the original source. Rather, it was because of the structure of the statement, "subject was reported to have said blank", that I believed we should attribute to avoid weasel wording, as I understand it. Al Ameer (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Oops, it seems I misunderstood Wiqi's comment;) My apologies. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Cilicia

Cilicia does seem to have been under Muslim control, but not as a settlement or city:

During his years as governor, we read of only a few campaigns - perhaps no more than three - into central Anatolia. These were normally launched from Cilicia, the broad coastal plain north of Antioch, where the Syrian and Anatolian coastlines meet. However, the Byzantines left this area a wasteland when they abandoned Syria and Mu‘awiya never tried to occupy and resettle it. Cilicia did not become a Muslim settlement until a century or more later. During Mu‘awiya’s time, Antioch was the Empire’s northernmost major city.[14]

Compare:

But in 646 the later caliph Mu‘awiya, taking advance of the virtual abandonment of the whole area between Antakya and Tarsus, established a series of small garrison-posts (thughur) in Cilicia.[15]

Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)