Talk:Shahrbanu

Untitled

The person who wrote this page should objectively explain that this is a Shia myth and no a factual description. The way the caliph Omar is depicted in this narration matches typically the opinion of the Shia on this personnage. I would appreciate more distance and objectivity.

1. That is why the sources of the info used to write the passage were given, so that people can check the factuality of the passage by referring to the sources.
2. Shahr-Banu has no significance from a Sunni perspective. She is not an important figure to them.
3. I added a comment to reflect this. (That the recount is from a Shia perspective).--Zereshk 22:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Myth

This is a laugh. How would Ali understand Persian anyway?!! To stop Omar from killing this woman. This article clearly shows how Persians feel towards Omar. I wouldnt believe a single letter from this article.

I think It would be best to place it under the fantasy section, not the Islamic.

Yes, merge

Though I think the English form most seen is Shahrbanu, all one word. That's the form in which I see it as a woman's name. Suggest both articles be moved to Shahrbanu. The material I gave, re the academic view of this as legend, should be given as well. I'm willing to have the Shi'a POV there -- most mentions of Shahrbanu would be incomprehensible if you didn't know the story. But it should not be presented as fact. Zora 23:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sheherbanu was a princess from Iran. She was the daughter of Yazd gard III, the last king of Pre-Islamic Iran. Thus he was called "Ibn Al-Khiyaratyn". or the son of the best two meaning: The Quraysh from the Arabs and the Persians from non-Arabs. The Muslims, at the time of Umar Khattab, captured Iran in 21 A.H. The ruler, however, was able to run away from Muslims; later he was killed. Several years later his two daughter's, Sheherbanu and Gayhanbanu were brought as prisoners-of-war at the time when Imam Ali (A.S) was the Caliph of the Muslims. They were sent to Imam Ali (A.S) by his governor, Haris bin Jabir Joafi. Imam Ali (A.S) freed the two sisters. The elder one Sheherbanu (who was also known as Shahzanan, Sulafa, Ghazala and Sheherbanuya) was given in marriage to Imam Husain (A.S). The younger sister was given in marriage to Muhammed bin Abubakr. Sheherbanu gave birth to Imam Zainul Abidin (A. S) where as Gayhanban gave the birth to Kassim, whose daughter was later married to Imam Mohammed Baqr (A.S). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.7.192 (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree

I told wikipedia to merge these two articles (Shahr banu and Shahrbanu binte Yazdgerd III) because I didn’t like having two articles for Bibi Shahrbanu and why wikipedians should talk about the same thing on two different pages. We should all contribute to one page and share our ideas about what we think and believe about Bibi Shahrbanu. I apologize because I wrote the article (Shahrbanu binte Yazdgerd III) about Bibi Shahrbanu on wikipedia because I thought wikipedia didn’t have any article about the wife of my 3rd Imam and the mother of my 4th Imam. I even searched on wikipedia before actually writing the article but I couldn’t find an article on her because her name was misspelled. So when I came across the other article (Shahr Banu) that as written on Bibi Shahrbanu, I told Wikipedia to merge them because I didn’t like the fact that wikipedians were writing about the same person on two different pages. So I say merge! Thank You Salman

Then merge it is.--Zereshk 15:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to change the name of the article to Shahrbanu. Google has 1120 hits for Shahrbanu and 681 hits for Shahr Banu. That's 61% for Shahrbanu and 39% for Shahr Banu. Shahrbanu is clearly more often used in English. We can set up a redirect so that anyone looking for Shahr Banu will be sent to Shahrbanu. Zora 02:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Remove the "Islam" toolbar from this page

Hi,

This character has no affliation to Islam. She was merely a royal princess, who was sent as war booty to medina, and made a concubine to Hussein, she wasnt even a muslim, and after bearing Hussiens child, Abdallah, she left and lived in Rey, Persia until she died. She never was a muslim.

Move and revision

I moved everything to Shahrbanu, as I put up a notice and no one objected. If I google Shahrbanu and Shahr Banu, Sharbanu gets twice as many Google hits.

I also rewrote the article to include the academic POV and rewrote the Shi'a section slightly for style and flow.

Per the objection of the anon, I removed the Islam template. It would be a good idea to have a Twelver or Shi'a template to put on articles such as this. Zora 21:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Updating the page to avoid misleading

I am endeavoring to update the page Shaharbanu from books of history particularly with English translation and preferably from online citation, as far as possible. With a statistical approach, however my base is Pedigree book in Urdu language (Naqvi Family) and research by scholars, its publishing as books in Urdu language. Guide and help is solicited from the readers and writers. Thanks Nannadeem (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

My attempt is to provide a detail account to the objections raised by critics with regard to family connection of Shahar Banu to Yazdegard-III:

(i) that emperor Yazdgerd III was too young to have a daughter at the onset of the Muslim conquest of Persia from 635 to 644 AD and his age was less than 20 years and therefore he could not have had a daughter of such an age to be married after capture by the Arabs during this period.

(ii) The legend of Shahar Bano had its history since 9th to 12th century and writers of later periods till todate have been attempting to reproduce the stories of that period.

Nannadeem (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

This page is clearly written by a an Iranian Shiite, with particular attention paid to the Islamic perspective of the myth. This page make's no mention of the antiquity of the shrine, the factuality of the myth, the role it had in the creation of Iranian "muslim" identity in the face of the onslaught by Arab Islam, the relation of Bibi Pars to Anahita. Please let me do this if you're not going to.207.251.43.98 (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Raj Bali

You are welcome, but referenced and rational contents are requested. I also advise you to be an auto-confirmed WP editor. Your observation is denied (first line). Thanks. Nannadeem (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that the present article treats a Shiite legend as factual and some rework should be done. I see interesting information about details of the discussion this Shiite legend which should be preserved but surely something like the "Pedigree of Shahar Banu" should not be presented as history. The entry has a lot of footnotes but obviously quite a few of these are worthless (cf. 40 + 42 which just give "Al-Akhbar al-Tiwal"). A starting point for rewrite could be Amir-Moezzi's article "ŠAHRBĀNU" in iranica.com which as quotable scholarly reference. Raj, please go ahead. Kipala (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok good. Historically it is obvious that more or less all Islamic data available to the present day readers whether these are Hadith books or mere history and genealogy books were compiled or presented in books date back to 9th century (for detail you may see Arabic-Persian literacy relation). Please do not ignore this very important point. Nannadeem (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV regarding 2nd paragraph of article

If the phrase Historians and writers doubt her existence and consider her as a myth rather than a historical figure is added then it simply educates that all the information provided in the second paragraph is totally myth. On the other hand if a word "some" is prefixed to the sentence then it shows views of all sides and qualifies the WP:NPOV.

With regard to Shrine in Ray, kind attention of esteemed Monochrome Monitor is invited to please go through the last section of the page where I have already incorporated the issue. I have noticed the summary of Monochrome Monitor (most view it a myth to make islam seem more authentically iranian) of 20 May-2016. I do not consider Islam my personal property and Iran as my preference, therefore moving the sentence to last section with prefix of "Some". Nannadeem (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm talking about reliable Western scholarship. I cannot account for iranian scholarship. I'll change it to "many".--Monochrome_Monitor 16:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC).

I have seen your changes and have concern over some changes and will reconcile with you. Do not quote me again and again for Iranian sources. While editing I have attempted my best to have published sources out side Iran or Iranian. For your information Shia and Iran both are two separate matters, you know, neither it is compulsory for an Iranian to be Shia nor it is mandatory for a Shia to be Iranian. However, majority of Iran follow Shia Islam but this majority is much less than the Shia population of the subcontinent.

You are asking for Western Scholars for this article. You may do so if it is the policy of WP, let me guide where such criteria has been provided for editing. Nannadeem (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll put in some gray area, thanks for asking nicely :)--Monochrome_Monitor 03:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrarily wiping content on Shahrbanu

Please stop arbitrarily wiping content on the article for Shahrbanu. Removing content regarding the reports concerning her in order to push a one-sided view, removing translations of the person’s name, etc. to push your POV is disruptive editing. — LissanX (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

​ Accusations of vandalism and POV pushing are very serious and in no way refute my concerns regarding your edits. I ask that you either address my concerns, show me why they aren't warrented or (if you really think I'm a vandal) report me to the appropriate Admin Noticeboard.
Alivardi (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You removed this content:

The date of reports, however, coincide with the golden age of Hadith compilations, with the Shia Four Books and Sunni Six Books all being released in the 9th century, as written Islamic reports were sparse prior to this period.

From this paragraph:

Islamic writers, such as al-Mubarrad, Ya'qubi and al-Kulayni, wrote the earliest reports of Shahrbanu and her imperial Persian background from the 9th century onward. However, the earliest sources make no mention of the mother of Ali ibn Husayn, nor do they ascribe him with maternal royal ancestry. The first references were from Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Qutaybah, also in the 9th century, who instead describe her as being a slave from Sindh. The Encyclopædia Iranica alleges that Shahrbanu was "undeniably legendary".

Why would you censor this highly relevant information to enforce a skewed view that manipulates the reader into thinking Islamic reports from the 9th century are unreliable or dubious? Additionally, why would you remove part of the translation of the person’s name? Your edits are disruptive and prejudicial. — LissanX (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

​ Read my edit summaries.
Alivardi (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I added multiple sources for the already publicly known information. All of this was already available in the pages linked to. I also added to the translation's meaning. — LissanX (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

​ Please tone down the references a bit. Other than that, I consider my concerns addressed. Thank you.
Alivardi (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You’re welcome. I’ve removed six of them, leaving five. If there are any further issues please let me know. — LissanX (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

​ There is actually one last thing. Can you confirm that Shahrbanu herself is mentioned in the sources you provided? I want to avoid any issues with WP:ORIGINAL.
Alivardi (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

​ She’s mentioned in some of them, but the sources are for the fact that the Four Books of Shias and the Six Books of Sunnis were all produced around the 9th century, not regarding Shahrbanu herself. — LissanX (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@LissanX:, don't add random religious sites as citations please, they are not reliable. Also, please see [1] --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

​ Not reliable according to who? I didn’t realize Wikipedia only allowed secular sources. You expect for articles on religious figures and subjects to not have religious sources? lol. — LissanX (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Censoring Content

Some users have been arbitrarily wiping sourced relevant content to enforce a one-sided POV. This includes wiling this content:

The date of reports, however, coincide with the golden age of Hadith compilations, with the Shia Four Books and Sunni Six Books all being released around the 9th century, as written Islamic reports were sparse prior to this period.

From this paragraph:

Islamic writers, such as al-Mubarrad, Ya'qubi and al-Kulayni, wrote the earliest reports of Shahrbanu and her imperial Persian background from the 9th century onward. However, the earliest sources make no mention of the mother of Ali ibn Husayn, nor do they ascribe him with maternal royal ancestry. The first references were from Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Qutaybah, also in the 9th century, who instead describe her as being a slave from Sindh. The Encyclopædia Iranica alleges that Shahrbanu was "undeniably legendary".

Censoring this highly relevant information to enforce a skewed view that manipulates the reader into thinking Islamic reports from the 9th century are unreliable or dubious is tantamount to vandalism and POV. Wikipedia is not a vehicle which you use to propagate your own prejudices. Wikipedia is to be neutral. This, along with claims by @HistoryofIran: saying "don't add random religious sites as citations please, they are not reliable" is preposterous and absolutely laughable about an article about a religious figure. Stop treating Wikipedia as a propaganda outlet. — LissanX (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

" a skewed view that manipulates the reader into thinking Islamic reports from the 9th century are unreliable or dubious is tantamount to vandalism and POV.."

No, it's not. What you have done is taken primary sources and formed your own interpretation, which violated no original research.

"The Encyclopædia Iranica alleges that Shahrbanu was "undeniably legendary"."

Have you read the article? "The historicity of Shahrbanu is highly debatable, with no source available which can truly confirm or deny her existence." (D. Pinault, Horse of Karbala: Muslim Devotional Life in India (2016), p. 71).

Also,

• 1. Nothing should be in the lead that does not appear in the article, that is basic POV pushing.
• 2. What does, "The date of reports, however, coincide with the golden age of Hadith compilations, with the Shia Four Books and Sunni Six Books all being released around the 9th century, as written Islamic reports were sparse prior to this period.", have to do with Shahrbanu?
• 3. I would strongly suggest refraining from accusations of vandalism. Considering you have been accusing two other editors of this, I will not warn you again. Next time I will report you.
• 4. Also, primary sources not supported by secondary sources should not be used. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.", which is exactly what the sentence above is doing, interpreting the previous sentence; "This leads the Encyclopædia Iranica to consider that Shahrbanu was "undeniably legendary"."
• 5. Your sentence violates the Wikipedia policy regarding primary sources, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The Six Books

• Sahih al-Bukhari by Muhammad al-Bukhari (810–870 CE)
• Sahih Muslim by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj (815–875 CE)
• Sunan Abu Dawood by Abu Dawood (817–889 CE)
• Jami' at-Tirmidhi by Muhammad ibn Isa at-Tirmidhi (824–892 CE)
• Sunan al-Sughra by Ahmad ibn Shu'ayb an-Nasa'i (829–915 CE)
• Sunan ibn Majah by Abu Abdullah ibn Makah (824–887 CE)

The Four Books

• Kitab al-Kafi by Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni (864–941 CE)
• Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih by Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (923–991 CE)
• Tahdhib al-Ahkam by Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Tusi (995–1067 CE)
• Al-Istibsar by Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Tusi (995–1067 CE)

The earliest Hadith compilations were Kitab Sulaym ibn Qays by Sulaym ibn Qays (died c. 689-709 CE) for Shias and Sahifah Hammam ibn Munabbih by Hammam ibn Munabbih (died 719 CE) for Sunnis.

Which part of this in relation to the line –

The date of reports, however, coincide with the golden age of Hadith compilations, with the Shia Four Books and Sunni Six Books all being released around the 9th century, as written Islamic reports were sparse prior to this period.

– do you have a problem with? Or are we just doing things because Encyclopedia Iranica said so? — LissanX (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I have explained, in detail, the issues I have with your interpreting of primary sources, information in the lead not present in the body of the article, etc. If you can not understand what I have said, then you should not be editing English Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Your "issues" are nonsensical. The content provided are well-established facts. Your moronic arguments and projection of your own lack of competence to edit Wikipedia are self-evident. If you have a problem with the paragraph, remove the paragraph, not one line out of the entire thing that contradicts your agenda. — LissanX (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Moronic? Clearly you are unable to address my concerns and instead rely on childish personal attacks. And I will tell you as I have told others, I do not have an agenda.

Nonsensical? I have outlined my concerns clearly and your running off to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard will not work, since you have chosen to ignore my concerns and continue with personal attacks(vandalism, moronic, lack of competence).

• "projection of your own lack of competence to edit Wikipedia are self-evident."

Wrong. I have shown that you are interpreting primary sources to suit your own personal POV. Unless you can provide a secondary source to support the primary sources, then said primary source should not be used(per Wikipedia policy). Also, if said information is not in the article then it should not be in the lead(also per Wikipedia policy). Ergo, it is not I projecting a lack of competence concerning the editing of Wikipedia.

So, either you can continue with the personal attacks OR you can show how these sources directly relate to Shahrbanu(by quotes). If you can not or will not then you are engaging in original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2019 (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.