This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 3 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Hi we are a team from Colgate University and will be editing this page over the next month. We plan to make some additions in regards to sub-categories.
Where did this inforamtion come from? Bless sins 03:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC) This appears to be more of a story than historical fact.
This historical account seems inconsistent with some of the books I have read on the subject IHusain 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
__________________________
I agree and it has a fairytale prose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.36.107 ( talk) 17:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Language more suited to a novel/screenplay than an encyclopedic article. Referencing is also too spartan.-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 02:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I want to merge this page with The battle of Jamal since they are the same battles. But i don't really know how to merge.
Battle of Jamal is a redirect to Battle of the Camel, so I don't think a merge is still needed. I added a note of the alternate name.-- Wcoole ( talk) 17:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Where did this come from? The use of the word louring is archaic and leads me to believe that the source isn't appropriate.
Please check the refrences on this article. please check and see the role of "Abdullah ibn Sabaa" and please differentiate between the sunni account of the battle, and the motivation behind the march on Kufa, and the Shai account of the events. thank u
___________________________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.36.107 ( talk) 17:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Abdullah ibn Sabaa myth was actually started by Sayf ibn Umar at-Tamimi (a narrator) in at-Tabari and is abandoned as a weak narrator by the majority of the scholars of Ahle-Sunnah. Shi'as also regard him as a fabricator.
Secularist Muslim View In recent years some of the Sunni historians have questioned the existence of Abdullah Ibn Saba. Taha Husayn, a well-known secularist Egyptian writer has written that:
"The fact that the historians make no mention of Ibn al-Sawda' i.e., 'Abdullah ibn Saba' being present at the battle of Siffin together with his followers proves at the very least that the whole notion of a group of people led by him is a baseless fabrication. It is one of those inventions that acquired currency when the conflict between the Shi'is and other Islamic groups intensified. In order to underline their hostility, the enemies of the Shi'ah tried to insert a Jewish element into the origins of their sect. If the story of 'Abdullah ibn Saba' had any basis in historical fact, his cunning and guile could not have failed to show itself at the battle of Siffin. "I can think of only one reason for his name not occurring in connection with that battle: that he was an entirely fictitious person, dreamed up by the enemies of the Shi'ah in order to vilify them." [book al-Fitnat al-Kubra, Vol. II, p.90]Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Ibn_Saba"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.36.107 ( talk) 17:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is written in a clearly shi'ite point of view. It speaks of how ali and aisha fought. There should be two sections of the recountations by both sides. Not just speaking onesidedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.231.47 ( talk) 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is crap! It is like the screenplay of a B-Movie! On one hand it says Aisha had 3000 troops and on another hand it says 10,000 men were killed equally from both sides! Were did the other 2000 men come from then? Beam me up Scotty! 94.195.72.113 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC).
A great deal of this article was built on copyright violations: on Feb 2, 2005, Striver added a lot of material that very closely paraphrased a bunch of text from http://www.islamforamal.com/Home/additonal-information/caliphate and possibly other sources. That's why large chunks of this article read like a story rather than a Wikipedia article. Obviously the copyvio material is going to have to be removed, but I don't know if it will be possible to salvage anything that has been added since then, since it was all built on top of a rotten (illegal) foundation. AtticusX ( talk) 10:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I have did some clean up in the tow sections under question? Plz let me know 'bout your comments.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 15:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Please not that all and I reconfirm all history sources say the name is Battle of Camel only wikipedia gave as the totally new name Battle of Bassorah !! I think wiki is trying to give as a new history -- 82.194.62.25 ( talk) 08:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Its Battel of Camel or Jamal(Arabic translation of Camel), Have never heard of Battel of Basara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Husainalisaifee ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I was VERY, VERY SURPRISED to see the cross besides of Islamic Shaheeds (martyrs) in the number of Wikipedia Articles, such as:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Siffin
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Camel
and perhaps many other Articles that I didn't realize about.
I know, some of you might think it's a small, insignificant matters, and that I just overreacted or something. But hey, have you read the history of the The Red Cross and the The Red Crescent symbols? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement#Relation_to_the_flag_of_Switzerland)
At first, I didn't notice that, I was too tired of doing research about Islamic history that concerned Muslim law of war. Until I carefully looked at this unwelcome symbol and my eyes suddenly got widened. Oh my God! It's a Christian cross! God forbid, you don't put that symbol beside Muslim Martyrs names! It's an insult to their memories who died defending the religion of Islam!
Someone in authority better do something about this, otherwise I might, launch some sort of worldwide awareness campaign regarding this matter, maybe on Facebook. Many Muslims will definitely get upset about this (upset is an understatement!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.166.169 ( talk) 17:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Wahj-asSaif is probably literally correct, but in many fonts, that character is rendered in a way that resembles a cross. Given the strong negative connotations of the cross in the minds of many Muslims, perhaps it would be better to use the alternate form of Template:KIA, (KIA) (or (KIA) for short) for Muslim causualties.-- Wcoole ( talk) 18:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi PJDF2367
We have been working on these articles for a year and went through all the sources Sunni, Shia, Roman and the Jewish sources from the time and the work of the recent western academics on these events. A large number of people have been involved on this project. You could go through the discussions on the Muawiyah talk page. There is a lot of material out there, in both the Sunni and the Shia sources about the Kawarij. Just get hold of the old books and you will see how important a role they played in the early days of Islam. Many old scholars that both the Sunnis and Shia respect, worked together on these books from Madina. There is a lot of common content in these old books and this is recognized by modern academics too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muawiyah_I
PJDF2367, I noticed that you have reverted all the work every one has put into this and all the references. Can you please put back the referenced content. If you have an issues, please discuss it. If there are references that you disagree with please also highlight your issues with them and we could reach a consensus. But just deleting all the content without any discussion is not the right approach. There are references in there from the earliest books written in Madina and from both the early Sunni and Shia sources and from Jewish and Roman books from the time and from modern western academics. There is a lot of common content in both the early Sunni and the early Shia sources about these events. These were extremely tragic events and one needs to learn from them. The early scholars like Imam Jafar and Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik understood this and worked together and you could still read their books. They are in the middle ground. Many of the references that you removed were from these old books from Madina. The Sunni and Shia arguments have been letting down the whole Islam section on Wikipedia and people need to get away from these arguments and show the actual historical data from the earliest sources most closest to the events and from modern neutral academics. I hope you understand. When you start digging and researching through these very old books written in Madina within the first 150 years of the passing of Muhammad, you will soon see how closely these early scholars worked and you will also see references to the Khawarij in every early book. Unfortunately many of the most critical scholars like Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr are now almost forgotten by both the Sunnis and the Shias yet they are critical to the formation of Fiqh and Sharia. But the Sunnis and Shia spend more time arguing on Wikipedia than actually making the effort to read these early books. We have spent a whole year on this. I hope you understand -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 18:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I will help mediate this issue. First of all, I added Johnleeds1's article information as well as the work done by PJDF2367 and others. Instead to deleting each others work why not blend the two articles together. This will only help to prevent losing information and it will help strengthen it. Lets try and blend the two articles together and create subsections as well (for different views if there is a conflict). Thanks.
I agree that the old article was much better off. I deleted most of the unnecessary information that did not have any relevance. But, Im still reading to find relevant information in Johnleeds1 article.
For anyone who wants to reference the material in a proper and correct manner please use EasyBib.com. Zabranos ( talk) 03:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I Agree, we all need to work together and merge the articles. We did the same on the Muawiya I page, as that was also related to this and had the same problems. We ended up using primary sources in conjunction with literature from modern western academics because many people do not read old books, and in some cases the views of some modern Shia's are different to the old Shia books and the views of some modern Sunnis are different to the old Sunni books. Shia's were deleting content that was in line with old Shia books, because they thought that it was not in line with their thinking and Sunnis were deleting content that was in line with the old Sunni books. Every one was arguing.
Where as the old classical literature from people like Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik is more in the middle ground. Once we put the actual references from the old books in, there were less arguing and the page settled down. The primary sources were used in conjunction with research and literature from modern academics.
Another thing that we discovered is that many modern Muslims know very little about the Qurra who became the Kawarij. Even though there is a lot of literature regarding the kawarij in both the old classical Sunni and Shia books.
The book "Muawiya Restorer of the Muslim Faith By Aisha Bewley" is used as a reference in conjunction with references from other books. But all Aisha Bewley has done is put references from the oldest history books like Al Baladuri and other old books like Al Muwatta of Imam Malik. We spent a year on the Muawiya article and as you could see we went through hundreds of books. In many cases we found, that the older the books the closer their views. The oldest accounts of these events are in history books like those written by Al-Waqidi (748 – 822) from Madina, Ibn Hisham (died 833), Al-Baladhuri (died 892) other old books like Al Muwatta of Imam Malik (711 – 795)from Madina. Subsequent authors used these books as references too. The complete stories are to be found in these early books. Modern academics also use these books. Zabranos its good that you are updating the page.-- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 21:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a sentence in there that says "Ali was urged to accept Abu Musa but he never did". Where as all the books I have looked at say that Abu Musa was not his decision but the decision of the Khawarij, but he did not oppose Abu Musa. --
Johnleeds1 (
talk) 21:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you please provide a source for the following:
Then Ziayd recited a poem:
Unconsciously recited another poem:
Then Ziyad came out to the people waiting for his conclusion. They asked:
Ziyad only said:
And they understood what Ali was going to do.
Zabranos ( talk) 23:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the history and this has been on the first fitna page for years. The first fitna page is the parent page to this. It was there when that page was first created. -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 15:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The article is still in a rough shape. Status of the following sections:
Article is 38.5% complete. Zabranos ( talk) 00:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Johnleeds1,
I appreciate your contributions, however you have added a lot of information that is not relevant to the battle of the camel. Most of the information is about Muawiyah and his life (this article is about the Battle of the Camel not Muawiyah). I noticed that you copied and pasted a majority of Muawiyah's article on to this one. The information you is just not relevant to this article. I dont want to be rude or hurt your feelings, but the information just does not fit. For example, how are the following relevant.
I just want to say dont copy and paste information from Muwiyah's article (which has many issues and it not properly written as both Drmies and I pointed out) but rather do research and find sources (add them into the Talk page before placing it into the article so that I can review it and slowly blend it in because I need time to correct the current article. In terms of english, relevance, and format). I am reverting the edits because they are irrelevant to this particular article. But please can you help me find more sources (western, nonwestern, sunni, and shia) on the battle itself because that should be the main focus of this article. And once again im not trying to be rude nor am I trying to hurt your feelings. Im just trying to clean this article up and edit the english. Please do not revert my revert before explain your reason on the talk page so that we can avoid a edit war. Thanks. Zabranos ( talk) 02:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
P.S If you find any sources please list them out in the following manner.
http://www.sunypress.edu/p-2078-the-history-of-al-tabari-vol-16.aspx
In the description of this book it says
Small misunderstandings led to a huge loss of life. When you go through these old books, you understand why Hassan wanted peace. He knew people on both sides in the Battle of the Camel and the Battle of Siffin who were killed. Many were his childhood friends. Ali performed the funerals. Its very tragic. You feel very sorry for Hassan and he truly deserves his title of the peace maker. When you look at it in detail from the rational perspective, you realize that he also thinks extremely strategically. Muawiya thought he was clever, but Hassan was far cleverer and his main objective was to preserve his grandfathers legacy, of making sure people continue to worship one God. People could say what every they want, but Hassan deserves respect. He was very God fearing and did not want any ones blood on his hands but you could also say that Hassan managed to transfer the problem of the Kawarij and the Romans to Muawiya. As it says in: Book of "Peacemaking" Sahih Bukhari - Volume 3, Book 49 (Peacemaking), Number 867
References
I need the following references otherwise I will delete them.
This is ridiculous seriously! Zabranos ( talk) 08:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a bot on Wikipedia that goes around and where it finds multiple references to the same book and page number it puts a short cut version of it in the text and the full version at the end. When you are on the page and click on the link, it takes you to the full reference. It's best not to delete these. Deleting these types of references creates half orphaned references and you end up with errors on the page. It looks like many of these books are self explanatory and many also have a hyper links to the google books page where the text is taken from. The author will be where the full text is. Where there isn't one it will be easy to find the authors. -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 15:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The following are classified as relevent events because these events sparked the initial tension leading to the Battle of the Camel itself. Please do not delete it.
And the following subsections
Im still determining whether the other sections are relevant to the scope of the conflict.
Zabranos ( talk) 20:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
To my understanding the only area where sunni and shia differentiate is at the part of "The Plot for Rebellion" the events before that is agreed upon since they are documented in both shia and sunni books and cited in the article.
The a majority of shia sources in this article are done by historical scholars. But most of the sunni sources are from primary sources not from historical scholars. And I agree that there needs to be more western books like Madelung and others. Zabranos ( talk) 21:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
-- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 21:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The initial tension which led to the war is relevant because it sparked the political conflict about the Caliphate which led to the war. Historians always mention events that sparked conflicts before mentioning the battles themselves. For example, historians alway mention the stamp act, Boston massacre, Boston tea party, and other events as a spark to the Revolutionary war. The information that was obviously irrelevant was the information about Muawiyah, the Kawarij (who arose after the battle of Siffin not Jamal), the peace treaty with Hassan, and Yazid elected as caliph after Muawiyah. How do those events tie into the battle of the camel. On the other hand, the events that sparked the tension basically caused the battle to occur making it relevant. In addition, I think that the events that sparked the war should be kept in the article because not a lot of people know about them. And Im not trying to be hypocritical or biased in any way shape or form. Im just trying to decipher what is relevant and what is irrelevant. Zabranos ( talk) 21:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Moved most of the irrelevant info to the First Fitna article. Since we agreed that this article should only talk about the battle. Zabranos ( talk) 05:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Zabranos is blocked for a week for abusing multiple accounts. (See here for details.) * Nanner-Nanner ( talk · contribs) is a Confirmed sock of Zabranos ( talk · contribs)
References
DrMI
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page)."I personally think that this article needs to be neutral and needs to be base on the non-Muslim orientalist sources like the best selling book "In the shadow of the sword, The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World" by Tom Holland. "
How are non-Muslim orientalist sources neutral? Least of all Tom Holland whose pseudo theories on Mecca actually being Petra, the 5 daily prayers coming from zoroastrianism among various other theories have been debunked numerous times FullMetal234 ( talk) 16:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I changed all the references to "Madina" into "Medina", as I believe "Madina" is a variant spelling for the same city and that "Medina" is the standard spelling in English and on the English Wikipedia. The mix of spellings within a single article was confusing. If this is incorrect, please include some explanation to correct my ignorance. Wcoole ( talk) 17:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)--
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of the Camel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Hammad: My changes focused on two things. 1. Improving the grammar of the sentences because the coherence of this page is very poor, and 2. Adding more clarity and information about the Sunni perspective from a Sunni source. These changes were reverted without a clear explanation. I would like to undo this reversion if a clear explanation is not provided. On the other hand, if a more substantive explanation is provided, and my method of adding these changes were genuinely flawed, I would like the opportunity to address the contentions or to incorporate my edits in a more sound and acceptable way using your feedback. Thank you. -- SacredSunflower ( talk) 18:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Since I haven't received any response, I'm going to go ahead and revert. -- SacredSunflower ( talk) 01:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
As noted by others on this page, large parts of this article are poorly written and/or poorly sourced. I'm hoping to work on this article over the next few weeks to try and improve it a bit. I'll propose the major changes here first (if any). Albertatiran ( talk) 17:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The section on the battle claims that the "battle began at noon on a December day in 656 CE" while the info-box says "7 November 656 CE (13 Jumada Al-Awwal 36 AH)". These claims cannot both be true. AstroLynx ( talk) 12:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
There is very few variations in the key areas of contention. I know this is wikipedia, but god its the same five citations over and over again. We don’t rely on primary sources only, but we shouldn’t rely on the same five secondary’s. 2001:1970:5163:1200:0:0:0:5214 ( talk) 15:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
At that time the Sindhi people were under the Brahmin Shahi Chach, so whatever went on from the Sindh side in this war, it went only with the permission of the raja Chach! 103.206.177.49 ( talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
It is to be noted that Banu Umayyah refers to the Tribe that would later found the Umayyad Caliphate and Dynasty. In 656 CE, at the time of this battle, only the former existed. Haditaha.z ( talk) 07:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 3 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Hi we are a team from Colgate University and will be editing this page over the next month. We plan to make some additions in regards to sub-categories.
Where did this inforamtion come from? Bless sins 03:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC) This appears to be more of a story than historical fact.
This historical account seems inconsistent with some of the books I have read on the subject IHusain 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
__________________________
I agree and it has a fairytale prose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.36.107 ( talk) 17:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Language more suited to a novel/screenplay than an encyclopedic article. Referencing is also too spartan.-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 02:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I want to merge this page with The battle of Jamal since they are the same battles. But i don't really know how to merge.
Battle of Jamal is a redirect to Battle of the Camel, so I don't think a merge is still needed. I added a note of the alternate name.-- Wcoole ( talk) 17:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Where did this come from? The use of the word louring is archaic and leads me to believe that the source isn't appropriate.
Please check the refrences on this article. please check and see the role of "Abdullah ibn Sabaa" and please differentiate between the sunni account of the battle, and the motivation behind the march on Kufa, and the Shai account of the events. thank u
___________________________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.36.107 ( talk) 17:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Abdullah ibn Sabaa myth was actually started by Sayf ibn Umar at-Tamimi (a narrator) in at-Tabari and is abandoned as a weak narrator by the majority of the scholars of Ahle-Sunnah. Shi'as also regard him as a fabricator.
Secularist Muslim View In recent years some of the Sunni historians have questioned the existence of Abdullah Ibn Saba. Taha Husayn, a well-known secularist Egyptian writer has written that:
"The fact that the historians make no mention of Ibn al-Sawda' i.e., 'Abdullah ibn Saba' being present at the battle of Siffin together with his followers proves at the very least that the whole notion of a group of people led by him is a baseless fabrication. It is one of those inventions that acquired currency when the conflict between the Shi'is and other Islamic groups intensified. In order to underline their hostility, the enemies of the Shi'ah tried to insert a Jewish element into the origins of their sect. If the story of 'Abdullah ibn Saba' had any basis in historical fact, his cunning and guile could not have failed to show itself at the battle of Siffin. "I can think of only one reason for his name not occurring in connection with that battle: that he was an entirely fictitious person, dreamed up by the enemies of the Shi'ah in order to vilify them." [book al-Fitnat al-Kubra, Vol. II, p.90]Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Ibn_Saba"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.36.107 ( talk) 17:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is written in a clearly shi'ite point of view. It speaks of how ali and aisha fought. There should be two sections of the recountations by both sides. Not just speaking onesidedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.231.47 ( talk) 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is crap! It is like the screenplay of a B-Movie! On one hand it says Aisha had 3000 troops and on another hand it says 10,000 men were killed equally from both sides! Were did the other 2000 men come from then? Beam me up Scotty! 94.195.72.113 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC).
A great deal of this article was built on copyright violations: on Feb 2, 2005, Striver added a lot of material that very closely paraphrased a bunch of text from http://www.islamforamal.com/Home/additonal-information/caliphate and possibly other sources. That's why large chunks of this article read like a story rather than a Wikipedia article. Obviously the copyvio material is going to have to be removed, but I don't know if it will be possible to salvage anything that has been added since then, since it was all built on top of a rotten (illegal) foundation. AtticusX ( talk) 10:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I have did some clean up in the tow sections under question? Plz let me know 'bout your comments.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 15:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Please not that all and I reconfirm all history sources say the name is Battle of Camel only wikipedia gave as the totally new name Battle of Bassorah !! I think wiki is trying to give as a new history -- 82.194.62.25 ( talk) 08:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Its Battel of Camel or Jamal(Arabic translation of Camel), Have never heard of Battel of Basara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Husainalisaifee ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I was VERY, VERY SURPRISED to see the cross besides of Islamic Shaheeds (martyrs) in the number of Wikipedia Articles, such as:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Siffin
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Camel
and perhaps many other Articles that I didn't realize about.
I know, some of you might think it's a small, insignificant matters, and that I just overreacted or something. But hey, have you read the history of the The Red Cross and the The Red Crescent symbols? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement#Relation_to_the_flag_of_Switzerland)
At first, I didn't notice that, I was too tired of doing research about Islamic history that concerned Muslim law of war. Until I carefully looked at this unwelcome symbol and my eyes suddenly got widened. Oh my God! It's a Christian cross! God forbid, you don't put that symbol beside Muslim Martyrs names! It's an insult to their memories who died defending the religion of Islam!
Someone in authority better do something about this, otherwise I might, launch some sort of worldwide awareness campaign regarding this matter, maybe on Facebook. Many Muslims will definitely get upset about this (upset is an understatement!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.166.169 ( talk) 17:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Wahj-asSaif is probably literally correct, but in many fonts, that character is rendered in a way that resembles a cross. Given the strong negative connotations of the cross in the minds of many Muslims, perhaps it would be better to use the alternate form of Template:KIA, (KIA) (or (KIA) for short) for Muslim causualties.-- Wcoole ( talk) 18:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi PJDF2367
We have been working on these articles for a year and went through all the sources Sunni, Shia, Roman and the Jewish sources from the time and the work of the recent western academics on these events. A large number of people have been involved on this project. You could go through the discussions on the Muawiyah talk page. There is a lot of material out there, in both the Sunni and the Shia sources about the Kawarij. Just get hold of the old books and you will see how important a role they played in the early days of Islam. Many old scholars that both the Sunnis and Shia respect, worked together on these books from Madina. There is a lot of common content in these old books and this is recognized by modern academics too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muawiyah_I
PJDF2367, I noticed that you have reverted all the work every one has put into this and all the references. Can you please put back the referenced content. If you have an issues, please discuss it. If there are references that you disagree with please also highlight your issues with them and we could reach a consensus. But just deleting all the content without any discussion is not the right approach. There are references in there from the earliest books written in Madina and from both the early Sunni and Shia sources and from Jewish and Roman books from the time and from modern western academics. There is a lot of common content in both the early Sunni and the early Shia sources about these events. These were extremely tragic events and one needs to learn from them. The early scholars like Imam Jafar and Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik understood this and worked together and you could still read their books. They are in the middle ground. Many of the references that you removed were from these old books from Madina. The Sunni and Shia arguments have been letting down the whole Islam section on Wikipedia and people need to get away from these arguments and show the actual historical data from the earliest sources most closest to the events and from modern neutral academics. I hope you understand. When you start digging and researching through these very old books written in Madina within the first 150 years of the passing of Muhammad, you will soon see how closely these early scholars worked and you will also see references to the Khawarij in every early book. Unfortunately many of the most critical scholars like Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr are now almost forgotten by both the Sunnis and the Shias yet they are critical to the formation of Fiqh and Sharia. But the Sunnis and Shia spend more time arguing on Wikipedia than actually making the effort to read these early books. We have spent a whole year on this. I hope you understand -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 18:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I will help mediate this issue. First of all, I added Johnleeds1's article information as well as the work done by PJDF2367 and others. Instead to deleting each others work why not blend the two articles together. This will only help to prevent losing information and it will help strengthen it. Lets try and blend the two articles together and create subsections as well (for different views if there is a conflict). Thanks.
I agree that the old article was much better off. I deleted most of the unnecessary information that did not have any relevance. But, Im still reading to find relevant information in Johnleeds1 article.
For anyone who wants to reference the material in a proper and correct manner please use EasyBib.com. Zabranos ( talk) 03:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I Agree, we all need to work together and merge the articles. We did the same on the Muawiya I page, as that was also related to this and had the same problems. We ended up using primary sources in conjunction with literature from modern western academics because many people do not read old books, and in some cases the views of some modern Shia's are different to the old Shia books and the views of some modern Sunnis are different to the old Sunni books. Shia's were deleting content that was in line with old Shia books, because they thought that it was not in line with their thinking and Sunnis were deleting content that was in line with the old Sunni books. Every one was arguing.
Where as the old classical literature from people like Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik is more in the middle ground. Once we put the actual references from the old books in, there were less arguing and the page settled down. The primary sources were used in conjunction with research and literature from modern academics.
Another thing that we discovered is that many modern Muslims know very little about the Qurra who became the Kawarij. Even though there is a lot of literature regarding the kawarij in both the old classical Sunni and Shia books.
The book "Muawiya Restorer of the Muslim Faith By Aisha Bewley" is used as a reference in conjunction with references from other books. But all Aisha Bewley has done is put references from the oldest history books like Al Baladuri and other old books like Al Muwatta of Imam Malik. We spent a year on the Muawiya article and as you could see we went through hundreds of books. In many cases we found, that the older the books the closer their views. The oldest accounts of these events are in history books like those written by Al-Waqidi (748 – 822) from Madina, Ibn Hisham (died 833), Al-Baladhuri (died 892) other old books like Al Muwatta of Imam Malik (711 – 795)from Madina. Subsequent authors used these books as references too. The complete stories are to be found in these early books. Modern academics also use these books. Zabranos its good that you are updating the page.-- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 21:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a sentence in there that says "Ali was urged to accept Abu Musa but he never did". Where as all the books I have looked at say that Abu Musa was not his decision but the decision of the Khawarij, but he did not oppose Abu Musa. --
Johnleeds1 (
talk) 21:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you please provide a source for the following:
Then Ziayd recited a poem:
Unconsciously recited another poem:
Then Ziyad came out to the people waiting for his conclusion. They asked:
Ziyad only said:
And they understood what Ali was going to do.
Zabranos ( talk) 23:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the history and this has been on the first fitna page for years. The first fitna page is the parent page to this. It was there when that page was first created. -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 15:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The article is still in a rough shape. Status of the following sections:
Article is 38.5% complete. Zabranos ( talk) 00:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Johnleeds1,
I appreciate your contributions, however you have added a lot of information that is not relevant to the battle of the camel. Most of the information is about Muawiyah and his life (this article is about the Battle of the Camel not Muawiyah). I noticed that you copied and pasted a majority of Muawiyah's article on to this one. The information you is just not relevant to this article. I dont want to be rude or hurt your feelings, but the information just does not fit. For example, how are the following relevant.
I just want to say dont copy and paste information from Muwiyah's article (which has many issues and it not properly written as both Drmies and I pointed out) but rather do research and find sources (add them into the Talk page before placing it into the article so that I can review it and slowly blend it in because I need time to correct the current article. In terms of english, relevance, and format). I am reverting the edits because they are irrelevant to this particular article. But please can you help me find more sources (western, nonwestern, sunni, and shia) on the battle itself because that should be the main focus of this article. And once again im not trying to be rude nor am I trying to hurt your feelings. Im just trying to clean this article up and edit the english. Please do not revert my revert before explain your reason on the talk page so that we can avoid a edit war. Thanks. Zabranos ( talk) 02:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
P.S If you find any sources please list them out in the following manner.
http://www.sunypress.edu/p-2078-the-history-of-al-tabari-vol-16.aspx
In the description of this book it says
Small misunderstandings led to a huge loss of life. When you go through these old books, you understand why Hassan wanted peace. He knew people on both sides in the Battle of the Camel and the Battle of Siffin who were killed. Many were his childhood friends. Ali performed the funerals. Its very tragic. You feel very sorry for Hassan and he truly deserves his title of the peace maker. When you look at it in detail from the rational perspective, you realize that he also thinks extremely strategically. Muawiya thought he was clever, but Hassan was far cleverer and his main objective was to preserve his grandfathers legacy, of making sure people continue to worship one God. People could say what every they want, but Hassan deserves respect. He was very God fearing and did not want any ones blood on his hands but you could also say that Hassan managed to transfer the problem of the Kawarij and the Romans to Muawiya. As it says in: Book of "Peacemaking" Sahih Bukhari - Volume 3, Book 49 (Peacemaking), Number 867
References
I need the following references otherwise I will delete them.
This is ridiculous seriously! Zabranos ( talk) 08:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a bot on Wikipedia that goes around and where it finds multiple references to the same book and page number it puts a short cut version of it in the text and the full version at the end. When you are on the page and click on the link, it takes you to the full reference. It's best not to delete these. Deleting these types of references creates half orphaned references and you end up with errors on the page. It looks like many of these books are self explanatory and many also have a hyper links to the google books page where the text is taken from. The author will be where the full text is. Where there isn't one it will be easy to find the authors. -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 15:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The following are classified as relevent events because these events sparked the initial tension leading to the Battle of the Camel itself. Please do not delete it.
And the following subsections
Im still determining whether the other sections are relevant to the scope of the conflict.
Zabranos ( talk) 20:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
To my understanding the only area where sunni and shia differentiate is at the part of "The Plot for Rebellion" the events before that is agreed upon since they are documented in both shia and sunni books and cited in the article.
The a majority of shia sources in this article are done by historical scholars. But most of the sunni sources are from primary sources not from historical scholars. And I agree that there needs to be more western books like Madelung and others. Zabranos ( talk) 21:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
-- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 21:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The initial tension which led to the war is relevant because it sparked the political conflict about the Caliphate which led to the war. Historians always mention events that sparked conflicts before mentioning the battles themselves. For example, historians alway mention the stamp act, Boston massacre, Boston tea party, and other events as a spark to the Revolutionary war. The information that was obviously irrelevant was the information about Muawiyah, the Kawarij (who arose after the battle of Siffin not Jamal), the peace treaty with Hassan, and Yazid elected as caliph after Muawiyah. How do those events tie into the battle of the camel. On the other hand, the events that sparked the tension basically caused the battle to occur making it relevant. In addition, I think that the events that sparked the war should be kept in the article because not a lot of people know about them. And Im not trying to be hypocritical or biased in any way shape or form. Im just trying to decipher what is relevant and what is irrelevant. Zabranos ( talk) 21:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Moved most of the irrelevant info to the First Fitna article. Since we agreed that this article should only talk about the battle. Zabranos ( talk) 05:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Zabranos is blocked for a week for abusing multiple accounts. (See here for details.) * Nanner-Nanner ( talk · contribs) is a Confirmed sock of Zabranos ( talk · contribs)
References
DrMI
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page)."I personally think that this article needs to be neutral and needs to be base on the non-Muslim orientalist sources like the best selling book "In the shadow of the sword, The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World" by Tom Holland. "
How are non-Muslim orientalist sources neutral? Least of all Tom Holland whose pseudo theories on Mecca actually being Petra, the 5 daily prayers coming from zoroastrianism among various other theories have been debunked numerous times FullMetal234 ( talk) 16:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I changed all the references to "Madina" into "Medina", as I believe "Madina" is a variant spelling for the same city and that "Medina" is the standard spelling in English and on the English Wikipedia. The mix of spellings within a single article was confusing. If this is incorrect, please include some explanation to correct my ignorance. Wcoole ( talk) 17:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)--
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of the Camel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Hammad: My changes focused on two things. 1. Improving the grammar of the sentences because the coherence of this page is very poor, and 2. Adding more clarity and information about the Sunni perspective from a Sunni source. These changes were reverted without a clear explanation. I would like to undo this reversion if a clear explanation is not provided. On the other hand, if a more substantive explanation is provided, and my method of adding these changes were genuinely flawed, I would like the opportunity to address the contentions or to incorporate my edits in a more sound and acceptable way using your feedback. Thank you. -- SacredSunflower ( talk) 18:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Since I haven't received any response, I'm going to go ahead and revert. -- SacredSunflower ( talk) 01:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
As noted by others on this page, large parts of this article are poorly written and/or poorly sourced. I'm hoping to work on this article over the next few weeks to try and improve it a bit. I'll propose the major changes here first (if any). Albertatiran ( talk) 17:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The section on the battle claims that the "battle began at noon on a December day in 656 CE" while the info-box says "7 November 656 CE (13 Jumada Al-Awwal 36 AH)". These claims cannot both be true. AstroLynx ( talk) 12:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
There is very few variations in the key areas of contention. I know this is wikipedia, but god its the same five citations over and over again. We don’t rely on primary sources only, but we shouldn’t rely on the same five secondary’s. 2001:1970:5163:1200:0:0:0:5214 ( talk) 15:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
At that time the Sindhi people were under the Brahmin Shahi Chach, so whatever went on from the Sindh side in this war, it went only with the permission of the raja Chach! 103.206.177.49 ( talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
It is to be noted that Banu Umayyah refers to the Tribe that would later found the Umayyad Caliphate and Dynasty. In 656 CE, at the time of this battle, only the former existed. Haditaha.z ( talk) 07:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)