Talk:Safiyya bint Huyayy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Salafs article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Salaf. It has been rated - on the quality scale.

Contents 1 External link and Wikistyle 2 Revert war 3 torture 4 Hadith 5 I think article should be deleted

[edit] External link and Wikistyle

According to this style guide, WP:Style#Article_titles, we should aviod having internal links in "the bold reiteration of the title in the article's lead sentence".

Regarding the external link, I don't think it provide the readers with much information re Safiyya bint Huyayy, that is not already included in the article. So for now I've replaced it with two new external links, that I believe include more useful information than the previous one. -- Karl Meier 13:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

What is your problem peacher? Spell it out so we can solve it. --Striver 21:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

FFS Pecher! Can you grow up? Talk so we can solve this! --Striver 22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what is original research peacher? Talk and do not revert blindly, revert wars are frowned upon. --Striver 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Striver, try to compare the article that you want to use as a ref, with the other three refs that is currently included. It's just not the quality we are looking for here. -- Karl Meier 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree. Even if the part did not have any references, then it would merit a fact tag, not deleting. Help me find a better source if you really want that, but do not remove what is obviously a Muslim view from the Muslim view section.--Striver 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that the same material can be found in reliable sources, why don't you find such sources yourself? Other editors are not your research assistants. Pecher ^Talk 17:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] torture

the source is unreliable: please read this: http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_silas_4.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unixer (talk • contribs) .

Brother Sami (who according to the website scored two sound AUDIO-debate victories on "Is trinity a valid belief?" with a Christian preacher) isn't a useful and reliable source that we can use for anything, when we are discussion the neutrality of this article. If you want to dispute any information that is currently in the article, you'll have to find a better source. -- Karl Meier 19:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur, this particular part is referenced to the semi-sacred biography of Muhammad by ibn Hisham; one cannot rebut it with the help of a murky website. Pecher ^Talk 19:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The source is fake! This text does not exists in the Arabic version of ibn Hisham's book, not the printed version, not the online version. It is inserted by the translator who is well-known for his strong anti-Islamic ideas. --67.135.235.10 04:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-sacred biography ? there is no such thing. However, the reliable sources about the life of Muhammad are hadith books. And none of them talks about this. They tell precisely in the prophet's words how he forbade torture. So if you want to keep the torture thing in this article, also keep the accuracy tag, and ponderate the affirmation Unixer 23:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"the reliable sources about the life of Muhammad are hadith books": that's OR and Islamic, but not encyclopedical POV. "They tell precisely in the prophet's words how he forbade torture": wikipedians inferring from hadith are indulging in OR. Speaking of which: there are as many contradicting hadith than Suras. It follows that you are not the one to draw conclusions - editors never are. Inferring from Muhammad by ibn Hisham, however, would be OR too - but the text doesn't: it relates accurately based on his account. The {{disputed}} tag is unwarranted, as you dispute the article's accuracy merely based on your OR and an poorly written website, whose author has no academic reputation: this is abuse and complete disregard of RS - as it has become a standard for any Islam related articles. --tickle me 02:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this; however, the proper way to do this is to report the view and properly attribute it. I.e.

"The silas(?) history says that after the torture and refusal to give up the treasure, Muhammad and his followers killed x"

Provide a proper reference, etc. If the hadith books mention the episode then you can say something like:

"However, the hadith books only say that x was killed"

If they don't mention it specifically then you have much more limited options. --Trödel 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This kind of disputed information should be referenced to a page so that others can verify the information. --Trödel 01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's referenced to a page. Pecher ^Talk 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My bad - thought it would be on a different page --Trödel 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hadith

Sahih Bukhari Book 3 Vol 34 Hadith 437

--Striver 01:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[1] --Striver 03:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[2] --Striver 03:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[3] --Striver 04:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[4] this one has a interesting detail--Striver 16:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[5] --Striver 16:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think article should be deleted

From previous comments source is defined as unreliable. To quote sections of the article: "Muhammad and his followers tortured Safiyya's husband so that he would give up the treasure of the Banu Nadir and killed him when he refused to do so. Safiyya was assigned to Dihya ibn Khalifa, but Muhammad, struck with her beauty, threw his mantle over her as a sign that he had chosen her for himself." Seems strongly aimed against Muhammed صلى الله عليه وسلم The article is at best far fetched and highly inappropriate. The text i quoted as well is also partially missing from the reference, sorry actually just written differently. The reference itself is written in simple narrative with a lack of explanations expected from such a text, it seems more like a story than a biography. Also in parts it references Muhammed صلى الله عليه وسلم wealth and large estate (perhaps indirectly) whichis in conflict with the prophets (believed to be) humble lifestyle. I also have to comment on other islamic articles which are poorly referenced, based on the reference and hence wholly innacurate. An example would be translation of some Qur'anic verses which are sometimes not even the same as the reference and/or the meaning is wholly innacurate which could have been remedied by the person actually having cross referenced an authentic Quran (yes books still exist) preferably in arabic or at least translated to a good standard.

I think it should be encouraged people check actual texts and not just "the all knowing internet" and on top of that verify the texts (something being published doesnt make it true).

Please feel free to edit it appropiately to improve the article. All articles are always open to improvement, and this one seems to have generally been a neglected one.--Tigeroo 01:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)