Talk:Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid)

Hadiths assessment
The article cites a number of reports from Abu Dawud, Al-Tabari, and Ibn Sa'd. As is known, these narrations are not necessarily authentic, and per WP:MOSISLAM, needs to be verified by including the views of hadith scholars. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I told you before, everyone has different view on whats authentic and whats not. if you can find a source discussing the authenticity, add it. otherwise dont add the tag. What if there is no reliable source discussing the authenticity? And that template is not wiki policy, anyone can edit it. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As is known - not quite sure what you mean by that. Is this just a general statement about all hadith, or something more particular? needs to be verified by including the views of hadith scholars - again, not clear what you mean. Are you suggesting that any use of hadith anywhere in wiki needs a (long?) explanation of who believes them and who no, or just some? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's get to the bottom of this. Clearly, you are opposed to the WP:MOSISLAM's guideline itself, and NOT to its particular application here or elsewhere. Therefore, stop wasting my and other editor's time by turning every discussion on the applicability of the tag into a discussion on the guideline itself and instead take your "arguments" to WP:MOSISLAM where much more knowledgeable and consistent people would offer their views. In the meantime, I and the other editors will follow MOSIslam, not your opinions. Ok ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong again (care to go off to Talk:Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Hamdan) and apologise for your poor tone and errors there?). I'm fine with the guideline - as it says, *consider* adding the template - it doesn't say spam the template across a whole pile of pages indiscriminately. As before - I don't care for your incivility, above William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, you talk about incivility, yet call my edits "spamming" ? besides, this tag was added individually and discussed on the talk page. So no. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

MOISLAM guiline needs to be changed. it too strong, no one is going to explain the authenticity of all quotes in all wiki articles which quote them. MOISLAM is not wikipolicy either--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, it hasn't changed and I will oppose any change to it. This means, all editors are to follow the current guideline. I myself will ignore any objection talk on the article's talk pages that opposes the guideline (which so far has been misleadingly presented as an applicability problem, not a guideline problem).Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a guideline, not policy: Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. There is no absolute requirement on editors to follow it. That said, you haven't followed it either, because you skipped the consideration that it asks for William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did follow the consideration (as seen by my creation of this talk page and this section), but I assumed that I was talking with knowledgeable editors. That is not the case here, as Misonceptions2 didn't know what hadith meant, and William wasn't even aware of this discussion to begin with (yet on the incidents board, he continues to claim that he was part of the discussion). Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@Al-a, you know full well that the statements in MOISLAM is just so wrong, tell me. Do you plan on adding that tag to all 1000+ articles which quote Muhammad. Or only on articles you have content disagreement with? Either way i disagree with its addition and the template should be deleted. I consider nominating it for deletion. read Ignore all rules. Like William said, the MOISLAM article is a guideline, not policy, and has exceptions (see the template at the top of MOISLAM page)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, you admitted that you're opposed to it, and I'm really not interested at all in knowing more about your objections. But William above states that he's fine with the guideline. Let's ask William then: describe one case where you would agree on the inclusion of the tag ? What consideration will convince you that yes, the article needs the tag ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the one who wants to add it. How about you point to an example of where it is used, usefully? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I expected, no case basically. This issue is precisely an objection to the guideline but mispresented as an "applicability" issue. You are making the objection on every addition, therefore I ask again about your "ideal" case of including the tag. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right: I can see no examples where this tag would be useful. Nor is it at all clear to me what such an example would look like. That is entirely consistent with my removing it. You're the one who wants to use it, so please provide an example where it has been useful William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Next time, state your intentions right from the beginning, instead of wasting editor's time with irrelevant discussions framed as discussions on "applicability" when in fact you're opposed to the guideline itself. Fortunately, what matters here is MOSIslam not your opinions. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The tag should be deleted. Wikipedia is about providing reliable sources to prove a quote. If an article quotes Muhammad, but does not say the primary source of the quote, then a template asking to verify the source of the quote should be added. not a template asking to verify the authenticty, which there is always going to be differing views on. Because of the Shia vs Sunni thing.

its impossible to "verify" the authenticity for this reason, as there is no quote which i can say is "authentic" or "not authentic", i can at least say, so and so considers it authentic, so and so considers it fake, but whats the point, you do know that for all articles which use Mubarakpuri, i can say "Mubarakpuri considers this quote from Tabari authentic, as he used it to make his biography", as he considered everything in his book authentic. I am considering nominating the template for deletion--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Question for al-A
@Al-A, doesnt what i have to say here show that "proving the authenticity" is a bad idea. You did not add that tag to articles which only quote Sahih Bukhari, as you consider it authentic (no need to verify authenticity of sahih bukhari, right?). But shia's dont consider Sahih Bukhari authentic (fact). Seems you think "authenticity" is a 1 way thing. If Sunni's consider it authentic, doesnt mean its authentic (just means Sunnis consider it authentic). Should i say in every article which quote Sahih Bukhari, that Sunni's consider it authentic, Shia's dont? Sure we can say how authentic scholars consider a famous or controversial quote (for the sake of peace on Wikipedia). i am not stopping you from doing that. if you can find a source discussing the authenticity of a quote, add it.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Proving the authenticity of a report or a claim is a bad idea ?! What an ignorant thing to say ! Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@Al-A you cant prove something like this is authentic. You can say, so and so considers it authentic or fake. i dont want to argue. If you can find a rs discussing authenticity, add it. or else dont add the tag. You should NEVER expect anyone to find a source discussing the authenticity of a non famous quote. A pathetic demand--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

OR?
This thing might contain OR. I don't know. But the edit comment that tagged it appeared to conflate OR with use of primary sources. That is wrong, so I've removed the tag William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "According to Al-Tabari", "Al-Tabari said", "Al-Tabari stated"...etc are all interpretive claims that essentially imply that Al-Tabari believed and asserted what followed the attribution, when this is not necessarily the case, since Al-Tabari (and the other listed scholars) merely compiled what they heard/read and attributed the event to the narrator. The primary source itself makes no indication that he believed the narrator as the article implies, and this is WP:OR. It's very much like describing a crime by saying "according to the court" when you're actually referencing the defendant's claims that appear in an official court document (which clearly attributes the claim to the individual); the court might eventually accept or reject his testimony, but it is misleading to say "according to the court" when the document makes no indication whatsoever.
 * To resolve the issues, a secondary source should be used and the statements reworded to say something along the lines of: "according a report narrated on the authority of [name of narrator] in Al-Tabari's work" or "according to a narration in Al-Tabari's...", in the same way it's more accurate to say: "according to the court, the defendant claimed that [...]". Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're torturing words too much. Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, yes. But adding text, and accurately attributing it to the source, is not OR. In this case, I find examples like "According to the Abu Dawud Hadith collection..." and "According to Ibn Sa'd and Tabari, based on an account through Ibn Ishaq, who was told by a man from the Aslam tribe...", which are all clearly acceptable. Somehow, you missed those. I don't find "Al-Tabari said" which you quote - could you point to where that text occurs? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So I've removed the OR tag, which is clearly spurious. I don't think the "primary" tag is useful either - this article has plenty of primary sources William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Al-Tabari was just an example, the above applies to any scholar. Removal not justified. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You need rather more than that. You've presented a purported example, which fails, when examined. Before restoring the tags you need to present an actual example, not just vague generalities, and not just use-of-primary-sources, which isn't OR at all William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The explanation was very clear but you didn't understand, therefore you should have asked for more information before removing the tag and claiming that it's vague. The article states: "according to the Abu Dawud Hadith collection..." and this statement when read by non-specialists implies the statement is regarded as true by (1) Abu Dawud, (2) early Muslim scholars and (3) Muslims in general, and as I stated above, this is not necessarily the case. Btw, Ibn Sa'd's and Al-Tabari's attribution was corrected by Wiqi55 and not Misconceptions2, which shows support for the correct way of using Islamic sira/hadith literature that I stated above (I didn't know about the edit). Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You explained your interpretation. But you interpretation is wrong; and further, IMO, not in good faith. I think you are torturing the words here. "according to the Abu Dawud Hadith collection" means exactly what it says, and will be interpreted as such: that is what the hadith collection says William M. Connolley (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "not in good faith" ? Watch your mouth, this isn't the first time you utter statements like that. In a discussion, I expect much more than "oh you're wrong, you're dishonest, I'm right" replies, otherwise your talk does not belong here.
 * You cannot cite 9th and 10th century primary sources and claim it's not OR, especially when scholars (classical Muslim scholars or modern Western hadith scholars) have questioned the assessment of the reports recorded in those early books. Daniel W. Brown summarizes the views of some Western scholars towards early Islamic sources and the origins of hadith in his "A new introduction to Islam", Wiley-Blackwell, 2004, p. 91:


 * "The implications are startling. If the sceptics are right, the story of Muhammad's life told in the last chapter cannot confidently be read as history. The tradition literature may have grown out of the late seventh- and early eighth-century political and theological squabbles, as Goldziher argued, or out of early legal debates, as Schacht claimed, or simply out of the need to interpret the Qur'an, as Burton suggests, but it cannot be confidently traced to any real events of the Prophet's lifetime. Consequently, Ibn Ishaq's sira (along with the whole corpus of hadith literature) may be of limited use for discovering what Muhammad himself said, did, or believed.
 * Keep in mind that this is not necessarily the view of all modern hadith scholars, but it goes to show that everything from early Islamic sources have been questioned, and the fact that a primary source statement in a Wikipedia article could be interpreted by a non-specialist in a different way than a specialist would, then it is WP:OR.
 * Misconceptions: you do not own Wikipedia to remove the tag, without making a single contribution, and say that you're not convinced. Also, the dispute is between me and you, and not between you and William to say "per William's comments" as if a consensus was reached. You need to justify that to me, not William. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No-one needs your permission to edit an article. Nor are you allowed your own private definition of OR, which you're constructing above William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@Al-A, no one wants to argue with you. If you can find a rs source discussing the authenticity of a quote, add it. Dont expect somone to go find the authenticity of a non famous quote for you.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@William, i am a little confused, can you tell me in simple words what exactly OR is?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a good place to start; don't try to interpret Al-A, above. But do try reading WP:OR William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

SO using a primary source, which appears in reliable sources, is not a violation of OR policy at all. Now i think most people incorrectly delete content citing OR.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

@Al-A, read the Jizyah article, you will see it cites primary sources, explaining what the primary source says. Just like i did.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Go tag the article. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Dispute
I saw a note by Panyd here. Can you be specific about which text explicitly violates OR? I'm seeing lots of edit warring about the OR tag but very little about the specifics. While usage of primary sources is not necessarily "bad", in many cases it does indeed involve OR so at least for the time being I do see a reason to keep the tag until the controversy is resolved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont know where the OR is, al-Andalusi might be able to answer that. Summarizing what a primary source says, is that OR. because a lot is done in te Jizyah article, here, i was also planning on fixing the bare links in this article.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, need to know first which specific passage is supposed to be OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think al-A thinks the line "According to the Abu Dawud Hadith collection..." is OR, if it is not OR, please make it clear to him. As a dispute has been opened here because he kept adding back the OR tags. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm gonna give a bit more time for Al-Andalusi to respond (assuming the topic bans don't go into effect). Keep in mind that the world won't end tomorrow and the article will still be here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * al-andalusi refuses to respond, he just want to engage in an edit war with me, has taken no steps to fix the issue.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

William Muir
A frequently cited source in this article is a 19th-century book by William Muir, which Historian Carl W. Ernst describes as "A classic Christian missionary text attacking Muhammad" that is often preferred by anti-Islam websites. See also William Muir's article. Promotional or extremist tracts, or ones that are acknowledged by specialists to be so, are not useful for making claims about third parties (per WP:V). Wiqi( 55 ) 21:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What your doing is presenting someone elses opinion as if its the truth--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This opinion is widely held. Just look at the section of the book you're citing at William Muir. He is being described there as a "propagandist with a Christian bias" who "combined scholarly and evangelical or missionary purposes", etc. Works written with a Christian bias for missionary purposes aren't really useful for writing encyclopedic articles about the history of another religion. Citing such works rather discredits the content of this article. Wiqi( 55 ) 01:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Admin on RSN says his life of mahomet book is ok: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=481469083#William_Muir.27s_opinions_in_Life_of_Mahomet but never should be presented as facts. furthermore, fellow academics like Watt have praised his books and said: "Among 20th century scholars, W. M. Watt (1961) described Muir's Life as following 'in detail the standard Muslim accounts, though not uncritically', and Albert Hourani (1989) declared that it 'is still not quite superseded'. Bennett (1998) praises it as 'a detailed life of Muhammad more complete than almost any other previous book, at least in English,'"

William Muir is described as "propagandist with a Christian bias", how about Muslims? Muslims are propagandists with Islam bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.165.12 (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 one external links on Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://military.hawarey.org/military_english.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch6s3.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60ER6lpyp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fislamiccenter.kau.edu.sa%2Fenglish%2Fjournal%2Fissues%2FPdf%2F1%2F01-MYMSiddiqi_12.pdf to http://islamiccenter.kau.edu.sa/english/journal/issues/Pdf/1/01-MYMSiddiqi_12.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch6s3.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salahtimes.com/hadiths/sunanabudawud/jihad-(kitab-al%E2%88%92jihad)/2672
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://military.hawarey.org/military_english.htm
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60ER6lpyp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fislamiccenter.kau.edu.sa%2Fenglish%2Fjournal%2Fissues%2FPdf%2F1%2F01-MYMSiddiqi_12.pdf to http://islamiccenter.kau.edu.sa/english/journal/issues/Pdf/1/01-MYMSiddiqi_12.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch6s3.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch6s3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322002711/http://www.islamic-book.net/ar/Rihlat-Alnobowwah.htm to http://www.islamic-book.net/ar/Rihlat-Alnobowwah.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salahtimes.com/hadiths/sunanabudawud/jihad-%28kitab-al%E2%88%92jihad%29/2672
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322002711/http://www.islamic-book.net/ar/Rihlat-Alnobowwah.htm to http://www.islamic-book.net/ar/Rihlat-Alnobowwah.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Too small
There are currently 3 secondary sources cited in the article and they all have very little to say about it:
 * Atlas of the Prophet's Biography has a single sentence.
 * Life of Mahomet has 3 sentences on it, stating the date, and that it was against Bani Leith in Cudeid, the camels were plundered but the attackers fled back to Medina. There are no other details except these.
 * The Sealed Nectar also has 3 sentences on it again stating just the basics like date and location, initial attackers' success in capturing booty and the attackers' later withdrawal. No other details.

Let's leave aside the issue as to whether any of these sources are reliable. We can't write an article based on just 3 sentences and this is much better covered at Ghalib ibn Abd Allah al-Laythi. Ping as a followup this discussion. VR talk 18:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks for the ping . We don't have just this single article on expedition but we have several as listed at List of expeditions of Muhammad. I think every expedition article should be re-evaluated and if the result comes out that we do not have much information beyond a two or three sentences, we could simply introduce the expedition in the list article besides providing a glance of it in the biographical article of the person who was majorly involved. This seems the best to me. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  11:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * sounds good to me. I've already added the relevant secondary material to the biographical article. I'm wondering if I should simply redirect this article to the biographical article or if I should list it AfD? VR talk 17:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , For now, we could redirect the article to one of the two of available destinations. However, this could be a bit controversial. AfD is good to go for this one. Thanks. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  07:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)