Talk:Ibn Ishaq

Let Discussion Begin
There was some bias in this account. The phrase "so-called" assumes the theory in a negative light. We also have no idea whether Ibn Is'haq "would have been the first to insist" on anything. We just know what he expressed. Wrsutton 03:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, fixed that. Now that we're talking on the talk page, we can collaborate rather than play revert war. Zora 03:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"so-called"?
What of the phrase "so-called" should we just bring Sir William Muir's name into this. That seems distracting to me. It would be best to simply let readers link to that controversy and decide if it should be "so-called" in their own minds. Wrsutton 03:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If so-called doesn't work for you, and giving Muir's name is too much detail, there might be another way to phrase it. Story of a verse added and then removed from the Qur'an? Then a ref to Satanic verses in parens? Zora 03:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you think? Does "so-called" reflect a preconceived conclusion?  This page could use some specific information about Ibn's writing.  What would you suggest? Wrsutton 04:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Note re format
Usually we add new stuff at the bottom rather than the top. Also, use colons to indent a whole block of prose so that replies can be put in the middle of something rather than having to quote. Not the best interface, but we're making the wiki software do something it's not designed to do, really. Zora 03:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, got it! Wrsutton 04:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good
That reads much better. Good work. Wrsutton 04:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, now which of the other million articles do you want to tackle? :) Zora 04:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

New links
I've just added links to the Constitution of Medina and isnad with a little bit of explanation. This is my first Wiki edit and I don't know any of the rules or ettiquette, so I'd appreciate any feedback! malchikiwik 01:40, 2 July 2006

General Disatisfaction
I was unhappy with this article for a variety of reasons, most of them indicidually small, but adding up to a large total. So I rewrote it completely. The Satanic Verses are trendy just now but almost trivial in the big picture. The hostility shown by many Muslim writers extends to all the early historians - alKalbi and alWaqidi have worse reputations than Ibn Is'haq. If there are other historians - for example, Musa ibn 'Uqba - who have not been attacked so often it is because their works are now lost.

The tension and hostility between the historians and the fiqh is worth a whole monograph. But I think it is too technical a matter for an article in the Wikipedia. Another source of hostility to the historians is sectarian. The Shi'ites, for example, feel that Ibn Is'haq must have omitted pro-Ali material because things like Ghadir Khum do not appear in the Sirat. In fact, Ibn Is'haq contains a lot of pro-Ali material (it is the biggest flaw in his presentation). The fact seems to be that Ibn Is'haq was an strong supporter of the Abbascides and in his day the Shi'ites and the Abbascides were not yet differentiated. Rather than tackle all these issues, still fraught, I have attempted to reduce the negative material to the irreducible minimum.

Kleinecke 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

cleanup notice
i put up a cleanup notice for the following reasons:

-the article does not any references, since it seems a controversial topic would be helpful to know what is supported by references

-could do with a little structuring, separating intro from main article

-some of the language seems sloppy :'The first part did not interest Ibn Hisham and much of it is lost', is this somebody guessing or did Ibn Hisham say so...

-from the article:''In the third part there is a careful month-based chronology (which falls apart at the end) and the campaigns (Ibn Is'haq counts 27, but he stretchs the meaning of campaign) made by Muhammad from his base of operations in Medina are carefully embedded in this chronology. But before this campaign literature there is a copy of the document called the Constitution of Medina and an extensive section of tafsir and hadiths. Tafsir also occurs several times embedded in the campaign literature. The campaign literature itself includes extensive poetry and lists of persons involved as well as description of battles or why no battle took place. ''The tafsir is among the earliest in Islam and Wansbrough classifies it as haggadic in his most primitive subset of the tafsir. That is, it is primarily devoted to passing on a narrative. After the campaign literature proper ends there is an appendix describing campaigns made by other Muslims under Muhammad's directions and a relatievly brief account of his death and succession by Abu Bakr.

particularly this section could be improved, the language, more wikilinks, i don't even understand what is being said here -explain to the interested layman who wansbrough is and why he should be quoted.. trueblood 09:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

deleted this sentence:''However, the legacy of Ibn Is'haq has a great deal more in it than just the campaigns. ' because it just horrible, seems pov and anyway sentences that start with however should be illegal... trueblood 10:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of this material comes from the Preface to Guillaume's translation. Wansbrough is in the references. Ibn Hisham says he omitted "irrelevant" material. I agree a few links to other articles would be helpful. Feel free to add them. DKleinecke 04:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Both the external links pointed to the same material so I deleted the one that wasn't quite a pretty as the other one. DKleinecke 05:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Complete revision
I haven't been keeping an eye on this article. It had been reworked by someone with some erroneous notions who gave no references. There was a very bad and garbled link, which a recent editor has removed and replaced with a "version" of Ibn Is'haq housed at a notorious anti-Muslim site.

I dug out a stack of books and rewrote, with references. I would have liked to use the Encyclopedia of Islam, but I don't have a copy. Anyone with access to the newer, second version could help by adding any new material there, or correcting anything that is wrong. I used Guillaume for the bio and he's an old source.

I also removed the new link, which is not encyclopedic. It's better to have no links than bad ones. Zora 07:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
Here's a piece from NEW LIGHT ON THE STORY OF BANU QURAYZA AND THE JEWS OF MEDINA, By W. N. ARAFAT. From Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland,(1976), pp. 100-107:

"One authority, Ibn Hajar, however, denounces this story and the other related ones as "odd tales".9 A contemporary of Ibn Is'haq, Malik,10 the jurist, denounces Ibn Is'haq outright as "a liar"11 and "an impostor"12 just for transmitting such stories. " 9. Tahdhib al-tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 17, where the author uses the same words, without giving a reference, in his introduction on the veracity of Ibn Is'haq and the criteria he applied. 10. d. 179. 11. `Uyun al-athar, I, 12. 12. ibid, I, 16. Faro0485 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

critcism of ibn is'haq
i think it is exaggeration, different sources have different opinions on him

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XeMtAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA677

i have added a praise section to balance the article

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform editors and those interested in the article that there is currently a discussion at |Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with the Ibn Is'haq article  --Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation by Rehatsek
The abridged translation of Rehatsek is available in the Internet, too. Just "google" it! --Dlugacz (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

neutral POV and different points of view
The wikipedia policy of neutral POV does not imply that contending points of view cannot be expressed. Yet one among several POVs, as I understand it, cannot exclude its rivals. Rather the whole of accepted commentary however divided and contradictory should be given a fair hearing in the text. Elfelix (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But introducing a "praise" section that repeats information mentioned elsewhere doesn't fix the POV problem, rather it makes it worse. Also praise/criticism sections are considered bad style. Better to integrate both in other sections, which was already the case before your edits. Now, while some of your edits are useful, others are misleading. For instance, Eerik Dickinson's quote is about his hadith, why did you add it to the prophetic biography section? And Dickinson wasn't discussing the reliability of Ibn Is'haq per se, but was merely pointing out an example of how "seemingly" irreconcilable some statements are. In fact, Dickinson's quote of Ibn Uyayna is actually refuted in the primary sources (if not in a later chapter in Dickinson's, as the note seemingly indicates). Also, do you have a secondary source citing Ibn Khalikan's opinion on Ibn Is'haq? Ibn Khalikan's "summary" is not commonly cited in the literature and it's original research to handle a primary source like this (especially considering the outdated translation). Thus it should be removed. You also linked the name of Bukhari to Sahih Bukhari even though it is well known that Bukhari hardly ever cited Ibn Is'haq in his Sahih book. Are you sure about that link? Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, we're supposed to revert to the long-standing version until these major and controversial changes are discussed. Wiqi( 55 ) 05:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

W. N. Arafat as a source
Our WP:SOURCE policy requires that sources used to be independent, and Arafat clearly does not meet that criteria. His writings have also been rejected and refuted by top-quality scholars. M. J. Kister, in this paper of his on pages 68–80, also points out that Arafat misrepresents the statements of the early Islamic scholars he quotes. It is clear that Arafat is not a source that can be used in Wikipedia articles (except, perhaps, in articles about himself). Accordingly, I'm deleting all passages sourced from him and will try to find statements from truly reliable sources on the subject (Ibn Ishaq) later. — Kaalakaa  (talk)  12:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It depends on context. Some of the claims made by Arafat are notable, such as the ones you have removed from Ibn Ishaq's. If those claims have been refuted by top scholars, then it would be best to include the refutation in our article. Also, most historians aren't truly independent and are often swayed by their religious and national backgrounds. Wiqi55 17:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * research books written by Aum Shinrikyo followers about the topics related to their religion are clearly not independent secondary sources about those matters, especially if the books contain apologetic or promotional content. On the other hand, books published by reputable academic publishers and written by top scholars outside Aum Shinrikyo are generally considered independent sources, although in some cases, such as when an author is paid to write favorably about the subject, this may negate their independent status and reliability. But to accuse independent sources of not being independent just because of the assumption that those outside the Aum Shinrikyo religion have bad intentions toward Aum Shinrikyo? That's not really a valid argument. The same applies to other religions, including Islam.
 * You mean by keeping Arafat's claims, but also adding refutations of them by top scholars? No, Wiqi, that would only be giving undue weight to Arafat, a religiously driven fringe theorist who was clearly neither an independent nor a reliable source, as shown by his arguments that got nothing but rejection and refutation from top scholars. Rather, we should omit his statements entirely and include only those from truly reliable sources. Here, I quote what some of them had to say about the matter between Ibn Ishaq and Malik ibn Anas:
 * This is also supported by this source:
 * — Kaalakaa  (talk)  10:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is also supported by this source:
 * — Kaalakaa  (talk)  10:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is also supported by this source:
 * — Kaalakaa  (talk)  10:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * — Kaalakaa  (talk)  10:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Possible cherrypicking and source misrepresentation
@Wiqi55, on this statement in our article's current version:

You use the following Arabic primary sources to support that statement. But after I checked that source, it actually says:

Why did you only include the latter part, even using the weasel word "many" when it's not used in the source, but omit the former part, which I bolded? And this statement does not seem to be al-Dhahabi's personal opinion but a continuation of Abu Salama ibn Abdurrahman's statement, which he quoted earlier from Ibn Ma'in, as can be seen from the use of the word و (and) at the beginning of the sentence. Besides Abu Salama's words, al-Dhahabi also quotes statements from others regarding Ibn Ishaq, many of which are positive. Why didn't you add their statements as well and only focus on extracting the negatives from it, especially into the reception section? Also, this passage in our article with its only citation being "Ibn Hajar, Ta’rif Ahl al Taqdis 38":

That passage quite contradicts what is written by the following reliable secondary source:

And then, this sentence in our article:

Again, cherrypicking a certain part of a source and exaggerating it with the weasel word "many" when it's not used in the source, while omitting the part that says otherwise. Here is what the provided source actually says:

The part that I bolded seems very significant, as well as all the positives preceding it, why did you not include them? Also, what's with some of the citations in this article of ours only being like "al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Tārīkh Baghdād" while the statements they support are very extraordinary, such as: —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  12:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This is actually Dhahabi's opinion because the و (waw) does not signify and; instead, it represents the initial letter of the word waththaqahu. I also omitted the hadith part as the Reception section focuses on his Sira, not his hadith. Also, Dhahabi's conclusion about his hadith, which is more elaborate, is already summarized in the hadith section. Wiqi55 14:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What I meant was not the "و" (waw) in "وثقه" but in "وهو". If you look at the previous page, in the last line, it is written:
 * This indicates that the initial lines on the page following it refer to what Ibn Ma'in said, until just before "قال الفلاس" ("Al-Falas said"), which then covers the quote from Al-Falas. Also, it seems you haven't addressed some of my earlier concerns, including your omission of the positive evaluations of Ibn Ishaq from this source you initially used, which you later deleted after I pointed out these positives:
 * — Kaalakaa  (talk)  17:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no confusion as waththaqahu starts a new paragraph. Besides, it's a famous opinion of al-Dhahabi, quoted in countless sources (search Google Books for the Arabic sentence).
 * And before accusing anyone of cherrypicking try to use WikiBlame. I didn't write the parts you claim I did, see . Wiqi</b><sup style="color: #99BADD;">55 22:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if there are reliable, independent English-language secondary sources that confirm that it was al-Dhahabi's saying, then use those sources instead of WP:OR-ing with an Arabic-language primary source and cherrypicking details from it.
 * Yes, but you were the one who restored it, calling it, along with other sources I had deleted, a notable source. See: WP:BURDEN. Why, after I pointed out that that source says, "In biography and war chronicles, [Ibn Ishaq's] mastery is acknowledged by consensus", now you appear to dismiss it altogether? —  Kaalakaa  <sup style="color: #003366;">(talk)  04:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if there are reliable, independent English-language secondary sources that confirm that it was al-Dhahabi's saying, then use those sources instead of WP:OR-ing with an Arabic-language primary source and cherrypicking details from it.
 * Yes, but you were the one who restored it, calling it, along with other sources I had deleted, a notable source. See: WP:BURDEN. Why, after I pointed out that that source says, "In biography and war chronicles, [Ibn Ishaq's] mastery is acknowledged by consensus", now you appear to dismiss it altogether? —  Kaalakaa  <sup style="color: #003366;">(talk)  04:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you were the one who restored it, calling it, along with other sources I had deleted, a notable source. See: WP:BURDEN. Why, after I pointed out that that source says, "In biography and war chronicles, [Ibn Ishaq's] mastery is acknowledged by consensus", now you appear to dismiss it altogether? —  Kaalakaa  <sup style="color: #003366;">(talk)  04:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you were the one who restored it, calling it, along with other sources I had deleted, a notable source. See: WP:BURDEN. Why, after I pointed out that that source says, "In biography and war chronicles, [Ibn Ishaq's] mastery is acknowledged by consensus", now you appear to dismiss it altogether? —  Kaalakaa  <sup style="color: #003366;">(talk)  04:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)