Talk:Umayya ibn Khalaf

Untitled
Lines that have been delted for one or another reasons: "Umayah bin Khalaf was the head of the of Bani Lou’ai." . --Striver 03:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

some inspiration. --Striver - talk 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why you included this link to an article who's author is asking himself why "targeted killings" should be wrong. Str1977 (smile back) 17:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

edits
Striver,
 * It is POV to describe him as non-Islamic as if that were something outrageous. I have now changed this to "opponent of Muhammad".
 * Also, there is no reason to delete the much more informative bits about his being a leading man of the Quraish.
 * "His full name was ..." already mentioned in the very first line. Personally, I think it ridiculous to source this but if you insist ... I have now added the reference to the very first line
 * I don't object transferring the details of the Sad episode to another article. However, the sections should be sensible. The Sad episode is first and foremost about itself and not about the Battle of Badr.
 * Also, there is no reason to remove U's reluctance to leave Mecca and Abu Jahl's convincing him to go.
 * Finally, you are trying to downplay the way of U's death by making him one merely killed in battle. My sources tell differently.

Str1977 (smile back) 17:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, "opponent of the Muslims" works fine with me.
 * Of course we should have that he was a leading man of the Quraish, i have hard time beliving i deleted such a important point.
 * "I don't object ..." Ok, sure, lets have it in the lead. I try to source everything i write, or add a fact tag to it.
 * "Also, there is no reason..." Sure, why not, i was trying to not give that episode undue weight, but i have no problem adding that.
 * Downlplay? If i did that, it was not my intention. In fact, i quoted the who hadith in order to make it prominent and NPOV... what did i miss?

I appreciate your detailed comment, really, it ensures that we can have a good cooperation and editing environment. I have not looked at your edit yet.--Striver - talk 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, Striver. I guess the removals mentioned first were oversights due to reverting whole paragraphs. As for keeping it short, that is fine but I don't want the information to be lost. The Sad episode has its own article but Umayyah's preparation to the battle has not. Finally, my source states that he was captured by Abdalrahman and killed by Bilal against the captor's protest. That is what your version ommitted. It even stated that the was killed early in the battle. I have produced my reference, your version is unreferenced (and seems to me not entirely in accordance with the Hadith text). I have no problem with the Hadith text being included, especially since it doesn't contain any anachronisms (as the former part of the same Hadith, that used to be quoted in the Abdalrahman article did). Str1977 (smile back) 17:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "close friend"? Could you, for my convenience, give me a full quote of that line? I appreciate it.
 * could you also provide a full quote of your source regarding "In the battle, Umayyah was captured by his old friend Abd-al-Rahman ibn Awf. He was killed by a group of Muslims led by his former slave Bilal, in spite of Abd al-Rahman's protestations and his attempt to shield Umayyah with his own body."? Thanks.

As for moving Hadith of the Umrah of Sa'd from the "battle of badr" section to a "Relation with Muslims", is that so wise? Here is my argument: The Hadith is in two parts, one part about the Umrah, and another part about the preparations. The article already contains "Umayyah was also an intimate fried with Sa'd ibn Mua'dh [5], the leader of the Banu Aus [citation needed]. When Umayyah was in Medina on his way to Syria [6], he used to stay with Sa'd and when Sa'd was in Mecca, he used to stay with Umayah [5].". I argue that both parts of the hadith are relevant to the battle, not only the last part.

So while you prefer to have "Umayyah was also an intimate ..." and the first part of the hadith in the "Relation with Muslims", and forcing you to reproduce the entire second part of the hadith in the "battle of badr", i argue that "Umayyah was also an intimate ..." suffices for the "Relation with Muslims" section, and we can have both the first and second part of the hadith in the "battle of badr" section. In this way, we wont need to reproduce the whole second part, but we can properly summarize it, not excluding any info, but not going into details. How about that?

I appreciate our cooperation :) --Striver - talk 17:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the quote:


 * Umaiya ibn Khalaf, the fat old man who was given the perfume in the public square of Mecca, was taken prisoner by Abdul Rahman ibn Auf, one of the early converts. The two men had been close friends in Mecca before the preaching of Islam had divided them. Abdul Rahman now accepted the sword of Umaiya and led him away to the Messenger of God. But on the way, they met Bilal, the tall, gaunt negro, who gave the call to prayer. Bilal had been Umaiya's slave and the latter had tormented him by tying him up in the sun when he became a Muslim, to make him recant.
 * As soon as Bilal saw his former tormentor, he ran up at full speed shouting: "The infidel! The enemy of God! Umaiya ibn Khalaf! May I not live if he lives!" But Abdul Rahman protested. "He is my prisoner," he said. "I accepted his surrender. He is under my protection." But Bilal continued to shout: "The infidel! The enemy of God! Oh God's Helpers!" A crowd gathered and Umaiya was hewn to pieces, in spite of the protests of his captors.

The bit about Abdul Rahman being wounded I have taken from your source.

As for your other issue:

The Hadith of the Umrah of Sa'd does indeed include both the Sad episode as well as the preparations. I agree that there is a problem with the harsh break between the suprasection "Relations with Muslims" and the next section "battle of badr". However, the Sad episode is not in anyway part of the battle of Badr. My suggestion would be to break up the "Relations" suprasection into the sections "Opposition to Islam" (including Bilal), "Friendship with Abdulrahman" and "Pilgrimage of Sad". If we do this, the separation will no be as harsh. Badr refers to all previous sections, to Sad (unwillingess to leave Mecca + reasons for the battle), Abdulrahman (captor) and Bilal (killer).

I reject your proposal, as this article is about the man Umayyah. One important thing about him is his friends. The Sad section deals with the friendship and with one single episode, Sad's pilgrimage. It is not somehow only important in regard to Badr. I do not know what you mean by "forcing you to reproduce the entire second part of the hadith" - where do I repeat it? Why should I? Str1977 (smile back) 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, my brother in humanity. i was referring with "reproduce" to the depth of detail of Hadith of the Umrah of Sa'd chapter "The Battle of Badr" and the first three sentences of this article, section "The Battle of Badr".

The quote you provided was very interesting. If it comes form an original sources, and is not the authors original research, i would very much like to have a more comprehensive representation of that version, and point out that it is at odds with the version accepted by Bukhari. From were does that version originate? Otherwise, I'm content with the form the article presently has. Peace. --Striver - talk 01:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then could you also provide the relevant quote by Bukhari? I should like to read in how it conflicts with Glubb. BTW, OR can be no issue here as the NOR policy applies to us editors, not to the referenced sources.
 * Thanks for including more on Bilal. However, this needs to be merged with the immediately preceding passage. I suggest not creating an extra section. Str1977 (smile back) 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

well, the Bukhari account is quoted in full on the article... it doesn't say anything about Umayyah being carried to the camp:

Glubb: "Abdul Rahman now accepted the sword of Umaiya and led him away to the Messenger of God."

Bukhari: "when all the people went to sleep, I went up the hill to protect him. Bilal saw him (i.e. Umayyah) and went to a gathering of Ansar and said, "(Here is) Umayyah ibn Khalaf! Woe to me if he escapes!""

Im not invoking OR, he is entitled to an opinion, but if he is not sourcing it to any source, maybe it should be put in a "views" section? Peace! --Striver - talk 18:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning but cannot accept it, as you have not quoted anyone contradicting what Glubb wrote. And no, we do not need a views section for such details. Whether he is right or you are right I do not know but you will not take it ill if I say that I believe him more than you. Finally, please do not bother to type "editing" as an edit summary, as it is void of information. Str1977 (smile back) 23:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)